Made up game design theories

[ICLHStudios]

I just started a blog about video game design, and knowing that we have some gamers and game makers in here, I figured it might be of some interest. I'd love to hear peoples thoughts on any of the subject I talk about (which, thus far, is just motion control, but there will be more).

http://iclhstudios.webs.com/apps/blog/

[Pieter]

Cool. Game design theory is something I think of aswell sometimes.
Once thing that's been tickling me lately are 'soft' vs 'hard' game mechanics.

A lot of videogames nowaday have their core gameplay, and then often have some balancing problems which they solve by adding additional features or subsystems. Valve is notorious for this in their multiplayer games -- while I'm a big fan of their single player games I'm not so fond of their multiplayer shooters. I know 99% of the people will disagree with me on that, but I know there are other people who feel the same.

So what do I mean with soft vs hard? The best example I could give are classes.
In online games, there are generally 2 approaches to making a character behave a role.
One of them are 'perks' the other are 'classes'.

Perks give your player character possitive handicaps. They are focussed on empowering and encourgaging to play a certain role.
Classes on the other hand, force players to play a certain role by taking away functionality inherent to other classes.

For example, with classes a mage cannot wield a sword, or a sniper can't load a shotgun in his loadout.

With perks a mage would be able to wield a sword, and he'd be average skilled with it. A sniper would be able to use a shotgun, and he would be averagely good at using it.

The thing is, if you enjoy using a sword you're better off taking the swordsman perk, since he gets a 20% weapon speed bonus and a 40% damage bonus. But that doesn't mean if I'm a mage and I want to use a sword, that I wouldn't be able to do it. I'dd just suck at it compared to the swordman, but I wouldn't be less good at it then the rogue, which favours daggers and knives.

The same holds true for the sniper. While the support class gets 90% recoil reduction, I can damn well have a shotgun ready incase I get snuck up from behind.

So the perk system would be soft: it does not force choices on you, but it encourages choices.
The classes system is fixed: if forces you to play a certain way because it takes away certain choices.

Another example would be number of items you can carry versus an encumberance system.

You could have a loadout with a fixed number of items, or you could store as many as you'dd like, but you'dd get horribly slow, and probably decide for yourself you'dd better pack lightly.

I generally favour such soft rules over hard rules as they feel less forced to me and more elegant in general.
It makes the core gameplay mechanics take care of themselves, rather then having to be counterbalanced by specialized mechanics.

That's why I never got hooked on Team Fortress... I'm always thinking which class I want to play next because I'dd like to try a certain tactic otherwise impossible. Then I tend to just switch between classes the entire time, but I never feel satisfied with any approach, because I want to be able to addapt to my situation on the fly. The class system does not give me such flexibility. The same holds true for other class based FPSes such as Battlefield, etc...

[ICLHStudios]

It seems to me to be a tricky balancing situation (especially in regards to online, which requires special delicacy in balancing or fans get ballistic).

Both these approaches need to be just right or they're both practically useless, if the classes are too complex and have too many similarities than perks would be a simpler and more versatile method, allowing you to customize without feeling forced; whereas if the classes are too different in basic gameplay functionality it's really tricky to even compare them, let alone balance them to the satisfaction of most of the players, (although it's probably worth noting that at times I really like this method where different classes play completely differently, think of the character variation in traditional fighting games vs Super Smash Bros).

If the perks are too small in effect it would be better off to abandon them altogether and leave it up to personal play-style preference of the players (I like using shotguns and sniper rifles, some people like melee weapons, some like dual wielding, and some like rocket launchers, there're plenty of different play styles without complicating it with extra stats); and if perks have too much of an effect, then it's really not much different than classes since the gap between your "specialty" and other skills would be so large that it would almost never be worth it to use anything else.

[ICLHStudios]

This got me thinking (sorry 'bout the double post btw) and I think I thought of a way to get a good balance between the class/perks style of play. Lets say you have a online-multiplayer-heavy FPS, and you want the extreme differences of classes and perks but without the restrictions, so you set it up like this:

The player has a supply of "power" or "energy" available to them that they can assign to their weapons, arms, armor, movement, and perception, the energy can be adjusted on the fly (and takes maybe a little more time to do than reloading), and there is only about enough to fill one attribute all the way with a little extra.

Assigning it to weapons would mean more attack power, firing speed, and range. Arms would improve carrying capacity, accuracy, reload speed, and less recoil (maybe extra power and speed for melee weapons). Armor would mean more health, faster regeneration, maybe some camouflage, and less knockback/stun from hits. Movement would add to running speed, jumping ability, and maybe add double jumps or wall running abilities. Perception would add crosshairs (higher level ones would change colors when aiming at someone), radar, and the ability to see bullet trails.

With a setup like this people could craft their own classes to their liking and adapt them when the situation calls for it. Snipers could focus all their energy into weapons, arms, and perception, Shotgunners could go for movement power, Tanks could load up on armor and some extra attack, and so on. This would also make handicaps and certain game types easier, people could play where some of them have less energy or more energy than usual, or certain conditions provide energy benefits.

