Slashdot Mirror
The Short Memory of Game Design
Gamasutra has another piece in Ernest Adams' ongoing series Bad Game Designer, No Twinkie! This week he looks at the terrible long-term memory the game industry suffers from. Because of fast turnover within company ranks, games released by a single studio can consistently make the same bad design decisions over and over again. From the article: "Which is worse: A game that introduces its features sparsely but regularly, or one that gives them all to you at once and then never gives you another one? I would much rather play the former. Obviously this will vary somewhat by genre, but offering up a new twist every now and then will certainly help to keep the player's interest. Too many games turn into a boring grind in the last third or so, and the player has to slog through it if he wants to see the ending. We didn't get into this business to make boring grinds."
His websites down right now, but who exactly is this guy telling everyone they can design games?
It's also really annoying when a game gives you no features at the beginning and makes you trudge through a few hours of play before you get to do anything cool. Or if the one critical feature you need is given to you at the very end, and you have to practically play the entire game again to beat it (I'm looking at you, Jet Force Gemini). It also sucks when you get no new features for each iteration of a particular series.
On a related note, this is also why I can't stand most MMORPGs. Too much time wasted grinding. I don't want to kill monster x for 5 hours so I can level up so that I can use weapon/ability z, and then start killing monster y for 6 hours so I can level up and.... you get the idea.
Everything I say is a lie. Except that... and that... and that, and that, and that, and that... and that.
This is the field I hope to enter in three years time, after getting through university. It's shocking how many games drag on towards the end, and even worse the ubiquitous sequels made each year with absolutely no attempts at improvement...
One game that suprised me time after time was Advance Wars (1, 2, and DS), each time introducing new and unique strategy elements and tactics, improved AI, improved graphics, and yet retaining it's core gameplay and character.
Even GTA dos this well, despite my other critisism of it.
I hesitate to mention EA's endless flow of carbon-copy sequels...
I don't know how many games I've played that feed you new techniques and weapons as you go along where, once you get the uber-weapon, the challenge sucks right down to nothing until you get to the endgame. Or when you work on the same section for hours... only to immediately receive an ability that would have gotten you through in minutes. Or enemies near the end of a game that can only be defeated by something you just received, making everything else you've perfected along the way useless. The God of War endgame comes to mind (not bashing the game, great game, this is just an example) - you've perfected your technique with the default weapon to reach the end, nothing could possibly stand under your vicious onslaught, only to have it all taken away from you and wind up with a completely different weapon against a difficult opponent. It's sort of an artifical way of increasing the difficulty of the section.
Spelling, grammar, punctuation? We need something that checks logic.
"Which is worse: A game that introduces its features sparsely but regularly, or one that gives them all to you at once and then never gives you another one? I would much rather play the former."
Would Tony Hawk games be as much fun if you could only do 1/4 the moves in the begining? Course, as your stats increase throughout the game certain moves go from tough/impossible to easy but you can still basically do almost everything at the very beginning when it comes to moves.
Unlockables are fun but some games take this concept to far...
If you dive down to a lower level and get out into the air down there... why doesn't that space just fill up with water?
Perhaps that space has a higher air pressure than outside?
So wait, it was OK when GTA San Andreas had you wait til 1/3rd of the game was done before you could buy any weapons? According to "No New Features After the First Few Levels" that would be a good thing. Personally I think that's the WORST thing about it. No new features has to be taken with a grain of salt. Let's look into it.
... Hmmmm I'll leave on that note. You can decide yourself on his opinions validity, oh and that's ALL the specific industry experience he gives.
"Person can't drive car til they get license, they must past a long involved series of missions to do that, then to own a gun they must get a gun license, which happens through another set of four missions. Person finds a rocket launcher on the ground, must now take lessons from a third NPC."
Sounds exciting. How about
"Person grabs a car, drives to a local gun range, buys a simple gun because it's all he can afford, as he drives to the next point, he finds an AK-47 on a local gangbanger, he grabs the weapon and starts to shoot up the street".
I don't know the second one sounds like it'd be more fun. I mean learning new "skills" is good, but learning simple stuff that should be available at the begining is lame. In San Andreas, they locked the Airports, which is a good thing at times. People could still get in, hijack a plane and fly badly.
