Merging Story (Context) with optimal Gameplay?
At the moment, I'm working on some design for my spare time project I've been talking about earlier; Iskall.
The challenge I'm currently working on is to have the story, its events and the introduction of new gameplay elements to work together.
The game's overall story is set. There are a few scenarios in it, not dependent on being in a particular order to work. And all the themes for the levels are set. Right now, they're all listed in the order that makes most sense and creates the best narrative, experience and allows for some nice transitions between the levels. That is, if you only look at the story.
But here's the catch. Many of the events are directly intertwined with the introduction of new gameplay mechanics. For me, gameplay always comes first, but sometimes you have to compromise since a game is not only mechanics, it's an experience to be had by the player.
Let's draw a parallel to Super Mario Bros.. Nintendo could have introduced the Mushroom that turns Mario into Super Mario during the last levels, but it was better for the game to introduce it in the very first level. I can introduce some of Iskall's stuff very late, but it'll be better if it's early and vice versa.
True Story
And also, some events are directly tied to a specific level. Some events I can move freely between the levels, while some must be at specific theme.
Meaning, different story sections have different dependencies like theme, level and gameplay mechanic.
I have a chart showing in what order and when I want each new gameplay element to be introduced. Stuff like new enemies, new abilities, etc. But just cutting and pasting in the story to accomodate that chart doesn't result in a tight presentation context-wise. So what I'm doing right now is to find that balance.
I don't have a sure solution for this, and I don't know how it'll end since I'm not done yet. But the way I'm approaching it is to try and constantly look at the big picture and I'm trying to spread it out, so all the good stuff isn't too close together.
There will have to be some editing from both ends to make it feel just right.
Punish or Help the Weak?
I'm a bit busy now and during this weekend, so I'll use my old trick of doing a repost of a post I wrote for AboutGameDesign.com when the topic was:
Reward and Punishment
*******************************************************************
To get the really cool power ups in games, I usually have to be quite skilled to get them. If I'm skilled enough to get them, it's likely that I'm skilled enough to beat the game without them. If I'm not skilled enough to get them, it's likely that I'm not skilled enough to beat the game without them.
I want to discuss a common problem I see in games, to which I don't have a great solution; We often make the weak even weaker and the strong even stronger.
Shouldn't we encourage the weak to keep trying and give him some help? But then, if I get rewards for playing badly, why should I try to excel?
If I'm playing a game I'm good at, I feel that it's nothing short of damn right that I get to have the good stuff in the game. I've earned them. While playing Gradius and managing to keep level up my weapons, I'm on top of the world when I'm maxed up. But when I die, I lose my powers and the game gets a lot harder.
Now, in games like those Shoot 'em Ups it might be taken to the extreme, but the effect is most often there in games. If I'm a really good shot, I don't need as many bullets to kill my enemies, resulting in me having more bullets left to spend. If I'm a bad shot, I spend more bullets, making me have fewer left while I would need way more.
It's a natural way of things. Of course we want to create incentive for the player to play as well as he can and try and not to screw up. But some people just can't help themself from screwing up and what are we going to then? We could just say "Well, then you're not the right kind of person for this game." or we could give him a bigger gun and say "Okay, try again.".
I'm both pro and against the use of auto adjustment of the difficulty level. It's a great thing since, assuming it works, all players gets the "right" difficulty, but in a way, increased difficulty can be considered a punishment.
RPG's and other games where you can level up have a way of fixing this: Grinding. If you're beat, then just stay where you are in the game untill you're stronger and then continue. People complain about "grinding" but that's a topic on its own. Either way, it works.
But really, both the difficulty adjustments and the grinding aren't solutions for the problems with rewards and punishment, only whether or not the player can beat the game.
Some games, like Ninja Gaiden Sigma starts helping you out if you die too much (which I did...) where they basically say "Wow, you really suck. Do you want to admit your failure and play on the n00b-difficulty? We'll give you some health potions.", whereas I chose to accept.
So, in a way you get rewarded for not making it, but the reward isn't worth much. But at least it's something positive.
