Demo Play - The game plays for you!

[dinopoke]

As many of you would know, New Super Mario Bros. Wii was announced at E3. Of note, is the fact that it will be the first to feature a mechanic tentatively known as "Demo Play". Essentially, the game plays itself.

Beginning with the upcoming New Super Mario Bros. Wii (due this holiday season), players will be able to pause a game during a particularly difficult level and let the game take over to complete the level. Press a button at any time to resume playing. This will help reduce barriers of entry for new or younger players – without purchasing a strategy guide or resorting to websites that list cheat codes.

In New Super Mario Bros. Wii, if a player is experiencing an area of difficulty, this will allow them to clear troubled areas and take over when they're ready" confirmed Miyamoto, through his translator. "And yes, we're looking into this for future games, too" Miyamoto says.

Personally I think the effect will be minimal on the future of game design. Most of us will ignore it since we are experienced enough to play through with little help. I don't see how beginners will like this since they are hardly ever going to improve by letting the game play itself. The only thing Demo Play is useful for is during aberrant difficulty spikes. This is usually due to poor game design and should be fixed with QA Testing rather than a 'catch-all' mechanic.

Demo Play reminds me of the Game Genie and cheat codes. We all probably went through a phrase when we were obsessed with these things as it made playing games so much more easier. I remember playing through the Warcraft II campaign with God mode on and having a blast. Eventually we all get over the phase and realise that satisfaction comes from obtaining the skill to overcome these obstacles. Perhaps we may see the same happening with Demo Play?

I'm not sure what I think of Demo Play. I've heard many thoughts ranging from "I don't care because it doesn't affect me" and "A useless feature added to an already easy game" to "A revolutionary innovation" and even "Now we've dealt with the casuals, perhaps Nintendo with now have to freedom to make more challenging and complex games."

So what do you guys think?

[TrinityJayOne]

Sounds retarded, just Nintendo trying to grab even more casual sales. Nine out of 10 times watching someone else play a game is boring, so I don't see how this would be any fun either. Don't we play games for fun? What you said about improving is very true as well.

[FrozenSoul80]

Something like this would have been really helpful during that stupid Star Destroyer section of Force Unleashed. The game is excellent, but I'd rather not play that part of the level.

[dimorphic]

It will help the younger kids, like the five-six year olds that are stuck on a level and will increase casual sales, which is what Nintendo is aiming for. I really don't care on a gamers level for a few reasons; one, because I don't own any Nintendo products and two, because I'd never use the feature.

It will help me at work though, when the parents come in and ask if random game 73 will be too hard for their precious.

[AranchineD]

I read plans somewhere where if someone was to use Demo Play they would still have parts of the game blocked off to them unless they finish it properly and things along those lines.

If that turns out to be the case, then I won't mind it being games...but it still sound stupid to me. I know everyone says "but I probably won't use it", but if the temptation is still there, and you get to a part in a game like this:

Something like this would have been really helpful during that stupid Star Destroyer section of Force Unleashed. The game is excellent, but I'd rather not play that part of the level.

Even as a hardcore gamer you might just decide to use Demo Play instead of continually trying to succeed, which for me sounds like it'd be a hell of a lot less satisfying then working things out for yourself, especially if you use Demo Play when you can't get past a certain part of a game because you're using the wrong method, not because the game is really hard, kinda like how usually when you use the hint system in an adventure game you almost always end up slapping your head once you realise how obvious the solution was. >_>

[Lex]

I... don't really see how this is a bad thing? ever had to go to gamefaqs because a puzzle at a certain point was so obtuse it shouldn't be in the game? you know you have. wouldn't you have preferred pressing a button that just gets past that bullshit for you?

inb4 I NEVER GET STUCK IN GAMES NOOB.

[Jickle]

I... don't really see how this is a bad thing? ever had to go to gamefaqs because a puzzle at a certain point was so obtuse it shouldn't be in the game? you know you have. wouldn't you have preferred pressing a button that just gets past that bullshit for you?

inb4 I NEVER GET STUCK IN GAMES NOOB.

I think the problem is that if developers take a similar attitude, they could use a 'demo play' system to excuse bad game design (sort of like what Alone in the Dark already did). I think if this kind of thing were to ever become common practice developers would be less inclined to fix shitty bits in their games, because players will have the option to simply skip over them.

[Stevorooni]

It might be too tempting to use it if it's easily available.

I like the satisfying feeling you get when you keep approaching an impossible problem from different angles and then finally get it. Braid was like that.

[punkgorilla]

Nine out of 10 times watching someone else play a game is boring, so I don't see how this would be any fun either. Don't we play games for fun?

