I heard the term "dishonest game design" being mentioned quite a few times, so I wondered what does /v/ think about it? CPU enemies with input reading? Dodgy hitboxes? Mindless padding content?
idk, but I hated that chalice dungeon in BB that was only hard because they lowered your HP while in itfelt like BS then, feels like BS now
>>744243227In EU4 coalitions will attack you immediately after you send an alliance offer to someone who would make your alliance stronger than the coalition, so you don't get that alliance. Nations will also immediately ally stronger player allies for no apparent reason for the same purposeI've tried this out several times and it's a bs game feature
>>744243703*rivals
>>744243227chance based abilities/skills in multiplayer games
>>744243703This reminds me of pretty much every 4X games ever. Civ and Galactiv Civ comes to mind. Diplomacy is great when CPU gangs up on you, but bad in any other case.
>>744243227Going off the word wouldn't it mean a game lying to you? Like if they say an enemy is weak to X but they aren't, I can't think of any real examples like that though.
>>744243227>manlytears shows off his nail file
>>744243703That happens IRL too Russia attacked Ukraine because they were about to join a stronger alliance
>a heap of raw iron
>>744243227It explains itself.>swing sword>hit wall stopping attack >enemy swings sword>goes through wall>kills youSimple to understand and yes it's design as clearly they decided to implement hitting the wall and just decided not to do it for enemies? Nah fuck you.
>>744243227For me the most glaring one would be when enemies can just say "no" and stop taking damage be it invul or a perfect block at any point outside or in between their move set. My go to example of this is in Furi (a game that is pretty good at avoiding this) with The flame, all other bosses can block and counter but you can react to it and even better you can still hit them during this and most of their attacks but not The flame, you are allowed to do only a set amount of damage before he just goes nope and stops the fight dead on its tracks until you give him some breathing room
>>744243227It was too big to be called a sword. Massive, thick, heavy, and far too rough. Indeed, it was more like a hunk of a plane wing.
>>744245362Too based for this world mangaka
>>744243227Any sort of surprise reinforcement or ambush spawn in low margin strategy games. Getting a bunch of elite units dropped near you in valkyria chronicles 4, surprise spawns after you end your turn in fire emblem, etc. Clearly the developers know they created a game where combat is lethal even in small doses and you regularly operate on very small margins. It's just restart bait. The frustrating thing is I play a low budget srpg that has relatively high margins and they have the common decency to put warning markers where enemy/allied reinforcements are spawning 1 turn ahead of time. yet these ostensibly more experienced and well funded studios keep utilizing such frustrating design decisions.
>>744246552While I like ambush spawns one of the biggest issues with them is the free turn aspect of them. if the turn order isn't respected its bad game design. Maybe moving it to be more based on overextending or capturing points makes more sense. Fucking 3 units popping out of thin air and attacking you the same turn should always have some heavy warnings behind it
>>744243227Any RTS, they just give the CPU resources, they don't have to do any of the work....
>>744243227Whole fromsoul series is a perfect example of dishonest game design
>>744246972Yeah, more resources and no FOW for them.
what you consider "dishonesty" usually depends on experience but I'd say a situation like an ambush that has very few (and highly specific) reliable/valid solutions at the end of a long checkpoint drought is pretty dishonest
Dishonest game design would be something like a visible score counter that goes up as you do things that benefit you in game, but then having a final rating at the end of the level that punishes players for having a high score. That to me is dishonest.JRPG point of no return when the alternate path contains a very strong item but there is no way to discern which path leads to the item and which path leads to the point of no return is a more common one.
>>744243227>dishonestsomewhat bizarre way to make a value judgement on something, probably because if you simply call that thing bad, you'll see a mob of fanboys breaking down your dooralso why did you get out of >>744230543
>>744243227Fun > "honest" game designAll absurdities are allowed if it increases how much fun the game provides.
>>744243227>manlytears wields a pocket knife
I only hear about “honesty” in reference to certain player choices, for example >low IQ melee fighter, strategy is upgrade armor and smash attack buttonthis build is “honest” because it sucks. It offers no advantage to the player and may even put the player at a disadvantage because melee tends to carry more risk. The player is “honest” because they are not trying to get an advantage(make the game easier) >player attempts to get an advantage through build/item/consumable choices Despite the creativity and thought involved, this player is “dishonest” because their choices cause them to experience a natural advantage over low IQ folk. This is very bad and dishonest for some reason and if you see someone in the wild using their brain to improve their personal experience, scorn them>>744245258Ukraine was never on the verge of joining NATO because it’s a corrupt shithole. The conflict is about weakening a potential rival vs reclaiming historical territory and building strength My favorite part is that Germany didn’t even bother to request restoration of its own historical territories by Russia in response to the conflict
>>744243227>dishonest game designIt's always either code for "I suck at the game but refuse to acknowledge it" or "I refuse to adapt to something, the game should cater to my favoured playstyle only."
