Here, an actual exemple of the synchronized concept exposed earlier, one where the action is not influenced by music.
Spin Sprint
Here, you can't decide when and how to face a challenge.
Feedback is poor, but not the worst it could be. It's more a skill game than an immersive game (like shooting darts).
Showing posts with label design. Show all posts
Showing posts with label design. Show all posts
2008/12/11
Feedback
In my opinion, feedback is more important than anything else; it's where immersion starts. Everything the player does has to tell him those actions has an impact on the game in the most explosive way possible. When the player shoots at an enemy and destroys it, don't just make it disapear... Make it explode, make some noise, etc. When the avatar walks, it won't make the same sound when walking on dirt as when walking on grass. Or even when confronted to a menu, if the player tries to go down an option in the list and can't, give a visual and/or auditive cue. Tell the player what's happening the first time he tries it. In the menu exemple, if he hears a buzzer for the firts time and his cursor isn't moving, he'll quickly understand the situation, and won't try to push the down button again.
So, feedback has two main purposes: immersion and information.
So, feedback has two main purposes: immersion and information.
2008/11/24
Concepts of Play
Concepts of play are some kind of macro version of game genres. New terms and short descriptions will follow, like my first article on concepts of space.
Action Play
Common kind of play. This concept implies an always evolving environment (meaning things can move without your approval at all times) wish presents threats and the importance of dealing with that environment through gameplay. Games like Starcraft, Hockey, Super Mario Bros. and Half Life all fall within this concept.
Turn-Based Play
This one is well known. Almost every card and board game is turn based, as well as RPGs' battle modes.
Puzzle Play
Usually, we can compare puzzle concepts of play with single player turn-based concepts, although we wouldn't be right for every puzzle concepts. Tetris, for exemple, is a clever mix of puzzle and action play. The environment does not move on it's own, but you have a space-based time limit wish is the time your pieces take to reach the bottom. Another exemple, Tetris Attack, makes it possible to affect the other player's space in a real-time fashion. The reason why the concept is still puzzle play: thinking is the key to success. The reason why it is mixed with an action concept: being quick is another key. (Almost) Pure puzzle concepts are found in Mastermind, Portal and Braid. Why Braid? Because you can't die in Braid. There is an action concept absorbed by a puzzle concept; or an illusion of action, because moving things will never pose a real threat. This is awesome, really. Braid is a way to tell conventions to go fuck themselves.
Synchronized Play
You must do what the game tells you to do at the moment it tells you to do it. Exemples tell everything there is to know: Guitar Hero, Karaoke Revolution, Rock Band and those small games (sorry, I don't remember any name) where your avatar never stops running and where you have specific things to do in specific situations; there's a gap, you've got to jump, but unlike in action play, no matter what you do you'll have to face this gap at a moment you won't choose. The reason why synchronized concepts of play are not reflex concepts is because reflexes are inevitably found in action concepts too. But really, synchronized play is only about reflexes and learning controls. You need nothing else. This is what makes synchronization games so popular; they are easy to play. "What must I do?", "Do what the game tells you to do."
Luck-Based Play
Heads or Tails, Snakes and Ladders, etc. Pure luck-based concepts create an illusion of play. Players think they play because they flip the coin themselves and decide wish outcome will mean their victory, but really, what they do is the same as pushing "play" on a remote controler. They trigger the beginning of something on wish they have absolutely no control, except for beginning and ending the "game". People lost everything they had playing those games that are even more easy than the previous concept of play.
So that's it for now. More about concepts of play as I experiment them!
Action Play
Common kind of play. This concept implies an always evolving environment (meaning things can move without your approval at all times) wish presents threats and the importance of dealing with that environment through gameplay. Games like Starcraft, Hockey, Super Mario Bros. and Half Life all fall within this concept.
Turn-Based Play
This one is well known. Almost every card and board game is turn based, as well as RPGs' battle modes.
Puzzle Play
Usually, we can compare puzzle concepts of play with single player turn-based concepts, although we wouldn't be right for every puzzle concepts. Tetris, for exemple, is a clever mix of puzzle and action play. The environment does not move on it's own, but you have a space-based time limit wish is the time your pieces take to reach the bottom. Another exemple, Tetris Attack, makes it possible to affect the other player's space in a real-time fashion. The reason why the concept is still puzzle play: thinking is the key to success. The reason why it is mixed with an action concept: being quick is another key. (Almost) Pure puzzle concepts are found in Mastermind, Portal and Braid. Why Braid? Because you can't die in Braid. There is an action concept absorbed by a puzzle concept; or an illusion of action, because moving things will never pose a real threat. This is awesome, really. Braid is a way to tell conventions to go fuck themselves.
Synchronized Play
You must do what the game tells you to do at the moment it tells you to do it. Exemples tell everything there is to know: Guitar Hero, Karaoke Revolution, Rock Band and those small games (sorry, I don't remember any name) where your avatar never stops running and where you have specific things to do in specific situations; there's a gap, you've got to jump, but unlike in action play, no matter what you do you'll have to face this gap at a moment you won't choose. The reason why synchronized concepts of play are not reflex concepts is because reflexes are inevitably found in action concepts too. But really, synchronized play is only about reflexes and learning controls. You need nothing else. This is what makes synchronization games so popular; they are easy to play. "What must I do?", "Do what the game tells you to do."
Luck-Based Play
Heads or Tails, Snakes and Ladders, etc. Pure luck-based concepts create an illusion of play. Players think they play because they flip the coin themselves and decide wish outcome will mean their victory, but really, what they do is the same as pushing "play" on a remote controler. They trigger the beginning of something on wish they have absolutely no control, except for beginning and ending the "game". People lost everything they had playing those games that are even more easy than the previous concept of play.