I think that cavet that you should gain skills depends on the game. If you're doing open world games, you shouldn't get completely new skills unless there's a reason. Perhaps you can get a group together after a while and lead them because you earn their respect. But then again from the begining you're able to use all your abilities that you normally would with out having to "unlock" them.
I looked at the writer's bio and found he wrote a bunch of books, good for him. as well as
"Ernest was most recently employed as a lead designer at Bullfrog Productions, and for several years before that he was the audio/video producer on the Madden NFL Football product line. "
What's worst is to polish a crap game with a marketing assault. Mario could have been announced with a 3x5 card mailed to my sister's pet dog and it still would be a sweet game. A huge animation for a crappy game in times square just makes that company look desperate and deceitful. How many super-rendered game commercials have you seen that literally show no gameplay whatsoever? Just show the damned game, if you're ashamed of it maybe you shouldn't release it!
stuff |
Blah, blah common usage, blah blah blah.
This is pretty strange, but it's got a purpose. I believe ID coined the phrase, but it's similar in theory to Strafing. As one flies in the plane one would "strafe" a target, which would mean to shoot from the plane. However the way the shooting normally would happen is one would start shooting before, as the cross hairs moved over the target, and finish shooting after the target, aka a "strafing run". This would allow a hopefully large amount of damage in a single run.
Strafing in the games is likely a reference to this as you would duck out of one corner, fire over the whole attacking enemies (usually coming from one direction) and slide into another corner (which at that time you turn and wait for the rest to come around the corner, or you'd strafe back and run for your life.
If one was to imagine the screen of the game turned sideways, the view of strafing would be a bit like an airplane flying over a target to unload machine gun fire.
You'd have to ask ID (I believe they created it) if this is the real reason, but I'm 90 percent sure it comes from "strafing run" rather then "strafe" itself.
Since I've entered the "real world" I have nowhere near the amount of time to spend gaming as I did in college.
I'd rather have all the features, abilities, etc "unlocked" from the beginning so I can have FUN. Racing games are the worst. Start with crappy car, on a boring track. Then spend hours to achieve first-place so you can get a slightly better car, or have a slightly more interesting track. Repeat for days until you finally can run the high-end cars on challenging tracks. All in the name of providing "lots" of gameplay. Gameplay, yes. Fun, not so much.
Give me all the cars, tracks, cool weapons, gadgets, etc all at the beginning and let me get my hours of gameplay in 10-20 minute pieces of fun.
I think "Casual games" and "Casual gamers" want fun out of their games, not work. Which means a lot more games can fall into the "casual" category than just brain teasers and Bejeweled or Tetris clones. Let the hardcore crowd work for weeks to unlock the super-baddass-mega-blaster, but at least give everyone else the option to click a "unlock all" option and just have fun.
It also sucks when the game you're playing at the end is nothing like the game you were playing at the beginning. If I liked the beginning, chances are I'm not going to be too pleased if the end is completely different.
Exercise a bit of moderation. And remember, you don't need to add bells and whistles to keep the player interested. That job can be left to the plot. If the game has a great story, you can re-use the same damned engine without adding any new features at all and you can keep the player interested beyond the endgame and into completely different titles. Some of the best selling games of all time shared an engine and just plastered some new content on top. Why don't developers remember that?
I didn't agree with the first claim, probably because i prefer multiplayer games, nor the last, because i don't believe realism is always the best choice. But the rest of the article was very objective, so to sum it up:
Blah blah sig blah blah blah irony blah blah
He is wrong about the water level thing. You could have a pressurized tube underwater that you escape through. Or if you reenter through a diving bell or into a sewer pipe which could be at a different pressure. There are several valid scenarios.
...
And what the hell is up with picking on Myst? That game is what, 13 years old? Come on
You're absolutely right jizz. Now for examples of games that do this right I'd point to games like Metroid, and The Legend of Zelda. Both of these games are "item-centric," giving the player increased abilities as time goes on, and yet they also keep the core mechanics there, so that the game experience at the end isn't drastically changed from the beginning. If you're awesome with a sword at the beginning, it will still serve you well at the end. And the Metroid games are the same, in that as long as you're good at the core shoot/dodge/jumping maneuvers, those are almost-always worth more than the best weapons around.
