The recipe for a good mission?

[Eldrad]

Giant sized misions and levels. Like the Sword or the Lost City.

 

Those little subplots and letters laying all around making you feel that you are in a real world.

 

Huge open areas in the dark of the night with the wind blowing where you can just hang out and look around at the coolness of it all.

 

The humming sounds of the machinery of the city.

 

Red brick in some areas that TDS left out.

 

A living breathing city that's asleep at the moment. Though it would be really cool for a sidemission with a tavern full of people that you could pickpocket.

[Komag]

Very interesting that you mention those two missions as examples of giant missions, because in fact they are no larger than the rest. So I think it must be that they didn't have good maps, and were disorienting, and that made them seem larger.

 

In any case, DR/D3 can produce quite huge sized missions if desired, so no problems there

[Fidcal]

Need to mention some negatives to avoid. I'm thinking non-frustration as the No.1. A decent mission that flows and develops nicely can leave a 'not bad!' feeling at the end and be more enjoyable than a possibly 'better' mission where the player keeps getting stuck to the point of boredom and even abandoning it. But it is very difficult to achieve without making a mission too simplistic and unoriginal.

 

Good clues are not enough; many don't read, remember, or understand them, no matter how simple. Difficulty levels are not enough; many players think if they have played a lot of missions then they should always play on expert. Warnings on the first line of the readme are not enough - they are often ignored. 'Serve them right then' is not enough; they are the audience we have to satisfy somehow. Let me know if you find a recipe for a perfect mission that will satisfy all players.

[Subjective Effect]

I wouldn't be willing to compromise my vision to make a simpler mission. Both of my designed missions will not be completable by someone who isn't paying attention.

[Fidcal]

That's something like what I told my beta testers. I diluted it down as much as I could on the lower difficulty levels and kept the top level closer to my vision. I renamed the levels, Hard, Expert, and Director's Cut. Players still got stuck because so much was innovative and not what players were used to. (even though there were masses of easy clues and extra help.)

 

The bottom line is, do we want to make our vision or do we want to entertain as many players as possible? I'm not sure it is possible to do both.

[Macsen]

The artist should create for himself, not for others. Art for the sake of art and all that.

 

(Personally though I'll just be trying to create as popular a mission as possible first in the hope that the Dark Mod is a big success. I can do the arty farty stuff later on.)

[Subjective Effect]

I like the way you've sidestepped my revised criticism of your initial post Macsen.

[Macsen]

I like the way you've sidestepped my revised criticism of your initial post Macsen.

Do you think I have time during work hours to post essay-long rebuttals on internet forums? Some of us have jobs to do, you know!

 

I'll outline some quick thoughts, seeing as its lunchtime over here.

 

We seem to be mostly in agreement, it's just the wording that's causing problems. I'll ignore all that you do agree with me on.

 

Regarding the story - as I said somewhere on the last page it doesn't have to be a complex story about an imporobable affair or whatever. Just little stories to make the characters feel more alive. Everyday, humdrum things. Perhaps someone could mention that they visited a dentist and had a tooth pulled out by some new steampunk contraption and it hurt like hell. Just little tales to add a bit of life to the mission.

 

A sense of discovery - As I said they don't all have to be 'finding the lost city' style moments. Chopping down a banner to find an alcove, or something. I'd be suprised to find an old house without anything to find it it.

 

Anticipation - Why should this kill the suprise? What the player finds where he's going doesn't have to be what he thought was going to be there.

 

A twist - We'll just haveto agree to disagree on this one. But as I said before twists don't have to be big. Personally I enjoy 'em.

 

Originality - Team members don't want me to discuss this.

 

Keep it human - Agree to disagree. I don't like zombies and bug beasts. It's not much of a sneaking game if they just walk after you when you're caught. Haunts are fine because at least they involve some sneaking. Each to his own I guess.

