For the record and my own mental health….
I originally planned to do a single, small, design, that was the result of condensing all of my notes up until this point, into a simple-to-implement plan. The work that I have done in pursuit of this is complicated, and goes beyond the “simplicity” I originally had in mind. As a result the work is complex to explain, and I feel would be better understood if I revealed a prototype then worked backwards to explain how I got there.
I want to post something in lieu of the design. It is a cutout of my design work. Later on I’ll contextualize it.
This stuff is not for the faint of heart. It is meaty and technical, and long.
Table of Contents
=================
1 implementation mirror level 2
1.1 deep implementation
1.1.1 howto
1.1.2 first expansion
1.2 fast implementation
1.2.1 intro
1.2.2 expression
1.2.3 share
1 implementation mirror level 2
================================
1.1 deep implementation
------------------------
1.1.1 howto
~~~~~~~~~~~~
* intro
Create a design. Do this by creating a mirror. Do an expansion for
the 3 categories.
How many subdivisions can I make?
For now just do a single expansion at 3 levels deep. So 9 expansions.
Process the expansions. Maybe repeat the process for additional
mirrors until an implementation is found.
* steps
1. I start with some suggestion, as a write up. I probably go for
breadth first by citing a lot of resources as starting points.
2. Then I do some expansion on any of those ideas that seem rich for
mining.
3. Then I process like normal.
4. I may have to do several mirrors before I have something I can implement.
1.1.2 first expansion
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
* play
+ dimension: ROI cycle size
How long it takes for a player to be rewarded for his or her
investement of time, energy, effort etc. Obviously games reward at
many sized intervals simultaneously but they tend to focus more
towards one set of sizes than others.
+ short (ROI cycle size) - discussion
- opening
* intro
Short sizes comprise largely action games. These games are
characterized by fast pace, tight controls, a lot of failure, high
scores, competitive multiplayer, yelling, anger, tension, etc.
"Arcade" games are normally in this bracket.
First I need to discuss possible designs.
* 5 random games
Could start with 5 random games that exemplify this category.
Could actually tag these games somewhere. I would not mind having an
official "game" file that lists all of the games in total.
* games link out to other files
Each game can link out to other files. It also stores tags that we
assign. For example this dimension will need tags that we use to
describe the games.
* general
I could also write a little about each game. I could also start
designing something off the top of my head. I can also pull from some
key words from above and from the original expansions and division
discussions.
- periods of high tension and luck
* pacman is like poker: luck is involved
Action games are exemplified by their difficulty. Challenge is their
main attraction. Take PacMan. You move around the screen and avoid the
ghosts. You try to outwit them. Though what's interesting is that the
rewards are kind of abstract because you're not really sure if a death
is because of a choice you made or just bad luck. Like poker, Pac-Man
is very shifty in the results it gives. You never quite know where you
stand with it.
* gambler's rush
Gambling is an interesting idea because gambling is very short-term
focused. You get the "gambler's" rush. Pac-Man has this. But it also
gives rewards for your strategy in the long-term. You don't really
know how good your decisions were until after many playthroughs,
giving the ROI for strategy a middle-size scale.
* super small ROI cycle
Pac-Man is also partially short-term when you get into close-quarters
with the ghosts, or when you chase them all of a sudden. Yum yum.
There's also of course the route planning
- action mechanics
* action games
Super Mario World. My main attraction. Some more:
. Donkey Kong Country, Contra, Gunstar Heroes, TMNT: Turtles in Time
. Street Fighter, Smash Bros (sortof), Starcraft, HL2, Quake, UT
* bosses use small cycles
Adrenaline can't be the only kind of rush. Note that many games use
short ROI cycles for their bosses. Interesting. Not a good decision
as a given.
* more examples
Geometry Wars for sure. A lot of hand-eye coordination. Racing games,
any shooter. Halo. Any platformer. Sonic.
- balance action with reflection
* player needs time to reflect
The problem with purely short ROI cycle games is that they get tiring.
