About good game design
quote and reply
Well I've recently debated several ideas arguing it's good or bad
for gameplay's sake, and i've faced the recurrent argument that fun
and gameplay apreciations are subjective values. There is several
reasons why it's not. We can all agree a movie got inexistant
gameplay. We can agree a frenetic button masher, or a point and
click, while can be practiced competitively, have bad gameplay and
are uninteresting. The fact is, people taking the argument of
subjectivity have lost the original meaning of what a game is,
modern commercial games fixed schemes not helping.
First we need to define what is gameplay. To Sid Meier it's "A series of interesting choices.". In fps, choices, brain, have a lesser importance ; rather, coordination and practice have the upper hand. That doesn't mean brain isn't there, but we could complete Sid's definition with time value. "A series of interesting choices in a limited time" would be appropriate. And that's about it. Game quality is simple ; the more interesting are the choices, the better quality the final game is.
How warsow fits in that definition, how to evaluate a gametype in term of choices ? This is a rather complex question, and solutions are only partial, but let me explain it to you as i understand it.
Let's talk about race. Just because it's pretty simple. There is 7 main button inputs (directions, jump, special, fire) plus the mouse motion. From there, all you have to do is go from a to b the fastest way exploiting a physic motor. In an ideal map,
- there is several ways implicitly or explicitly, the easier the slower
- there is some consistency about difficulty through the map, and consistency of "interesting choices" ; i.e. not an enless strafe corridor in which your interaction with the game is limited to a few buttons and fixed motions
- there is variety in the kind of input asked for, i.e. a wsw race map with no wj nor dash is unsatisfying (+back already not exploited)
In a same way, we want to give the most pure interaction possible from player to gametype. There is other areas this concept apply : in ca weapon choice must be interesting and thus weapons to be both specific and balanced. In duel, there is a constant implicit pathfinding choice, and constant conflict between itemrace and fight. When you dodge insta, there is choice between dodge left, and dodge right based on what you see your opponent is aiming at.
We can distinguish microdecisions, like dodge or weapon swap is, and macro decision, like pathfinding in duel is, or site choose in bomb. There is a lot of room to improve both of the decision making in general, as we use very few of the complex input and 3d system we have ; +back, crouch, use machinegun, are generally limited use binds compared to, say, +fwd or jump, horizontal aim much more useful than vertical etc.
Whatever you are going to think about implementing, think about it in term of decisions and how it's going to interact with the player. We always want the decisions to be more difficult in that we want all buttons to be used in a same frequency in general.
We also want the decisions to be impacting in an equilibrated way ; meaning a small fail will not result in massive punishment, which is what we are thinking about a lot for pub games and is an other complex task. Yet, I want you to note that the 2 are not completly conflicting. If pubs happen to like randomness, it's because it's forgiving and not because it's bad for gameplay.
I said once pubs like all vs all then team vs team then 1vs1. The reason is, this order is in increasing probability of being worst player of the team. And worst players of a server quit it in general much faster than the others do which is understandable behavior, first because loosing is frustrating, and second because being dead limit your inputs - once again, we want to avoid situations where player feels powerless.
There is also an other trap tdm fall in ; if you assume team based gametype, nobody should be a handicap. We must reward modest contributions as well. In some way, this is where ctf also falls in ; loosing team get 0 or really close to it in pub games, making the team feel powerless. Rape is too hard. Make it softer. Not even talking about duel obv ; but here is a positive suggestion : choose a small set of official race mas, and make different time goals of gradual difficulty. Make achivements rewarding the player fragging people with different weapons. Reward, reward, reward ; this is all pub is about.
The art is creating systems that fits the theory. Sometimes, it's unclear what output a new system would have, like changing the physics. It might need testing. But, if according this theory, it's not good, chances are it will fail, will be hated etc. we can all think about stun flame which is a 100% legitimate as it consist in killing an input and there is quite a bunch of bad ideas that are failing from the scratch. Again, there is nothing subjective in that. Good game design is universal.