 

Rewarding Loot - As I said before realistic placement of loot and loot as a reward aren't mutually exclusive. Loot would be in hard to get areas - whoever owns the house doesn't want thieves and servants getting them after all. The loot would be where the guards are.

 

Anyway, I think this disagreement is best resolved through the medium of level building!

[Subjective Effect]

My beef is that I if you try to include elements x,y and z in every mission you lose originality. To have a twist in every mission would be the epitome of mission repetition. Twists have their place.

 

And YOU don't like zombies and bugbeasts. You aren't everyone. I really like undead missions with a mix of zombies and haunts. Remember that zombies being aware of you can alert faster more dangerous undead. I'd actually like to see, as I've said before on this forum, an undead hierarchy where being seen by a zombie alerts the higher undead to your presence.

 

And don't sob story us with "Team members don't want me to discuss this". You were talking about using new factions and the whole point of making models, animations and fiction for the current factions is so people don't have to do this. It's a waste of time and it would get old soon. Oh look religious faction 235! How original! Not.

[Macsen]

And YOU don't like zombies and bugbeasts. You aren't everyone.

 

That's why I said "Each to his own I guess" and "Agree to disagree". I hope you're not just skimming my posts and wasting time replying to things that aren't there.

 

And don't sob story us with "Team members don't want me to discuss this".

I promised I'd drop the issue. While I don't agree with all the plans the team has I wish them the best of luck and don't want to hurt the project in any way.

 

The shrill tone of your retorts suggest you're letting this discussion become a person issue. I have no interest in going down that avenue either. We're discussing a set of guidelines for a video game modification, nothing more.

[Sotha]

The bottom line is, do we want to make our vision or do we want to entertain as many players as possible? I'm not sure it is possible to do both.

 

I wouldn't be willing to compromise my vision to make a simpler mission. Both of my designed missions will not be completable by someone who isn't paying attention.

 

-I think this problem has a suprisingly easy solution. Use common sense. If you put a monster puzzle to solve with an illogical answer and very little amount of good clues to solve it, it is a mapper's design error.

 

If the puzzle is really tough, place vague clues in obvious places and place a good clue in a well-hidden place. If the player gets bored with the puzzle and starts to explore the map, he'll find more clues to make the solving process easier.

 

Always give the player options. If a player cannot solve a clockwork puzzle locking the door to the master's bedroom, let him smash the door. He'll cause an alarm and will definately not attain Master Thief -rank from the mission, but he's still able to continue the mission.

 

Generally, solving puzzles should not be bottlenecks stopping the player making progress, but they should reward the player for solving them in some way: silent entry, loot, gear, way to avoid guards...

 

The mapper can use bottleneck puzzles, but then he should really think it through, and use them sparingly. Getting absolutely stuck on the third 10x10 button puzzle in the same mission, without a way around it and with insufficient clues can be very frustrating. I'd be a shame for the mapper too, if his great work was abandoned simply because of a too difficult puzzle.

 

I'd like to comment some other replies in this thread with the following:

This is not about being right or wrong; winning and losing an argument. This is about opinion. Everyone has one. People should respect each other's opinions. They can agree or disagree to your views: there is no reason to get twitchy.

Present new ideas. Discuss previous ideas. Refine old ideas into new ones. Add an explanation for your opinions. Don't get personal (you can get personal in a nice way, if you want.. ).

[Fidcal]

Sotha: most of what you say is what I used to think! Then reality hit me when I issued my mission to the beta testers. Here's an example:

 

. A big wall and objectives that obviously indicate you have to get over the wall.

. THREE ways to get over the wall:

#1 A good view from one end that players have to go to shows them a possible way they can squeeze round. Nobody tried it.

#2 There was a climbable drainpipe. Nobody tried it.

#3 You could drop down at two low points and take the hits. One person did it but rightly grumbled you shouldn't have to (but at least you could continue the mission.)

. The key was with someone on the other side so it was easy to get back.