So that's it for now. More about concepts of play as I experiment them!
2008/11/23
Linear Space
According to my own words, this is what a linear space concept is.
This concept always have an obvious goal. You are at the left, then you go right. You're at the bottom, then you must go up. The space is the goal and often you will face other opponants (race) or have a time limit. This concept is the perfect one for action games; you don't need to think where or how to go to the next level, everything is about running, jumping and/or killing.
Well, this is bullshit. Yes, this concept is perfect for what we use it for, but unwritten rules like those prevents us from really creating. By identifying entities of a game (like space, as talked about in this article) we can learn understand how to avoid being ruled by conventions. Guitar Hero might show an interesting use of the linear space concept, since it uses it with what I'd call "Synchronized Play". Patapon is even more interesting, being half-way between Synchronized Play and Action Play (altough it's a little more on the synchronized side).
More about concepts of play later.
Linear Space
Usually used in 2D spaces. No matter what you do, you start at point A and finish at point B. Pretty simple concept. Think about Snakes and Ladders, Super Mario Bros. and Contra.
This concept always have an obvious goal. You are at the left, then you go right. You're at the bottom, then you must go up. The space is the goal and often you will face other opponants (race) or have a time limit. This concept is the perfect one for action games; you don't need to think where or how to go to the next level, everything is about running, jumping and/or killing.
Well, this is bullshit. Yes, this concept is perfect for what we use it for, but unwritten rules like those prevents us from really creating. By identifying entities of a game (like space, as talked about in this article) we can learn understand how to avoid being ruled by conventions. Guitar Hero might show an interesting use of the linear space concept, since it uses it with what I'd call "Synchronized Play". Patapon is even more interesting, being half-way between Synchronized Play and Action Play (altough it's a little more on the synchronized side).
More about concepts of play later.
Concept of Space
A somewhat important concept. What are the rules of space in your game? Wish concept will you choose? How? Why?
Here are some concepts of space, descriptions and exemples. Nothing to big, just some guideline to, if don't already, comprehend that space is a game entity in itself. Terms used are created by me. Sorry if one of those was used somewhere else.
Linear Space
Usually used in 2D spaces. No matter what you do, you start at point A and finish at point B. Pretty simple concept. Think about Snakes and Ladders, Super Mario Bros. and Contra.
Free Gravity Space
You have complete freedom of where you go at all times. You are from no point A in particular, but there is, somewhere in the world, a point B to go to. You can't win by going where ou want. Some good exemples would be fl0w and hacky sack. In those games, going anywhere is meaningless unless it's near the point B, or "center of gravity". If you haven't guessed by now, the center of gravity in hacky sack is the sack itself, and in flow, the central mass of enemies.
Forced Gravity Space or Zone Space
Again, point A is arbitrary. This concept of space decides for the player that going in meaningless areas is pointless and thus, forbids to access them. There's two ways of doing that: loops and invisible walls. In Star Fox 64, there were loops in the battle mode and "invisible walls" in some boss battles. Pac-Man falls in this category too, the Mario Bros. game (without the "Super") as well and Indy 500 on Atari and the board games Axis and Allies or Monopoly.
World Wide Space
Complete worlds are accessible. Be careful though: a game like Super Mario World is not sticking to the World Wide Space concept. There is a world map, but it's more an interface where you choose a level to play in. The real gameplay happens in a Linear Space concept. Here, in this World Wide Space concept, the gameplay happens in a complete world where you are not only looking for point B, but for a lot more! Some researches have to be done before finding the objectives. Elder Scrolls III, Fallout 3, many MMOG are using the World Wide Space concept.
Spacelessness
A game with no space. Can't say much about it. Browser based games often fall in this category.
I'll try to depict more concepts at another time, as well as describe the ways and reasons to use them. For now, think about it yourself :P
Here are some concepts of space, descriptions and exemples. Nothing to big, just some guideline to, if don't already, comprehend that space is a game entity in itself. Terms used are created by me. Sorry if one of those was used somewhere else.
Linear Space
Usually used in 2D spaces. No matter what you do, you start at point A and finish at point B. Pretty simple concept. Think about Snakes and Ladders, Super Mario Bros. and Contra.
Free Gravity Space
You have complete freedom of where you go at all times. You are from no point A in particular, but there is, somewhere in the world, a point B to go to. You can't win by going where ou want. Some good exemples would be fl0w and hacky sack. In those games, going anywhere is meaningless unless it's near the point B, or "center of gravity". If you haven't guessed by now, the center of gravity in hacky sack is the sack itself, and in flow, the central mass of enemies.
Forced Gravity Space or Zone Space
Again, point A is arbitrary. This concept of space decides for the player that going in meaningless areas is pointless and thus, forbids to access them. There's two ways of doing that: loops and invisible walls. In Star Fox 64, there were loops in the battle mode and "invisible walls" in some boss battles. Pac-Man falls in this category too, the Mario Bros. game (without the "Super") as well and Indy 500 on Atari and the board games Axis and Allies or Monopoly.
World Wide Space
Complete worlds are accessible. Be careful though: a game like Super Mario World is not sticking to the World Wide Space concept. There is a world map, but it's more an interface where you choose a level to play in. The real gameplay happens in a Linear Space concept. Here, in this World Wide Space concept, the gameplay happens in a complete world where you are not only looking for point B, but for a lot more! Some researches have to be done before finding the objectives. Elder Scrolls III, Fallout 3, many MMOG are using the World Wide Space concept.
Spacelessness
A game with no space. Can't say much about it. Browser based games often fall in this category.
I'll try to depict more concepts at another time, as well as describe the ways and reasons to use them. For now, think about it yourself :P
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