>>744249863because kongisberg is now full of russoids, who the fuck wants it
>>744243227Nothing makes me disregard someone's opinion when they say shit like "dishonest."
>>744244642An example would be in Pokemon gen 1 the move Focus energy claims it raised critical hit chance but it actually lowers it. Also they tell you ghosts are good against psychics but again a bug reverses that interaction. The game is objectively dishonest but whether you consider it design since it wasn't intended is another question.
>>744243856>galactic civ>slow roll diplomacy and tech >keep military small and defensive >tfw your culture and economy is so dominant entire sectors defect to your side like dominoes lmao BHC mechanics should be in every 4x game
>play Just Cause 2>take out one base/objective/settlement after another>keep getting "THE MORALE OF THE ARMY DECREASED", "THE COMMUNICATION LINES DEGRADED" and the like messages>nothing actually ever seems to change, with the enemies being just as aggressive and numerous as hours ago>turns out it's just meaningless flavor text and nothing you do in the game actually has any effect on that shit
>>744252620Those are just bugs or terrible localisation IE incompetence, the implication of the term "dishonest game design" is that the developers are intentionally tricking or misleading the player. Which I find a weird concept considering that's just a good way to design a game, like is the developer designing a trap dishonest too? Why is it different when the concept is applied to something like an enemy's moveset?
>>744243227Among Us. The impostor is being dishonest about being the impostor
>>744252901Hypothetically say the game has a trap and the trap is invisible until stepped on where it flashes red and a moment later it deals damage to the player if they are still close. Later they build on this and now some traps flash blue and deal damage to everywhere except close to the trap.Finally they have a red flashing trap but it acts like a blue trap. Would you count that as dishonest game design?
>>744253187I get that you're trying to point out that the developer is going against the rules they established earlier on in this hypothetical, but that's not really how the term is used. People also use it for things like bosses have invincibility phases or not allowing the player to combo/stunlock them forever, IE the boss isn't following the regular enemy or other boss rules anymore.To actually engage with the hypothetical though I think it would depend on the context. On paper that isn't actually unfair, it's just imposing a new ruleset on the player later in the game and changing the trap into a chance based hazard that relies on reaction while also using the same knowledge the player learned beforehand. In practice it's the same as adding the blue flashing traps in mid game to punish the player for playing it safe and always jumping away from the red traps. I don't think that example is dishonest personally.
>>744253581I used that example because poor attack telegraphs, shared wind ups and delayed attacks are the most common things I see called "dishonest" game design.
>>744243340I suppose they could achieve the same goal of making you extremely wary and changing your gameplay style by having "cursed" enemies or some other excuse which one shot you.but the intent itself of changing your gameplay style with new hazards is fine. sen's fortress did it and everybody love it.
>>744243227>CPU enemies with input reading?This is fine. Having specific enemies that counter specific player actions can be cool.>Dodgy hitboxes?That's usually incompetent design.>Mindless padding contentLame and gay.
>>744254334I know, that's why I said the first part and then went back to the hypothetical. A boss having a different style of attack isn't dishonesty on the developer's part though, it's just another part of the game to learn. I've yet to see a criticism of them that doesn't boil down to not being willing to simply learn the timing. Usually at best it'll be them trying to claim that you not being able to discern the delay initially is unfair, but that holds true for every single new thing in a game as well. You can't know something before you know it, after all.
>>744245229
There's no dishonesty in single player. Only multiplayer can be dishonest.
>>744253187What if that third trap was introduced in a dungeon run by a mischievous trickster character? Would it then be dishonest to portray him as dishonest?
>>744243227There is nothing more inherently dishonest than post-6th gen dual analog controls, simply due to all of the assist systems that need to be stapled to it with snap-to movement and aim magnetism.It's a system that practically abuses the fact that your brain does some internal predictive work to coordinate how you move your body to neatly slot itself into the category of "I did that".And even when toning down all the assist systems, the game isn't even really dual analog because it usually just alternates when you can move and when you can look around with lock-ons or cover systems.Games are so simplistic now, because they practically play themselves to accommodate the player LARPing as if he had good camera controls instead of just using 5th and 6th gen camera systems for consoles and letting mice do the heavy lifting for anything with real camera controls like an FPS.
>>744246972Of what comes to mind, AoE II stopped the AI from doing any resource cheating by HD Edition, but it meant the game had the better of a decade and then some before the future devs could refine the AI enough to play decently, and then another for DE to do fancy things like luring boar and some other strategies and micro. So I imagine that devs making a new RTS don't really have enough time to make a 'proper' AI that can manage everything fine without cheating, especially before a metagame they never foresaw develops.Another big one is whether the AI can see everything or not, especially in a game with fog of war, possibly already reacting to things a normal player wouldn't even know about yet.
>>744245687this one is actually immersion breaking. imagine trying to use your surroundings to defend against an attack only for the enemy to be like "lol, lmao even" and hit you throw undamaged wall. At least if enemy is going to hit me through a pillar or a wall, have it crumble down or something