You'd be very surprised at the amount of people who enjoy watching games being played. There's a lot of people who'd even prefer to watch a game being played, rather than play one themselves. It might not be fun for the 'hardcore gamer' to watch a game being played, but Demo Play isn't being implemented for the nerds. It's for the average person.

Personally I don't see this as being anywhere near as much of a big deal as some people would have us believe. Demo Play gives people a chance to enjoy their games for longer, instead of shelving it because they get stuck on something. As for the people who like a challenge - don't use it. Simple as that.

[jawsy]

I like the sound of it. To echo a similar sentiment to Jickle, as long as it doesn't become an excuse for sloppy game design I don't see any problem with the idea. I can think of a number of occassions where I have had to consult an FAQ or a walkthrough either because a particular puzzle/segment happens to be incredibly obtuse or infuriating, or because I have reached the end of my puzzle solving patience. I have limited time to play these days, and as much as I enjoy discovering a solution by myself I am happy to admit that at times the enjoyment is derived primarily from progression.

Could work.

[Stevorooni]

Nintendo need to invent a version that will do my work for me automatically

[jawsy]

I often wish I could send my avatar to work so I could stay home and wave my hands about in a funny way inside my television.

[sausage]

Would it work on games like Witcher, Oblivion, Fallout 3 et al?

Rhetorical question? Maybe.

[jawsy]

Yeah, the first thing it made me think of was actually the games that it wouldn't work on, as opposed to those where it would come in handy.

[Stevorooni]

Imagine it running on Tetris

[jawsy]

Or Guitar Hero.

[TrinityJayOne]

Would it work on games like Witcher, Oblivion, Fallout 3 et al?

Rhetorical question? Maybe.
Luckily the Wii could never run a game such as those, so it won't be a problem. :P

[Stevorooni]

The Wii is a fantastic machine and is available in all good stores.

*** Post automatically generated by Demo Play ***

[Dr Skinnybones]

I'm okay with it. It seems like a gentle transition for the casual market from things like Wii Sports to more fully featured and structured games.

Personally, I would probably use it to learn how to play difficult games. I could see myself turning on during Ninja Gaiden on a high difficulty, watching the game use efficient tactics then attempt to mimic them myself. I'd be happy if demo play also resulted in the death of the boring tutorial level.

Sometimes I would watch the demo to see if it gave out any techniques or secrets (the demo reel for Halo showed that you could kill a Hunter in one shot, I immediately integrated that into my play style) but now it would be part of my progression as well. I'm for it.

[Watchers]

http://lh3.ggpht.com/_wxnba78PRgE/SS99LKCbwHI/AAAAAAAADD8/vCDXY2nM8DU/s400/Demo%20Man.jpg

[Fenrir]

So, this is Kind Code incarnate.

Personally I think the effect will be minimal on the future of game design. Most of us will ignore it since we are experienced enough to play through with little help. I don't see how beginners will like this since they are hardly ever going to improve by letting the game play itself. The only thing Demo Play is useful for is during aberrant difficulty spikes. This is usually due to poor game design and should be fixed with QA Testing rather than a 'catch-all' mechanic.
I don't know about that - the Sorting Algorithm Of Evil (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SortingAlgorithmOfEvil) could do with some healthy subversion.

As I noted back in the Kind Code thread, Demo Play could be used to negate a lot of the boilerplate gameplay in large adventure games. Riding through a mountain pass between towns could be automated, so the player could sit back and just watch a cinematic montage of the journey, but the player could jump in if they want to steer off onto that side path over there, or if evil minions descend to confront the hero.

I'm not sure what I think of Demo Play. I've heard many thoughts ranging from "I don't care because it doesn't affect me" and "A useless feature added to an already easy game" to "A revolutionary innovation" and even "Now we've dealt with the casuals, perhaps Nintendo with now have to freedom to make more challenging and complex games."
I wouldn't be so sure about that last one - more challenging and complex game scenarios generally require better game AI to negotiate them. Not such a big problem with prescribed puzzles, marksmanship, etc; but if the solution to a section of the game has a less deterministic solution (moving platforms, AI-controlled enemies, etc) then it becomes harder to write protagonist AI which'll win out every time.

On top of that, if you switch to the Demo Play just before you die in combat, should it still win? What happens in exceptional cases where the AI fails, do you lose or does the AI get some sort of immunity? Some gamers won't be happy to see Demo Play playing to a separate set of rules. Nintendo are known for elastic band AI (see Mario Kart) and other such cheap tricks, though, so there's a fair chance that they still won't care about preserving gameplay mechanic coherence.

