Slashdot Mirror
Game Pacing Pitfalls Discussed
Thanks to GameSpot for their editorial discussing the problems in pacing a videogame correctly, as the author theorizes: "It's almost always the same sorts of things that make us get sick of them in a hurry", and goes on to pinpoint game facets that affect pacing adversely. He suggests: "Loading times are quite possibly the single worst thing about today's games", and also points out "...providing the player with easy access to often-used features" as a pacing-killer, referencing Vagrant Story's "unwieldy menu system." Finally, he argues that "the ideal game should never require pausing or fast-forwarding", mentioning that Star Wars: KOTOR had "...combat [that] was paced seemingly just right so that I'd be able to react to what was happening as it happened, not in between desperately toggling the pause button."
How about cutsequences you cannot escape.
It is easy to say a game has 40+ hours of gameplay when they KNOW that you have to watch all cutsequences at least twice and you cannot skip them.
Latest example: The Jedi Academy demo - why some developers don't get that they will face eternal damnation for a thing like this is beyond me.
""the ideal game should never require pausing or fast-forwarding","
You mean the game is so addictive that you never pause play until you are through? How long before the Sony "PotStation" toilet-equiped recliner is sold as a popular game accessory.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
"He suggests: "Loading times are quite possibly the single worst thing about today's games"
Is this a result of everything using DVD or similar media? You do not have to go very far back in the generations of videogames to find fast-loading games: look at the N-64. It used cartridges.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
is that different people like the game to be paced differently. I have friends who like to play Starcraft on infinite resource maps where clicking speed is a major factor in who wins the battle. Others like to take their time. Different people not only have different abilities in terms of what pace they can keep up with, but also different preferences.
Pacing may be an issue, sure - but it's not an issue that can be fixed in any way, because whatever you do, you'll still only hit just right one small portion of the gaming audience.
Daniel
Carpe Diem
I'm not sure I've ever seen it emphasized by the comp.human-factors crew, though.
It applies to every sort of design including webpages, so you'd expect the design process to start with the task of listing the main functions in order of expected frequency...
Loading times can often be abysmally long, and so frequent as to seriously reduce game enjoyment.
The most recent example I can think of is Crash Bandicoot: Wrath of Cortex vs. Jax and Daxter: The Precursor Legacy on the Playstation2. CB is essentially unplayable, with loading times >30 seconds for each different area you go into -- something which happens fairly frequently. The loading screen is even abysmal, with lame "stars" falling upward and one of the characters in the middle, plus big letters letting you know it's "LOADING". J&D, on the other hand, has no appreciable loading time between segments. And when it is doing loading it does so while playing a cutscene, which lends to the storyline and doesn't become overly repetitive. By and large, however, there is no disincentive to wander between areas.
In another vein, I'm yet to figure out why FPS's haven't gotten smarter about level loading. Yes, levels are large and complex, and you should really only try to have one in memory at a time. But once the current level has ended there's absolutely no reason that the server shouldn't inform the clients of the next level and start loading it. That way by the time the post game score checking and chatter is over with the next level will be ready to play, or at least nearly ready. Much better than the current substantial breaks between levels.
I'd take his point a bit more to heart if he hadn't listed Max Payne as an example of perfect pacing. The ridiculous dream sequences coupled with getting all the weapons in the game, not once, not twice, but thrice, were pacing killers at their worst.
Much like all other entertainment media, gaming is a subjective art.
All that said, I'd love some of the convenience features that came built in with Disgaea in every game. The New Game+ mode, the dialogue skipping, and the ability to return to old levels on request are so perfectly integrated with the experience that it's a crime that more games don't have them.
So really, what I want is more pacing that I'm in control of, rather than dictated by the developer.
skye
except for the interface issues mentioned.
The item forging system forced you to repeatedly save and load inventories from treasure chests in the forge shops in order to process the huge amounts of loot you'd acquire.
Basic VS protocol was to carry 3 main weapons at all times, each developing strengths against 2 classes of enemy creatures. It was not convenient to swap weapons via the menu system to play to their strengths and maximize their advancement every time you fought a different kind of enemy.