First we need to define what is gameplay. To Sid Meier it's "A series of interesting choices.". In fps, choices, brain, have a lesser importance ; rather, coordination and practice have the upper hand. That doesn't mean brain isn't there, but we could complete Sid's definition with time value. "A series of interesting choices in a limited time" would be appropriate. And that's about it. Game quality is simple ; the more interesting are the choices, the better quality the final game is.
How warsow fits in that definition, how to evaluate a gametype in term of choices ? This is a rather complex question, and solutions are only partial, but let me explain it to you as i understand it.
Let's talk about race. Just because it's pretty simple. There is 7 main button inputs (directions, jump, special, fire) plus the mouse motion. From there, all you have to do is go from a to b the fastest way exploiting a physic motor. In an ideal map,
- there is several ways implicitly or explicitly, the easier the slower
- there is some consistency about difficulty through the map, and consistency of "interesting choices" ; i.e. not an enless strafe corridor in which your interaction with the game is limited to a few buttons and fixed motions
- there is variety in the kind of input asked for, i.e. a wsw race map with no wj nor dash is unsatisfying (+back already not exploited)
In a same way, we want to give the most pure interaction possible from player to gametype. There is other areas this concept apply : in ca weapon choice must be interesting and thus weapons to be both specific and balanced. In duel, there is a constant implicit pathfinding choice, and constant conflict between itemrace and fight. When you dodge insta, there is choice between dodge left, and dodge right based on what you see your opponent is aiming at.
We can distinguish microdecisions, like dodge or weapon swap is, and macro decision, like pathfinding in duel is, or site choose in bomb. There is a lot of room to improve both of the decision making in general, as we use very few of the complex input and 3d system we have ; +back, crouch, use machinegun, are generally limited use binds compared to, say, +fwd or jump, horizontal aim much more useful than vertical etc.
Whatever you are going to think about implementing, think about it in term of decisions and how it's going to interact with the player. We always want the decisions to be more difficult in that we want all buttons to be used in a same frequency in general.
We also want the decisions to be impacting in an equilibrated way ; meaning a small fail will not result in massive punishment, which is what we are thinking about a lot for pub games and is an other complex task. Yet, I want you to note that the 2 are not completly conflicting. If pubs happen to like randomness, it's because it's forgiving and not because it's bad for gameplay.
I said once pubs like all vs all then team vs team then 1vs1. The reason is, this order is in increasing probability of being worst player of the team. And worst players of a server quit it in general much faster than the others do which is understandable behavior, first because loosing is frustrating, and second because being dead limit your inputs - once again, we want to avoid situations where player feels powerless.
There is also an other trap tdm fall in ; if you assume team based gametype, nobody should be a handicap. We must reward modest contributions as well. In some way, this is where ctf also falls in ; loosing team get 0 or really close to it in pub games, making the team feel powerless. Rape is too hard. Make it softer. Not even talking about duel obv ; but here is a positive suggestion : choose a small set of official race mas, and make different time goals of gradual difficulty. Make achivements rewarding the player fragging people with different weapons. Reward, reward, reward ; this is all pub is about.
The art is creating systems that fits the theory. Sometimes, it's unclear what output a new system would have, like changing the physics. It might need testing. But, if according this theory, it's not good, chances are it will fail, will be hated etc. we can all think about stun flame which is a 100% legitimate as it consist in killing an input and there is quite a bunch of bad ideas that are failing from the scratch. Again, there is nothing subjective in that. Good game design is universal.
I think I understood what you're trying to point out but:
good game design is universal - appreciation for good game design is not universal!
good game design is universal - appreciation for good game design is not universal!
Yeah.
"This is not rocket science" (c) h1o
Make something you think is fun doing, if others enjoy it - success.
I get my theory at uni, I come here to have fun.
"This is not rocket science" (c) h1o
Make something you think is fun doing, if others enjoy it - success.
I get my theory at uni, I come here to have fun.
BBQsauce wrote:
We can agree a frenetic button masher [..] are uninteresting.
Guitar Hero?