I read plans somewhere where if someone was to use Demo Play they would still have parts of the game blocked off to them unless they finish it properly and things along those lines.
I was thinking something along these lines.
Looking back on Twilight Princess (because, let's face it, I only really care about the implications of this on future Zelda games), Nintendo seemed to be trying to make a Disney movie out of the main quest, so it's probably for the best that they just dumb the actual gameplay down further and put Demo Play in charge of playing it. You could set three kids up with the game, and there wouldn't be the sense of ownership of their own progress to inhibit them from passing the controller between each other, like the oblivious parent expects when they say "let your sister play for a while".
This sort of play mode wouldn't even require a proper save slot - scene select as alluded to in the Kind Code patent could be sufficient.

The actual meat of the gameplay could then come in the form of side quests, where gamers have been screaming for extra content for a long time now. Side quests could be excluded from the Demo Play treatment, and even depend on completing earlier side quests to be accessed.

Would it work on games like Witcher, Oblivion, Fallout 3 et al?
What strikes me about many of these games, is that whilst they present massive sandboxes, there's typically still some sort of main quest backbone to them, which a system like Demo Play could handhold a player through. Obviously developing the protagonist enough to pass certain parts of the main quest, etc requires unique choices and participation in relatively open-ended gameplay, but these tasks can be broken down into parts to be digested by a game AI algorithm.

Probably not worth worrying about, though, since Nintendo already hold the patent to this system.

Personally, I would probably use it to learn how to play difficult games. I could see myself turning on during Ninja Gaiden on a high difficulty, watching the game use efficient tactics then attempt to mimic them myself. I'd be happy if demo play also resulted in the death of the boring tutorial level.

Sometimes I would watch the demo to see if it gave out any techniques or secrets (the demo reel for Halo showed that you could kill a Hunter in one shot, I immediately integrated that into my play style) but now it would be part of my progression as well. I'm for it.
I'm not sure about this. Some techniques used by AI-controlled opponents in fighting games can be difficult for actual players to pull off (especially if a move with a difficult control combination is spammed repeatedly), but easy for the AI because it may select moves directly.
Maybe actual players could be analysed over the internet, or from test groups prior to release, to determine which moves on average tend to be trickier, and then all moves rated accordingly, so that an AI character makes an effort to keep the average difficulty of moves used in its fighting technique low.

Then again, this is probably already incorporated into many fighting games, so disregard. >_>

[FrozenSoul80]

Actually, Demo Play would have been excellent in Assassins Creed. All that riding between towns just got annoying, especially when you had to go slow for no reason near guards.

[SOX]

Reminds me of Eve Online. You would set where you wanted to go and alt tab as it travelled there for you.

[Halt, Hammerzeit]

Or Guitar Hero.

RB2 already has its 'No Fail' mode. 'No Fail' mode I don't mind, because it still lets you finish the song (and doesn't let little brothers or sisters fail you out of a song), but you're still playing it.

Personally, I don't like this Demo Play. Can't get past a certain point? Isn't that what difficulty levels are for? Wouldn't a better option be to lower difficulty in game? Switching for hard to normal difficulty on generic FPS (or any other genre) game #43 would help you get past a hard part then you could switch it back. Getting the game to play itself (am I talking dirty or what?) just sounds like cheating.

That said, if you could use Demo Play to level up in RPGs instead of completing the main quest, I'd be up for that. It would take a lot of the annoying (for me, anyway) part of the RPGs away then.

[Fenrir]

Cue Vindik8or JRPG tangent in 10...9...

I'm glad you mentioned Guitar Hero, though - I had been thinking about an idea similar to that "star power" crap before, but it slipped my mind among the rest of the behemoth that was my prior post. >_>
Essentially, by some star power-ish mechanism, Demo Play would play through bits of the game for the player, but they'd be expected to play a fair bit of it themselves, too. It could operate on puzzles, combat, platforming, whatever element of the game is giving the player grief. In order to generate the star power-equivalent, you'd have to nail a few puzzles, platforming sections, baddies, etc, yourself.

[Halt, Hammerzeit]

Cue Vindik8or JRPG tangent in 10...9...

I'm glad you mentioned Guitar Hero, though - I had been thinking about an idea similar to that "star power" crap before, but it slipped my mind among the rest of the behemoth that was my prior post. >_>
Essentially, by some star power-ish mechanism, Demo Play would play through bits of the game for the player, but they'd be expected to play a fair bit of it themselves, too. It could operate on puzzles, combat, platforming, whatever element of the game is giving the player grief. In order to generate the star power-equivalent, you'd have to nail a few puzzles, platforming sections, baddies, etc, yourself.

