3. Improving
multiplayer modes. Multiplayer
game modes pose a tougher problem, and definite answers have yet to be
discovered. I look to four different types of solution:
Simplification of the game concept. The more features there
are to master, the harder it will be for the player to be on equal footing with
his opponents. It was this method that was chosen by Ubisoft for the development of the multiplayer mode in Splinter Cell: Double Agent.
As a
reminder, the multiplayer mode in the Splinter Cell series was introduced in
its second release, Pandora Tomorrow,
and was improved in the third title, Chaos
Theory.
This multiplayer mode, developed by the
talented Ubisoft studio in Annecy, Southern France, was hailed by the industry
as particularly innovative and compelling. Tellingly, Chaos Theory's
multiplayer mode is still played on Xbox Live (the game is Xbox 360 compatible)
to this day.
This extraordinarily rich mode nonetheless
has a cost: its complexity. Having worked as lead level designer and play
testing coordinator on the multiplayer modes of these two games, I am
well-positioned to testify on the problem.
While hardcore gamers appreciated the
diversity and the sophistication of the tactics that they could develop,
beginners struggled to simply understand where to go, and why. The problem was
partially solved in Chaos Theory,
but the game remained difficult to master. For Double Agent, Ubisoft gambled on simplifying the controls, the game
objectives and the features. The game's spirit remains intact but it is easier
to grasp.
The
progressive introduction of game features and complexity. Gamers discovering a multiplayer mode could
unveil new features, increasingly complex maps and more aggressive game modes
as they pass thresholds (such as the number of enemies killed).
This mechanism guarantees that a player will not be overwhelmed by a game's
complexity, while retaining its richness. It also helps to get the player to
play with gamers of an equal level. If implementing this solution, just make
sure that that it can be easily overridden as a seasoned player might want to
invite a friend to his session, no matter what his level is.
A
ranking system grouping players of similar levels. This mechanism could allow gamers to play in a
context better adapted to their level of skill.
All multiplayer games feature
ranking systems, but their effectiveness is often questionable when it comes to
matching players of similar strength. The Microsoft TrueSkill ranking system
could bring a valuable solution to this issue.
Game concepts focusing on cooperative action. Playing alongside
highly skilled players is easier and certainly less intimidating than playing
against them. Even if the players are grouped in several teams pitted against
each other, cooperative gameplay within his team will help the player discover
the game progressively.
He could
be helped by his more seasoned team mates, he could simply follow them or he
could follow less exposed tactics like manning a fixed gun, driving a vehicle
or simply defending a position.
3. Games
to be played "where I want, how I want". Two aspects of design are involved in this
concept: learning curve and density.
Learning curve. A common solution is to add a tutorial separate
from the game itself, but as this has the effect of pushing back the moment the
player reaches the heart of the game, games increasingly avoid this method.
There are other solutions, however. In the Warcraft series, the numerous facets of the game are
progressively introduced through the duration of the campaigns. A similar
mechanism is used in episodes 2 and 3 of Metal Gear Solid, where radio messages conveniently explain
new aspects of the interface.
Game
density and separation. Demand
for products that are playable in short bursts necessitates the building of
shorter, denser levels. It also requires features such as auto-saving or
resuming.
Today, this system is increasingly prevalent in console productions. For
instance, the positioning of automatic save points in Uncharted: Drake's Fortune, Naughty Dog's excellent
action-shooter, is particularly well done.
Save points placed too close to one another remove challenge for the player,
since he no longer fears failure, knowing he can restart not very far behind
his previous position.
On the other hand, spacing them too far apart will
frustrate the player who, in the event of game over, will have to consecutively
start over and repeat a long section of the game.
Save/Load should be anywhere, anytime... always. See the MDA document that explained eight different types of aesthetic appeal for game design where "challenge" was merely one of the eight. Games do not havr to be challenging. Ideally, the choice of whether to be challenged or not should be in the player's hands, not the designer's. If a designer attempts to force me to endure challenge in her game, I will very likely not play except in the specific instance where I am searching for a challenging game experience... at which time it's much more likely that I will play a game that allows me to choose whether to be challenged or not rather than one which forces the challenge on me. Also, a challenge for one player may be simplistic for another. People have different abilities and needs, so the decision should be left with the player.
Adventure games come in two general "flavors." The English market developed their own idea of the adventure game genre where the game is about telling a linear story and the game places puzzle challenges as obstacles between locations or chapters. The Japanese adventure game is a very different product where the focus is (usually) on multiple characters and multiple story paths with multiple interactions and choices that lead to a wide variety of different, multiple endings. Events are often mutually exclusive; once you are on certain story branches, others are precluded during that playthru. Not only does this increase replay value, but it mirrors real life where choices you make can cause different results (but not always). This structure also requires the player to play through all possible events and paths in order to truly understand the overall story that is taking place as well as the various character motivations, events, etc that are experienced. The challenge is cerebral rather than any type of visual puzzle; the player must determine character responses to player actions and activities as well as how all these interactions lead to a wide variety of paths and outcomes.
