|
One game that has captured my attention quite a bit lately is a simple puzzle game called Droplitz. The premise is pretty simple: taking its cue from Pipe Mania / Pipe Dream, players rotate dials to make a path from one of the entry points for the Droplitz at the top of the screen to one of the exit points at the bottom of the screen. There are a limited number of Droplitz. If too many of them fail to reach the bottom, the game is over.
Most puzzle games are almost sexual in their emotional arcs. The game board usually becomes more complex, chaotic, and challenging as the game continues. There may be a moment of rest when the end is momentarily avoided through superb play, but the game always ends in the state of climax known as game over. At that point, there is an emotional release as the adrenaline rush is over.
So what makes the gameplay of Droplitz so different from the other emotional roller coasters traditionally provided by puzzle games?
While the game's mechanics are spot on, that's not what makes the game truly great. The way Droplitz handles pressure on the player to perform is marvelous. As implied above, most puzzle games create a sense of tension when the player is walking the line between playing and game over. The most frequent tool in achieving this is having the music intensify with a more urgent soundtrack.
Not so with Droplitz. Instead, the music only builds when the player is excelling. As the player continues to twist pieces into the correct places to create new paths, both the multiplier and the complexity of the music increase. Once the player breaks this multiplier by failing to keep a path constructed on the game board, the music returns to normal.
When a game over is reached, a pleasant chime is played and the game returns to the normal in-game soundtrack. What I've come to realize is that this is game design for Millennials, the group also known as Generation Y.
One of the things that stands out about this generation is the need to achieve and be recognized for a strong performance. This generation was told they can do no wrong as long as they try their hardest. Gen Y needs positive reinforcement to perform their best.
It's not simply a matter of getting the job done and staying in the game; they need to know when they are rocking it and need a cushion to land on when they fall. Droplitz does just that. The game doesn't contrast playing with not failing, but rather succeeding versus "keep trying." It's the modus operandi of Gen Y in game form.
While I think it is important for designers to realize that members of Generation X will still be buying and playing video games, Generation Y is entering the workforce and starting to have a disposable income.
Maybe this means I shouldn't be so upset about New Super Mario Bros. Wii's new "Demo Play" feature that will help gamers get through tough parts by having the computer play the game for them. Although I was born right at the beginning of Gen Y, maybe I still have some Gen X in me.
|
I'm pretty sure that "Demo Play" is there so that your mum can still complete the game, not so that kids with nothing better to do can clock the game faster.
I agree that the "large reward for success, small penalty for failure" paradigm grabs people of all-ages. My point here is that it is particularly relevant for Generation Y's culture of "everyone is a winner." Of course, not everyone in the generation may share this value. I know my love for games that seemingly exist just to demoralize me (i.e. Ikaruga) puts my membership in Generation Y into question. :)
I didn't elaborate on it, but my use of "Demo Play" here is to show this approach taken to an extreme. If designers become so concerned with making sure players feel good about their performance and abilities, there will be no requirement for success. There needs to be some challenge and some risk of failure to keep the player engaged.
What I find most interesting is how these two influences interact. That is to say, what is the economical point of games now? Except for games with subscription fees, they are a one time expense. So they only have to convince you to play them once, not entice you to keep playing until you've mastered them. To this end, many modern games tend to be less demanding and more inviting to new players.
"Hardcore" gamers by todays standards are not the same as the "Hardcore" gamers of 20 years ago. Hardcore these days is playing a first person shooting game. Hardcore gamers of the past were people who had enough skill and patience to get through games like Shadow of the Beast (you lost! Start the entire game again!), when any sane person would put the game down and stop playing. Hardcore gamers would be those with all the highest scores on Arcade boards. You've still got people going for the high scores on XBox Live, etc. and yes, this is the same mentality of the old hardcore, but now it's like... a subgenre of hardcore within hardcore.
As Enrique states, games just changed. The audience expanded and we moved away from arcades. There is no financial benefit to a game being ridiculously hard these days, because you aren't stealing additional quarters from anyone. You're simply frustrating people to the point where they stop playing your game. Back in the day, extreme difficulty was a novelty, because that's what you got in the arcades and you were now able to get the arcade experience in your living room, but there's simply no reason for it these days.
It's like saying that back in the 50s we had black and white movies, and they then moved to colour, and more special effects, etc. and then determining that it's because the generation changed. I'd argue that point as well, because the technology was the driving factor of the change, which lead a change in the audience as new things became possible. I'd say the audience would have always been open to movies with a little more glitz and glam, but the technology wasn't there to support it. It would therefore have nothing to do with the upbringing of the audience and the values being imposed upon them by their elders.
Ok, enough digressing, the real issue here: We are (that's all of us) now a society that is deathly afraid of failure. We have things like a basketball league where no one wins or loses. This is great up to about 7-8 years old. By that point you need to learn that you can lose. Not only that you can, but you will. Not only that, but that it is ok, life goes on. We have this "I'll have my cake and eat it too" syndrome. That's all fun and games to think that way but it's seriously killing us mentally because the harsh reality is that there is an opportunity cost. Having your cake and eating it are mutually exclusive conditions. If you want one, you can't have the other. Opportunity cost, while a reality and a limiting factor is not a bad thing. It changes the focus from be everything, do everything (which inevitably leads to the biggest failure: not being able to do anything) to a more positive focus of do something, do it well and be happy, don't lament things that were not done. And this is where we need to be as game designers: do something do it well, ask the players to do the same. TF2 does a great job of encouraging with the "On the bright side" stats it gives you. If you have to pat someone on the back for failing, that might be the way to go. I think we need to learn it's ok for players to fail, and let them. But also give them reason to keep trying. I'd cite the Megaman games as a great example here. Punishingly difficult at times, but always rewarding of those who try harder and think smarter.
I was born in 80's. If the game music "tells" me that I am excelling, I believe I will feel the same as a player who was born in 90's. Excited, proud and challenged.
You might be interested in the Cold Y Generation (http://bit.ly/giVJF). It's not a commonly accepted term yet (the fact that the Wikipedia article on it I just linked to is scheduled to be merged into the main Generation Y article should be a clue), but I personally identify with it. Like you, I remember what it's like having to use print and television media as primary sources of news and not having a cell phone to communicate with others whenever I like.
You have a valid point regarding people being scared of failure. If games in society are good for nothing else, perhaps they can help people understand that one can't always win and the only way to stop losing is to put forth the effort to keep improving.