So getting the balance right is why games like those two have become greats: they keep the game interesting and fresh all the way through, while still not invalidating what made them fun at the beginning. I'm sure there's other examples of this around, but there are few that have historically done it as well as these franchises have.
Thinking about it, Mega Man might be an argument for EITHER side, but I think it's worth mentioning as something else that can go either way depending on your perspective (and I'm referring to classic Mega Man, not whatever's been done lately that radically changes things).
(and if others have good examples of doing it right, that'd be great to mention too)
I'm not a regular gamer, so cheat codes are a great way to extract a little fun. An hour or two of grinding is ok, if it's fun. But if things drag on, time to cheat, get some fun out of this beast of a game, then stick it in a closet.
The world is made by those who show up for the job.
At last, a sensible answer! Thank you.
As mentioned before on Slashdot, I think this was done very well in Eternal Darkness. There are about 11 chapters and only 12 spells in the game which you learn as you go though. The spells get more effecive as the game progress, but since you play with many different character with strenghs and weaknesses the play of the game changes. Everytime you start a new chapter you don't start out with all of your magic. You do get it all at once at some point, but you are forced to explore and feel a little helpless without it. Some people are really good at magic and some are not so good. And since the spells have a fairly large fundimental varience, i.e. not just Fireball 1 2 3 etc. You might think, I think that other time before I had this would be easier with this new spell, it doesn't obsolete the older spells. Sure the story line is amazing, the puzzles interesting, and the character diversity well done, but the combat doesn't get old either. This game got it right.
Wikipedia does not perform the same function as a dictionary. Or an encyclopedia. Under no circumstances is it an acceptable reference for a report, analysis, et cetera.
We on the Internet would appreciate any insight you can offer as to the credibility of your "facts". I mean, come on--my 15 year old brother can "contribute" to articles that neither you nor him understand; how are you going to check that his formulae for solving advanced physics problems are accurate? You're not, that's right. You ingrates.
Crate Review System
insecurity asks the wrong question irritation gives the wrong answer
Let's try to remember how some games got it right.
The most obvious one that comes to mind is Half-Life. The original. They do give you lots of new and interesting weapons throughout the game, but the gameplay is the same, which means you don't actually have to learn many new skills during the course of the game. My only complaint there would be Xen at the end, where the physics completely change.
But mostly, the game interface and the gameplay itself doesn't change fundamentally. What changes is the content. An example would be going into a tunnel which leads to a cliff face -- the tunnel has the feel of the vents and such, then you hit the cliff face -- completely different. Suddenly, you have to look up and down, and you have to watch your step. Get through that, and you're in a trench, trying not to get noticed till you get to somewhere you can successfully lob a grenade from. And so on.
And enough "plot" to keep you interested. They don't need a cutscene to keep things interesting.
Compare that to, say, Zelda. The entire game is discovering new and cool bits of gameplay. It's rarely frustrating, because if you make it through the first level, you've got the hang of discovering and using these new bits of gameplay. And again, no cutscenes needed, although they are there.
Or Halo 2. Gameplay is very consistent, yet you're never without a sense of place, and while there is a bit more repetition than I'd like, the story does move along, and so does the kind of situation you end up with. Sniping jackals takes a completely different kind of skill than driving a tank, or swording a bunch of Flood. Yet the learning curve is practically nil, and I don't think I ever felt cheated by suddenly being presented with a completely different game that I sucked at.
And compare that to a game that gets it completely wrong like, say, Doom 3. Absolutely nothing new. Oh, sure, towards the end you get the SoulCube, and the final boss battle is interesting. The rest of it is completely boring. I mean, there are some relatively interesting puzzles involving machines and controls, but it's almost impossible to notice those, or any bit of plot development, amid all the insane, mind-numbing repetitiveness of the levels. The only thing that changed was the environment, and it was kind of cool the first time through, when the graphics were hot shit. Now, yawn. All the cheap thrills don't work when you know where they all are, and it just isn't a fun game anymore.
One of my most frustrating games has got to be doing the minigames in Final Fantasy X. Thank God they aren't required. One night, my roommate and I decided we wanted Tidus' Legendary Weapon, which meant we had to beat the Chocobo training session. This required a wholly different skillset than anything else in that game, and in fact, was completely different than most other games I've played. It's a race -- on a bird that doesn't always want to go where you tell it -- where you must dodge oncoming traffic (seagulls) and also collect enough balloons to win. With very little margin for error -- not only do you have to be able to handle this game, but you must absolutely kick ass at it. Took the two of us about three or four hours of playing the exact same 40-second race over and over.