Good article. I disagree with the last poster's comments however.
Save/Load anytime-anywhere cannot be applied to all genres/all games. It often makes games too easy or boring, and defeats the purpose of certain genres such as platform games.
The challenge of a game is in the developer's hands, not the players. That's what makes playing games rewarding.
I want to be challenged. If a developer lets me burn through an entire game on ultra-easy mode where I can save right before any challenge so I don't have to waste a second backtracking, I probably will. I'll beat the game, shelve it, and forget about it by next week.
If a game is compelling enough I will develop whatever skill it takes, and replay as many levels as necessary to achieve the goals the developer laid out. Those are the games I look for, and those are the games I remember for years.
The notion of "progressive introduction of game features and complexity" seems to have taken a bunch of different directions in some recent multiplayer games which have tried to introduce RPG elements.
For example, MMOs (obviously) seem to do this very well, players start with only their most basic core skills and slowly accumulate more specific and complex abilities.
However, other games like Call of Duty 4 have done the exact opposite. The game gives players only the most basic perks at the start, but in other aspects, the game seems to throw new players to the wolves. Players are forced to use statistically inferior guns WITHOUT the laser sight dots. I found it incredible that new players, in the already hardcore world of PCs FPSes, were expected to compete without a true crosshair.
While acquiring these RPG-like unlocks is extremely addicting, they seem like they may be a mistake in competitive online games. Not only is it unfair, but as this article suggests, it is extremely discouraging to new players.
the SAVE/LOAD anytime comment is interesting because it's been a topic of debate many times.
There was this controversy over the HITMAN sequels for having it, and it definitely removed a lot of the "tension" in the game. The main problem being that there were never any bad consequences to decisions the player would make on how to approach a "hit", because you always had a "quicksave" stashed away about 10 seconds earlier to quickly fix your mistake.
I think a good compromise is the "CHECKPOINT" system. It gives old long time gamers that were once hardcore, such as myself, a good balance between challenge and accessibility. I can live my normal life and work my 40+ hour a week job and choose one to two hour "nuggets" of game time to finish a title.
A good example is DEADSPACE which I am playing right now. I can put it down for 2-3 weeks during crunch periods at work, then pick right back up where I left off and not have to figure out the controls again.
Ah, the Incredible Machine !!! What a classic. It's great to see it mentioned again here. At the TGS Sense of Wonder night, the creator of Katamari Damacy made a presentation about a "construction game" that probably took a few cues from this.
On the save issue, I agree with checkpoints. Saving anywhere completely defeats the challenge and consequences.
> Save/Load should be anywhere, anytime... always.
I disagree, and strangely I'm a firm believer in having the ability to save more-or-less exactly where I am. The key here is granularity.
There are two types of 'difficulty', in the sense of the level of challenge presented by the game: the essential and the accidental. Save/load systems need to be balance to preserve the essential challenge of the game, whilst minimizing the accidental challenges (read: frustrations) caused by having to repeat a section multiple times.
In the Hitman games, the essential challenge is infiltrating, killing, and exfiltrating whilst making as few mistakes as possible. Adding a quicksave removes that essential challenge, because it lets players ensure they do everything in perfect individual units, rather than as a whole. However, not having any saves at all will add accidental challenge by forcing the player to some mundane tasks which they have no chance of failing - like finding an outfit, changing and entering the building - because they have failed a harder task later on. So the solution is either to have checkpoints, or a limited number of saves.
This is entirely different in a game like Half-Life 2, where the essential challenge is staying alive and killing (mostly) anything that moves. Quick saving in a game like that doesn't make the essential challenge any easier - you still have to deliver the same amount of ordanance to each enemy whilst receiving as little damage as possible.
As someone above mentioned, you only have to imagine being able to save anywhere at all in a platform game, like Mario Galaxy, to see that saving anytime/anywhere can completely remove the essence of a game.
It's not about choosing to be challenged. If you want to be entertained without any challenge at all, you should probably just watch a film. Saying it should be up to the player is also wrong thinking in my opinion - the player's paying money to you to be entertained. That includes you making the tough design descisions and balancing the game, not leaving them to try and figure out how to do it themselves.
Also, pay attention to showcasing the ability potential early. If you intro the game with a super charged player and then quickly ratchet them down to zero, you give the player the flexibility of learning the game while giving a taste of power to compel them to play on. Assassin's Creed made great use of that.
For making the player start off powerful, I'd cite Symphony of the Night, or God Of War 2. Assassin's Creed is kind of a bad example because the player only really needed one "power" throughout the entire game: The counter-attack. And that's the first power you get back, right after completing assassination number one. So really, they just made you wimpy for that one level and then they immediately gave you back your game-breaking power and let you abuse it for the entire rest of the game.
Printer-Friendly Version
Save/Load should be anywhere, anytime... always. See the MDA document that explained eight different types of aesthetic appeal for game design where "challenge" was merely one of the eight. Games do not havr to be challenging. Ideally, the choice of whether to be challenged or not should be in the player's hands, not the designer's. If a designer attempts to force me to endure challenge in her game, I will very likely not play except in the specific instance where I am searching for a challenging game experience... at which time it's much more likely that I will play a game that allows me to choose whether to be challenged or not rather than one which forces the challenge on me. Also, a challenge for one player may be simplistic for another. People have different abilities and needs, so the decision should be left with the player.