Any thoughts?

[TheGrayK]

I think that is a pretty cool Idea actually but a game like that would not be taken in so well with any un-experienced gamer.

[chluaid]

I agree, GrayK, but I don't think he intends to target the inexperienced gamer.. (maybe I'm wrong?)
Unless you're developing for Facebook, or perhaps the Wii, the real money for game developers is in targeting gamers, so I think a live adjustment of your own stats to suit the current situation is a really awesome idea.

The only thing I can think that comes close to that is the talent spec system in WoW. You can now have a dual spec which allows you to change between two of your skill/talent sets to suit what your situation calls for (e.g PvP or PvE). The alternative used to be to unlearn your talents and try new things but that was slow and expensive.

One possible problem that comes to mind is the identity of the player. Hardcore gamers can take pride in being a kickass Rogue, or talented Engineer because they dominate through intimate knowledge of their class. To me, a game has a greater lifespan if the average player can develop such an identity. I think this is why WoW and TF2 continue to grow for years and years. The players develop a strong sense of identity and connection with their class. Meanwhile Quake, UT, etc need to refresh their image with new hardware requirements to keep their communities interested for more than a year.

So on the subject of ICLH's idea, I think it would be awesome to see some of today's big-name FPS's livened up with such a system.

[the.crippled.dreamer]

Hmmm, it is interesting. Definitely brings images to mind of teams, rather than being geared towards solo players. A player or two are set up for attack power, and bring up the rear while the others re-spec for speed/movement to cross a section of water, etc.
Upon crossing the ones in front switch to tank and shield from enemies that pop up, which the ones coming up from the rear begin to assault.

A little imagination goes a long ways.

As for identity, I can see players identifying themselves more from a team perspective, but not quite the level of personal identity that Adam mentioned some players in WoW acquire.

[supermoose]

Unless you're developing for Facebook, or perhaps the Wii, the real money for game developers is in targeting gamers

I think this is a misconception that a lot of people carry about the gaming market.  Good money can be made through any number of small niche market within the gaming spectrum.  If you think about it, at $10 per copy, you only need to sell 10-15 copies of a game per day in order to  live comfortably.  The most important part of game marketing is building up a relationship with your consumers.

I know some people on this forum play Minecraft, so i'll start with an example there.  Mojang started as a single person releasing his alpha of a game engine for free on indie developer forums.  Eventually, he was getting enough feedback form it that he decided he could charge people for it.  He was selling only a few copies a day, until he realized that if he could sell 10 copies a day, he could quit his job.  Once he hit that mark, he started very actively building a relationship with all of his testers, and taking their opinions to heart in order to make the game as good as it could be.  They told people about this great game they played, and it grew virally.  All because he built up a great relationship with his target audience.

Another great example of this is actually TF2.  TFClassic had a HUGE player following.  I knew people who had played the mod for 6 years straight.  They listened to their players.  They understood that grenades were detrimental to new player experience, even though they added a depth of strategy to the game.  They received feedback, they altered their product, and they released a second time, to a loving audience.

"But supermoose," you might say, "What about all those big name companies that churn out crap over and over?  They haven't built up crap with me!"  Unfortunately, they have just through advertising.  When you want an "awesome, epic, first person sci fi game"  what are you going to go for?  Anything Bungie has made.  When you want your standard football game?  Madden.  When you want a relaxing one player adventure?  Mario.  The reason these are household names is that the company has targeted whatever market they want, and repeatedly shown us success in their particular niche.

/nerdgasm

[chluaid]

Yeah I think you misunderstood me. You quoted my point, which was that the real money is in targeting gamers, as opposed to attempting to pull non-gamers (mums, receptionists, footballers) into games (like with Facebook, Wii, DS, etc). I didn't actually say anything about how much money can be made from niche markets and by listening to your user base, so I'm not sure what misconception you think I have.

[supermoose]

If I misunderstood you, I apologize.  I am just trying to say that there is money in targeting those niche markets (mums, receptionists, footballers) so long as you are responsive to your market's needs.  Even if you dont make a ridiculous amount of money, you can certainly make a good living doing it.  Off the top of my head:

mums:  Anything by Popcap games.  Games like Peggle and Bejewelled have taken the "casual" market by storm, contrary to everyone's belief.  The games are specifically easy to make/play, and they are currently valuated at $100million

receptionists:  EpicWin is an RPG scheduling/task keeping system. (this might more be for "secretaries" than receptionists, but i feel the point stands.)

footballers: I myself am working with an olympic coach right now to try to release a sports-based game specifically throughout the olympic athlete community in the hopes that it will then trickle down through all their fans.  We are hoping to release before the summer olympics.  I guess there is some dislike of current games due to subtle differences in play style.  I'm working with the coach in order to better match unique play styles.  We'll see how it goes.

"Gamers" are such a varied bunch that trying to appeal to all of them at once is incredibly difficult.  Obviously, you wouldn't market to specifically non-Gamer mums, receptionists, or footballers, but choosing a target subset of gamers is always good choice.