Fixing these things would allow VS to play to it's real strengths, and really benefit from the multiple playthrough features, without requiring inhuman patience.
If they updated the engine (cleaner renderer, and streaming room loading in the background), added a primary-weapon-designation and menu-free quick-select, and allowed the player a suitably huge inventory (even if only fully accessable in forges), I'd buy Vagrant Story again for the PS2 in a second.
While I play PC Games most...and loading times can get long sometimes, I also play my Gamecube a lot. From the offerings I've seen from Nintendo, loading times in games are just sloppy programming. Most of the games made by Nintendo have almost zero loading time. Metroid Prime, Zelda and F-Zero are great examples of this. The longest load time, which the player is not active, is probably about 3 seconds.
What about when it's possible to beat a game in under seven hours of play? Take The Matrix reloaded, for example. I was impressed by the engine and gameplay, but the simple fact that I was able to beat it with both characters in under 7 hours of total play really speaks to the time investment game programmers are making these days. Stop worrying about whether a game looks good or not, and focus on making the plot and length better.
The new Neverwinter Nights expansion is another good example. I beat that in less than a day, and I don't even consider myself an avid gamer.
The LENGTH of games is what is at fault. Worrying about loading times is just like splitting hairs. It doesn't matter so long as the game is good and you get massive hours of enjoyment out of it.
Hasn't this point been proven before with GTA3? Give me a game like Deus Ex that has 80 hours or more of game play. Give me clever strategy and dynamic plotline. Don't give me a game I can beat in less than a day. I hate spending 50 bucks on a game that I'll play for an afternoon and then just stick up on a shelf.
"In the beginning, there was nothing; Then it blew up."
the ideal game should never require pausing or fast-forwarding
That explains Blinx' sales figures...
Reminds me of the badly-designed Linksys cable modem I have. There is no power switch, so I have to yank the adaptor plug out of the back to reset it, which I need to do frequently since it loves to crash.
I was playing The Legend of Zelda: Wind Waker for a while. What a great game, it kept going, it was fun, innovative, imaginative, and, well, more fun. The wandering around in the ocean thing got old fast, but then I got the Melody of Control or whatever, and that solved that.
And then that goddamn Triforce quest.
The whole game proceeds with action until this quest, when it suddenly turns into Errands Online. You have to find eight Triforce Charts that are scattered around the world. Then you have to get them decoded, which means getting a crapload of money. Then you have to go actually GET the triforce shards. Ugh.
Yes, I could have done it. I could have finished it in a day. But god, what a fucking boring way to spend a day off. No thanks. I traded it in and got Skies of Arcadia instead. Way to drop the fucking ball, Nintendo.
Metroid was the same way. For the first half of the game, you're getting powerups left and right. Morph ball, bombs, varia suit, everything. Then it just fucking stops. You have to wander around and get a bunch of artifacts. It's easy enough to do, except you have to cross the fucking planet like four times. Ugh. No thanks. The map system didn't make life much easier either. Boooring.
Both of these games were paced very well until those spots, at which point the developers dropped tbe ball and fucked it up. If you're going to develop a game (or a movie or TV show), then there's one thing people have to do, and that's pick a pace and stick with it. SWAT did this well, Jedi Academy did this well too (er, not that I'd know of course, wink wink nudge nudge), but very few other games do.
Of course, there are notable exceptions (Final Fantasy 6 had a nice blend of action, relaxation, panic, and butterflies-in-the-breeze), but that's hard to do right.
--Dan
It's about the media. If you have a cartridge directly connected in by a nice wide bus, you don't have to worry much about optimizing the loading.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
If you stay with one weapon and upgrade it intelligently, you will have no problems with switching, and the various Affinity spells give you even more power if your weapon is lacking. The only time I've needed to change was when I need a polearm to smash a box that's out of my reach.
Vagrant Story is a great example of a game that can keep you occupied for hours and hours on end without getting annoying (*cough* GTA *cough*).
-ash
"Mass genocide is the most exhausting activity one can engage in, next to soccer."