Stop Porting

In a great game design, something magical happens when the player executes an action. The resultant effect on screen does not seem like an afterthought. It feels fluid, natural, cool - it provides that feeling of control that can be found in no other medium.

This entire process requires a lot of conscious thought to "get it right." It's up to the designers to decide how the user interfaces with the game to create this sense of control. In order to successfully accomplish this, specific hardware has to be targeted by the design.

Think about something seemingly simple like shooting a bullet in Halo. You pull down on that trigger, and it feels great. That motion on some of the other controllers of the time like the PS2 controller would be a simple button press. Not nearly as satisfying, and when it is one of the main game mechanics, it can really change the feel of the game.

Let's look at two popular touch-screen interfaces. One is the Nintendo DS, the other is an iPhone. At first glance you'd think almost any simple touch-based game could be built on both easily. But after playing around with each it's clear that many game designs simply don't work well on both. A game like Meteos on the DS is extremely fun, but if/when it's ported to the iPhone, I guarantee it will be a frustrating experience. The iPhone screen was built for big, clunky human fingers. Not tiny precise plastic styluses (styli?). Meteos hinges on having this precise control, and should never be subjected to anything less.

These subtle differences in hardware matter, and mainstream game designers need to stop pretending that they don't. Please, stop the porting!

Here are the questions:

-What was the last ported game you played that just felt absolutely great to play?

-What are some more examples of subtle differences in hardware that are underestimated?

Asteroids or Mini-map?

Mini-maps suck! If you are a game designer and you bust out the mini-map for your game, you better have a really good reason for it. I would wager 90% of the time the reason is:

"This level is too big."

...! Seriously? Have you heard the Seinfeld bit about the bike helmet? He said man invented an activity that could crack the skull. So instead of discontinuing the activity, he invented the bike helmet.

Mini-maps are an invention by game designers so gamers don't get frustrated (and crack their skulls).

If the designer thinks the player needs a mini-map, they are probably right. In these scenarios I find myself spending more time focused on the mini-map instead of enjoying the actual game. This sucks! I might as well be playing Asteroids looking at that little thing.

When I think back on the best gaming experiences of my life, nothing was ever too big to where I needed a constant visual aid to orient myself. The key as with anything is balance. If the level is too big, or there aren't enough landmarks, you would be better served by editing your level design instead of throwing in the mini-map.

I'll give these guys a tiny bit of credit though. At least they recognize their level design is too big for a normal person to enjoy. What about the people that don't!? Banjo-Tooie, I'm looking at you.

Don't use mini-maps, make better level designs.

Here are the questions:
-Do mini-maps annoy you?
-What is the best and worst use of a mini-map you've seen in a game?

Crossfire, You'll Get Caught Up In The (Part II)

(Click here to check out Part I)

There are three basic categories of multiplayer:

Competitive - playing against each other

Cooperative - playing with each other, common goals

Cohabitive - playing with each other, non-common goals

Personally I don't feel there has been a whole lot of freshness in competitive multiplayer. We are still dealing with classic one-on-one fighting games, free-for-all FPS games and free-for-all racing games. They can be fun, and the ubiquity of online has given a nice jolt to this format, but the other two areas are much more interesting.

We are beginning to see a lot of great uses of cooperative multiplayer, with more and more games being built around that concept (e.g. Resident Evil 5). This is a very welcome change, and most gamers agree. There is just something about working with another person to achieve a goal that makes it that much more satisfying.

That being said I think co-op games have a long ways to go. The co-op games we see are typically watered down. The designers put certain aspects of the games on dials, and they are just cranked up as more people are added to the game. Too Human adds more enemies to a level as more people join the game. Many games don't go any further than that.

What was the last game you played where you accomplished tasks that truly required multiple people to play the game? I'm not sure I've EVER played something like that.

Now let's discuss cohabitive games. There aren't many of these out there... yet. Essentially I see this form of multiplayer catering mainly to the emerging "casual" game market. Animal Crossing was probably one of the earliest forms of this genre. Although multiple people wouldn't be playing at the same time, they would inhabit the same virtual space, and would go about their own tasks, interacting with others in the town at their leisure. A more sophisticated form of this would be something like Sony's Home and Second Life.

I think multiplayer is an extremely valuable tool in the game designer's arsenal, as long as it is used wisely. Technology has enabled our definition of multiplayer to expand beyond head to head competition, and we've barely scratched the surface of cooperative and cohabitive games.

Here are the questions:

-Have you ever played a cooperative game that truly required multiple players to accomplish a task?

-How could elements of cohabitive design be applied to more "hardcore" types of games?

Crossfire, You'll Get Caught Up In The (Part I)

(Thanks to Clayton for requesting a post on multiplayer, I'd love to know what else you guys want to talk about!)

Multiplayer in games is just about as old as games themselves. Yet it's often used incorrectly, just because "the other guys" are doing it.

Multiplayer can drag a game down, and worse can take valuable resources off of what makes a game great in the first place. Every element of a game should be there for a valid reason, and each element should give the other elements of the game their proper respect.

When you think about the truly great multiplayer experiences, it's clear the game was built around the idea of having multiplayer, and the multiplayer is designed around the rest of the game elements. It's a hand-in-hand relationship. That's when it works. That's when it's fun.

Great uses of multiplayer:

Rock Band

The Adventures of Cookie & Cream

Left 4 Dead

Bad uses of multiplayer:

Metroid Prime 2 (you should play it just to see how bad it actually is)

Brute Force

Gran Turismo

Here are the questions:

-What's the best and worst use of multiplayer you've seen in a game?

