As for the Torchlight example (a game I haven’t played), first it does seem quite annoying and exceptionally bogus that it takes quite so much effort to both acquire and use the fish. I’ve seen plenty of fishing mini-games that were entertaining, at least partially, that just having you sit there is no excuse. You are definitely right that they could have handled that mechanic a great deal better. But at the same time, how much do you really lose from not participating? It sounds like the rest of the pets capabilities are working well and damn useful. I would understand more if these monster transformations were critical to combat or required to advance at certain points in the story, but if it’s just about extra awards for participation, i think that’s fair play.

” In many of these games the mini-game portions (for things like crafting, research, etc) are specifically in place as ways for the character to GAIN in game currency.”

I guess it all depends on what the game is about. If it is a Crafting Simulation where the goal is to craft things to make money, then I’m all for mini-games where you do just that.

If the game is an RPG where the goal is to explore new lands, fight evil monsters with a slew of powers and abilities, level up, and do it some more, then I don’t care what purpose the mini-games serve (ala “GAIN in game currency”), it just means the developers didn’t design a game that stuck to its core components and instead of balancing character progression, they threw in check-boxes like “crafting” to fill the gap.

I haven’t played Fable II so I’m not sure of the context. But an action-like RPG is no place for crafting mini-games. Sorry. If they can’t find a better way to incorporate those channels of income in a way that is conducive to the game’s already existing core components, they just don’t belong.

Now that I think of it – these mini games seem to only appear in RPG titles (someone correct me if I’m wrong). Fallout, Oblivion, Fable, Mass Effect, World of Warcraft, etc.

I understand how RPGs are often about the choices a player makes and having the freedom to do certain things in a semi-open world. But do these mini-games somehow help make a more believable world? Do they enhance gameplay? Are they somehow tricking some non-demographic person to buy their game because they heard this RPG has some compelling mini-games?

Take Torchlight for example. Its essentially a Diablo clone. Its a 3rd person isometric hack-n-slash. One of the advertised features of the game is the concept of a pet. Your pet fights for you, can collect loot for you, and can even run to town and sell unwanted loot for you. All of that sounds absolutely brilliant. It can be a pack mule that sells unwanted crap so you don’t have to waste time running back and forth to town to do it.

In addition, players can feed fish to their pet that temporarily transforms them into a monster of sorts (depending on the type of fish). The problem with this is: A) The interface for feeding fish (or healing them with potions) is dreadfully flawed and B) The only way to get fish is by playing a mini fishing game… which is essentially a waiting game that requires no skill other than waiting for something to happen and then clicking a button quickly enough after it does (in this case, waiting for a bobber to go under water).

This doesn’t add anything to the core of the gameplay (a hack-n-slash RPG). You can’t fish for rare loot or treasure chests. There aren’t any items that make fishing more fun or challenging or rewarding. There is no combat involved, no leveling system involved for fishing, there aren’t “rare” fishing holes that are found in side quests or in secret parts of the dungeon. Nothing. And, I hardly think there is someone out there that will pick up Torchlight JUST BECAUSE it has this mini-game.

They could accomplish all of the same game-related mechanics (transforming your pet into some temporary monster) using other mechanics that are conducive to the game type. For example: Why not allow your pet to feed on carcasses of monsters after fights (automatically of course), which fills up a transformation meter. And then, when you need a little extra power from your pet, have them transform, drain the meter, and then start over. Maybe the type of monster they turn into is dependent on the type of “collar” they are wearing and you can get rare, unique, artifact collars, etc.

It gets rid of the mini-game, adds another type of collectible item to a game essentially built on exploring, killing, and collecting loot. As it stands, I’d wager almost NO ONE sits around fishing in Torchlight and then actually uses the fish to help their pet. When you need it most (in combat), you have to open 2 inventories, manually click on something, and then drag it over to another inventory…. which will get you killed. Of course, you could hotbar the fish, but there are so many fish and so many skills, you’d have to give up important slots to do so.

So while I’m not completely disagreeing with you, I’m saying there are probably much better ways to accomplish the same things mini-games accomplish while still being true to your core gaming experience. I’m sure Mass Effect could still use the balancing mechanic of resources without having an awful planet-scanning mini-game.

I’ve never been a fan of mini-games… unless they somehow compliment or support the main game in a meaningful and intuitive way.

Let’s face it – crafting, running, hacking, etc are needless fluff in games. I sometimes think developers put these things into games just to extend the “play time” attribute on the box for the PR guys. I understand why some of these things exist in MMOs (the social aspect of trading for example) but why not automate the entire process?

For example:
If you want to craft, you have to invest to enter the business. Whenever you adventure and collect materials, these materials are automatically sent off to your fabrication plant, goods are automatically made, and then automatically made available on the auction house. Of course, you’d have to pay a price for each of these things to take place, pay for upgrades to your shop, manufacturing process, etc… but you don’t have to sit around and play meaningless mini-games to make goods.

People play certain games for certain experiences. If I wanted to play a word search, I’d do that instead of buying Fallout 3 to “hack” doors and computers. There are Puzzle games that excel at being puzzle games – I mean, that is why they were designed, developed, play-tested, and released. I don’t want Connect 4 in my Bioshock or World of Warcraft. They are separate games for separate experiences.

As a wannabe game developer, I think there are some very simple rules to stand by. If it isn’t fun, don’t include it. And, if you have something meaningful you want to include in your game, include it in a meaningful way.

Is the process of finding artifacts, technology, and materials a meaningful component of Mass Effect? If so, then include it in a meaningful way. If you can’t include it in a meaningful way or it isn’t fun, then maybe it isn’t as meaningful as you made it out to be. In short, it sounds like this stuff is a sort of currency in Mass Effect 2. They want to somehow limit the amount of technology and upgrades a player has access to. I get this but they can’t do it in a more meaningful and fun way?

Anyone out there agree with me on these points?

The rest of the game is great so far though.

For anyone thinking about getting this game, I recommend the PC version. There is a vault of character saves from the first Mass Effect which allow you to play the game using whichever decision tree you want.

http://www.masseffectsaves.com/

The scanning game is the worst part of ME2, but I can’t believe it’s actually worse than the ME1 system.

Adam Sessler has something to say about the annoying mining, and why it’s there.