That could work. Make the players earn their Demo Play. I like that better than just turning it on.

[banjoeskimo]

At it's best, it could be a handy feature in some games. Something heavily skill based (like Ikaruga, or Street Fighter) could be opened up in a lot of new ways to players just by showing them more advanced strategies and techniques. Granted they'd require real skill to pull off when you do it for real, but it could give players more than a few "Wow, I didn't even think to try that!" moments.

That said, gonna have to side with the skeptics on this one. I can see this being too easily abused by lazy players, or even worse, lazy developers. Plus, can you imagine how much this would destroy puzzle based games like Braid of Shadow of the Colossus, where the entire joy of the thing is figuring out how to do something on your own?

My hope is that it's used sparingly and with sobriety, but I'm not optimistic that will be the case. Nintendo's game design philosophy of late seems to be based around doing everything but offer game design solutions to game design problems; everything's based around influencing the player with external forces (like throwing a new controller at an old game type, or throwing video tutorials at puzzles) rather than straight up focusing squarely on designing something that's intrinsically appealing.

[igotnewsuper8systemWRONG!]

So are they amping up the difficulty or something in New Super Mario Bros Wii? I'm not opposed to this or anything but I gotta say if this were in Links Awakening or Mario Bros back when they came out I probably would have used it, and all these years later in retrospect I would probably feel kind of bad and less accomplished for it.

[jawsy]

Nobody thinks you're accomplished because you finished Mario Bros, dude.

[Blue]

Nobody thinks you're accomplished because you finished Mario Bros, dude.I haven't beaten it. I would consider it to be an accomplishment.

[jawsy]

Hang on, did I need a safety smiley?

[AranchineD]

If it was Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels, then it really is an accomplishment. No safety smiley here.

[Fenrir]

Hang on, did I need a safety smiley?
In all honesty, I'd've gone off the rails if you told me that one of my conquests wasn't an accomplishment.


I've 100%'d Shadowman 64 without so much as a hint, btw.


>_>

[Stevorooni]

That game is in my pile of shame :(

Hey maybe this Demo Play will help me get through my pile of shame! If I buy multiple consoles I can set them each up with a game and complete many of them while I eat lunch or something!

[Blue]

Hang on, did I need a safety smiley?What for?

[igotnewsuper8systemWRONG!]

Nobody thinks you're accomplished because you finished Mario Bros, dude.

I've never finished it, do I get anything for Links Awakening?

[SOX]

I've never finished it, do I get anything for Links Awakening?

You get the satisfaction of finishing an awesome Zelda.

[Dr Skinnybones]

That said, gonna have to side with the skeptics on this one. I can see this being too easily abused by lazy players, or even worse, lazy developers. Plus, can you imagine how much this would destroy puzzle based games like Braid of Shadow of the Colossus, where the entire joy of the thing is figuring out how to do something on your own?

I agree that with some games it will inevitably strip away the sense of achievement. But is that the developers responsibility? Should an author necessarily be instructing an audience how to consume its product?
You can draw a parallel to FPS games with quick save/quick load. It's a feature, that when abused, detracts from player achievement. Two steps quick save. Kill one enemy, quick save, kill another enemy, quick save. But for some players, it is the only way they would see later levels, only way they would finish the game.

[jawsy]

So anyway, tone and the Internet ain't no Paula Abdul and MC Skat Cat.

But, if, in retrospect, it would be keeping you up nights, I rescind my safety smiley and offer a whole-hearted poo poo of your values.

Edit: Forgot the safety smiley.

[punkgorilla]

I agree that with some games it will inevitably strip away the sense of achievement.

That sense of achievement will only be removed if you choose it to be removed. Remember, Demo Play is optional.


You can draw a parallel to FPS games with quick save/quick load.

You could also draw a parallel to cheat codes. Cheats can make a game absurdly easy and completely remove the sense of achievement, however cheats are seen as a legitimate part of gaming.

Actually, come to think of it, the original Mario had a whole heap of warp points where you could skip entire sections of the game. No one gave a **** about it then. Hell, a lot of people praised the game for including them.

[AranchineD]

That sense of achievement will only be removed if you choose it to be removed. Remember, Demo Play is optional.

That's only slightly relevant though, go back to my previous posts, the temptation to do it will still be there, the ease of accessing it compared to your next point, cheat codes, or FAQs or whatsoever, would prove hard for even most 'hardcore' gamers to resist when they come across a somewhat challenging part, think it's the game's fault and not that they're just doing it wrong, use Demo Play, see the answer, and then realise the achievement in working out how to get past it for themselves is now gone because of the easy option.

