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?