 

Virtually everyone said 'how do we get over the wall'. In the end I was compelled to put put the key on this side of the wall on a hook in the guard room so players just took the key, opened the gate, and walked out. (this was an undercover mission so no stealth needed to get the key - just go and get it)

 

'Where's the key?' - I added a clue to make it a bit easier because it was still too difficult for some.

 

I'm not saying the above to demean anyone or to be sarcastic but just to underline that judging what the average player will be able to figure out is not so obvious as it seems. That is a single example from dozens of things I had to change.

 

So the question stands: do we write a mission to give the max enjoyment to the max number of players or do we indulge ourselves by sticking to our ideal vision? I just don't know. And I've been thinking this over on and off for nearly a year now, trying to think of ways of satisfying everyone - but without success.

[Outlooker]

So the question stands: do we write a mission to give the max enjoyment to the max number of players or do we indulge ourselves by sticking to our ideal vision? I just don't know. And I've been thinking this over on and off for nearly a year now, trying to think of ways of satisfying everyone - but without success.

 

This thing is not commercial so the goal to make it easily enjoyable to the maximum number of people doesn't need to apply here.

 

Easy or not, players will have some missions they like much more than others anyway.

And as far as I know many of those T1/2 fanmissions regarded as the best are quite difficult.

 

Speaking for myself, I _hate_ those dumbed down games of today. Developers are shy to implement the slightest element of complexity to attract the widest audience (includes 9-year-olds and the community of the slow brainers = max. money). Result: Stuff like DeusEx2 and the stakkato of somehow all the same hollywood movies.

 

I just think a mission can't be truly awesome if it's only stupidly easy.

 

Edit:

And: I think the more complex a mission is, the more replay-value there is.

Edited December 7, 2007 by Outlooker

[Macsen]

Another few to add to my list:

 

No Key Hunts - the mission should not include an excessive number of keys hidden in hard to find locations in order to slow the game to a crawl and make the mission appear larger.

 

Taxing puzzles - The mission could contain a few puzzles to tax the player's brains. They should be hard enough to be satisfying, but not so difficult as to be frustrating. But Thief fans are by their nature more patient thatn most other video game players so don't worry if a puzzle takes a good 15 mins to solve. Try to ensure that the puzzle does not jar with its surroundings - for instance, a nobleman is unlikely to want to stack rocks on pulleys in order to get into his bedroom, and a pagan farmer is unlikely to open his barn with a five digit key pad.

 

Keep it Compact - Large missions are fine but levels that sprawl unnecessarily and involve large amounts of travel with little incident may get boring. You can suggest the size of an area with a good view - the player does not have to visit every street and rooftop to appreciate the scale of the city or other location.

 

Don't drown the player - Don't require the player to swim through a underwater cavern before his breath runs out, then present him with two or more tunnels, all but one of which lead to a dead end and certain death.

 

Don't make traps trial and error - A player should be able to deduce that opening a door will shoot a gas arrow into his face before doing so (a point I had to raise with alexius on the hammerite imperium project). Don't set traps the player can't know about until he's dead.

[Springheel]

I'm not saying the above to demean anyone or to be sarcastic but just to underline that judging what the average player will be able to figure out is not so obvious as it seems. That is a single example from dozens of things I had to change.

 

(You're not talking about Thiefs_den, I hope...?)

 

I think the solution, personally, is to make the mission as hard as you want it to be, and then provide a "spoiler/hints/cheats" guide somewhere online. Players that get stuck can go look at it, with the understanding that they risk spoilers and are 'cheating'. But that way you don't have to worry about people with low thresholds for frustration just giving up entirely, and you don't have to dumb it down.

[Sotha]

Don't drown the player - Don't require the player to swim through a underwater cavern before his breath runs out, then present him with two or more tunnels, all but one of which lead to a dead end and certain death.

 

-Heh. I'm going to directly violate this rule.

 

TEASER

 

Exploring the flooded sewers can be and is perilous.. Oh, unless you have.. you know, a map.

And the player doesen't even need to go there to complete the mission.

