Learning Game Design with Arcade Berg

1. 

   Jesper
   July 13th, 2009 - 16:08

   This is a fantastic concept, though it is thematically similar to “graveyard” it sure has a lot going for it. Make us a platformer demo would you?
2. 

   Trezker
   July 14th, 2009 - 08:03

   Awesome idea! I’m adding this to the Speedhack rule-o-matic.
   http://www.speedhack.allegro.cc/
3. 

   gutek
   July 15th, 2009 - 10:56

   i don’t find the concept very appealing from a game design perspective as it is a simple inversion and doesn’t expand the game designer’s toolset by any means.
   although, psychologically speaking, it is a very interesting concept – fooling around with player expectations is something i enjoy. still i am not sure if constantly getting weaker might not result in a negative feedback loop, which eventually will be a turn off for many players.

   thinking about it now, i realize that this approach may undermine the challenge. as soon as you simply stick to easier enemies that will be thrown at the player, over time you will gradually minimize challange. a possible way around this may be to introduce new mechanics every time you get weaker – so the challange will be twitch / input based.
4. 

   Arcade
   July 15th, 2009 - 11:06

   @gutek

   I don’t think the challenge will be minimized. I mean that you should still keep the first (strongest) enemy and since you’re getting weaker it’ll get “stronger”; increasing the challenge to beat it over time.
5. 

   gutek
   July 15th, 2009 - 12:31

   alright. that sounds good. when you need any help in making that game, let me know.
6. 

   Arcade
   July 15th, 2009 - 14:06

   @gutek
   I’m _always_ interested in extra curricular.
7. 

   Joshua Lindberg
   July 18th, 2009 - 10:22

   The player should neither grow weaker nor stronger nor should the AI grow in numbers or be reduced, the AI should become more intelligent in applying tactics to defeat the enemy.

   I think that it should be the human mind versus the AI, not the human mind versus the game environment.
8. 

   Arcade
   July 18th, 2009 - 11:44

   @Joshua Lindberg
   I agree with you that your suggestion would probably make for a interesting and effective difficulty curve. It is however not used in many games as far as I know. When it it used, it’s most often used alongside with the classic “more and stronger”-design.

   It could also be risky, because I’m not sure the player would feel enough of the change. In difficulty, they probably would, but the more and stronger-design also change the setting a lot, something players can assosciate with progress.

   Anyway, I agree with working a lot with the AI is an incredibly powerful tool for the topic.

   Thank you for you input.
9. 

   Joshua Lindberg
   July 18th, 2009 - 12:01

   I’m thinking a chess like combat system where every fight is like a game of chess. But yes, that would make the very first fight feel exactly the same like the last fight and that most likely doesn’t sell!

   That didn’t quite answer your question though did it?

   ‘So here’s my question. What would the effect be if the player would get continuously weaker and new weaker enemies are introduced over time instead?’

   Maybe you should further elaborate on your idea? Would there ever be an end to a game like this? Most games are about overcoming something. How can you overcome an enemy when you grow stronger and he grows weaker?

   It’d have to be a pretty abstract game for it to work but would it be fun and would it sell?

   In your Terminator salvation topic you speak of rewards. What kind of reward would it be when you advance and you suddenly find yourself incapable of doing what you did before?

   Could you name a game where your idea has been applied to some extent?
10. 

    Arcade
    July 18th, 2009 - 12:22

    @Joshua Lindberg
    “Would there ever be an end to a game like this?”
    - I think that’s irrelevant, but it could very well be. So let’s say there is.

    “How can you overcome an enemy when you grow stronger and he grows weaker?”
    I don’t quite understand what you mean. My point is that you should grow weaker, not stronger.

    “It’d have to be a pretty abstract game for it to work but would it be fun and would it sell?”
    It’d be easier to do something abstract with it, but I don’t think it would be very difficult to make it very tangible. Let’s asume you’re an old man, walking down the street beating up thugs as you pass by them. The man grows older over time.

    Wether it would sell or not, I have no idea. I’d say that’d depend on the execution of the development.

    “What kind of reward would it be when you advance and you suddenly find yourself incapable of doing what you did before?”
    That’s an interesting question actually. But I think there’re still rewards to be found. When riding a bike for example. As a baby, you use those extra wheels by the side to keep the bike from falling, but later on you remove them and ride it using only two wheels and at that moment, it feels amazing! You’re doing the same thing, but with less.

    And I don’t necessarly think that you’d need to lose any of your “skills” in the game. “Damn it, I can’t kick anymore”. It could just as well be variables like strength and speed that decrease.

    “Could you name a game where your idea has been applied to some extent?”
    Can’t think of any.

