Multiplayer

I'd hate to be one of those people who refuses to get with the times, fighting progress and trying to force the things I've become accustomed to on everyone. But there is one place I have been accused of this, and where this accusation againt peeps in my position is accepted. That place is multiplayer gaming.

Action RPGs

I like almost anything that takes multiple good things and mixes them well. I like Pizza, programming(a blend of science and art), cross-genre music, a well color coordinated room, and I like action RPG games. But what makes a good action RPG tick? Why do we all love them so? Why must so many articles and analysis' start off with a bunch of questions?

This may be a bit subjective, I.E: why I love action RPGs, but I highly doubt that this won't produce fruitful game design ideas and knowledge.

Moral Choice as a Catalyst for Introspection

A lot of the things that need said about choice in videogames have been said already by reviewers and game analysts alike. However, most of what's being said seems to center around developing moral choice as an opportunity for the player to affect the story and reason out moral grey areas. These have the benefits of making the player feel like they're having a legitimate effect on the universe and allowing interesting and intellectually stimulating moral dilemmas. While this is a great direction for videogame design to take, there is more that can be done with player choice that I feel it isn't being given much attention. I also think that a lot of the common complaints for moral choice are about problems that stem from this challenge.

Cover based shooting

"Oh look, LazerBlade is coming out one last time to cover a pop buzzword before heaving his final breath and turning to the dark side of only doing music." If you have just said this, you may get in line at my vaporizer ray, near the volcano entrance. Otherwise, you can except the fact that I still do game design.

So, let's start flapping gums about cover based shooting. I'm not sure where this mechanic originated, but it was certainly popularized by games like Mass Effect and Time Crisis. In the case of Time Crisis, cover based shooting added more depth than the usual rail shooter perpetrated by the novelty value of a light-gun.

As time went on, PC and console games began playing with this mechanism as well. It's definitely an interesting idea, and it's a good thing that some games like Mass Effect 2 have taken the time to expound upon it. However, I think that one or two games are enough. Cover based shooting is really interesting, for about 30 minutes. After that, it becomes a boring ritual.

Step 1:  Wait for enemies to stop shooting.
Step 2:  Pop up and shoot at enemies until they start shooting.
Step 3:  Hide again.
Step 4:  Go back to step 1.

This is actually kind of interesting. But I find more depth, challenge and enjoyment in the old school, unrealistic, free-roaming, run n' gun game.

This problem is worsened by many games, because your health recharges at a rate prone to boredom. Mixing this with cover based shooting is going to make your job as a game designer quite difficult. Oh wait, I'm assuming your job is to make a fun game. I guess this was what you had in mind:

Step 1:  Shoot enemies until you're almost dead.
Step 2:  Hide for a few seconds until your health recharges to max.
Step 3:  Go back to step 1.

Now don't misinterpret me. I actually liked Mass Effect 2 from a game design perspective. It was a game that managed to work cover based shooting in with recharging health with a minimal amount of boredom. I still think it could have been better though.

Take this into mind. If you want player to take advantage of cover, why not just add in some chest high walls and a crouching button? This may seem like a bad idea since everyone is shunning FPS games, but what's wrong with it really? The only advantage of slowing the player down to the speed of a snail with a broken leg, and then taking away his crouching and jumping abilities, is that you as a level designer and programmer don't have half as much to worry about the player doing, since the player can't do half as much.

        --LazerBlade

Buzzwords

There are a few reasons I haven't talked about all these game design ideas that are circulating via buzzwords. Things like "videogame choice", "innovation", "non-linear", "difficulty rather than punishment", and others, will not only serve to strengthen the possibility that I be written off as another bandwagon jumper, but also serve to allow me to write about subjects that probably exhausted their entertainment value very shortly after they became circulated via buzzwords.

This doesn't even touch the fact that I think there is way more to making a good game than any of the ideas listed above, or ideas in your buzzword dictionary. Many great games don't even employ a lot of these ideas. I referenced this in my System Shock 2 review.

So, you're probably thinking something to the effect of "Okay, so you don't like buzzwords. Any Dilbert reading geek deosn't." You are correct, and my intolerance of buzzwords is only a very small part of the point of this post. Since I hate them so much, and I'm sure all of you are yet still dying to hear what I think about these ideas as a game designer anyway, (and because having buzzwords on my blog will make it get more search hits), I've decided to cover all of them in one article. It may stretch out over more than one post, but at least I won't have them floating around on my "write about this" list. ;)


Let's start out with a nice popular one. How about choice? Videogame choice isn't one of those old arts that has merely been forgotten. In fact, back when the first electronic games were being developed, designers didn't have the choice of having choice.


                -->SLAP<--


The first games were simple things like Tennis for two, Pong, Asteroids, PacMan, etc. None of these games present the player with choice in their role or anything other than how they avoid death and defeat the opponent. This isn't criticism. Choice is not a crucial element for a good game, and apparently it isn't a crucial element for a popular game either, based on how many games that present you with none and still impact the market and sell for years.

Of course, I feel this way because my favorite game(System Shock 2, which I linked to my review for above) has no choice in it at all. It's still a good game.

All in all, choice can be good. That is, when done right. A binary choice at the end of the game, is not done right. Now something like Mass Effect 2, where the game is riddled with choices from beginning to end, is better. Note, it's not perfect. There are plenty of inconsistencies or other problems with Mass Effect 2, but lets face it. Mass Effect 2 was a successful game, and a good game. One of the reasons, was because of the choices it allowed you to make.

Thusly, I admit that videogame choice is actually a good thing. But only with the note that it is not completely necessary, and that you need to do it right.

Now lets talk about innovation. In all honesty, I would be more receptive of this idea if all game design related discussion didn't center around it. Yes, I agree that coming up with creative things in your game that set it apart is important. It may even be crucial in may cases, but it isn't always. I'm going to hit you over the head with Mass Effect 2 again. ME2 didn't really innovate much, it basically took a great idea, and tried to improve the gameplay that centered around it. ME1 was innovative though, which probably had a lot to do with ME2's success.

Innovation isn't something you can put in a box and carry with you. There is no recipe for innovation, and no step by step guide. Innovation is important, but there are much bigger risks involved. You have to look at this from the perspective of a big company too. They aren't going to spend millions of dollars developing an innovative game if they're not pretty sure it will succeed.

That said, innovation is only successful when it's aligned with the market. You can have the greatest new idea for something that has never been done before, but if the market doesn't  want it now, your innovation will do nothing for you.

So yep, innovation is good. It is only so important however, and always more risky than cranking out something you know everyone will buy.


So, I've talked about innovation and video game choice, but what about this whole "non-linear gameplay" thing? Well, that basically means you aren't strapped to taking the same path through the game every time. It means there is more than one path to the end of the game. You don't have to do the same set of challenges in the same order every time you play through.

My opinion of this is very similar to my opinion of videogame choice, given System Shock 2 wasn't completely linear. It can be good, but isn't essential. The biggest advantage of non-linear gameplay is that it increases replay value. Someone can play through the game more than once and have a totally different experience each time. This is great from a gamers perspective, but maybe slightly less great from a distributors perspective.

Sure, the gamers get twice as much gameplay, thats great right? But distributors know they can't get away with charging double for their game just because it's non-linear. They have to rely on using this technique to hit a bigger audience and charge only so much more for the game.


I guess that about covers the most popular ones for now. It may be that my writing brain can't think of the others right now, but they would have to go in a second part anyway, as this post is stretching out a little long.


          --LazerBlade