Method
10.
Linear Design versus Component Breakdown
Linear Design involves solving
challenges as they come. All solutions and possibilities hold the same
institutional value. Focus can be lost with this method, but it provides
creative and spontaneous solutions.
Component Breakdown involves
systemic categorization and forming a logical hierarchy of all solutions. This
method can restrict innovation but preserves clarity of primary design
objectives.
This principle does not mean designers must choose one or
the other. There are times during development where one method is more
appropriate than the other.
For instance, pre-production provides plenty of
time for breaking down a sequence of events. However, when the publisher drops
a "must have" change after pre-production, linear design can provide
an acceptable solution quickly.
Level design example
Typical blocking of level geometry in an early stage of
development, versus adjusting a small area of the same level to implement an
idea that wasn't thought of until later.
System design example
Identifying all major systems (combat, AI, input, etc), and
progressively filling in various levels of detail versus conceiving the first
couple of levels and extracting possible systems based on a linear player
experience.
Foundation
The final three principles mark the foundation of gameplay
design, which are listed in reverse order of importance. These should be a
surprise to no one.
11.
Player
How does the player factor into
this? How does the player interact with everything that has been designed? More
than just device input, address how the player contributes to the experience.
If it's a good idea and you're able to convey it correctly but the player is
not into it, change it or scrap it!
Level design example
Setting up the player in hopes of making them jump out of
their seat.
System design example
Orchestrating progression so that the player feels
empowered, determined, anxious, etc.
12.
Communication
Is the appropriate team member
correctly aware of the objective? Are the appropriate developers clear on the
solution? If it's a good idea but you can't communicate it correctly, it might
as well be a bad idea because it's very likely to be received as such.
Level design example
Using the elements of the environment so the player is
compelled to travel in the correct direction.
System design example
Using visual cues so the player learns when to punch rather
than kick, jump rather than strafe, etc.
13.
Appeal
When addressing anyone, ask
yourself, "Does this draw the audience in?" This applies to (but is not limited
to) the player, the spectator, your fellow developers, the publisher, and their
marketing team. If it's not a good idea, there's no need to continue until it
becomes a good idea or is replaced by something better.
Level design example
Running down the street is not fun, but running down the
street while being pursued by government secret agents is.
System design example
Punching can be fun but when the camera shakes on impact,
it's even more fun.
Conclusion
So, there you have it. These principles have noticeably
improved my designs and forced me to think of components from all angles. I
thoroughly believe they will give you an edge on all those impatient carts. So,
stick that in your horse and race it!
[If Gamasutra readers have other major principles that you believe are missing from this list, or any suggestion for the current 'Principles' list, please comment below.]
|
Printer-Friendly Version
I would hesitate to attempt to 'complete' the list though. Inherently, one cannot take a perspective upon an art form, extract principles, and expect all bases to be covered. If anything, I would suggest the author ask each of his readers for their own lists. I think that might prove an enlightening study.
That said, all of the points in this list are insightful, fundamental, and applicable. Thank you for helping me up my game :)
Under Behavior, the only thing I can think of to add is the phrase, “the greater the risk the greater the reward” or “Risk and Reward Expectations”. Or perhaps on broader terms just "Expectations".
For instance, when given multiple paths to an objective, if the player chooses to traverse the obviously more treacherous path or solve the very difficult optional puzzle, don’t reward him with a standard ammo or health pack. Instead give him a new device, weapon or power-up not necessarily integral to completing the game or level, but a temporary advantage for his extra efforts.
This is common to many games, one example is the old Doom levels, where they cleverly placed power-ups where you could see them, but you had to figure out how to obtain them and deal with the enemies guarding it, or you could just keep on going and blast your way out without the object. Either way the player made the choice and got what he expected and was happy.
Thanks for sharing this with us. I really appreciate your time and efforts on this very informative article.
I love the idea that given there is no "ultimate" list of game design principles, to adopt a set of principles that works in another medium really makes us rethink and reprioritize how the principles we already know should work together.
When I look at Matt's list, it's not just a bunch of suggestions; there is a rhythm and wisdom in it that borrows from its inspiration in animation. The next step, as Nicholas suggests, is really for everyone to establish their own list, and apply it religiously as Matt did, with some adaptation and tweaking along the way. In the same way expert stock traders build a toolkit of filters and alerts, or coaches build a playbook, designers should build their own repetoire.
I'd like to echo Bill Redd's comments regarding unique item rewards, but I'd like to elaborate slightly. I posted about this on the Mass Effect forums, too, but players should be rewarded for exploring and doing various extra tasks. Being thorough and completionist should be rewarded in other words. However, the rewards should be unique, at least for the majority of tasks (over 50%, in my view). Using randomly generated, levelled loot lists is simpler, but it makes the player feel that there's no real reason to explore or do any additional activity beyond the straightforward approach through the game. If rewards are unremarkable, the tasks are unremarkable and repetitive.
Another way to do this is to offer a reward of an item or ability earlier than the player would receive it if they only followed the straightforward approach. Mr. Redd used Doom as an example, so I'll use Doom 3 as an example. Doom 3 occasionally offered more powerful weapons in out of the way locations earlier than they normally appeared. This approach, like unique items, abilities, etc, offers the player rewards for exploring and thoroughness and leaves the choice of whether or not to acquire such a reward up to the player rather than the developer. It offers genuine purpose and strategic planning for player exploration and accomplishment of various tasks.
I seem to recall Deus Ex doing what you spoke about in your second paragraph very well. We played through the first level in class the other day, and after we finished our playthrough, our professor showed us everything we missed, and all the things we could receive earlier had we been more thorough in our explorations.
@ Matt:
GREAT Article. I went through through the same thought process as you, with the 12 Principles in a Traditional Animation class. I'm glad someone sat down to verbalize principles for Gameplay.
Some comments, for each point:
1. Focal Point: what am I supposed to do? Very important one.
2. Anticipation. It's an either/or rule, you might sometimes want anticipation, otherwise you prefer to surprise the player (basic "fear" principle in horror movies). It's a way to tweak difficulty as well.
3. Annouce change = feedback: what's the consequences of my actions? What changes/moves on screen are worth noticing? Very important one. You can use it for tweaking difficulty too.
4. Believable Events and Behavior. The more you copy reality, the more things in the game will make sense, so it will be more easy to learn. Danger is: reality is sometimes limited or boring.
5. Overlapping Events and Behavior = simplicity, always good!
6. Physics: close to point 5: the closest Physics is to reality, the more it will be predictable/easy to understand. It doesn't mean it'll be easier...
7. Sound. A huge topic, deserve a whole article. Very very important!
8. Pacing. The key! it's about tuning difficulty, variety. Overcoming frustration and boredom... it's managing the "pleasure curve" of the player.
9. A lot to say about this, but as for most of these principles, it's just an axe of tuning a game. The question remains: in which way spacing can affect usability/gameplay/player's feeling?
10. So many other ways to design a game! I don't know yet.
11. Player. Every designer should think about that first, always.
12. Communication. Is this about development team work or really about the game itslef? Definition and examples are not related.
13. Appeal. I would say: graphical/sound appeal. You can buy a game for that and realizing afterwards that it's boring to play. Appeal is very powerful!
However, I think there are some other ''things'' to consider:
- Creativity/ Originality
The players already experienced tons of games before, that factor will directly affect the impact of every gameplays you will create for them. Did they play those gameplays tons of times before? A player who does play shooter games all the time shouldn't be as entertained by a new Shooter Game as a Casual Gamer would do, except if it's his only life trip.
- How does a player react to an Experience
I guess it should define step by step the order in which you may define most of the principles listed in the article.