|
Unlucky 13! Since the demise of Hostess Brands, the exclusive worldwide suppliers of Twinkies to game designers, this may be the last Bad Game Designer, No Twinkie! column. The company is being liquidated and its assets sold off. However, the Twinkie may live on in another guise. Rumor has it that Walmart is considering buying some of the Hostess properties, which would make perfect sense: a low-grade snack food for sale at a company that provides a low-grade shopping experience.
Of course, if Walmart does take over the brand, the product may not be quite the same. As Electronic Arts knows, you can stick a much-loved name onto a box containing something completely different, as they did with Syndicate. It's not a good idea, though, because fans of the original will trash you on the internet. Take note, Walmart: you can't turn a tactical Twinkie into an FPS Twinkie without paying a price.
For the moment, however, there are still plenty of Twinkie Denial Conditions to discuss in my annual compendium of gamer-contributed goofs and gaffes. Here are this year's ten:
Bad Randomly Generated Challenges
Many early video games generated their challenges (and associated game worlds, if any) randomly. In these days of finely tuned level designs costing millions of dollars to build and script, we're not that used to thinking about randomly generated challenges, but they're still very much around in casual games.
Randomly generated challenges offer endless replayability, but they have to be constrained by some kind of heuristic to make sure they're good. By "bad," I mean impossible, overly easy, or just plain boring challenges that the game has generated randomly.
Mary Ellen Foley pointed out that Yahoo Word Racer, a Boggle-like multiplayer game about finding words in a random matrix of letters, sometimes produces a layout containing no vowels at all in the first round. The players have to sit around and wait for the two-minute timer to run out before they can go on to the next round. This is ridiculous. The game contains a dictionary to check the validity of each word the players enter; surely it could check to see that a given layout includes a minimum number of words before sending it to the players... or at least a few vowels.
She suggested that an "I'm finished" button would let the players jump on ahead without waiting for the timer to run out, once they all have pressed it. That's a good idea for any multiplayer, simultaneous-turn based game, and a suitable workaround for Word Racer's problem. But they should fix their generation algorithm too.
Hiding All Your Best Content Behind A Paywall
Ian Schreiber writes, "A few free-to-play games recently seems to hide all of the best content behind a paywall. Now, obviously I'd expect SOME good content to be pay-only, but I'd also expect some of it to be revealed to give the players incentive to actually buy. Otherwise you're presenting the mediocre parts of the game to your customers and asking them to take it on faith that it gets better if they pay (instead of the more likely result, they see a mediocre game and assume that's what you're selling).
"It's like a game designer searching for a job, and removing the best parts of their portfolio to use during the interview. Then they wonder why they never get an interview. I see this as a particularly nasty sin of game design because it doesn't just ruin the game, it ruins the company's entire business model."
I'm going to have to set up a new section of the No Twinkie Database to cover this one. Most of my Twinkie Denial Conditions are issues that hurt the player's experience, but this is one that hurts the game company. Still, a design flaw is a design flaw. Ian said that he couldn't name names, unfortunately, but that he had seen three iOS games in a row with this problem.
Overlong, Predictable Animations
These are similar to, but not exactly the same as, uninterruptible cutscenes. Tyler Moore writes that some games "force you to watch the same animations or script for mundane actions with a predictable outcome, blocking gameplay or interaction until the animation is complete. This does not apply to animations that have a variable reward at the end (as in Zelda, opening a chest), only to those with a certain outcome." His examples were watching the skinning animation over and over to collect a resource in Red Dead Redemption, and being forced to listen to the same tired shopkeeper greeting when you want to sell your wares in Skyrim.
|
I started reading this column back around 2000 when I was still a teenager and it's one of the main things that got me into game design!
So, for turn-based games, either have no animation at all, OR do what I'm doing for AURO - asynchronous animation. This means that when you attack, a little explosion animation plays out, but you don't have to wait for it to finish to keep making inputs.
Also, X-Com gets a pass for it's cinematic camera animations, due to the fact that the twinkie denial condition specifically mentions a "known result". Much of X-Com revolves around hoping very hard that the 65% chance shot connects and does just enough damage for you to pull through, or else you're completely screwed. Therefore every time you wait for the animation to play out during these pivotal moments there's a lot of anxiety around whether you'll pull through or not; the familiar animation becomes a great moment of suspense. You can clearly tell they did a lot of tuning to make sure that these special moments in X-Com come just enough times to make them exciting and awesome every time.
- Ernest Adams clearly does not live in an urban area with a large homeless population :).
Aside from the so-minimalist-it's-useless documentation in the manual, and the fact that you don't appear to be able to share characters between user profiles[*], the character editor hides most of it's functionality away until after you've unlocked content by playing the game. So at first glance, it looks like you're restricted to some basic body-manipulation options and a small set of pre-defined costumes.
Once you've played through a few of the career elements, more stuff is unlocked (clothes, shoes, hats, tattoos, jewellery, instruments, etc) and the character editor itself shows a lot more options for customising your character [**]. But the initial view is so restricted that it's both misleading and disappointing for new players.
However, this then leads to another issue. Many of the more interesting items (e.g. a horned helmet) are locked until/unless you complete a specifically named Career Goal. However, there isn't a direct link from the Character Editor to the Career Goal in question, so you have to exit the editor, navigate back to the Career mode and then try to remember which of the several-dozen goals you need to play...
[*] which, to be fair, may well be an artefact of the way Xbox Live's profile management system works
[**] again, to be fair, the loading screens do give you some information about the character editor
Implementing procedural generation badly is indeed a risk to watch out for, so I agree with the title "Bad Randomly Generated Challenges", but I respectfully disagree with the opening paragraph - saying that procedural generation is bad design seems very strange to me, because its the other way around IMHO.
BTW levels that use procedural generation can be fine tuned like levels that are built by hand - to do this right the designer needs to fill the role of a programmer, even when using a high level tool.
I love when I read sentences that almost certainly have never before been uttered in the history of the world.
Whatever the reason, don't do it. Read your dialog aloud to see if it sounds like actual conversation. Really chatty people do exist, but they're rare."
I'm certainly an offender of this rule, but in games I think it's entirely relational. There is no other people logic going on in this instance, so the information becomes compoundingly difficult within suspension of disbelief. While there is trail of thought, this process of communication has no other correlation. This sort of chatty is disengaged, and while very rare in real life lacks any contrast to other NPCs psychologically dispositioned when compared to conversation norms even moreso. The funny question is, is it intentional of the designer to demonstrate communication differences or a mildly considered "personality flavoring"