Or the lightning dodging. Completely unlike anything else required. Fun anyway, because after I could get to 10 or 20, I started over, got to 50, and just kept going, 200 was pretty easy. But the same roommate could never do it.
In the case of FFX, this is completely forgivable, because neither of these are required. In fact, anything actually required by the plotline was incredibly easy -- it breaks the longstanding tradition of having Omega Weapon be the most powerful enemy in the game. Omega in a pansy next to some of these (optional) Arena monsters -- roommate goes in thinking it's going to be the toughest battle ever, summons an Aeon in overdrive, unleashes the overdrive... one hit. We must've laughed for
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
I like games where some of the powers/abilities you can obtain are optional. In particular, the Gamecube's two Metroid Prime games do this fantastically.
There's a certain number of items that you're required to get (without exploiting glitches), and they're introduced regularly throughout the game, all the way up until the last couple of boss fights. In addition to these, however, there are extra weapons (such as MP1's wavebuster or ice spreader) that are immensely powerful and helpful, but also completely optional. The same goes with health and ammunition increases. They're all completely optional.
Giving the player this choice allows him to, essentially, choose his own difficulty. He can go through the game with minimal energy and ammo, or he can go through it completely maxed out. If he wants to be maxed out, though, he has to go through the challenge of locating all of these powerups, as they're often extremely well-hidden.
I think that more games should implement a similar system. I don't think that it would only work for a Metroid Prime-style game, either. RPGs could definitely benefit, and FPS games could perhaps hold off on giving you that BFG-equivalent 12% through the game. I'd like to see if any progress is made in games in this area, or if these same mistakes are repeated endlessly.
It's about time the issue of captioning is getting press. I'm hearing-impaired and captions are vital to me. I must have them available to understand important messages. If there's no captioning and I can't make out the dialogue without it (which is often), then the game doesn't get played. I still haven't done much with Starlancer since it had no captions even though it was developed by many of the same guys who did the well-captioned Wing Commander series (what the hell?) and the publisher knew about it but outright said it wasn't going to fix it. That's callous and uncaring and insensitive. Haven't bought anything from those guys since.
... followed by my glaring at them and then wandering off to find someone else to talk to.
Now, some people may say that it's less realistic to have captions, and in fact I've gotten really tired of Knights of the Old Republic periodically yelling at me about using captions in the loading screens ("turn off subtitles for a more cinematic experience" my ass, I NEED THOSE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE HELL YOU ARE SAYING, so shut the fuck up!). That's fine; if you don't want subtitles, don't turn them on. That's why it's called closed captioning!
I've even had people call me a snob when I tell them that when I watch anime (and that's not often), I will only watch subtitled anime, not dubbed. (How does that make me a snob, anyway?). I asked them how they'd feel if they were in wheelchairs and it was seen as snobby to actually demand that buildings and street corners have wheelchair ramps. Oh, their expressions
Half-Life 2 even has the standard symbol for closed captions on the box (a TV with "CC" printed on the screen). Why can't other games do that, too?
i am a soviet space shuttle
The design issues thing that most annoys me about a lot of games is the cheap way they add more hours of gameplay. It's like the designers came up with the game and then thought "oh no, the reviews are all going to say it's only 10 hours long, what do we do?". If your game idea is only good enough for 10 hours play, then make the game 10 hours long. Don't:
- add reprise levels: all the ideas from previous levels, but in a different order!
- force backtracking: what fun, revisiting the same areas I've already completed. Paper Mario:TTYD did this and it killed the game for me
- Fiddle with the save points so the player has to repeat more of a level after dying
City of Heroes and City of Villains have a system where either the higher level character can temporarily be a lower level or the lower level character can temporarily play as a higher level when teaming. It makes the game fun and playable for both the hardcore and the lite players in our guild.
Good points with regards to reprise levels. I always felt that games should have a 'Director's Cut' on some levels where the difficult is amped up or otherwise uniquely challenging without the usual 'increase enemy hitpoints and increase their damage output'.