[ThePhotoshop]

This, like the flashing arrow hint system in Monkey Island Special Edition, is a feature that should be in as many games as possible from now on.

Games are no longer about the challenge. You're no longer a hardcore dude if you beat a hard game. Nobody cares.

Games are now about having fun. Any semblance of frustration is now intolerable, as there are so many other less-frustrating alternatives we'd rather spend our precious recreation time playing.

And if you're one of those people who still polishes their e-peen, well, guess what. You don't have to press the demo button.

[AranchineD]

Games are no longer about the challenge.

Games are now about having fun.

Ignoring the people who have fun by overcoming challenges, right?

I just hate the statement that games are either 'fun' or 'challenging', and besides, there's been recently, perhaps more than the entire time of video games, more games that are less about fun and more about plot and characters, or pushing a particular theme or message (which is especially prevalent in the indie scene at the moment) rather than making their games about being 'fun'.

[ThePhotoshop]

There's a very very fine line between challenge and frustration. I've seen much more of the latter lately than the former.

[AranchineD]

And you think putting a feature such as 'Demo Play' into all games is going to a) encourage developers to make their games more on the side of a fair challenge, encouraging gamers to further themselves to beat the game while still retaining the 'fun' element of gaming, not grind against a wall until they get through, or b) encourage developers to just make lazy and stupid design decisions so a game becomes completely frustrating, but it'll be okay because gamers can just skip it anyway

[ThePhotoshop]

Option B is happening now. Just without the ability to skip. So anything would be better.

[AranchineD]

So basically what you're concluding is that because things are bad, then well, why shouldn't we just go and potentially make them worse?


Just 'skipping' them and then saying everything is okay is ignoring the problem. It's making the problem almost 'acceptable' practice to developers because, like I said above, they don't have to worry about actually making good design decisions, "if people don't like what we've done, we don't need to fix it, they can just skip it!"

[Halt, Hammerzeit]

This, like the flashing arrow hint system in Monkey Island Special Edition, is a feature that should be in as many games as possible from now on.

Games are no longer about the challenge. You're no longer a hardcore dude if you beat a hard game. Nobody cares.

Games are now about having fun. Any semblance of frustration is now intolerable, as there are so many other less-frustrating alternatives we'd rather spend our precious recreation time playing.

And if you're one of those people who still polishes their e-peen, well, guess what. You don't have to press the demo button.

There's a difference between frustrating and challenging, though. I hate how things get dumbed down so the stupidest person can understand it. Everybody's always looking to make things easier rather than improve their own skills. I've changed my thoughts on this. There are better options out there than making the game play itself for you, like implementing difficulty levels in most games instead of a few.

[ThePhotoshop]

Another good point - there'd be no reason to "dumb things down" in the first place because there's no chance anyone can get stuck anymore.

This demo play can only be a good thing.

[AranchineD]

Which would be a sound argument if developers didn't dumb down things that nobody got stuck on or found frustrating anyway, just what they perceived people got stuck on or found frustrating.

That certainly wouldn't go away with Demo Play.

[Halt, Hammerzeit]

Another good point - there'd be no reason to "dumb things down" in the first place because there's no chance anyone can get stuck anymore.

This demo play can only be a good thing.

They don't need a reason to dumb it down, it's already happening. How many games have you played in the last few years and went "that was too short" or "that was easy"? There are the occasional great game (subjectively speaking, of course), but the vast majority of what's out there is crap.

[jawsy]

I think that even if it were to be implemented in every game you would be hard pressed to successfully draw a meaningful connection between demo play and poor level/arbitrary puzzle design.

Are people suggesting that such a relationship already exists between the thought processes of game designers and the existence of Game FAQs?

[UC1]

This, like the flashing arrow hint system in Monkey Island Special Edition, is a feature that should be in as many games as possible from now on.

Games are no longer about the challenge. You're no longer a hardcore dude if you beat a hard game. Nobody cares.

Games are now about having fun. Any semblance of frustration is now intolerable, as there are so many other less-frustrating alternatives we'd rather spend our precious recreation time playing.

And if you're one of those people who still polishes their e-peen, well, guess what. You don't have to press the demo button.

IAWTP. I also play every single game on easy mode only, because any semblance of frustration is now intolerable, and games are no longer about the challenge. They should call easy mode hard, and make a new easier easy mode for everything imo. Pretty colours FTW!

[Halt, Hammerzeit]

I think that even if it were to be implemented in every game you would be hard pressed to successfully draw a meaningful connection between demo play and poor level/arbitrary puzzle design.