    Maybe (if you really stretch it) Super Mario World if you consider the big version (Super Mario) to be the normal one. He can spin jump and land on spikes, whereas small Mario can’t. But I don’t think that’s an accurate example at all to be honest. So my answer is no.
11. 

    Joshua Lindberg
    July 18th, 2009 - 12:59

    ““How can you overcome an enemy when you grow stronger and he grows weaker?”
    I don’t quite understand what you mean. My point is that you should grow weaker, not stronger.”

    Sorry, I meant it the other way around: You grow weaker, enemy grows stronger! I guess you could wrap it up at some point but if the whole game is about growing weaker, how can there be a ‘happy’ ending?

    “That’s an interesting question actually. But I think there’re still rewards to be found. When riding a bike for example. As a baby, you use those extra wheels by the side to keep the bike from falling, but later on you remove them and ride it using only two wheels and at that moment, it feels amazing! You’re doing the same thing, but with less.”

    But wouldn’t this kind of be like going back from the awesome Harley to the extra wheels except that the bullies that used to pull them off have grown in size?

    In ‘normal’ games the difficulty would raise and you’d be given new tools to help you out. With your idea, you want the player to keep the same tools but reduce their effectiveness in order to continue making the game more difficult.

    ‘And I don’t necessarly think that you’d need to lose any of your “skills” in the game. “Damn it, I can’t kick anymore”. It could just as well be variables like strength and speed that decrease.’

    To me this would bring up the feeling that the game isn’t becoming more difficult, the developers are handicapping me because they’re not putting enough time in creating an AI that can defeat me. It’s the exact opposite of what games do nowadays (Give you lots of skills and tools to help defeat tougher enemies) but it still has the same outcome. You’re overpowered by sheer numbers and developer-imposed handicaps and not tactical prowess implemented by the AI…

    The initial idea of how a game should handle difficulty, to me , sounds wrong like I outlined in my first post.

    While typing this I realize that growing weaker is actually more of a simulator thing where you willingly lose just because you want to partake in the battle regardless of your crew being unskilled, undermanned and outgunned. Guts and glory, not high score.
12. 

    Arcade
    July 18th, 2009 - 13:23

    @Joshua Lindberg
    “I guess you could wrap it up at some point but if the whole game is about growing weaker, how can there be a ‘happy’ ending?”
    Let’s say this old man is out for rescuing his daughter. At the end of the game he manages to save her. While he, himself is beaten badly and his plastic hip is broken, his daughter is unharmed and safe. There’s a happy ending.

    “But wouldn’t this kind of be like going back from the awesome Harley to the extra wheels except that the bullies that used to pull them off have grown in size?”
    We’re looking at it differently. I see your point but what if you at first defeat the bullies with a tank and later on you only need your left pinky finger?

    “The initial idea of how a game should handle difficulty, to me , sounds wrong like I outlined in my first post.”
    Well, as mentioned I’m not writing about how I think games should handle difficulty. I’m mearly presenting a concept of which I haven’t seen a game use and I would be interested in seeing the results.

    You yourself is sceptical and perhaps you’re absolutely right. It might be down right crap, but I’m still interested in seeing the result.
13. 

    Joshua Lindberg
    July 18th, 2009 - 14:28

    ‘We’re looking at it differently. I see your point but what if you at first defeat the bullies with a tank and later on you only need your left pinky finger?’

    That is indeed a problem. I recall Fallout 3 where, once you reach the highest level (20, I believe?) there’s no challenge to it at all.

    I think having the player grow weaker comes with the inherent problem of the player feeling punished for advancing into the game. Although there are games where you become ‘afflicted’ with an illness or the like and have to fight with a handicap of some kind, you usually get on top of it again. It doesn’t feel like no matter what you do, you will end up being less powerful than you were before.

    I think the example of AI adapting to a player’s tactics (The armour example in the other topic) is the best way to make the player ‘weaker’ without taking away the abilities that he has and without making the player feel punished. (Other than for using the same strategy over and over)

    Anyhow, were you planning on creating a (simple) game that involved this game mechanic? Perhaps it would be best at place in a side-scroller fighting game using exactly the story you described above. (Ever played Streets of Rage?)
14. 

    Arcade
    July 18th, 2009 - 15:30

    @Joshua Lindberg
    “Anyhow, were you planning on creating a (simple) game that involved this game mechanic? Perhaps it would be best at place in a side-scroller fighting game using exactly the story you described above.”
    That wasn’t the plan, but I would love to. However, I don’t see myself having the time at the moment.

    But I was also thinking that something in the likes of a beat ‘em up would be suitable.

    “(Ever played Streets of Rage?)”
    Of course. All of them. When mentioning walking down the street I was thinking about Final Fight, though.

Leave a comment