This is the stupidest +5 informative post I have ever seen. Congrats.
The best excuse I've been able to come up for it is that it started with the phrase "circle strafe", which is an excusable extension of the usual definition of "strafe".
After "circle strafe" became common usage, then perhaps gamers unfamiliar with the word "strafe" used it to refer to "sidestep", which is an essential part of circle strafing.
But this is my own made-up etymology; I don't know if this is how it actually happened.
Note to designers: if you're going to make things unlockable, make sure the game's still playable without them, yeah? And make sure it is genuinely easy to get to a stage where your players have the freedom to do whatever they want, within the confines of the game engine.
And then you go on to describe something with about as much variety as WarioWare. What does WarioWare do right that Path of Neo does wrong?
The worst, in my opinion, is a game that gives you everything to begin with, then knocks you down to near powerless after about 10 minutes. You start out with all these cool powers you don't even know what to do with yet, and then suddenly all you can do is punch.
Ve-e-e-ry frustrating.
I should make a column called this, and put pages like this one on it... pretend the next paragraph is a header.
Not Including Links to Other Articles in the Same Series
If an article is the seventh in a series, why aren't there links to the other six articles? How about a link to a page that has links to all of them without having to sort through Gamasutra's other features? Even a separate page for the Developer's Diaries series of articles would be an improvement over what we have now.
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
say, since this asshole was kind enough to provide us to a link to his precious site and since he is too dumb to understand common usage -- what say we all go over there and educate him?
I mean, its GOT to be better than replying to his posts, right?
Nope, that won't do. "Strafe" was in the manuals and in the keyboard setup screens before there were games in which you could reasonably circle strafe.
I'm not sure if agree with this thesis, whilst there is a lot of changes in the grunt work, artists, coders etc. Its a different story for those higher up in the organization who have the a much longer track record and also have the responsibility for overall game design. We don't see Carmac or Shigeru Miyamoto doing much movement or leaving the industry. Yet its these people who are the Game Designers who set the overall feel of the game and the balance of the game.
There are four sorts of people in the world: fools, lunatics, idiots and morons. - Umberto Eco, Foucaut's pendulum.
I have noticed for a lot of games a problem which I refer to as "coin-op crapola," stunts that should have ended when the user paid for the game all at once, and should have been dropped when they no longer had to keep making the game too hard in order to get you to drop more quarters in the video game. These include, but are not limited to:
Having done programming professionally for over 25 years (including game programming), I am aware of what it takes to write programs or to develop them. And nothing I have said is excessively hard to implement, or in most cases, even necessary. But it still continues over and over and over and...
Paul Robinson <paul@paul-robinson.us>The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
I have normal hearing but I use closed captioning on TV quite a bit. In noisy environments it can help. Bars have discovered that closed captioning is extremely useful when carrying a sports program because you can't hear the commentary.
In many films there is background dialog or additional statements that may not be audible. The caption writer works from the script so they can type in whatever is said and it can add important and subtle details which might otherwise be missed.
About the only thing I find distressing in closed captions is the common misspelling, errors and omissions occurring on pre-recorded closed-captioned programs. I can understand errors in live programs, there is no time for correction when typing in real-time. But commercials, recorded programs and movies often have misspellings, errors, and worse, sync problems where the caption trails the dialog, sometimes by as much as 1/2 a minute, or sometimes leaves whole segments of dialog uncaptioned. My brother also notices that sometimes the captioning does not match the dialog, such as the spoken dialog "What are you going to do about it?" "Don't worry about me; you should be more concerned about you" being captioned as "What will you do?" "You should worry about yourself." but I think that's often minor, usually to shorten the caption and as long as it gets the gist of the dialog that's not a big issue.
I hadn't thought of closed captioning for games but now that someone mentions it I think it is a good idea. And criticizing someone for using it is insolent arrogance. If you put a feature in the game you should not insult the user for taking advantage of it, especially in the case of the Parent poster to this thread, who couldn't understand the game if the subtitles weren't there in the first place.
The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
I recall Ikari Warriors (1986) had a "toggle strafe" key which allowed you shoot in the same direction regardless of which direction you were walking. Since I don't know what "circle strafe" means I can't comment on whether this is circle strafing or not ;)
In this world nothing is certain but death, taxes and flawed car analogies.