Shadow Complex is a game that truly highlights the nature of non-linear progression (NLP). NLP is just player-determined progression. There is no set course to play the game other than “Find the Backpack” and “Defeat Final Boss”. More importantly, it isn’t a direct course from start to finish There are multiple ways in which to reach the ending. Despite this NLP, the player does not feel like a mouse trapped in a maze unable to plan ahead, nor does the player wander aimlessly in order to somehow discover by divine intervention which way to go. All actions still remain goal directed, and certainly not boring. Ultimately, NLP is all about exploration. Without NLP, exploration is a waste of time that is unnecessary.
Does exploration really require something open ended as NLP? Can NLP only be limited to purposes of exploration? Shadow Complex shows that the answer to both is a definitive yes. It even shows the potential harm of linear progression when the game encourages a player to explore. The early portion of Shadow Complex begins with linear progression. There is a definitive and single path to take. It is simply not possible to veer off the pre-selected path, since all that the player can do is jump and shoot with a pistol. Simply put, at this early point in the game, exploration has little purpose. It is clear that exploration is one of the goals of the game given the obvious passageways the player cannot access yet as well as curiosity about why there is an underground military facility in the middle of a forest. The early linearity does nothing more than prevent a player from exploring. It is not any fun for a player to see what they can do but not be allowed to do it.
To have an exploration based game, NLP is a requirement. Exploration is inherently open-ended, so anything that increases open-endedness is necessary to produce the strongest effect. It is also important to recognize that NLP’s only purpose is for exploration. The first time NLP becomes noticeable is when the player is asked to make decisions where one choice isn’t any more right than another. When the player acquires the grenade, they’re able to choose to backtrack to get upgrades that they missed, keep progressing in the most direct manner or just take a look at other paths that may have been overlooked. It is pretty self-evident that NLP will only be noticed when NLP comes into effect, but the important question is why does the NLP only get noticed at this particular point? It is because this is when exploration actually matters. If there wasn’t a need for exploration, NLP wouldn’t matter. Why say “the direction you choose is your decision only” if exploring has trivial consequences?
Even with NLP, goal directed action is maintained. The number of potential goals increase as the game goes on. As the player acquires more items, they can access more areas. Few areas are actually required. This makes it necessary for the player to set intermediate goals, all while the only ultimate goal is to defeat the final boss. To reach an ultimate goal in a game as open-ended as Shadow Complex requires intermediate goals to be set, otherwise the player will feel like they’re trapped in a labyrinth. If a player wants to be super-powerful, they’ll want to find as many upgrades as possible. This in turn requires exploring every corner. If the player just wants to complete the game, they’ll want to limit exploring to survival needs. More upgrades allow a player to fight more efficiently. Even after completing the game, different ultimate goals can be set, such as completing the game to beat a fastest time or completing the game with as few items as possible. A modified ultimate goal necessarily modifies all intermediate goals. Open-endedness does not imply limiting goals, only limiting pre-determined goals.
NLP is effective when used in games when exploration and discovery are key game components. It allows the player to determine what is important, while the designer only has to provide a bare minimum of requirements. Since exploration implies a spatial element, the most crucial aspect of developing a game based on NLP is spatial design, or in other words, level design. A well defined game-world is required for NLP to work, but the player has control over how the game will be explored.
Showing posts with label Game Design. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Game Design. Show all posts
August 30, 2009
August 19, 2009
Meta Value System
Human decision making is based upon values. A decision to eat breakfast is based upon values, such as enjoying food or even just living. This is no different in the virtual reality of a video game. Deciding to move a block in Tetris would be based upon how a player values a high score or how a player values simply winning. Oftentimes, the value system used by the player in a game is the same value system they hold in real life.
However, in a virtual reality, other value systems may be used without real-world repercussions. A player is able to murder a person for saying the wrong word without going to jail. If this decision is contrary to player’s actual value system, the player is using a meta value system (MVS). Since no one holds an identical value system of another person in real life, any value system in a game can be called an MVS. Most people are thinkers to some extent, so they will constantly wonder “what if”. In real life, people think “what if” but cannot truly *test* out their controversial thoughts without breaking some existing code of ethics that they may currently hold. But in a game, being immoral or just acting different will not have any real or long-lasting effects. Consequences of these actions can be understood beyond the immediate point in time; the long-term consequences allow a player to understand how to achieve values. This means that the MVS is primarily an ethical value system. Testing out a “what if” in a meaningful way is too difficult to resist. The ability to use an MVS is one of the major reasons why a player will play a game, since it is both a means of intellectual exercise and entertainment.