I'm not a fan of punishing the player as long as he's trying to play the game (cheaters, etc. deserve it). I think it's better to "not reward"
As I said, I don't have a great solution, but I think it's important to look at the situation and think long and hard about it. If the game is already hard enough, it shouldn't get even harder if you're a bad player.
Highscore Hurts
I guess I'd have a roll of 15 in Strength or something in D&D and the Default Body in a character maker tool.
Not extraordinary in any way regarding my pshysique and I rarely (read: never) work out. If I did, how would I get the time to blog?
But the thing is, there's this iPhone App; "100 Pushups" that's an application you run every second day and it tells you how many push-ups to do (at least) for you to be able to 100 of them within six weeks. (There's also another version that's "200 Situps".)
Basically, it does:
- Keeps track of the day and week for you
- Adjusts the program to suit you level after each exhaustion tests
- Has a rest timer so you don’t need to remember the time between sets
- Allows you to do follow the six-week plan wherever you are and without the need to be near a computer
The brilliant thing here is, it works! Well, I don't know if I'll be able to do 100 when it's all over, but it actually makes me wanna try and keep on doing it because of one simple thing:
The graphs.
It shows me how many I've been able to do each time and if I do well, it increases ever so slowly. It's a highscore table, damn it!
They've created a real world meta game for me to play. I want to really push it to be able to get the real high scores.
There's just one tiny problem. I haven't been able to try it more than once, because after my first day I got muscle inflammation because of over exertion. FAIL! And now I have to wait for it to go away before I can continue.
Let's just say that less than 100 was too much for my superior nerd-body.
So really, all we (I?) need to change my way of doing things is a highscore table? Looks like it.
This case is really a lot like what Carnegie Mellon University Professor, Jesse Schell talks about at DICE at one point. How "games" are reaching into the real world.
http://g4tv.com/videos/44277/DICE-2010-Design-Outside-the-Box-Presentation (26/2/2010)
It's a great vid and I highly recommend it. He talks about several interesting things, some of which I'll discuss later here on my site as well. But in it, he talks about how Fords 's new hybrid cars have a field with leaves in the dashboard. Depending on how environmental friendly you drive, the leaves increase, increasing your "highscore".
It's absolutely fantastic! A simple display with some vegetation on it change how people drive!
Problem is... I wouldn't be looking at the speed, I would look at my highscore.
Pwetty! ^_^
It, in turn is just like "The Fun Theory", where they make people take the stairs instead of escalator and throw things in the trash instead of on the ground, by making it fun. It was initiated by Volkswagen.
Amazing power is to be had if making things fun.
Tweaking of Exposed Variables?
Something that's been on my mind lately is the extra attention to the numbers when tweaking exposed variables. As in, values shown to the player.
Sometimes the "perfect" value when tweaking... Let's say the jump strength in a platformer is 4.56697. That's the value that makes the game feel just right, and if it's "hidden" as most variables are, then it's just fine.
But sometimes, in some games certain variables are shown to the player. Like the power of spells in a Role Playing Game or maybe the duration of a boost-skill?
Take Mass Effect 2 for example. In it you, the player, can read about the duration of skills for each level, the exact range and radius, the damage it does and even the percentage of another variable (weapon damage).
Right; 1.5 sec, 60%, 3.0 sec and 3 meters. Enough info for you, or do you need a chart?
When doing things like this, what I'm wondering about is how far should you go to make the variable values "pretty". How much of a compromise? Now, in many cases I'm sure we're only talking about rounding it to the closest decimal, but sometimes I think this can be a bother and something that's a pain for the designer.
The perfect duration for fantastic gameplay might be 57 seconds, but that's in no way as pretty as 60. But maybe 60 in reality is too much? Not worth arguing about some might say, but at the same time, isn't the micro tweaking what really makes a game great?
Also, when exposing the variables, you have to keep them simple enough for that particular audience to grasp. In Dungeon & Dragon-games for example, there's a lot more statistics than . can find in Mass Effect, and that's not a problem for the normal D&D-audience, because they're used to it and might in fact like it. Meanwhile, it scares me and I much more appreciate the Mass Effect 2 approach with "medium amount" of info.
