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?