When I see a game design or a completed game, it takes me about 30 seconds to know if the game designer is early in his or her career.
The clue?
When I look at the game screen, I see too much going on. Too many things on screen, too many moving parts and pieces, too many things for the player to do at once. To a player it’s overwhelming.
How did I learn this?
I made the mistake when I designed my first full game (NanoTek Warrior, an arcade shooter for the PS1). I was so worried about there being something fun going on that I overloaded each level with enemy ships and structures to dodge.
It was unplayable. Even after I later got a clue and went back and redesigned the levels, it was still too overwhelming for most people.
My mistake is that while I thought I was following an existing “formula” for making a game, I still didn’t really understand what I was doing in terms of “making fun”.
I still needed to learn about how to create the right sense of pacing for the experience I was delivering.
For a different perspective, think of your favorite movie. There are fast parts, slower part, exciting parts and emotional parts all crafted into a singular linear experience.
It’s the pacing and mix of these different “parts” which make your favorite movie interesting and enjoyable.
The same thing holds for games.
If you want to see a great example of pacing in a game, check out any of the levels in Mario Galaxy.
Have a game you love or love to hate?
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
What a favorite topic for discussion Mark…
I have 3 (non-social) games that I LOVED in my life, 3 games that I will forever remember for various reasons:
1. “Peloponnesean War”, circa 1982, platform was Sinclair ZX-81 (with 1 Kb–yes, one Kilobyte–of RAM).
I was 14 and it was my first computer. Games were loaded (after a few tries) onto the machine via a cassette tape, the machine had a really crude “graphics” abilities (like 256×192 pixels real-estate), if you can call those graphics. This UK-developed game was a strategy/adventure-style game where you took the place of either the Spartan or Athenian army commander in chief with the aim of defeating the enemy. You text-issued (it was ALL text-based) commands and the “simulation” executed the battle…
2. A few years later, mid to late 80s I guess, the galactic-trading simulation of “Elite”, run on a Sinclair Spectrum with 48 Kb or RAM (wow!) and a much improved, vector-only graphics engine was a game I’ve invested many years of my life in.
3. Even though I’ve played hundreds of games since, some pretty good, NONE had an impact on me as EA’s recent “Far Cry 2″ release. I found the scenario to be simply stunning, the non-linearity of the plot (my ability to choose which way I want to progress), the graphics were awesome, but even in this game, like the two above, there was something else that drove me wild:
Their “immersion” element, or how much I “lived” the game. I guess in the first two, the fact that I HAD to “imagine” the scenes, the graphics, the action, as a result of the machines not being able to quench my thirst for the ultimate gaming experience through the monitor, was what actually made me LOVE these games! In order to enjoy them, I HAD to make my brain work hard in contributing to the experience I was receiving, thus, engaging me in BUILDING this experience and not passively following it. If you get my drift…
“Far Cry 2″ was much different. This time, I did NOT have to imagine the graphics and the plot and the scenario, all that was there for my enjoyment. However, the fact that I wasn’t just trying to “discover” the (shortest or most efficient) path for the level’s end that someone ELSE designed and decided for me that this is what OUGHT to give me the ultimate pleasure (like the screenplay in MOH, COD, etc, goes), BUT I CHOSE what “kind” of game I want to play (kinda like deciding to gather coins or XP in Farmville), is what broke the “experience” barrier for me.
I personally believe that game designers SHOULD give this “freedom” to players: the ability to ACTIVELY participate in in-game designing of the plot, as the game progresses. That’s what ultimately maximizes the gaming experience, if you ask me. Like in Farmville, there are NO right or wrong “steps” you can take. ALL your actions have different consequences and NONE can be characterized as “wrong”, as in some games, “you go left, there is no way you’re finishing the level”…
I believe it’s all about this freedom to shape you OWN experience. Games that are designed to be passively played (and not “lived”) will soon be a thing of the past. Clutter on the screen that you mention Mark, is important, but–to me at least–is not a cardinal sin, if the game compensates you otherwise.
Try walking into my son’s room and see him play WOW, having downloaded a mod real-estate with HUNDREDS of icons, gauges and dashboards (going constantly haywire) WHILE having a chat window open–AS WELL–and tell him about a “busy” real-estate… And I don’t really think we can classify either Blizzard or WOW as a failure (though I personally hate the game but I DO pay the monthly 15 euros my son wants me to …)
My 2c…
cf
I agree in principal with what Mark is saying. I’m also a fan of design-by-reduction. For example, the previous argument can be made much more compelling by replacing the text with this image – http://img117.imageshack.us/i/uikq0.jpg/. Simplicity wins again! Sort of.
You may know it Mark, but here’s a little something to poke your mind. It goes along with what I was saying about game design and living the game, not just playing it. In a book! (Note the reader comments…)
Having “played” the book (but not solving it), the experience was awesome!
http://www.amazon.com/Maze-Solve-Worlds-Challenging-Puzzle/dp/0805010882/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258452487&sr=1-4
Or search for “Maze: Solve the World’s Most Challenging Puzzle” by Christopher Manson.
Hi Mark, interesting blog btw
Nolan Bushnell is quoted as saying that “the first element of design is timing” which relates nicely to your main point.
He also said “the second element is clear objectives” and “the third element is predictability”, worth posts in their own right.