Yeah when you think about it, the game designers already know the solutions to the puzzles and what to do so they'd only be programming solutions they have thought up. I just don't see the point of it. There are plenty of games out there that are simple. What's the point in developing something that's essentially a walkthrough for a game (which, if reports are accurate, won't end up telling how to get everything anyway) when the money could actually be spent developing games.

[Ad-Rock]

I think it is a good idea, particularly for young children or even people with a disability of some kind. For example, my Dad works with a kid who has cerebral palsy (and something else). The kid's fine motor skills are obviously very poor (in other words he struggles with traditional controls); the advent of motion controls (ie. the Wii) allows him to play a few games. I imagine having a "demo mode" would open up far more gaming experiences for kids like him who might not have the physical or psychological capacity to pass sections of games which are literally impossible for them to do.

[UC1]

I think it is a good idea, particularly for young children or even people with a disability of some kind. For example, my Dad works with a kid who has cerebral palsy (and something else). The kid's fine motor skills are obviously very poor (in other words he struggles with traditional controls); the advent of motion controls (ie. the Wii) allows him to play a few games. I imagine having a "demo mode" would open up far more gaming experiences for kids like him who might not have the physical or psychological capacity to pass sections of games which are literally impossible for them to do.

You make a good point, but for games like (2D) Mario or say Splosion Man, where they get progressively harder the further you get, there's no point in skipping a hard section, only to get to a harder section. I mention Splosion Man because similarly, you can skip to the next level if you die a certain amount of times.

It seems a bit weird that this is the game they're using it for, I would have thought it'd be in Zelda first, where you get mostly easy bits broken up by challenges here and there. In a game where it's all about "solve this puzzle or you can't progress" then it can avoid frustration (and any sense of achievement), but where it's about simple mechanics and increasingly harder challenges, it's a pretty useless feature.

[Halt, Hammerzeit]

You make a good point, but for games like (2D) Mario or say Splosion Man, where they get progressively harder the further you get, there's no point in skipping a hard section, only to get to a harder section. I mention Splosion Man because similarly, you can skip to the next level if you die a certain amount of times.

It seems a bit weird that this is the game they're using it for, I would have thought it'd be in Zelda first, where you get mostly easy bits broken up by challenges here and there. In a game where it's all about "solve this puzzle or you can't progress" then it can avoid frustration (and any sense of achievement), but where it's about simple mechanics and increasingly harder challenges, it's a pretty useless feature.

It's easier to program where Mario needs to go in a 2D environment than Link in a 3D one. New Super Mario Bros Wii would be a relatively simple game to program. What would Demo Play do for a game like Zelda? Would it find all the treasure chests in a dungeon or just enough to get you into the dungeon boss fight? If you started Demo Play in the overworld, would it continue on a quest you're in the middle of doing or would it go to the next dungeon in the linear story portion? The decision making for a 2D platformer would virtually be non-existant.

[AranchineD]

I think that even if it were to be implemented in every game you would be hard pressed to successfully draw a meaningful connection between demo play and poor level/arbitrary puzzle design.

Are people suggesting that such a relationship already exists between the thought processes of game designers and the existence of Game FAQs?

But the difference between Demo Play and using a FAQ or whatever, just in this example of poor level design, is that when using a guide you still have to physically play through it, which can still turn a person off a game if the task is still frustrating even with a guide, Whereas with Demo Play you wdon't have to actually play through it, so a person might still play through a game even with poor design choices in it.

(How is that bad, you might ask, well those frustrating parts shouldn't be in the game at all in the first place!)


Not to mention that Demo Play would be something the developer would have to implement in the game and decide what it passes for the player, and as such would be a much more integral part of the design process, a guide or FAQ which might not even have the possibility of being made much less so.

[UC1]

It's easier to program where Mario needs to go in a 2D environment than Link in a 3D one. New Super Mario Bros Wii would be a relatively simple game to program. What would Demo Play do for a game like Zelda? Would it find all the treasure chests in a dungeon or just enough to get you into the dungeon boss fight? If you started Demo Play in the overworld, would it continue on a quest you're in the middle of doing or would it go to the next dungeon in the linear story portion? The decision making for a 2D platformer would virtually be non-existant.

I don't think it'd be that hard for Zelda, which is a completely linear game. If they give it a default on/off mode, I'd assume it would go wherever you need to go, ignore all items in the overworld that aren't essential, and probably 100% clear dungeons (I guess). Or you could have modes that are just "collect heart pieces/bugs/bigger wallets/bottles/etc."

