Tuesday, July 01, 2008
Game Design: Is Freedom Not Fun?
Randy Smith, lead designer at EA, has an article on Next Generation about how choice and consequences are out of vogue in today's game designs. He cites Ultima V as his example - a game that freely let you shoot yourself in the foot, go off the beaten path, make bad choices, and get clobbered by them.
Smith states, "Today, this sort of thing is considered bad and wrong, and we’ve developed some of our most sophisticated design around preventing it... Why do we do all this? Because games are supposed to be fun, and fun only happens when you are pointed directly towards it, when it’s neither too easy nor too hard to get, and when you’re told ‘good job’ upon acquiring it. We’ve brilliantly succeeded in eliminating the interstitials, stripping away everything but fun."
Is this a good thing? Is this the right thing? Randy brings up the "games as art" argument, and suggests that being led around onto exactly the right path, rendering our choices irrelevent, might not be the evolutionary Utopia of gaming that we really want. Smith continues, "I worry that in the course of evolution we created a philosophical divide with exploration, choice, and consequence on one side and goals, scores, and balance on the other. I’m not sure the two sides are equally vital for producing unique, relevant works. Are we so hooked on the escapist fantasy of an uncomplicated life, of reverting to the safety of childhood, that no other games should be made? Have we explored alternatives?"
In her commentary article "Hold My Hand," Scorpia contends that stripping away choice and marking the path for the player every step of the way doesn't necessarily refine the "fun," either. "is so much direction really a good thing? Does having to think about the game and what we’re doing somehow take away from the 'fun'? I certainly enjoyed playing Ultima IV. But it wouldn’t have been as much of a pleasure had Hawkwind (or anyone else) been directing me through the game. "
Later, in comments, she notes "Funny, when I first started gaming - and with some pretty tough adventure games - I never felt intimidated. And back then, I wasn’t doing it professionally, either."
Going back to the discussion yesterday, is this just a matter of audience? The games of yesteryear certainly had technical limits as to how much they could "guide" the player - they even had to pack crucial data into manuals for lack of RAM on the system. But in the 1980's (the era of Ultima IV and V and many text adventures), the gamer was a niche audience. Today, games are mainstream.
Perhaps only a small niche of players like figuring this stuff out for themselves?
I don't know. I'm sort of a middle-of-the-road gamer. My gaming history is littered with titles that I never completed because I got stuck at some point --- stuck, frustrated, and the game ceased to be fun. However, some of the most fun I've had in games has come from puzzling my way through challenges. I absolutely loved solving the Babel-Fish puzzle in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. I have a threshold of pain and confusion where I really do want some hand-holding and some good guidance. But I'm much happier - and having more fun - when I am able to tackle those challenges on my own.
I had way more fun white water rafting as a kid than riding roller coasters, too. Am I just an exception? A niche?
Or should this be the next evolutionary change games take a "helping hand" rather than hand-holding*. I think I'd really prefer that. Maybe I would have finished Ultima V if that were the case...
* Of course, this assumes that the game is actually made in such a way that it allows players to chart their own course. Due to development costs for content, designers are loathe to create any aspect of the game world that the player isn't required to see.
Labels: Game Design
- posted by The Rampant Coyote @ 12:16 PM (Permalink)
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
>> Perhaps only a small niche of players like figuring this stuff out for themselves?
This is my take on the situation. Hand holding in games has brought games into the mainstreams, finally making TV viewers desire a bit of interactivity. It may eventually evolve into this audience wanting more of a challenge, but I am afraid the majority of the public is looking for fast and simple entertainment.
This is my take on the situation. Hand holding in games has brought games into the mainstreams, finally making TV viewers desire a bit of interactivity. It may eventually evolve into this audience wanting more of a challenge, but I am afraid the majority of the public is looking for fast and simple entertainment.
"Perhaps only a small niche of players like figuring this stuff out for themselves?"
Ahh.. in time to voice the same feelings and thoughts as Code Ugly....
Ahh.. in time to voice the same feelings and thoughts as Code Ugly....
# posted by 
: July 01, 2008 2:21 PM
: July 01, 2008 2:21 PM
"Perhaps only a small niche of players like figuring this stuff out for themselves?"
You could probably say the same about the game of life.
You could probably say the same about the game of life.
Ship your complex games with walkthroughs and cheat codes, let people who want an easy time have it, let people who want challenge have it. Simple! :)
I like hand holding. Sometimes it's nice to just play through a story without having to look at a strategy guide or explore some awful mazes I'm not enjoying, especially if I forked out a bunch of cash for the game.