 

 

 

 

@Springheel:

Those are the words of wisdom.

[Tels]

Another few to add to my list:

 

No Key Hunts - the mission should not include an excessive number of keys hidden in hard to find locations in order to slow the game to a crawl and make the mission appear larger.

 

Taxing puzzles - The mission could contain a few puzzles to tax the player's brains. They should be hard enough to be satisfying, but not so difficult as to be frustrating. But Thief fans are by their nature more patient thatn most other video game players so don't worry if a puzzle takes a good 15 mins to solve. Try to ensure that the puzzle does not jar with its surroundings - for instance, a nobleman is unlikely to want to stack rocks on pulleys in order to get into his bedroom, and a pagan farmer is unlikely to open his barn with a five digit key pad.

 

Keep it Compact - Large missions are fine but levels that sprawl unnecessarily and involve large amounts of travel with little incident may get boring. You can suggest the size of an area with a good view - the player does not have to visit every street and rooftop to appreciate the scale of the city or other location.

 

Don't drown the player - Don't require the player to swim through a underwater cavern before his breath runs out, then present him with two or more tunnels, all but one of which lead to a dead end and certain death.

 

Don't make traps trial and error - A player should be able to deduce that opening a door will shoot a gas arrow into his face before doing so (a point I had to raise with alexius on the hammerite imperium project). Don't set traps the player can't know about until he's dead.

 

Let me just say this are all very fine points and they really really should be in big bold letters in a "Mapper's Style Guide"

 

Especially the bit about trial and error - trials shouldn't be fatal as death means reload and spoils immersion. The same can be said for too-tricky-jumping puzzles ala "Tomb Raider". I got annoyed after falling to my death the 20ths time in bonehoard, only to try to reach a different area and promptly getting stuck in sme hallway with no way out after running around literally 20mins.

 

The goal should be to engage the player and lead him around the map to discover the scenery and story, not to beat him and show who's boss :-)

[Tels]

Let me know if you find a recipe for a perfect mission that will satisfy all players.

 

Allen Recht getan, ist eine Kunst die niemand kann. (Altes Sprichwort)

 

But anyway, making good maps is like writing good stories. They can be short, or long, complex or simple, easy or hard, and even if the good ones will stick out, you can't please everyone and even the best story will be called "rubbish" by someone.

 

All you can do is to avoid the "obvious" garbage parts when assembling your final work

[Subjective Effect]

The shrill tone of your retorts suggest you're letting this discussion become a person issue. I have no interest in going down that avenue either. We're discussing a set of guidelines for a video game modification, nothing more.

Well you started a thread and proceeded to devise a set of "must haves" . This is clear from the way you've written it - if you didn't mean to present it like that then you shouldn't have presented it like that.

 

I just think that if your rules were stuck by we'd end up with a set of cookie cutter missions and that is seriously damaging. As such I think this a serious issue and it's important to let you know. I was hoping you'd realise how narrow-minded you're being. But your new set of "criteria" show that you're not, you're suggesting ideas for FMs that are to your taste AS IF THEY ARE MANDATORY.

 

As such it's not a case of "agree to disagree". You're suggesting something that I think is fundamentally wrong.

[Fidcal]

(You're not talking about Thiefs_den, I hope...?)

No no - I was referring to my old T2 mission.

 

Yeah, I agree what's said here you can't please everyone - there is no perfect mission - but nice to aim at a good compromise that is flexible. By flexible I mean really use the three difficulty levels (though many will just play on expert anyway) and give alternate ways where possible to reach a goal. One thing I think is a good idea is to put a moderate difficulty without a clue for the advanced user to solve - then put a clue a little further on. The advanced user hopefully solves it without the clue and the less able can go back later.