They become this big mess. The player needs time to reflect, to link
each of his ideas to his soul. That is a hard thing to do when you are
always "on." RPGs accomplish this by blending combat with story. Zelda
does it with the overworld mixed with dungeons. I bet a lot of great
games do something similar.
* super metroid
Super Metroid? Short, tiny bursts of ROI, followed by monotonous
back-tracking. Ugh.
- control player with cycle size
* tetris rewards with tight cycles
Tetris actually ramps up the cycle slowly. In fact when you are doing
well in tetris the cycle shortens for a short period. It actually gets
longer when you are losing, but gets faster the longer you last. So it
constantly re-enforces success with adrenaline.
* ROI cycle-size management
Maybe ROI cycle-size management is the most important.
+ implementation: 1st round - implementation details
- opening, example games
Goal: discuss basic implementation details
I think this is enough. The next thing to do is list possible
mechanics to deliver.
We want mechanics that have a short reward cycle. Possible ideas:
. platforming
. wall jumping
. combat
3 types:
. fighting/action: Street Fighter, Power Stone, Smash Bros / Contra,
Geometry Wars, TMNT, Starcraft, Devil May Cry
. platforming/racing: Prince of Persia, SMB3, SMW, SM64, DKC, N+ / Mario
Kart 64, Forza 3, Hydro Thunder
. shooters: HL2, UT, Doom, Counter Strike, Time Splitters 2, MW2,
Halo 3/4
Dimension: mechanic type:
. fighting/action - combat
. platforming/racing - control
. shooters - control + combat
These represent my favourite 3 genre types. I can still scour for
other games in my notes.
- brainstorm mechanics
If I had only 1 action quality to have in my game what would it be? (brainstorm)
. parcour
. wall jumps
. mastery of opponent
. slowly approaching perfection - racers
. keeping tack of many things on screen at once
. crowd control
. route planning
. basic navigation
. environmental usage
. complex combo maneuvers
. maintaining character momentum
. balance of pace
The most important part of action is the sweat. You fucking sweat
buckets. You have to try and fail and fail and fail, and then you
still fail. But then you succeed, then shortly after fail.
You don't have a lot of time to think ahead. You have to react
quickly. You have to rely on your instincts. You have to go to a
place where your emotions take over and your consciousness just
focuses on self-control.
I also like speed a destruction.
- brainstorm atmosphere
Those cover the mechanics. Next we need atmosphere.
. crazy, silly, funny
. impulsive, ridiculous
. explosions, combat, conflict
. war, strife, struggle, pain
. high pressure situations: nijas, surgeons, baseball player in
"the big game"
. dance music, clubs, fast women, drugs, alcohol
. the arcade, friends, yelling, sweat, eyes glued to the screen,
lots of noise, greesy hands and potato chips
. adrenaline
Sound:
. could calm you. excellent balance.
- review
We have a good overview of the kinds of mechanics that deliver an
experience. We even got a division for free. I got that one just by
thinking.
+ implementation: 2nd round - 3 core mechanics
- overview
* process
Look for details. Produce a list of 3 core mechanics to try and
implement.
I can:
. list the main mechanic for random games in my list
. try and describe some mechanics from base
I want to avoid just copying games. Short cycle size means you get
rewarded for an investment early on. The best reward is for something
complex that uses as much of your skill set as possible.
* discussion
You need to get the player to invest. When you race you slowly get
into the car's mechanics. You learn all of its edges, how the other
drivers move, how the track works. You slowly master yourself by
linking to each section of the race emotionally, then sorting out all
of those feelings into a perfect run.
The player needs time to get invested. In Tetris you have time to
think things through then execute. The main problem with tetris is
the straight-up challenge curve - it goes straight up. WTF! That's
not good, fucking tetris.
Gunstar throws increasingly challenging situations at you, though at
least it's difficulty fluctuates a little. It is punctuated with
bosses. Action games are often defined by their challenge curves - I
mean pure action here. That's where their variety comes from.