But heck, you always have to cater to the specific audience regarding all subjects and not only numbers, I guess.
This post was finished at 22:54, but it might be wiser of me to say 23:00. Sounds better, don't ya think?
Uncanny Valley of Game Design?
When talking about uncanny valley in video games we usually refer to animations or 3D models being so close to reality that even the slightest difference makes us feel that something is "wrong".
But nowadays, isn't there an uncanny valley in gameplay?
The big studios spend a lot of resources on the writing, characters, dialogue, setting and environment, creating a very believable game world. And then when we encounter a very "video game:y" solution, like a very conveniently placed platform, lever or trigger we're smacked in the face.
It does at least ruin the experience somewhat for me. Overall I'm very good at accepting the premise in both movies and games, but I do often think "How convenient..." in games like Assassin's Creed and other realistic games. But I never think like that when I play Mario, because there it all makes perfect sense within the game world.
Reach the roof. Just climb the conveniently placed scaffold and jump to the conveniently placed sinks to finally reach the roof, on which you'll find a very conveniently positioned hang glider.
I think that when working with a believable setting, you have to think long and hard about the context for in which the gameplay takes place.
Yes, make design recommendations
I recently got a link from a friend:
http://johnnyholland.org/2010/01/06/my-recommendation-stop-making-design-recommendations/ (6/2/2010)
It basically says that one shouldn't make design recommendations, because it's likely that the product will turn out worse and/or they'll lose faith in you. Now, I think his arguments are sane and understand how he means, but I disagree. He says:
Making recommendations is an easy out. You say, “Do this. Change that.” then wipe your hands clean of it. If they don’t do it, they’re obviously idiots. If they do, you’re brilliant. The best case scenario is they follow your great recommendation and it improves the design. But it turns out, that only one out of four possible outcomes.
- Jared Spool (6/1/2010)
And then he shows this table:
Risky situation.
Now, his point is that there's only one result that's good for you, one neutral and two bad. Hence, you shouldn't make recommendations.
I disagree, because I think that's a cowardly way to act.
The way I see it is that there's a 50/50 chance that the design will turn out better, so there's nothing to stop you there. And hopefully, you actually think you're recommendation is good and it will turn out as in the green box. And since the only way to achieve the "good ending" is to actually come with a recommendation (assuming you have one you believe in), I think you should do it. Risk vs. reward.
But then again, you have to believe in your idea and that's what he discuss in the "Bet your salary"-section, but I think he's a bit to careful.
No pain, no gain?
Listening to Feedback
Just a quick post.
I'm currently playing Assassin's Creed 2 after having played through the first one a couple of days ago. The first one was a decent game while the second one so far has been superb.
But the thing I wanted to comment on is how well the developers have listened to the feedback from the players. If you want to know what's better in #2 you can read a review, but there's one thing I'll mention.
In Assassin's Creed, you use the X-button (PS3) to "Blend", which is to walk even slower than normal walking to blend in amongst people and raise less suspicion. I found this boring as hell, as normal walking was slow enough and I don't really want to pretend to be a snail-assassin.
In Assassin's Creed 2, you use the X-button to "Fast Walk" which is to keep all the perks from walking, but doing a little bit faster and being able to pick pocket while doing it.
Voila! They did a complete 180 and did the exact opposite which made the game a whole lot more fun. Thank you for listening!
He always takes his job with him at home. Get it!?
Other games, like Deus Ex didn't have that luxury. The first game is excellent, being one of my all time favorite games while I don't like the second one very much at all. The developers themselves even admitted, although much later, that they kind of screwed up there because they listened too much on what people didn't like with the first one to fix that, but they missed on listening to what we DID like with the first one. One of the designers tells you this in Warren Spector's Master Class of game design. I don't have a link for it at hand right now, but I'll be sure to get it and post a link sometimes. It's G R E A T!