"In fps, choices, brain, have a lesser importance" , u clearly have
no idea wat ur talking about
*edit* and yes, law is rite, i stopped reading after that sentence
*edit* and yes, law is rite, i stopped reading after that sentence
No offense, but it looks like youre trying to write way2smart. Blaa
is exactly right to qoute me. Warsow needs fun and easy gametypes,
but wiht depth. This is not starcraft.
I don't understand why you're all bitching around when someone took
time to write something like that...
@BBQ : I agree with your last part, except that warsow shouldn't be about pub. But, hey, this is the current direction of the game after all...
Warsow should focus on bringing back hardcore/progamers/fps-lovers instead of this pub-crap and KEEP them. Not like in the early stages of the game.
Money could be a problem as some people want to play a game where they can win $$$ but we should concern about that when the game is good enough.
@BBQ : I agree with your last part, except that warsow shouldn't be about pub. But, hey, this is the current direction of the game after all...
Warsow should focus on bringing back hardcore/progamers/fps-lovers instead of this pub-crap and KEEP them. Not like in the early stages of the game.
Money could be a problem as some people want to play a game where they can win $$$ but we should concern about that when the game is good enough.
would you mind to post the generall ideas? i dont want to read the
text
While the text is a bit too long for what you want to say, some
things make sense. I however don't agree with the
'micro-decisions'. Movement isn't a decision, it's a reflex that is
learned over time, and with a 'trick-movement' environment, these
reflexes are a lot harder than simply walking forward, left and
right. The concious decisions related to movement are always "I
want to go to place X", which triggers drilled in reflexes.
Everybody had to think about each step when learning
strafe-jumping. Once you master it, it's a second nature and
becomes a reflex. The decision to go to place X instead of Y will
be a combination of different factors, including speed, risk,
tactical advantage/positioning, ... Weapon choice, on a certain
level also becomes a reflex, you decide what effect you want to
archieve, and link a weapon to this, based on a number of factors
like current health, enemy health, range, damage, strong/weak ammo,
tactical position, overwhelmed by or overwhelming the opponent,
...
This is why FPS games are relatively hard to master, and why Warsow even adds another level to it, it raises the bar considerably for the low-level unconcious "reflex" decisions, which for more experienced players become a second nature. This is the reason I questioned the strafing skill, which resulted in the so called 'new movement'.
Now on the "reward" level, I fully agree, people - certainly new players - should be rewarded. Currently in warsow they are punished, over & over again. You end up with only the very persistent players who develop a high average skill when compared to other games.
The problem is that rewarding people in a game like Warsow is not easy, because you immediately end up in a multiplayer environment. I think Quake Live managed to do pretty well on this level, adding some basic "training" levels and bot-matches to it, introducing you to the game environment, determining your skill-level on the way.
This is why FPS games are relatively hard to master, and why Warsow even adds another level to it, it raises the bar considerably for the low-level unconcious "reflex" decisions, which for more experienced players become a second nature. This is the reason I questioned the strafing skill, which resulted in the so called 'new movement'.
Now on the "reward" level, I fully agree, people - certainly new players - should be rewarded. Currently in warsow they are punished, over & over again. You end up with only the very persistent players who develop a high average skill when compared to other games.
The problem is that rewarding people in a game like Warsow is not easy, because you immediately end up in a multiplayer environment. I think Quake Live managed to do pretty well on this level, adding some basic "training" levels and bot-matches to it, introducing you to the game environment, determining your skill-level on the way.
@r4nd0m : Somehow yes. We're reasonning all a different way and
have more or less sensitivity to choices difficulty. But if
subjectivity exist, that doesn't mean objectivity don't. We can
spot no brainers in a game, we can spot what is widely not-used,
and thus what is badly designed.
@gorey : i put chess pro vs you, who wins ? :D I'm not telling this game is stupid, just that, like sport, practice and coordination is more important than pure reasoning.
@huski, slowi, other stupid comments : (v) Thanks !
@blaa/h1o : human being always try to ask himself the why question, and understand reasonning between aparently chaotic factors. You should try to do that, before suggesting.
