|
 Features
Multiplayer Level Design In-Depth, Part 3: Technical Constraints and Accessibility
 Games Designed to Be Accessible to All
Adding features that are meant to help the beginner face hardcore gamers may be useful to a certain extent, but I think that if we want to make the multiplayer game accessible for the majority of gamers, we must develop it in this direction from the design stage. Here are the three issues the new gamer is confronted with when he enters a multiplayer game:
- The interface
- The knowledge of the maps
- The understanding and implementation of winning tactics
Let's see how we can address these three problems.
Let's begin with the interface. It should be designed around easy
to access principles. We are all acquainted to controlling a character
by means of the two analogue sticks on a pad, but is this mechanism
easy to control by a beginner? Experimental playtests would probably
provide a lot information on how the beginners comprehend and learn
to use a game interface. One solution that should be tested is
to develop an adaptive interface that would enable the beginners
to carry out basic actions and which would provide them with new
features as their level improves. The use of voice commands
or of a controller such as the Wii-mote could revolutionize the
way we interact with our games. And if these solutions seem too
utopian, it is always possible to simplify the interface. The interface
of Halo
2 is a great example of an intuitive one, because it
is not overburdened with controls.
Let's go on to the maps. In a previous paper dedicated to
level design, I described various solutions to facilitate the understanding
of a map. let me repeat some of them: favor the large maps rather
than the complex layouts, use easy to identify mission objectives,
create a strong link between the mission objectives and the layout
in such a way that by simply understanding the structure, players
can locate their objectives, develop an easy to identify navigation
network, enable the players to have a global view of the map or
a part of it, or favor asymmetrical maps. Note that the games
of the Battlefield series offer very large maps, but simple navigation
and understanding of the objectives. The map size is not the enemy!
Long Run, a complex yet easily navigable map thanks to its asymmetrical design.
Finally, there are the tactics. It's the game dimension that is the most difficult to control. In a game such as Splinter
Cell, it really is the one that makes the difference among gamers. In my view, there are two possible ways to approach this problem.
The first is of technical order. It lies in developing an intelligent
agent who analyzes the player's game and makes recommendations
accordingly. For instance, if a FPS gamer remains static for too
long, the intelligent
agent would remind him that he is too vulnerable to a sniper attack.
The agent could also help the player discover new paths if it realizes
that the player keeps using the same ones. Attractive as it may
seem on paper, this approach would probably be complex to develop.
However, the idea to provide the gamer with contextual information
works, as we could see in Battlefield
2.
The second approach is conceptual. There are already multiplayer games that are relatively easy to pick up for casual gamers, such as Counter
Strike and the games of the Battlefield series. This simplicity lies in several design choices: a game style that is known to almost all PC gamers, the FPS, easy to understand mission objectives, a layout that makes the map navigation easy (at least for Battlefield), large maps and sessions that are able to support many players.
I find the latter two factors particularly interesting from the
perspective of making a multiplayer game accessible to everybody.
The large map size provides the gamers with more opportunities
to easily notice and avoid the remote attacks of the opponents.
This can be seen in Battlefield, where gamers often lose
their lives progressively, due to the lack of precision of the
enemy fire. The second factor, the large number of players in a
session, also seems favorable to integrate the casual gamers. Actually,
when a gamer is part of a large group, he can join the team and
just follow a team member who knows the map and the map's tactics.
Conclusion
I wanted this series of articles to be practical in showing that
the design of multiplayer maps must follow its own specific structure,
different to that of single player maps. The success of a map lies
in the successful control of many parameters each equally important.
Designers must be aware that their maps will be player hundreds
of thousands of times (possibly by the same player), so the faults
present will come out.
In closing I would like to remind you that there is no such thing as a perfect map, only those which follow certain points described here to their limits.
|
|
|
|
|
Previous