- Joined
- Aug 14, 2016
- Messages
- 204
- Reaction score
- 136
- First Language
- English
- Primarily Uses
This is something that isn't easy to get right if implemented.
You mentioned Kingdom Hearts, but the system in that game actually turns out to be flawed. As other people mentioned, the problem is you really have no idea what is viable in the game yet so you're just picking based on biases. In Kingdom Hearts, the weapons also turned out to determine when you learn specific skills via level up which essentially did control the difficulty of the game but nothing ever tells you that. With the little information people had and letting their biases take the wheel, they picked the sword usually. Ironically, veteran fans would tell you that is the worst option as you learn all the useful skills much later and the slight attack boost wasn't usually worth the hp or magic loss (depending on what you gave up). This was adjusted to be more balanced in the final mix version, but you didn't see this mechanic in any subsequent Kingdom Hearts games.
Of course, we like player agency and what is good and what isn't is usually a subjective matter that fans of your game could debate. Having some options being easier or harder is also good to, but only if the player knows what and why they are getting into with the choices they make. If you just throw them into the shop, say go nuts, and then just take whatever they bought (if anything) at face value and let that option be stuck with them for quite some time, a lot of players won't feel happy if they end up making what they deemed a poor choice. Not because that the poor choices were there, but because they didn't know what they were.
You probably want to have some control on how much agency the player has. If you don't want them leaving without at least one item or one weapon, design the shops in a way that it isn't possible to leave without doing so. If you want them to be able to leave without buying a weapon, items, or even anything at all, you want to make it very clear to players that it isn't recommended and players doing so are doing it out of challenge and not because they aren't sure of what they are doing. They might just keep their gold because nothing told them to purchase anything, or maybe they spent all their gold on equipment because they didn't realize there was an item shop and now the gold is gone. You don't want that, or well you don't want players doing those accidentally. This is why I think you would be better off having some barriers on the agency the player has, mainly to protect them from unintended decisions.
As for how the player can determine what actual purchases are worthwhile to them? Well other people seemed to have already made good suggestions there!
You mentioned Kingdom Hearts, but the system in that game actually turns out to be flawed. As other people mentioned, the problem is you really have no idea what is viable in the game yet so you're just picking based on biases. In Kingdom Hearts, the weapons also turned out to determine when you learn specific skills via level up which essentially did control the difficulty of the game but nothing ever tells you that. With the little information people had and letting their biases take the wheel, they picked the sword usually. Ironically, veteran fans would tell you that is the worst option as you learn all the useful skills much later and the slight attack boost wasn't usually worth the hp or magic loss (depending on what you gave up). This was adjusted to be more balanced in the final mix version, but you didn't see this mechanic in any subsequent Kingdom Hearts games.
Of course, we like player agency and what is good and what isn't is usually a subjective matter that fans of your game could debate. Having some options being easier or harder is also good to, but only if the player knows what and why they are getting into with the choices they make. If you just throw them into the shop, say go nuts, and then just take whatever they bought (if anything) at face value and let that option be stuck with them for quite some time, a lot of players won't feel happy if they end up making what they deemed a poor choice. Not because that the poor choices were there, but because they didn't know what they were.
You probably want to have some control on how much agency the player has. If you don't want them leaving without at least one item or one weapon, design the shops in a way that it isn't possible to leave without doing so. If you want them to be able to leave without buying a weapon, items, or even anything at all, you want to make it very clear to players that it isn't recommended and players doing so are doing it out of challenge and not because they aren't sure of what they are doing. They might just keep their gold because nothing told them to purchase anything, or maybe they spent all their gold on equipment because they didn't realize there was an item shop and now the gold is gone. You don't want that, or well you don't want players doing those accidentally. This is why I think you would be better off having some barriers on the agency the player has, mainly to protect them from unintended decisions.
As for how the player can determine what actual purchases are worthwhile to them? Well other people seemed to have already made good suggestions there!


