Yakoob on 4/10/2015 at 20:23
I liked Pipe Dream in BS but after the 10th time it got tediously repetitive.
I'm fine with minigames if they fit the rest of gamestyle (aforementioned stat-based Fallout not using any for instance), are brief, and don't grow too repetitive.
Much worse are QTEs imho, especially of the insta-fail ones that add nothing to the game but making you re-watch the same cutscene while tapping random keys like a tard over and over until you get it right :| Hate when adventure games do that (I'm looking at you Walking dead, even if I am probably in the minority).
Pyrian on 4/10/2015 at 22:15
For me, the weirdest thing about QTE's is how they got so dang popular (with game designers). It was a decent enough little minigame way back in the day. But now it's all over the place, frequently replacing gameplay that is directly controlled in other games.
ZylonBane on 4/10/2015 at 22:36
They aren't popular with gamers, they're popular with game designers who want to cram in "cinematic" bullshit while still pretending it's gameplay.
Pyrian on 4/10/2015 at 22:46
It's the cinematic thing, eh? Do they realize that the gamers focusing on the QTE's aren't really paying much attention to their loving cinematics? It seems like it's a rather poor fit.
nicked on 5/10/2015 at 05:56
QTEs are popular because it's by far the cheapest and easiest way of keeping a player engaged with the screen during non-interactive cutscenes. Making actual gameplay is hard and expensive. Putting a small UI element and a timer over a cutscene is not.
Sulphur on 5/10/2015 at 11:09
They're also there because it's good shorthand for 'doing cool stuff' that you can't frame cinematically within the context of the game as it's being played, or to avoid creating a scenario/mechanic that would undo the rest of the game if you could deploy it elsewhere. The 'tap repeatedly' QTEs generally end up as shorthand for translating the amount of effort/exertion your avatar needs to expend - again, a sort of symbolic shorthand in place of an actual mechanic for, say, running fast while dodging a boulder that wouldn't make contextual sense in the general fabric of the gameplay.
Tomi on 5/10/2015 at 12:49
Quote Posted by Yakoob
I liked Pipe Dream in BS but after the 10th time it got tediously repetitive.
There were only like four different kind of puzzles too. I hated the hacking in BS1. Like you pointed out, it got repetitive really quickly, but it wasn't very fun either and it also wasn't even challenging at all (unless you got that one puzzle where you had to change the first pipe and find a fitting piece within the first few seconds). I couldn't be bothered getting most of the hacking tonics or freezing stuff (to slow down the hacking timer) because it was easy enough anyway.
But that's not even the worst thing about Pipe Dream. What makes it truly awful in my opinion is that it's
really immersion-breaking when the world around you stops while you're in hacking mode.
"hey guys, can u plz stop shooting me while i hack this vending machine and buy some hypos??" It just feels a bit stupid. The hacking in BS2 is so much better even if it's very simple, but at least you don't have to solve the same silly "puzzles" over and over again, and you will occasionally have to pay some attention to your surroundings too.
heywood on 6/10/2015 at 11:39
I prefer Option 2 the least. Even with minimum stat requirements in place to prevent players from getting lucky on an improbable hack, dice rolling still seems to encourage spamming the quick save/load. Playing SS2 on Hard is a good example where the temptation is sometimes hard to resist.
Some of the variations on Option 1 aren't too bad, like Deux Ex's using stats to control hacking time.
A good minigame can be better, but it needs to be stat-aware, and if it relies too heavily on chance then it's just a more involved version of Option 2. Human Revolution's hacking is a good example. It's probably the best of the stat+dice roll minigames I've seen, but it still encourages players to use quicksaves as a tactic for completing low probability hacks.
Some other pet peeves:
1. Minigames that are not "mini" enough for their place in the game, i.e. ones that take you out of the main action for too long
2. Minigames that require a fair bit of player skill which is unrelated to the main game
3. Minigames with high stakes for failure or with one-time only chances; these also lead to quicksave abuse
4. Overusing the same minigame in a thousand different places
The ideal minigame would be one that accounts for player stats and game difficulty, requires some player skill but not too much, is somewhat contextually appropriate, doesn't break immersion by taking you completely out of the game, and is over quickly enough not to become tedious. I'll let you know when I find one.
One other thing that most developers could do better with is variety. They put a lot of effort into making unique and memorable levels but then use the same minigame everywhere. Some parts of a game are better served by simple, quick minigames that keep you in the action for the most part. But there are other game settings where taking the time to complete a more involved hack or puzzle might be appropriate. System Shock's cyberspace is a good example of the latter. I also think Bioshock's pipe dreams would have been OK if used more sparingly for special hacks.
For a simple, quick minigame example, take Mass Effect 2's Bypass puzzle, make it stat-aware, and put it into a small window rather than interrupting the game.
nicked on 6/10/2015 at 11:45
I think Human Revolution's hacking is probably the best implemented minigame I've seen.
Renault on 6/10/2015 at 15:12
Neon Struct's hacking minigame is downright silly - you're basically playing a game of Breakout with a timer. I think minigames should at least attempt to give the player the illusion that they're doing something technical.