If Zelda was non-linear, you could be screwed because the AI might activate a path you don't want. I would still call the decision making in Zelda non-existant - for a program like this.

[Dr Skinnybones]

That's only slightly relevant though, go back to my previous posts, the temptation to do it will still be there, the ease of accessing it compared to your next point, cheat codes, or FAQs or whatsoever, would prove hard for even most 'hardcore' gamers to resist when they come across a somewhat challenging part, think it's the game's fault and not that they're just doing it wrong, use Demo Play, see the answer, and then realise the achievement in working out how to get past it for themselves is now gone because of the easy option.

So what of temptation? Just because some players won't be able to help themselves doesn't mean the concept is entirely broken. Look again to my quick save/quick load example. Spamming this in a hardcore FPS reduces the fun into tedium but players will still do it as it helps them overcome difficult portions of a game.

If you want to "preserve" the sanctity of the challenge make unlockables, achievements, higih scores etc available to non-demo play gaming (which I think has been implied already).

b) encourage developers to just make lazy and stupid design decisions so a game becomes completely frustrating, but it'll be okay because gamers can just skip it anyway

Alone in the Dark had the chapter select thing, demo play of a kind. If I recall, people stopped buying it as soon as it was known to be rubbish. Lazy, stupid design will continue to be punished by an early death in the bargain bin, just as it always has.

[punkgorilla]

That's only slightly relevant though, go back to my previous posts, the temptation to do it will still be there, the ease of accessing it compared to your next point, cheat codes, or FAQs or whatsoever, would prove hard for even most 'hardcore' gamers to resist when they come across a somewhat challenging part, think it's the game's fault and not that they're just doing it wrong, use Demo Play, see the answer, and then realise the achievement in working out how to get past it for themselves is now gone because of the easy option.

Well that doesn't really effect my point at all. All you've said is that Demo Play is tempting. However my point stands, it's is still a choice. A choice that rests with the player. Yes, it may tempt some people into taking the easy option, but temptation can be resisted. Let's take a look at something you said in your original post....it'd be a hell of a lot less satisfying then working things out for yourself. It sounds like you've already made the choice to not use Demo Play. Do you not trust other gamers to do the same? Or would you still succumb to the temptation, even though you know full well that you'll never have that sense of accomplishment?

I'm also not sure that the sections you refer to actually occur these days. Maybe in some shovelware titles I guess, but if you're buying those sorts of games you've got bigger problems (they're also not the sort of games we're talking about here). Games are designed these days to be completely unambiguous. I haven't come across those sorts of sections since the days of the N64. And I definitely have never seen a section like that in a 2D Mario game.

I also doubt that the sort of people who enjoy this sense of achievement would be the people who would easily succumb to the temptation of the easy path.

Lazy, stupid design will continue to be punished by an early death in the bargain bin, just as it always has.
Exactly. Bad games are bad games. Developers can use all the smoke and mirrors they want, but they won't be able to hide a game that is fundamentally bad.

[ThePhotoshop]

You guys are forgetting who Demo Play is going to hurt the most.

The GameFAQS writers.

[UC1]

You guys are forgetting who Demo Play is going to hurt the most.

The GameFAQS writers.

This made me LOL. Sounds so dire =P

Lots of stuff to Q about other than walkthroughs tho. Plus who the hell ever needed a walkthru for a Nintendo game?

[ThePhotoshop]

Fluff you if you made it through Majora's Mask without ever once resorting to a walkthrough.

You're just the kind of hardcore dude that I was referring to in my earlier post.

[Stevorooni]

Every time I play through OOT I end up having to look up the walkthrough for that friggen water temple

[UC1]

I would probably need a guide to do all that mask bullshit in MM.

[Halt, Hammerzeit]

Every time I play through OOT I end up having to look up the walkthrough for that friggen water temple

Last time I played through OoT I couldn't remember why I had so much trouble with it the first time.

[Fenrir]

The Water Temple was daunting when I was 10 or 12, or however old I was when Zelda was shaping my eager, innocent young mind; but the real bullshit was bombing the mini-goron in Goron City prior to entering the Fire Temple. I'd assumed the damn thing had nothing to do with the path forward simply because it didn't seem at all bombable. >_>

This, like the flashing arrow hint system in Monkey Island Special Edition, is a feature that should be in as many games as possible from now on.
It would take one hell of a lawsuit to wrest the Kind Code patent from Nintendo, should Demo Play work well.

Games are now about having fun. Any semblance of frustration is now intolerable, as there are so many other less-frustrating alternatives we'd rather spend our precious recreation time playing.
So what you're saying is, our medium sucks?