It's even better when hand holding is optional. A simple preference option to turn off location beacons or automatic minimap pins can help cater to both crowds. Done right, it could be a different form of "easy mode" that doesn't simply involve giving the player a ton of health or making the enemies hit with twigs instead of swords. :)
Some explorer types enjoy dungeons more if they know which direction is the right one. I often turn around and explore the other sides when I pick correctly the first time.
It's even better when hand holding is optional. A simple preference option to turn off location beacons or automatic minimap pins can help cater to both crowds. Done right, it could be a different form of "easy mode" that doesn't simply involve giving the player a ton of health or making the enemies hit with twigs instead of swords. :)
Some explorer types enjoy dungeons more if they know which direction is the right one. I often turn around and explore the other sides when I pick correctly the first time.
Perhaps only a small niche of players like figuring this stuff out for themselves?
I'm going to take the unwise decision of disagreeing with several of you on this one. I think that people like difficulty, because they like puzzles. The explosion of Sudoku demonstrates that. Physical puzzles go back hundreds of years and for many people are nearly impossible to put down -- heck, the truck stop a few exits north of here has some well-loved peg-board puzzles on the table. If the difficulty is well-defined such that the player always know what he should be doing, and there are things left to try (or try again) then I think most players will keep at it.
The Babel fish puzzle is like those blacksmith puzzles: a relatively well-defined puzzle where you manipulate your surroundings in sometimes unintuitive ways, working your way toward a known outcome that you're pretty sure you want. (A fish in your ear. Ew.) You can pick it up, put it down, come back to it later and look at it fresh. That Professor Layton game for the DS is just this writ large, and I gather it's doing fairly well. (I certainly enjoyed it)
I think that there is room for more meaningful choice and consequence beyond puzzling, though, if a designer is willing to take on some subjects core to RPGs: why does nobody really focus on the level grind as a fundamentally evil act? Doing something wantonly destructive for the sole purpose of gaining power? It's like every RPG player is a mini Darth Vader, but nobody notices or cares. Once you've got that level of absurdity, it's really hard to persuade the player that other things should be stricter. Just on a simply practical level, if the level treadmill is still there, then "it's unwise to go here" becomes "level up a bit first" in the player's mind.
I want to see a game where I have to think long and hard about whether I want to click that "level up" button when it starts to sparkle. Not just strategically (some games give you more XP or other bonuses if you hold off on leveling) -- I want to think about whether my character has become a juggernaut that the locals are going to fear. Are they going to see my character fighting the bandit leader as a plucky upstart defending them, or as a bigger bully throwing his weight around, someone they need to be wary of and obsequious to? Are the local villains going to admire my character? Is the friendly king going to start to see him as a threat to his power?
This is getting a bit off-topic. I'll go into it in more detail on my own blog.
I'm going to take the unwise decision of disagreeing with several of you on this one. I think that people like difficulty, because they like puzzles. The explosion of Sudoku demonstrates that. Physical puzzles go back hundreds of years and for many people are nearly impossible to put down -- heck, the truck stop a few exits north of here has some well-loved peg-board puzzles on the table. If the difficulty is well-defined such that the player always know what he should be doing, and there are things left to try (or try again) then I think most players will keep at it.
The Babel fish puzzle is like those blacksmith puzzles: a relatively well-defined puzzle where you manipulate your surroundings in sometimes unintuitive ways, working your way toward a known outcome that you're pretty sure you want. (A fish in your ear. Ew.) You can pick it up, put it down, come back to it later and look at it fresh. That Professor Layton game for the DS is just this writ large, and I gather it's doing fairly well. (I certainly enjoyed it)
I think that there is room for more meaningful choice and consequence beyond puzzling, though, if a designer is willing to take on some subjects core to RPGs: why does nobody really focus on the level grind as a fundamentally evil act? Doing something wantonly destructive for the sole purpose of gaining power? It's like every RPG player is a mini Darth Vader, but nobody notices or cares. Once you've got that level of absurdity, it's really hard to persuade the player that other things should be stricter. Just on a simply practical level, if the level treadmill is still there, then "it's unwise to go here" becomes "level up a bit first" in the player's mind.
I want to see a game where I have to think long and hard about whether I want to click that "level up" button when it starts to sparkle. Not just strategically (some games give you more XP or other bonuses if you hold off on leveling) -- I want to think about whether my character has become a juggernaut that the locals are going to fear. Are they going to see my character fighting the bandit leader as a plucky upstart defending them, or as a bigger bully throwing his weight around, someone they need to be wary of and obsequious to? Are the local villains going to admire my character? Is the friendly king going to start to see him as a threat to his power?