-Do you find multiplayer more often enriches your experience or more often detracts from your experience with a game.

In Part II we'll discuss some different forms of multiplayer: competitive, co-operative and co-habitive. Stay tuned!

Backsteppin'

Now that we have dug in a little bit I'd like to explore the nature of what we are doing here. Let's ask the most obvious question: What is game design?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_design

"Game design is the process of designing the content and rules of a game."

Not too bad, but not quite there. Let's let Wikipedia take a mulligan: "Video game design requires the co-ordination of game mechanics, visual arts, programming, production process, audio and narrative."

(These are some hefty tasks, and each one could be broken down into many more elements. The point to make here is that game design is almost always a team/collaborative effort. The notion of a single person called "game designer" is largely unfounded.)

Ok that's a little closer. Still not quite a definition. Each of these game design areas have their own design practices surrounding them. They are all accomplished within the context of designing a game, and I believe that makes everybody involved from top-to-bottom a game designer.

"Video game design is the process of designing and coordinating game mechanics, visual arts, programming, the production process, audio and narrative."

A little lengthy but I like it! This definition is a work in progress and I would love your feedback. It gives us a good footing to discuss what great game design is, as well as all the elements that make it up.

Here's the questions:

-Do you agree or disagree with the definition of game design stated here? How would you modify it?

-Do you find yourself favoring particular components of game design over others? What aspect attracts you the most as a gamer and why?

Design's Archenemy

If there's one thing that can kill a game's design, it's genre. If someone sets out to make an RPG with fighting elements, guess what they are going to end up with? An RPG with fighting elements.

Fun games can certainly be made with this approach. It happens a lot. This is the model preferred by frugal publishers. It's cheaper, less risky, and can still end with a decent profit.

Great games though are never made this way. They start with the design, the genre will inevitably come after the game is finished.

-Shadow of the Colossus (Action/Adventure)
-Rez (Shooter-on-rails)
-Meteos (Puzzle)
-Gran Turismo (Racing)
-Metroid Prime (???)


Rez is hardly just a shooter-on-rails. People still squabble over exactly what Metroid Prime is. At the end of the day though it doesn't matter because they completely nailed a fun and interesting design.

Here's the question:
-What are some more examples of great games that disregard genre?

Stat Tracking

Stat tracking is an amazing game design element, and is also way undervalued.

The most effective use of stat tracking so far is in Super Smash Bros. Melee. It tracks absolutely EVERYTHING. It went way beyond wins and losses and dives into areas such as:

-How far (distance in miles) you have jumped/fallen

-Cumulative home run distance

-Amount of times you've powered on the game

These are interesting on their own, but what makes stat tracking fun is when value is added to the stat, most commonly through an unlockable. This encourages the player to move beyond the main game mechanic and explore what else they can do with the game.

Microsoft introduced the concept of achievements with XBox 360. These are a lot of fun and can really add replay value to a game, but they rarely foster the player's creativity and curiosity. Instead they are often relegated to tracking the linear progress of the player through the game.

Having a universal measurement of what the player has accomplished is a great thing. Challenging the player's concept of what they can do with the game is also a great thing. I'd love to see games combine these two elements more than they do.

Here's the questions:

-What's your favorite use of stat tracking in a game?

-Do achievements add enough value on their own or could they do more?

Return On Investment

What makes a video game addicting? There are different types of addiction, and many games combine multiple forms. Some games are simply "page turners" where you just have to know what happens next. Others are repetitive but still manage to draw the player back for more. I believe the strongest type of addiction is one that speaks directly to human nature: practice makes perfect.

Nowhere is this more apparent than in the simple levelling-up grind of RPGs. The model is a very simple ROI (return on investment). The generic formula: fighting in a few battles, becoming stronger, learning new attacks, making more money. Similar patterns can be seen in saving for retirement, training for a marathon, practicing an instrument and even gambling.

These are all things that tend to be addicting, especially when there are early or quick wins (hitting a jackpot on the first pull). The beauty of the RPG level-grind is it takes the concept, and adds a guarantee (something the others don't) that you will get a positive return on your investment.

The attraction of this system is something the human condition can't deny.

The Last Remnant & Missables

The Last Remnant obtained extremely mixed reviews, mostly for its graphical problems. Those complaints aside, I have been playing it for a while now and I think it's actually a lot of fun!

BUT...

There's one big gaping hole of a problem with it (and many other games) that not a lot of people have addressed: missables.

A missable is something that is no longer obtainable past a certain point in a game. In The Last Remnant's case there are several pre-requisites on Disc 1 to unlocking side quests on Disc 2. Many of these snowball to where you have to go through an entire chain of missables to get something.

I think missables are a terrible concept. I am playing through this game with a full strategy guide sprawled out on the floor and several tabs in my browser pointed to specific forum posts, gamefaqs etc. just to make sure I can enjoy the full content that I paid for. In no other medium or consumer good would the manufacturer be able to get away with this. Why do game makers get away with it?

Nintendo is working on a system that aims at the exact opposite end of the spectrum. A system to ensure that you can access all of the content you have purchased - http://kotaku.com/5276446/shigeru-miyamoto-spills-beans-on-kind-code-almost

While I applaud Nintendo's approach, it seems like it would take some of the fun and excitement out of the game. On the other hand, having missables in a game can force the player to spend more time reading strategy guides than actually enjoying the game.

Here's the questions:

-Do missables add to the game experience or detract?

-What are some alternatives that could produce the same type of excitement provided by a missable?