 

Which reminds me, and since the thread subject is about what makes a good mission I'll put it the other way round if I can, it is more satisfying to find a necessary tool in a natural and subtle position than obviously placed by the mapper. I'm thinking of the old 'How can I reach up to that high wooden beam?' - 'Hullo, what's this at my feet in the middle of this palace throne room? Someone has dropped a rope arrow here - that's a bit of luck!' You know the sort of thing, and this happened in the original missions you find a water arrow lying in a mansion corridor - a bit further on is a torch to use it on. Often it is mission-critical of course but at least if a sword or broadhead is needed then stick it in a body or something and create a real story for the body so the arrow seems incidental and unimportant.

[Subjective Effect]

I think the answer to that is to allow for multiple approaches - something I think is essential in any map - so that lack of a tool that would allow you to use your preferred route doesn't stop you dead. There will always be cases where you have to do something a certain way though.

[Macsen]

Well you started a thread and proceeded to devise a set of "must haves" . This is clear from the way you've written it - if you didn't mean to present it like that then you shouldn't have presented it like that.

 

I was hoping you'd realise how narrow-minded you're being. But your new set of "criteria" show that you're not, you're suggesting ideas for FMs that are to your taste AS IF THEY ARE MANDATORY.

 

As such it's not a case of "agree to disagree". You're suggesting something that I think is fundamentally wrong.

I'm sorry SE, but did you read the VERY FIRST paragraph of this thread?! Here it is again, because you obviously missed it the first time, the important bits in red:

 

I thought we could share our ideas about what makes a good thieving mission, and then perhaps create a guide for the wiki for budding mission designers out of this thread. Here are some of mine - you're free to disagree.

 

I would like to know, SE, how exactly I could have worded this in such a way as to communicate more strongly that these are my ideas for good missions and that everyone else is free to disagree with them?!

 

You're obviously just spoiling for a fight here, but sorry mate I'm not taking the bait.

[Subjective Effect]

I would have left out the bits where you say missions "should" have X, and should "always" have Y. It's very directive and this is the issue I've had with it all along. I would have just laid down a neutral list of things that can possibly be included in a mission, without the suggestive/directive language,

 

Also your dislike of non-human missions is clear - you say people should see TDP for how NOT to do it. Au contriare, I think you should see TDP for how to do good non-human missions and you should never let your prejudices guide you like this. I don't like the robots in TMA - but I'd never suggest that TMA did it the wrong way just because I prefer pagan and undead missions.

 

I disagree with you - you said I was free to. What's the problem? I disagree with your ideas because the way you have presented them is as if these are essential elements to missions and I believe that having them that way will be bad for the overall mission scene. In certain missions your rules would fit fine, but that would be the outcome of the mission fitting the rules, not the mission being designed according to them.

 

Would you rather I sat back and let something that I think is not only fundamentally flawed but also potential harmful to what we are trying to do here just pass without comment?

[Crispy]

Macsen did qualify the list in his original post by saying that they were his personal opinions. I don't see why you feel the need to pick over individual word choices, unless it's true that you are just spoiling for a fight (which is quite honestly how it looks to me).

 

It was presented as an opinion; as a springboard to kickstart a debate. And it worked. That's the antithesis of "harmful".

 

Time to stop arguing over nothing, methinks. (And I thought our internal team discussions could get petty... )

[Macsen]

I see no problem with using 'should' and 'always' because I've already made clear at the start of the thread that I'm taking about my preferences for a mission. If the mission designer wanted to make the kind of mission I prefer they should always do the things I've outlined above. Cause that's what I like to see in a mission.

 

It's fair enough saying 'I don't agree with you' - if I didn't want a discussion why would I have stated this thread? - but when you're using words like 'prejudice' and 'narrow minded' you're attacking me not my opinion, and what you're really saying here is 'how dare you have your opinion, it reflects badly on you as a person!'

 

you should never let your prejudices guide you like this

 

Why the hell not? Fair enough disagreeing with me, but who are you to tell me what kinds of missons I should like and which ones I shouldn't? I don't like stupid zombies and bugbeasts. You do. Fair enough. Get over it, move on.

 

Now please, let's get this thread back on track. It was going well.