Greedy Goblin

Saturday, March 11, 2017

Weekend minipost: unintended consequences

Game design is hard, due to players have high affinity of exploiting. So every "fun" feature and "would it be cool" idea should be properly tested for possible exploits. The safe way is of course not adding "fun" features, but developers often can't resist.

I mean if players attack hapless chickens in the game, wouldn't it be fun if the chicken would call friends who attack the player?! It would be totally optional, if you don't attack critters, you are safe! What could go wrong? Not like players would start to pick up chickens and rush into World Bosses so when the boss hits the player, it also hits the chicken and gets killed by the chicken swarm. Definitely not like players stop properly fighting and just AFK while chickens kill all hard enemies. Definitely.


Anonymous said...

Same thing can be said for economic policy, with welfare, food stamps, and even UBI.

maxim said...

rofl :D

necessary fact checking fun-ruining note
That's not a boss, that's just a tough mook.
Bringing a cucco to any boss of consequence is probably harder than just beating the boss.
Apparently there are two minibosses in range of cucco, but no videos of boss dying by cucco so far.

Baelnor said...

Feel free to moderate this out, but this is an interesting arguement that supports you

vv said...

In their presentation on last GDC Zelda developers told that they wanted players to find intersting ways to solve problems. They specially created game in this way. So it's pretty much intendent consequences in this case.

Anonymous said...

For the record, chickens don't do very much damage to enemies. Only the lowest tier of regular enemies can really be killed in this way. They're a pretty far cry from the death chickens of earlier games.

And also those games didn't let chickens attack enemies, so this was intentional anyway.