In order to test out what ifs, the player must begin by devising a value system. The value system consists of individual values and how to acquire those values. Usually, the player will begin to devise their value system based on some initial choices, such as a choice between being a magic class or a defensive class. At this point, a value has been merely chosen. No integrated system has been created. But this choice can lead to other thoughts: “So I picked a thief class. Maybe I could act like an irrational criminal. I know this is bad, but maybe I’ll find out why this is bad. Or maybe I’ll be a self-righteous thief, trying to get back at ‘the man’ for what he stole from me. What would happen if I lived by either value system?”
Once a player is posed a choice for a particular course of action, a system of values is formed. It is formed through an active thinking process: “I have the option to destroy a camp of orcs and get a massive amount of gold. I need weapons. I’m a thief class. I thought about being an irrational criminal, and it sounds like that’d be fun, so that is how I will play the game. I’ll go and steal some weapons just because I can.” This is where the framework of an MVS begins. It is a relationship between values and how to acquire them. It is the ultimate way to think “what if”.
The MVS is rarely understood or even acknowledged. Many games show off that the player is free to make any kind of choice they want without even realizing why a player actually enjoys such free choices. Designers may think players want choices because choices are cool. But it is actually because the choices in a game provide an intellectual exercise. It is because people actually do like thinking. To play a game like Oblivion, an integrated value system must be used. The game is so massive that it is best to explore it in a unique way, a way unique from real life. However, the MVS a player uses barely makes more than a dent on the overall progression of the game. Oblivion provides freedom, but the consequences of many actions are shallow or predictable. A player is only really able to be a stereotypical good guy or criminal. It is difficult to test out “what if” in a truly meaningful way. Taking advantage of the MVS is a requirement for a game to be great, and maybe even to be art.
However, in a virtual reality, other value systems may be used without real-world repercussions. A player is able to murder a person for saying the wrong word without going to jail. If this decision is contrary to player’s actual value system, the player is using a meta value system (MVS). Since no one holds an identical value system of another person in real life, any value system in a game can be called an MVS. Most people are thinkers to some extent, so they will constantly wonder “what if”. In real life, people think “what if” but cannot truly *test* out their controversial thoughts without breaking some existing code of ethics that they may currently hold. But in a game, being immoral or just acting different will not have any real or long-lasting effects. Consequences of these actions can be understood beyond the immediate point in time; the long-term consequences allow a player to understand how to achieve values. This means that the MVS is primarily an ethical value system. Testing out a “what if” in a meaningful way is too difficult to resist. The ability to use an MVS is one of the major reasons why a player will play a game, since it is both a means of intellectual exercise and entertainment.
In order to test out what ifs, the player must begin by devising a value system. The value system consists of individual values and how to acquire those values. Usually, the player will begin to devise their value system based on some initial choices, such as a choice between being a magic class or a defensive class. At this point, a value has been merely chosen. No integrated system has been created. But this choice can lead to other thoughts: “So I picked a thief class. Maybe I could act like an irrational criminal. I know this is bad, but maybe I’ll find out why this is bad. Or maybe I’ll be a self-righteous thief, trying to get back at ‘the man’ for what he stole from me. What would happen if I lived by either value system?”
Once a player is posed a choice for a particular course of action, a system of values is formed. It is formed through an active thinking process: “I have the option to destroy a camp of orcs and get a massive amount of gold. I need weapons. I’m a thief class. I thought about being an irrational criminal, and it sounds like that’d be fun, so that is how I will play the game. I’ll go and steal some weapons just because I can.” This is where the framework of an MVS begins. It is a relationship between values and how to acquire them. It is the ultimate way to think “what if”.
The MVS is rarely understood or even acknowledged. Many games show off that the player is free to make any kind of choice they want without even realizing why a player actually enjoys such free choices. Designers may think players want choices because choices are cool. But it is actually because the choices in a game provide an intellectual exercise. It is because people actually do like thinking. To play a game like Oblivion, an integrated value system must be used. The game is so massive that it is best to explore it in a unique way, a way unique from real life. However, the MVS a player uses barely makes more than a dent on the overall progression of the game. Oblivion provides freedom, but the consequences of many actions are shallow or predictable. A player is only really able to be a stereotypical good guy or criminal. It is difficult to test out “what if” in a truly meaningful way. Taking advantage of the MVS is a requirement for a game to be great, and maybe even to be art.
August 12, 2009
Itemization
Itemization can be defined as the relationship between balance and uniqueness of items. The purpose of items is for customization, a sort of customization that a player can use to see progress they have made. Items are also used as simple tools to make any progress at all. More specifically, itemization is the process of defining what an item does. Oftentimes, itemization most typically exists on the following continuum:
Simplicity of Balance, Homogeneity
^
|
Less Fun
|
|
Difficulty in Balancing
|
|
More Fun
|
V
Complexity of Balance, Variety
Variety of items is often the ideal, but balancing becomes difficult; more items mean more characteristics to balance. If one particular item tremendously outweighs another both in terms of quality and doing things efficiently, there is absolutely no reason to use the inferior item. This superiority produces homogeneity, since the number of choices a player will want to make is limited even further than the confines of a game’s rules. The player essentially just wants to have fun. Efficiency and acquiring something good is fun on its own. Inviting a player to use an item just because it activates a modified jump isn’t as much of an increase in fun. If everyone chooses the Sword of Super Mega Omnipotence with little to no repercussion in every situation, everyone will obviously seem to be identical. Upgrades and clear improvements are still necessary to counteract increasing difficulty or enemy statistics, but the total type of items available must never decrease if homogeneity is to be avoided.