Feedback when killing
I've been lucky enough to have a couple of posts from AboutGameDesign.com to repost here so I could continue with some intense gaming, but I'm all out now, so I guess I'll have to actually write one this time.
There's been some FPS:ing going on for me with MAG and Killzone 2 so I thought I'd dedicate this post to the importance of feedback when killing stuff.
I can't stress it enough, how extremely importance feedback is in a game. Any game, feedback for everything!
In games, such as shooters, where there's lots of stuff going on and several enemies at once, it's important to know two things (well, a whole bunch of things, but I'll focus on two):
- Am I hitting my target?
- Is it dead yet?
Some games fail on giving me, the player adequate information on this topic, but let's talk about the ones that don't.
Am I hitting my target?
Since MAG (Open Beta) and Killzone 2 (friggin' awesome!) are two of the most recent played games, I'll talk about them.
In MAG, if you hit an enemy when firing, your cross-hair change form into something bigger and goes red. Since the cross-hair is the point of the screen where you'll be spending most of your time and concentration, it works great. But I've noticed one very interesting thing when using a Sniper Rifle.
If you're far away from an enemy and you're using you're scope to zoom in. If you then manage to hit your enemy, not only does the cross-hair change but you'll also hear a fleshy impact sound. The funny thing is that even if you're a mile away, you'll still hear the sound like if it was just and arm reach away. Strange? Perhaps. But it actually works! It doesn't throw me off game with a big WTF; instead I get a clear audible cue that I hit my target!
MAG (Massive Action Game, I'm not making it up.)
In Killzone 2, you get a red cross hair once your aim is on a living (or activated, if it's a machine) enemy but it doesn't change whether you hit or not. The spread of the bullets can cause you to miss. However, Killzone 2 is so insanely driven with the help of it's animations and effects, so while no extra HUD-help is there you'll still know when you hit thanks to the blood/sparks and the impact animation played by the enemy.
So while MAG has more of a HUD-based system, much because it's online so you can't start having players to cripple once hit, Killzone 2 has a more in-game approach. They both work fine and one should see to the needs, tools and possibilities when deciding what to implement. But there MUST be some kind of feedback.
Is it dead yet?
The reason why it's important to know when something is dead is pretty obvious, I want to know when I can start shooting something else!
Once again, I'll start of with MAG. When you kill someone in MAG, you get experience points, so that's pretty much the easiest way to know. When the text "5 XP" pops up over the enemy's head; he's dead. Simple as that.
Let's mix things up a bit and discuss some more games. In Uncharted 2 (online at least, I haven't played single player yet) what happens when you kill someone is that you get a really distinct sound effect that goes like "Ding!" that really stands out. The only bad thing with this is that you have to learn what the sound means, as "Ding!" doesn't come naturally as "You killed that mother f*cker!", but once you get that, it's smooth sailing!
Killzone 2 doesn't give any "extra" information as to when someone is dead, so what I did was to keep looking at the cross-hair. Since it turns red when I'm aiming at someone, it goes back to white once he's dead. I guess it's feedback in its own way, but not very explicit.
The problem is that sometimes enemies can take a while to fall to the ground because of long "Oh, I'm dying, the pain, oh, the pain..."-animations before.
Another game where I found that to be an extremely big problem is in the recently released Alien Breed to XBLA. You're meeting these huge Zerg-like creatures, several at a time and once they're dead they take forever to stop moving, so I can never distinguish the live ones from the ones already dead. One could argue that's part of the design but personally, I just find it frustrating!
Alien Breed. I hope you know it's originally a retro classic.
So there you have it. A few thoughts on feedback when shooting stuff.
Okay, I've done my deed. It's time to got back to Assassin's Creed 2 now!
Less is more – iPhone games
I haven't been home where my PS3 and 360 is for over a week now, so I've had to make due with my DS and the iPhone, so I thought I'd write a short post about what I consider to be some of the great iPhone games I've been playing and what they make right. I've chosen only to include games that have one thing in common; less is more. And just to make clear, this isn't a list of the best games ever for the iPhone.