Adventure games come in two general "flavors." The English market developed their own idea of the adventure game genre where the game is about telling a linear story and the game places puzzle challenges as obstacles between locations or chapters. The Japanese adventure game is a very different product where the focus is (usually) on multiple characters and multiple story paths with multiple interactions and choices that lead to a wide variety of different, multiple endings. Events are often mutually exclusive; once you are on certain story branches, others are precluded during that playthru. Not only does this increase replay value, but it mirrors real life where choices you make can cause different results (but not always). This structure also requires the player to play through all possible events and paths in order to truly understand the overall story that is taking place as well as the various character motivations, events, etc that are experienced. The challenge is cerebral rather than any type of visual puzzle; the player must determine character responses to player actions and activities as well as how all these interactions lead to a wide variety of paths and outcomes.
Save/Load anytime-anywhere cannot be applied to all genres/all games. It often makes games too easy or boring, and defeats the purpose of certain genres such as platform games.
The challenge of a game is in the developer's hands, not the players. That's what makes playing games rewarding.
I want to be challenged. If a developer lets me burn through an entire game on ultra-easy mode where I can save right before any challenge so I don't have to waste a second backtracking, I probably will. I'll beat the game, shelve it, and forget about it by next week.
If a game is compelling enough I will develop whatever skill it takes, and replay as many levels as necessary to achieve the goals the developer laid out. Those are the games I look for, and those are the games I remember for years.
For example, MMOs (obviously) seem to do this very well, players start with only their most basic core skills and slowly accumulate more specific and complex abilities.
However, other games like Call of Duty 4 have done the exact opposite. The game gives players only the most basic perks at the start, but in other aspects, the game seems to throw new players to the wolves. Players are forced to use statistically inferior guns WITHOUT the laser sight dots. I found it incredible that new players, in the already hardcore world of PCs FPSes, were expected to compete without a true crosshair.
While acquiring these RPG-like unlocks is extremely addicting, they seem like they may be a mistake in competitive online games. Not only is it unfair, but as this article suggests, it is extremely discouraging to new players.
There was this controversy over the HITMAN sequels for having it, and it definitely removed a lot of the "tension" in the game. The main problem being that there were never any bad consequences to decisions the player would make on how to approach a "hit", because you always had a "quicksave" stashed away about 10 seconds earlier to quickly fix your mistake.
I think a good compromise is the "CHECKPOINT" system. It gives old long time gamers that were once hardcore, such as myself, a good balance between challenge and accessibility. I can live my normal life and work my 40+ hour a week job and choose one to two hour "nuggets" of game time to finish a title.
A good example is DEADSPACE which I am playing right now. I can put it down for 2-3 weeks during crunch periods at work, then pick right back up where I left off and not have to figure out the controls again.
On the save issue, I agree with checkpoints. Saving anywhere completely defeats the challenge and consequences.
I disagree, and strangely I'm a firm believer in having the ability to save more-or-less exactly where I am. The key here is granularity.
There are two types of 'difficulty', in the sense of the level of challenge presented by the game: the essential and the accidental. Save/load systems need to be balance to preserve the essential challenge of the game, whilst minimizing the accidental challenges (read: frustrations) caused by having to repeat a section multiple times.
In the Hitman games, the essential challenge is infiltrating, killing, and exfiltrating whilst making as few mistakes as possible. Adding a quicksave removes that essential challenge, because it lets players ensure they do everything in perfect individual units, rather than as a whole. However, not having any saves at all will add accidental challenge by forcing the player to some mundane tasks which they have no chance of failing - like finding an outfit, changing and entering the building - because they have failed a harder task later on. So the solution is either to have checkpoints, or a limited number of saves.
This is entirely different in a game like Half-Life 2, where the essential challenge is staying alive and killing (mostly) anything that moves. Quick saving in a game like that doesn't make the essential challenge any easier - you still have to deliver the same amount of ordanance to each enemy whilst receiving as little damage as possible.
As someone above mentioned, you only have to imagine being able to save anywhere at all in a platform game, like Mario Galaxy, to see that saving anytime/anywhere can completely remove the essence of a game.
It's not about choosing to be challenged. If you want to be entertained without any challenge at all, you should probably just watch a film. Saying it should be up to the player is also wrong thinking in my opinion - the player's paying money to you to be entertained. That includes you making the tough design descisions and balancing the game, not leaving them to try and figure out how to do it themselves.
For making the player start off powerful, I'd cite Symphony of the Night, or God Of War 2. Assassin's Creed is kind of a bad example because the player only really needed one "power" throughout the entire game: The counter-attack. And that's the first power you get back, right after completing assassination number one. So really, they just made you wimpy for that one level and then they immediately gave you back your game-breaking power and let you abuse it for the entire rest of the game.