I think it is a good idea, particularly for young children or even people with a disability of some kind. For example, my Dad works with a kid who has cerebral palsy (and something else). The kid's fine motor skills are obviously very poor (in other words he struggles with traditional controls); the advent of motion controls (ie. the Wii) allows him to play a few games. I imagine having a "demo mode" would open up far more gaming experiences for kids like him who might not have the physical or psychological capacity to pass sections of games which are literally impossible for them to do.
I'm not sure Demo Play in itself is the solution, here. The gaming experience tends to justify itself over other mediums via interactivity, autonomy and challenge - Demo-Playing a game too heavily reduces the autonomy and challenge aspects to nothing, and essentially turns the medium into the interactive movie.

I'm not saying the interactive movie is a bad genre, mind. I've already suggested it as one of the more interesting applications for Demo Play, in my behemoth of a post earlier in this thread; it would suit a lot of content, much like it has worked for a lot of literature; and it's a windfall I'd hope the games industry digs into first, before the overly bloated film industry manages to devise the right angle via which to sink in its own filthy talons.
It's not gaming, though. Devising gameplay experiences suited to handicapped people is a whole other challenge - it may draw upon a Demo Play-esque hand-holding mechanism, but the entire game design in general probably has to be realized with disabilities in mind.

You make a good point, but for games like (2D) Mario or say Splosion Man, where they get progressively harder the further you get, there's no point in skipping a hard section, only to get to a harder section. I mention Splosion Man because similarly, you can skip to the next level if you die a certain amount of times.
^This, but as I said before, The Sorting Algorithm Of Evil (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SortingAlgorithmOfEvil) could be due for subversion with the onset of Demo Play.

It seems a bit weird that this is the game they're using it for, I would have thought it'd be in Zelda first, where you get mostly easy bits broken up by challenges here and there. In a game where it's all about "solve this puzzle or you can't progress" then it can avoid frustration (and any sense of achievement), but where it's about simple mechanics and increasingly harder challenges, it's a pretty useless feature.
I canvassed a lot of the possibilities with Zelda earlier in the thread, but the odd gameplay challenge aside, Zelda isn't really meant to be the sort of game that directly challenges your skills. They'll heat it up just enough to keep you investing effort in the game, really, rarely any further.

It's definitely of the easier games in which to implement a mechanism like Demo Play, though, especially with puzzles where progress doesn't generally rely on dynamic aspects like the location of opponents. Straightforward scripts can be written consisting of "pathfind to (x1,y2); equip bow; shoot in direction (theta, phi); pathfind to (x2, y2); open door".

It's easier to program where Mario needs to go in a 2D environment than Link in a 3D one.
False. 2D platformer pathfinding has to take gravity into account, which, when combined with moving mid-air objects of varying trajectories, makes things pretty complex. Zelda, on the other hand, has conveniently omitted the jump button, meaning pathfinding can generally function on a set of 2D regions.

If Zelda was non-linear, you could be screwed because the AI might activate a path you don't want. I would still call the decision making in Zelda non-existant - for a program like this.
Gah, in one sentence you've sold to me a perspective on linearity which entire pages of crap failed to. I yield, and such.

I'd envision Demo Play only solving the raw root quest, too. I remarked before that I'd hope the main quest is stripped down significantly, and all the real gameplay meat is applied as non-Demo Play side quests.

In games where progress through the main quest is non-linear, though, I could see Demo Play presenting the player with a choice between the obvious paths at a fork, or simply glazing over less obvious choices. It does mean the AI can activate paths you don't want (ie the obvious main choice as opposed to the awesome secret alternative not canvassed by Demo Play), but that's your fault for being a n00b. >_>
With adequate pacing of the Demo Play mechanism, so that it doesn't merely rip through everything before you have a chance to actually think, this could probably work well.

I would probably need a guide to do all that mask bullshit in MM.
You thought of MM as four dungeons and a boss, then? The "mask bullshit" is probably the meat of the entire MM experience - a sort of sandbox of recurring shenanigans for the player to investigate at whim.

[igotnewsuper8systemWRONG!]

You guys are forgetting who Demo Play is going to hurt the most.

The GameFAQS writers.

The guys who right the standard walkthroughs sure, but there will still be a place for the secrets, easter eggs, chocobo breeding and plot analysis guys.


Lots of stuff to Q about other than walkthroughs tho. Plus who the hell ever needed a walkthru for a Nintendo game?

http://www.gamefaqs.com/console/wii/game/935589.html

[ThePhotoshop]

So what you're saying is, our medium sucks?
At times, yes. It's the only medium where the entire experience can suddenly grind to a halt because you get stuck.