@ koffie : I agree. Your vision is sightly more accurate. What i wanted to say about reflexes, is that there is situations it's not "solved", there is several routes for a similar result : you will choose one them by reflex but to me you made a choice. I like this situations better than one where there is only 1 viable reflex and everything else fails, thus making the choice easy.
About reward : it's not only total beginners that need it btw. There is days after 2 years of playing i would like the game tell me i've made a progress. Hard in multiplayer of course, still.
@gorey : i put chess pro vs you, who wins ? :D I'm not telling this game is stupid, just that, like sport, practice and coordination is more important than pure reasoning.
@huski, slowi, other stupid comments : (v) Thanks !
@blaa/h1o : human being always try to ask himself the why question, and understand reasonning between aparently chaotic factors. You should try to do that, before suggesting.
@ koffie : I agree. Your vision is sightly more accurate. What i wanted to say about reflexes, is that there is situations it's not "solved", there is several routes for a similar result : you will choose one them by reflex but to me you made a choice. I like this situations better than one where there is only 1 viable reflex and everything else fails, thus making the choice easy.
About reward : it's not only total beginners that need it btw. There is days after 2 years of playing i would like the game tell me i've made a progress. Hard in multiplayer of course, still.
itchy wrote:
would you mind to post the generall ideas? i dont want to read the text
- Good gameplay is "A series of interesting choices in a limited time", which, if interesting is taken as difficult and requiring calcul or analysis, is objective
- Achieving that means analizing what input is asked to the player, and eliminate as much as possible the times he's asked for an obvious input or reduce the time he's given for it
Several examples of what this induce, weapon balance etc
- Pub games must reward modest contributions and be forgiving about poor inputs quality, which is not incompatible with good gameplay and rewarding greater the better choices
tdm accused of making weak players a handicap for team, ctf giving a 0 to losing team in most cases
We always want the decisions to be more difficult in that we want all buttons to be used in a same frequency in general.
This is akin to saying we could improve chess by trying to make all pieces be moved as often as any other piece -- complexity and strategy actually comes from differences among pieces and their uses. Rooks are largely stationary but very powerful, while knights often have to finagle a bit to get to a good square; it's actually the rooks power that lets it move less (since on a clear board it can get anywhere in 2 moves, while the knight can easily be four or five moves away from attacking a square). Trying to "fix" this difference would make the game worse. The best answer in Warsow isn't to tweak weapons so that all 8 of them are the best in 12.5% of situations, it's to make it so that knowing when to use which weapon has a significant impact on the course of a game.
In short if your definition of a good game has a button-level explanation it is a Bad Definition. There are certain times when you can tell if someone is having fun by watching their hands, but counting button presses isn't one of them...
If you have a rare input it must be significant one, if you have a
both rare and low use input like some weapons might be, chances are
it'll be widely skiped at least on low level games. This is a very
rough picture and obviously you can make things differently, this
is just imho a way to optimize stuff and a point to focus on to
reduce useless game complexity. Pushing secondary weapons forward
is def. the way to go, even if they don't fit 12.5% of situations
they should most def. do close to 12.5% of damage in the end or
compensate lack of damage with tactical advantage like kb, being
good finisher etc.
The button level is not something I'm defending hardly it's mainly an illustration about what inputs can be altho when we talk about +fwd vs +back or use lg vs use gl this is making some sense imho as we would like to value from players that they develop the skill of alternating moves and aiming styles in specific situations and not no-brainer rush with xx weapon.
The button level is not something I'm defending hardly it's mainly an illustration about what inputs can be altho when we talk about +fwd vs +back or use lg vs use gl this is making some sense imho as we would like to value from players that they develop the skill of alternating moves and aiming styles in specific situations and not no-brainer rush with xx weapon.
hhhhhhhhhh wrote:
No offense, but it looks like youre trying to write way2smart. Blaa is exactly right to qoute me. Warsow needs fun and easy gametypes, but wiht depth. This is not starcraft.
read the first 3 lines, will read 3 more tomorrow. so far cool
story bro.
Reply to topic