437
0/10 game
(lemmy.nz)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 31 Oct 2026
437 points (98.0% liked)
Greentext
8951 readers
936 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
I would even argue that this practice of spreading items in lesser important places is often bad design. It motivates a player to do things that are not fun. Why should this be in the game?
As a bonus it is easier to balance a game when the amount of items does not vary that much.
Encouraging exploration through rewards is not inherently bad design just because you don't like it.
There is "exploration", and then there is "obsessively grinding sidequests". If you tie endings to the latter, that is ... questionable design, especially when it's not clear if you're merely pursuing a sidequest or doing something that will lead to a completely different ending.
Yeah, I accidentally found a secret ending in one game because I kept grinding the arena fights for XP and turns out the secret final boss is the last fight
Chrono Trigger? There's like 12 endings and I think one can be initiated like that.
No, but it was some JRPG, I think it might be a common trope
It probably is. I haven't played a lot of JRPGs because they're so long.
It is good design only if it's good. The prevalence of Indy games in modern gaming culture has taught me that games should stick to what they do well. If exploration is a meaningful and engaging element it can be excellent. Most of the time in RPGs it's a drag. And even if you don't like it, the influence on the parts of the game that are good means you can't skip it. In an RPG, collectables is something I never interact with because it's boring. I am however getting every usable item there is even though I don't enjoy doing so.
We've taken the largest map in video game history and hidden 1000 needles around it
My kinda game.
I don't get it, it sounds to me you are advocating dropping side content in games.
I dont think they are advocating dropping side content, but instead saying that having side content that is hidden or has no direction can take fun out of a game. For example, in OG pokemon games there are "hidden" items that have no hints or clues that they exist. If you walk to certain spots and press the action button you can find hidden items, but since there are no clues or indicators that they are there, it encourages just walking around and mashing buttons for the entire game in case there is another hidden item, which is the opposite of fun.
Pokémon is a good example. There is no item in the trash cans throughout the whole game (the originals). I and many others do check every trash can ever. And the reason is managing motivation. The game teaches you that there might be something of value and that is a heavy hitter on your dopamine. Directing the motivation towards disappointment is the essence of bad game design.
I think it depends on the game, for example Fallout 2 kinda does this. The earliest 10mm pistol is found in a cave under Klamath just on the ground with which it blends in, but you can highlight it with a button press. Similarly some good shit is hidden in weird corners of KOTOR 1 & 2 but those games are linear enough that a random path teaches you that there's probably something to do.