(This is a very old post, but I think I have an interesting thing to say that hasn’t been said yet.)
In most games with skill trees, I think the skill tree is actually serving multiple ludic goals, and its design ought to be understood as a compromise between those goals. Some common goals include:
Give the player a feeling of increasing power (Eliezer seems focused on this)
Challenge the player with an optimization puzzle
Provide options for customization and self-expression, allowing the player to tailor the game’s aesthetics and play experience more to their personal taste
When phrased that way, it seems obvious to me that goals #2 and #3 require revealing some information to the player. A puzzle is not a puzzle if you can’t even see the pieces. You can’t usefully customize a system if the controls aren’t labeled. There’s no value in offering a choice between opaque boxes.
But if goal #1 were the only goal, then I think Eliezer is completely correct.
And in fact, I think game systems that are only trying to do #1 usually do keep the upgrades hidden until you get them—with perhaps some vague hints, such as legends of a hero who could do X, or obstacles that a future upgrade will solve. For example, Zelda and Metroid games typically work like this; you just open a treasure chest and get a new ability. Ori and the Blind Forest even does both; it has a skill tree visible from the start of the game, but also gives you surprise upgrades at various milestones (although a few of the surprises are undermined if you read the skill tree carefully).
Also note that these surprise upgrades don’t come with a choice; you just get what the game gives you. Because these particular game systems are focused just on goal #1, which doesn’t require choice.
(Though there is also a trope where a game will give you a brief preview of many future abilities at the start of the game, then take them away. I see this as a sort of “teaser”, like a movie trailer or book blurb, which helps players decide which game to play and how long to stick with it. I think it does probably make the game less fun...if you assume the player was going to play it all the way to the end regardless. But it helps the player decide whether to do that. So again, this is a compromise with another goal. I also avoid reading blurbs for books that I have already decided to read!)
I have gradually come to the opinion that Eliezer’s observation is pretty important, and is under-valued in current game design. I like optimization puzzles a lot, but when I spend a lot of time doing detailed planning of the abilities that I’m going to have in some far-future time, I think that does actually make them less exciting when I get them. I suspect many games could benefit from keeping more upgrades hidden (in a carefully-planned way that doesn’t screw up other sources of fun).
There’s a recent-ish trend of “roguelike” games where leveling up gives you a choice of upgrades, but the options are randomized each time you play. From a certain angle, I think this could be viewed as an attempt to create a new compromise between goals #1 and #2, where you can’t plan a whole build in advance because your future options are unknowable, and you don’t need to make your current choice based on your future plans because it’s not a tree; your current choice doesn’t change your future options (much), but you can still make (statistically) better and worse optimization choices. Though I don’t really think that’s the main thing going on in this style of progression system (I think it is primarily a cost-conscious effort increase replayability), and I can think of many examples that either aren’t trying to create that #1/#2 compromise or are (IMO) severely failing at it.
(This is a very old post, but I think I have an interesting thing to say that hasn’t been said yet.)
In most games with skill trees, I think the skill tree is actually serving multiple ludic goals, and its design ought to be understood as a compromise between those goals. Some common goals include:
Give the player a feeling of increasing power (Eliezer seems focused on this)
Challenge the player with an optimization puzzle
Provide options for customization and self-expression, allowing the player to tailor the game’s aesthetics and play experience more to their personal taste
When phrased that way, it seems obvious to me that goals #2 and #3 require revealing some information to the player. A puzzle is not a puzzle if you can’t even see the pieces. You can’t usefully customize a system if the controls aren’t labeled. There’s no value in offering a choice between opaque boxes.
But if goal #1 were the only goal, then I think Eliezer is completely correct.
And in fact, I think game systems that are only trying to do #1 usually do keep the upgrades hidden until you get them—with perhaps some vague hints, such as legends of a hero who could do X, or obstacles that a future upgrade will solve. For example, Zelda and Metroid games typically work like this; you just open a treasure chest and get a new ability. Ori and the Blind Forest even does both; it has a skill tree visible from the start of the game, but also gives you surprise upgrades at various milestones (although a few of the surprises are undermined if you read the skill tree carefully).
Also note that these surprise upgrades don’t come with a choice; you just get what the game gives you. Because these particular game systems are focused just on goal #1, which doesn’t require choice.
(Though there is also a trope where a game will give you a brief preview of many future abilities at the start of the game, then take them away. I see this as a sort of “teaser”, like a movie trailer or book blurb, which helps players decide which game to play and how long to stick with it. I think it does probably make the game less fun...if you assume the player was going to play it all the way to the end regardless. But it helps the player decide whether to do that. So again, this is a compromise with another goal. I also avoid reading blurbs for books that I have already decided to read!)
I have gradually come to the opinion that Eliezer’s observation is pretty important, and is under-valued in current game design. I like optimization puzzles a lot, but when I spend a lot of time doing detailed planning of the abilities that I’m going to have in some far-future time, I think that does actually make them less exciting when I get them. I suspect many games could benefit from keeping more upgrades hidden (in a carefully-planned way that doesn’t screw up other sources of fun).
There’s a recent-ish trend of “roguelike” games where leveling up gives you a choice of upgrades, but the options are randomized each time you play. From a certain angle, I think this could be viewed as an attempt to create a new compromise between goals #1 and #2, where you can’t plan a whole build in advance because your future options are unknowable, and you don’t need to make your current choice based on your future plans because it’s not a tree; your current choice doesn’t change your future options (much), but you can still make (statistically) better and worse optimization choices. Though I don’t really think that’s the main thing going on in this style of progression system (I think it is primarily a cost-conscious effort increase replayability), and I can think of many examples that either aren’t trying to create that #1/#2 compromise or are (IMO) severely failing at it.