'As Sid puts it, “the player shouldn’t have to read the same books the designer has read in order to be able to play.”' - http://www.designer-notes.com/?p=119
This got me thinking along the lines of two previous posts. One is about improving the user to improve the system (Oops, I have to finish this one.) and the other is about what real serious game design. It seems to me that the problem might be a combination of people only wanting to play, as in the truly not being open to learning more or expending time and effort to improve, and that people expect the systems to make it so there are no consequences to the former.
Design Challenges
While reading a section of the post ( http://www.designer-notes.com/?p=119 ) called "One Good Game is Better than Two Great Ones" I found myself disagreeing with the tone, till I read the second half of the section. In the first half it talks about having two main concepts fighting for the top place in the design. The second half talks about mixing them to the benefit, rather than detriment, of the gameplay.
Seemed like designers saying we have to make the games simple to do it well, even though that isn't really what's meant in the post. I have seen this view before. First, this is due to marketing and business, not game design. Second, it's a matter of skill and creativity to get big ideas to properly coexist. Third, smaller games are easier to finish and produce. So, I do understand where some people are coming from. It's just not my preference most of the time. As stated in the post, "sometimes multiple games can co-exist in harmony with each other." ( http://www.designer-notes.com/?p=119 )
See, I find it insulting to be told as a gamer and designer that game should be simpler. As a gamer I expect to be pushed in games. Even something as nice and friendly as a farming game has consequences. Treating your animals and crops badly means you will get a small return. So, you are pushed to improve your farming and ranching skills and performance to get better results. I want to create such games that push the players. In the example game from the section, intense action and "an involved mystery-type plot" are put into one game. The action and clues didn't work well together in that game apparently. During the action the players seemed to have forgotten the clues and mystery.
This is the kind of thing I consider a design challenge. While it is true that you can settle for doing as mentioned in the post and tone down the action, there are other solutions.
Possible Solutions
Integrate them on a more granular level. How about having the mystery be a part of the action and the action be a part of the mystery? Where should you try to go during the action? What are the implications of the clue you just found or didn't find where it should have been? Where were the most guards? Why were they there? Could the opposing side have been misleading you? These are possible questions to present to the player to make the two play types work together. Mystery can heighten the action, and the action can provide clues to the mystery.
Make skill growth a major part of the gameplay. Perhaps you start off as a low ranking officer or agent. As you do better in the missions you get promotions. Higher ranked individuals get harder missions and access to more resources. By putting in clues and patterns into the mission generator. Maybe the mystery is optional, or even one of several. This goes into the realm of emergent stories and gameplay, but that could be a good thing.
Interesting Results
Both solutions suggested have educational results, based on assisted learning more than educating. Lots of people don't like to think. As odd a concept as that is for me, I've found it to be violently true. Feelings of security, pleasure and other preferred sensations usually take priority over things like logic, needs and reality.
The granular integration idea helps by blurring the lines. Rather than switching back and forth between thinking and doing, you switch which one is leading and which one is guiding. In the action sequences you are guided by the mystery and clues in your action choices. When the action is over, it takes a guiding role to the mystery solving. By guiding I mean advising. Which direction you go in the action sequences depends on the clues and mystery stuff. Maybe it's better to chase down the henchman, or perhaps the files and data is more important. What happens in the action is important to solving the mystery.
The job promotion and skill based growth idea goes a different direction. Instead of blurring the lines, it makes putting the pieces of the mystery together a part of determining the action. As you do better at remembering the mystery stuff despite the action, you get tools and resources that help you solve the mystery. In other words, it's a positive feedback loop. The fact that the player has trouble with keeping the mystery in mind fits the idea of being a new officer or agent. Meeting the challenge is as much a part of the gameplay as the intense action and involved mystery.
Obvious Fix
If people are having trouble remembering something, you could just remind them. Clue notebooks, communications, meetings and other options are available depending on the setting and plot. While this could mean the other ideas aren't needed, I waited to mention this know because I wanted to prove a point. There are ways to make an idea better without degrading the content. Even if the big solutions aren't available, there are usually simpler options to choose.
Have fun, spread the word and tell me what you think,
Igen Oukan
View Blog Reactions
0 comments:
Post a Comment