Few itemization systems have been developed. Most can be categorized as one of two systems.
Intrinsic Itemization
Description: Items are imbued with intrinsic statistics and possibly several statistics that the player can alter.
Example: Final Fantasy, World of Warcraft
Details: Massive numbers of items are available, but a relatively small number of stats lead to homogeneity in later stages of the game. As the complexity of a game increases, it is increasingly difficult to provide the player with a variety of tools. It is easier to make the items quite similar than worry if the player can defeat a boss with any item he wishes. “The Caster Mace” and “Lots of Health Shield” is easier to balance than adding new features or adding items with newly developed stats.
Static Itemization
Items are entirely unique due to possessing unique mechanics, but absent of hard statistics.
Example: Call of Duty, Super Mario
Details: A relatively small and limited number of items are available. There are a variety of unique items, but there is homogeneity between players rather than items. This system is absent of any customization or flavor. It is static and unchanging. If you’ve see it once, you’ve seen every time. You see a Mushroom make Mario grow. You see a flash grenade explode and blind you. Usually this type of itemization is only used to produce a "fun" mechanic.
A key difference between differentiating these systems is how items are upgraded. The upgrade system in static itemization small stat boosts, stats that are otherwise unalterable. In intrinsic itemization, it is some kind of linear increase in existing stats on existing items. You may have “Pistol with silencer” or “Axe of 5 more damage”, but rarely anything more complex. The items themselves are often heavily analyzed by design teams. Very rarely will any truly new system of itemization be used. These systems worked very well for games 10 to 15 years ago, but this usually makes a typical RPG feel like the next iteration of Dragon Warrior.
Simplicity of Balance, Homogeneity
^
|
Less Fun
|
|
Difficulty in Balancing
|
|
More Fun
|
V
Complexity of Balance, Variety
Variety of items is often the ideal, but balancing becomes difficult; more items mean more characteristics to balance. If one particular item tremendously outweighs another both in terms of quality and doing things efficiently, there is absolutely no reason to use the inferior item. This superiority produces homogeneity, since the number of choices a player will want to make is limited even further than the confines of a game’s rules. The player essentially just wants to have fun. Efficiency and acquiring something good is fun on its own. Inviting a player to use an item just because it activates a modified jump isn’t as much of an increase in fun. If everyone chooses the Sword of Super Mega Omnipotence with little to no repercussion in every situation, everyone will obviously seem to be identical. Upgrades and clear improvements are still necessary to counteract increasing difficulty or enemy statistics, but the total type of items available must never decrease if homogeneity is to be avoided.
Few itemization systems have been developed. Most can be categorized as one of two systems.
Intrinsic Itemization
Description: Items are imbued with intrinsic statistics and possibly several statistics that the player can alter.
Example: Final Fantasy, World of Warcraft
Details: Massive numbers of items are available, but a relatively small number of stats lead to homogeneity in later stages of the game. As the complexity of a game increases, it is increasingly difficult to provide the player with a variety of tools. It is easier to make the items quite similar than worry if the player can defeat a boss with any item he wishes. “The Caster Mace” and “Lots of Health Shield” is easier to balance than adding new features or adding items with newly developed stats.
Static Itemization
Items are entirely unique due to possessing unique mechanics, but absent of hard statistics.
Example: Call of Duty, Super Mario
Details: A relatively small and limited number of items are available. There are a variety of unique items, but there is homogeneity between players rather than items. This system is absent of any customization or flavor. It is static and unchanging. If you’ve see it once, you’ve seen every time. You see a Mushroom make Mario grow. You see a flash grenade explode and blind you. Usually this type of itemization is only used to produce a "fun" mechanic.
A key difference between differentiating these systems is how items are upgraded. The upgrade system in static itemization small stat boosts, stats that are otherwise unalterable. In intrinsic itemization, it is some kind of linear increase in existing stats on existing items. You may have “Pistol with silencer” or “Axe of 5 more damage”, but rarely anything more complex. The items themselves are often heavily analyzed by design teams. Very rarely will any truly new system of itemization be used. These systems worked very well for games 10 to 15 years ago, but this usually makes a typical RPG feel like the next iteration of Dragon Warrior.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)