Doodle Jump
Doodle Jump is a success both in sales and when it comes to reviews. You control it by simply tilting the device left and right and you can fire at enemies by touching the screen where you want to shoot. It's very simple and even people that can barely be called "casual gamers" can master is. A session takes anywhere from couple to 10 minutes, depending on how well you play. My longest game was about 6 minutes.
Addictive to say the least
Rat On a Scooter XL
Yeah, that's what it's called. You're a rat on a scooter out to score by grinding and getting cheese. The entire game is played by touching anywhere on the screen to jump. The strength varies depending on for how long you press it. A game takes a couple of minutes. It's one of many brilliant extremly simple games from Donut Games.
My current highscore in the standard mode is 142.
Hook Champ
One of my favorite games I've ever played on the iPhone. You're a little dude swinging through levels with a grappling hook. You just touch where you want the hook to latch on and a level takes a couple of minutes to complete.
He's a swinger
Dance Dance Revolution S
DDR for the iPhone is just like the DDR-games for consoles and a dance pad but you touch pads on the screen instead. Arrows fly across the screen and you gotta get the timing down for hitting the right direction out of four. "Easy to learn, difficult to master." One song takes a few minutes to finish.
Dance my puppets, dance!
Dark Nebula
It's a puzzle/action game if you can call it that in which you control a ball by simply tilting the device. The controls are extremly good and very exact and the level design is very interesting. Outbreak Studios is developing the sequel. A few days ago I had my girlfriend, her sister and the sister's fiance try out the game, and all of a sudden they were all playing it at the same time, loving it. One level takes a few minutes to finish.
On several top lists on the web
Now, there are many more games I like but these are a few of them. As you probably noticed, two things are shared among all of them.
They're extremly easy to control and more importantly the game is over after a few minutes, which result in people having an easy time to play just "once more" a million more times.
I like games like Rolando and Asphalt too, but I rarely play them because they feel like they "require" me to invest more time and effort into them. I can play a song in DDR any time. Yesterday when I was out with my girlfriend and she started trying out clothes in a store, I played some Doodle Jump and Rat On a Scooter. 'nough Said.
I think many developers get that part wrong.
I’ve designed for
 |
 |
 |
Follow me online
Tweets
- http://arcadeberg.com/causerie/merging-story-context-with-optimal-gameplay/
- RT @fohx: It's official: Steam and Source for the Mac! http://www.valvesoftware.com/news.php?id=3568
- Time to try out Office 2010.
- Today SONY announced that they have purchased Media Molecule, creators of LittleBigPlanet, making them a wholly owned part of SONY.
- Quick update: Added a list of all posts. http://arcadeberg.com/all-posts/ Weird that Wordpress doesn't have a nice one available at default.
Posts
Fresh out of the oven
- Sporadic Play
- Merging Story (Context) with optimal Gameplay?
- Unexpected Downtime
- Punish or Help the Weak?
- Synthetic Happiness
- What am I doing?
- Highscore Hurts
- Tweaking of Exposed Variables?
- Zoho?
- Uncanny Valley of Game Design?
- What is a game designer?
- Me in German!
- Yes, make design recommendations
- He’s THE Shepard
- Global Game Jam Game
Categories
- Causerie (122)
- Game specific (30)
- Misc. (45)
- projects (27)
- web (25)
Latest comments
- Sean on What am I doing?
- Wowbagger on What is a game designer?
- Zoho? « Learning Game Design on Organize my designs
- Zoho? « Learning Game Design on TextFlow
- CrEEp3r on Me in German!
Tags
Archives
- March 2010 (5)
- February 2010 (10)
- January 2010 (11)
- December 2009 (10)
- November 2009 (12)
- October 2009 (15)
- September 2009 (16)
- August 2009 (12)
- July 2009 (14)
- June 2009 (16)
- May 2009 (10)
- April 2009 (16)
- March 2009 (13)
- February 2009 (3)
- January 2009 (11)
- December 2008 (19)
- November 2008 (14)
- October 2008 (8)