The Ultimate SOMA Discussion Thread

[plutomaniac]

However, it may also involve other areas that were previously inaccessible opening up, giving players incentive to replay the game

This is very interesting. Makes the whole dying and repeating process a lot less boring. However I'm not sure how it would feel in-game. Personally, I really like to explore areas to the fullest before moving on. For example when I play RPG's I try to finish most of the side missions before starting a main story one. But in such a scenario, does it mean I have to intentionally die to be able to fully explore an area? Moreover, it would really upset me if I end up loosing small story elements because of that game mechanic. I highly doubt FG is going to make such a logical mistake though.

[Kreekakon]

However, it may also involve other areas that were previously inaccessible opening up, giving players incentive to replay the game

This is very interesting. Makes the whole dying and repeating process a lot less boring. However I'm not sure how it would feel in-game. Personally, I really like to explore areas to the fullest before moving on. For example when I play RPG's I try to finish most of the side missions before starting a main story one. But in such a scenario, does it mean I have to intentionally die to be able to fully explore an area? Moreover, it would really upset me if I end up loosing small story elements because of that game mechanic. I highly doubt FG is going to make such a logical mistake though.

I think the model for the player experience in such a game would be similar to games with branching paths such as Telltale games, visual novels, or the Mass Effect series.

You are meant to play the first run of the game based on personal preference, and immersion without too much thought to completion, or hidden paths. It will be basically impossible for one to experience everything the game has to offer in one run.

After the initial run, and you have a feel for a run of the game then you can put completion as the first objective.

[plutomaniac]

Yes, it might be "impossible" to experience everything at the first run but FG games are not like The Walking Dead or Mass Effect. Especially when it comes to the second series, it's full of small or large choices so it makes replay-ability a must or at least fun. But, personally I don't think I would play the main game again just to find an extra small note or something. It would just bother me while playing the first run, not afterwards much. I'm not saying that I won't play the main game twice or more times, just that if I did it would't really be about a "secret" room. The article does say though that "the developers are still tweaking this feature to find the right balance" so I guess they know about it.

Amnesia had such an event when Daniel gets captured by the grunts. If you go at the capture area after having collected all the orb pieces, you will be captured and you won't get to see a part of the level at the east. If you don't have all of them though you can explore some other rooms that are not there after being captured (broken bridge).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-XmjUP5rBA#t=367

[Paddy™]

I'm wondering if it was FG who stated that this mechanic was designed to ensure replayability, or if the previewer simply assumed that to be the case because of the way it works. I seem to remember Thomas being asked about such considerations in previous interviews and - if I recall correctly - he said that he wasn't designing SOMA to be replayed lots of times, because of the way such a design goal tends to dilute and undercut the impact of games.

If that's the case, I'd guess that the mechanic in question is really just to ensure that the player is always in a state of uncertainty about the location of the enemies and the routes he/she can take through the level. I see it as an evolution of the ideas in TDD; when you "die", the level changes, so you're not given any comfort by the knowledge of what lies ahead when you tackle it a second time. It's always shifting and reconfiguring, preventing you from getting a handle on things.

For completionists, I'm sure this mechanic would indeed give them a reason to replay the game multiple times, but I don't think this is its primary purpose. Whether or not this mechanic will prevent you from finding all of the story-related materials in a single playthrough is another matter, but if FG aren't designing SOMA for replayability, I don't think this will be the case.

Here's a chunk of an interview with Thomas about SOMA, in which he mentions replayability:

Spoiler below!

TG: [...] Even Tale of Tales games have very strict coherence to them.

RY: What do you mean by that?

TG: Well, even in The Path, you can’t just wander forever: you have to find the path, find the wolf, find A to get to B. There is progress. What about a game where you just wander, and things happen, and you make-up a causal relationship afterwards.

RY: Aren’t players very sensitive to this? First they’ll wander this way, then wander that way, then wander over there — oh, okay, that triggers that — and so on?

TG: Yes, you have to be careful. The way to beat a system is to replay it. The Path was replayable with multiple characters, but if there’s a conscious decision to make it a one-time game, then all those tricks work. No replayability. Let’s make unreplayable games, let’s think of games as magic tricks. You can’t tell the magician, “do the trick again!” Tricks are unrepeatable.

[...]

RY: I wish games could be like that… but reviewers and players judge you on replayability, which is weird. “This book starts feeling predictable if you read it a third time.”

TG: [laughs] “Three out of five.” You can trace it back to early video games which are just about replayability, by design.