This is getting a bit off-topic. I'll go into it in more detail on my own blog.
why does nobody really focus on the level grind as a fundamentally evil act? Doing something wantonly destructive for the sole purpose of gaining power?
Cute Knight does! :) Sort of. Although players don't always understand it...
(Killing things gets you Sin. Unless you were fighting the undead, in which case, have at it. The rules about Sin will be a little more complicated in the sequel...)
Cute Knight does! :) Sort of. Although players don't always understand it...
(Killing things gets you Sin. Unless you were fighting the undead, in which case, have at it. The rules about Sin will be a little more complicated in the sequel...)
@whiner: I plainly need to give Cute Knight another look. It came out while I was in grad school, so I didn't really give it a try.
cray >> I often turn around and explore the other sides when I pick correctly the first time.
That's cool. I am the polar opposite. I try to take all the wrong path first. :-) I don't know how that became habit.
That's cool. I am the polar opposite. I try to take all the wrong path first. :-) I don't know how that became habit.
Sudoku is popular because of it's going-through-the-motions gameplay, rather than its predictable difficulty and its goal of achievement. It's enjoyable as kayaking or playing horseshoes is enjoyable. The experience is simple, familiar, and keeps the mind occupied without causing stress. It's meditative.
Anyway, being more of an explorer or achiever makes a difference, but I'd say it's generally good to allow players the freedom to make mistakes while ensuring that punishment for those mistakes is mild. A lot of linear games say "do it the right way, or start over" (or, worse... "find your own way back to the beginning"). Games like Oblivion say "do whatever you want, and in any order... but your choices will make the game harder or easier".
I don't think there's any right way on this, really. But I firmly believe that games are fundamentally about interaction, and the pinnacle of interaction is choice. Choices are most fun when guided (look at Spore's Creature Creator), but too much guidance results in simply turning the page in someone else's story.
Anyway, being more of an explorer or achiever makes a difference, but I'd say it's generally good to allow players the freedom to make mistakes while ensuring that punishment for those mistakes is mild. A lot of linear games say "do it the right way, or start over" (or, worse... "find your own way back to the beginning"). Games like Oblivion say "do whatever you want, and in any order... but your choices will make the game harder or easier".
I don't think there's any right way on this, really. But I firmly believe that games are fundamentally about interaction, and the pinnacle of interaction is choice. Choices are most fun when guided (look at Spore's Creature Creator), but too much guidance results in simply turning the page in someone else's story.
EA's full of it. They want less choice because it's easier. When you give players real choice you have to have consequences to those choices, and that's hard. Not least because it means you have to create content that won't show up on one play through the game.
The worst alternative is conspicuous railroading, like Star Control 3. If you took one step out of line, it was a game over (examples: you lied to a particular alien race, or decided you had bigger problems than whether one of your allies was enslaved by its past). Nothing could happen in an unusual order; if you haven't triggered all of the events beforehand you could not access unrelated events that the game designers placed later in their plot. You couldn't discover plot-related locations early, either, because those all took place around 'dark' stars that didn't appear on the map until the plot put 'em there. Consequently you pretty much spent the entire game asking what to do next (a built in hint system), because if you did anything else nothing happened.
Compared to the previous game, where they set you a task (win the war and save humanity) and then just dropped lots of hints, but let you decide when and in which order to follow them up, if at all. The trick was that you always felt as though you were making progress, even if it was just the ability to buy more fuel so you could take a look at the next further star.
Post a Comment
The worst alternative is conspicuous railroading, like Star Control 3. If you took one step out of line, it was a game over (examples: you lied to a particular alien race, or decided you had bigger problems than whether one of your allies was enslaved by its past). Nothing could happen in an unusual order; if you haven't triggered all of the events beforehand you could not access unrelated events that the game designers placed later in their plot. You couldn't discover plot-related locations early, either, because those all took place around 'dark' stars that didn't appear on the map until the plot put 'em there. Consequently you pretty much spent the entire game asking what to do next (a built in hint system), because if you did anything else nothing happened.
Compared to the previous game, where they set you a task (win the war and save humanity) and then just dropped lots of hints, but let you decide when and in which order to follow them up, if at all. The trick was that you always felt as though you were making progress, even if it was just the ability to buy more fuel so you could take a look at the next further star.
# posted by : July 12, 2008 9:08 AM
: July 12, 2008 9:08 AMLinks to this post:
<< Home