[plutomaniac]

If that's the case, I'd guess that the mechanic in question is really just to ensure that the player is always in a state of uncertainty about the location of the enemies and the routes he/she can take through the level. I see it as an evolution of the ideas in TDD; when you "die", the level changes, so you're not given any comfort by the knowledge of what lies ahead when you tackle it a second time. It's always shifting and reconfiguring, preventing you from getting a handle on things.

I don't have any problem with that. It sounds interesting, as long as I don't end up loosing story elements because of it. That's all basically.

[Googolplex]

Should [a monster] catch you, however, it's not simply game over, nor will you need to restart the level. Instead, the path you were taking through this mostly non-linear game will narrow, with certain previously accessible areas now closed off. However, it may also involve other areas that were previously inaccessible opening up, giving players incentive to replay the game, though the developers are still tweaking this feature to find the right balance.

Yeah, interesting. But this would mean other problems occur.
When the player knows that the game will not be over after he got catched by a monster, he will be interested to find out what happens next (which surprises the game reveal). And when there will be additional content to experience, the player always "wanted" to get catched. This would mean to be not afraid of the monsters.

You will not run for your life when you know you will not die. The problem is that you always have the feeling to miss something when you escape. And there must be a plausible reason why the monsters do not kill Simon.

I think it would be better when monsters react very different that you never know if you get killed or not. Some (if not the most) monsters should of course kill you! And then the game unfortunately has to be over. But it is important that there are even different reactions for the same type of monster, that the player is not able to figure out which monster will kill and which not.

Thomas' design ideas are great, but the problem of virtual death and its affect to the immersion never can be avoided completely.

[GrAVit]

Personally, I hate it when I die in a video game and, for example, get a bad ending because of that, or get a worse story overall. It's even worse if I die because of a glitch or silly mistake that shouldn't have happened.

If that were to happen, or if I were to make a worse choice or accidentally got an important character (to me) killed because of my actions, I always restart from the nearest checkpoint when things didn't go wrong yet. I always do that, and when playing the Mass Effect series, I often restarted the entire mission/level because of it, if I hadn't remembered to save.

Otherwise, if I can't go back and, for example, can't save a character anymore that I think is possible to save, I get depressed. It's kind of an odd reaction, I guess, but my mind gets filled with remorse.
"I should've done that, why didn't I do that? This was obviously the wrong choice, I'm so stupid.", my mind keeps telling me. Overcoming this emotion is really difficult for me, and I often have to keep playing quite a bit to forget it.

For example: (Spoiler for Mass Effect 2)

Spoiler below!

When Garrus, a trusty and close friend of yours way back from the first game of the trilogy, gets wounded by the gunship in Mass Effect 2, I automatically put the blame on myself. If only I had reacted to that quick-time event faster, I could've perhaps disabled the gunship, and Garrus wouldn't have those horrid scars on his face and a broken armor, which by the way he decides to wear for the rest of the game, so I can't even forget about it. I keep getting reminded of my error, and I feel terrible about it for the rest of the game.

However, after beating the game, I did some research, and found out that Garrus being wounded by the gunship is unavoidable. That made me realise that the responsibility was not on me, and really eased my mind after that.

However, if it's done well, and the experience won't suffer if you get caught, I'm ok with it. I just don't want to feel remorse and the urge to restart from the beginning of the level or something, just because of a tiny mistake in my gameplay, resulting in a worse story experience. I think it can be, if used properly, a great way to make players' choices count and immerse them better in the game's world, just don't make it too major.

[Googolplex]

I personally hate exclusive checkpoint saving, because in most games the checkpoints are extremely rare. In Call of Cthulhu or Silent Hill: Homecoming for example it was totally frustrating! I always prefer to have the possibiolity to save at any time. But the best and also most plausible method for the immersion is like it was in Penumbra, where you can save at the artifacts, but while the artifacts never got meant as a saving object in-game, instead the player doesn't really understand the sense of it. The saving was in the background without the palyer noticed that in-game. He only felt that some strange things happen when touching it. The same was in Silent Hill 2 with the red squares, but they were also too rare here.

[Nyarlathotep]

I think exclusive save points just do more bad than good. Even if they're placed reasonably. There's just always a chance you'll have to leave sooner than expected. Or want to save at specific moments so you can come back later, etc etc. I'm glad Frictional started using Save and Exit with Amnesia.

Even Silent Hill 2 and 3 on PC added a save anywhere function, and they are much better than the console counterparts for it. Much more convenient while not taking anything of substance away.

[Paddy™]

#SOMA, "Bait"