You have combos of course and their execution. You have reading the
opponent's movement trying to detect a pattern. You have the analysis
of strategy and position. When you are X-units away from the opponent
and he is just coming out of move Y what are his weaknesses given his
character? What is the best general strategy?
Starcraft and Fighters both rely on a long-term investment in the
study of technique and strategy. Then in-game the player must recall
their old observations. When you play you aren't just reacting you
are organizing all those thoughts you had before.
Some of my favourite action segments come in FF battles - turn-based
JRPGs. I love that shit. Extra Credits (EC) says turn based battles
are boring. GTFY EC. Be better at combat and don't grind. Tards....
You build up your party over the course of the game. Then you equip
for battle. Then you fight, playing out your strategy and figuring
out your new one - for the next try and this battle or the next.
Zelda has a lot of adventuring/exploring elements mixed with combat.
It mixes enemies well. Spelunky does this well. Devil May Cry does
not but it gives you variety in its combos. You can always play a
battle a little bit differently and get into unique scenarios on your
own.
In Bayonetta the main action is measuring opponent positions, looking
for their attack signals, and choosing the biggest attack on the most
exploitable enemy you can get away with. You dodge at the right time.
There is a small sense of combo control. You need to get your own
timings down, but the logic behind that is linear. Either you move
forward with your combo or you don't. There is only a few types of
combos to choose from - air/ground, power/fast, long-distance/short,
single/multiple enemy. Even then most of the differences are small.
There is a single best way to play a level. Watching speed runs you
see guys playing a very linear kind of experience. Not the sort of
thing I want. Though I love that shit in racing.... What is the
difference? In racing every inch counts for something. In action
games you either hit or miss. There is no place in between. You hit
the drop of water out of the air or you don't. So you miss 20% of the
time until you hit it. There's no variety between a 30% run, a 40%
run and so on.
A lot of games converge in their offered experience as a player
masters them. Not cool.
That's good enough for now.
- shooters
* discussion
I can pick a mechanic from each section but since I'm feeling limber
I'll do 3 from each. Start with shooters.
What are the different kinds of skill sets used in shooters? In
Bioshock we have the adventure/shooting combo. I don't like the
shooting in that game a whole lot. You have the gimmicky moments when
you need to shoot a lighting bolt into water for a mild advantage.
You can take over turrets. Basically it's like any other shooter with
a "do special action" button opportunity every so often.
Counter Strike rules. It is like a racer except the track morphs
slightly every time. The map is always the same - until the map
cycles - but you run around it differently, with different guns, with
different opponents.
In CS - which I'm mediocre at - you have to project enemy movements.
You have to stay hidden - your position has to be unknown. You want
to head the enemy off. You want to get shots that suit your gun. You
want to aim and press the trigger. You want to time your reloads. You
want to find your way around the map properly. You want to know where
all the best spots to be are, where you get the best sightlines. You
always want to be on the move.
A lot of the game is having good spatial awareness and acting in a
way that is surprising. When an enemy comes around the corner you
have to fucking shoot him. That can be difficult. Can you move and
shoot? Where should you aim depending on your gun? How much time has
the enemy has to prepare? A lot of CS is just getting the element of
surprise. If you can take away an enemy's knowledge of what you are
doing you get a huge edge, which then just multiplies.
MW2 is brilliant in a lot of ways. There is a map with enemies
running around it. If you get pinned down they learn where you are
and it is harder to escape. You need to kill the most vulnerable
guys. You don't want to leave yourself in the open for too long. You
want to move. You have the scope in-and-out mechanic. You have
grenades, a pistol, and the occasional weapon change. There is some
strategy in choosing the right gun for the situation. Halo has a lot
of this. Though Halo just also using every gun because of the lack of
ammo. Or maybe I just suck at Halo....
Half-Life throws the environment in. It does a much better job than
Bioshock at this. Positioning of enemies is less important than it is
in Counter Strike because you can walk and shoot all of them if you
really want to. The enemy having the drop on you is less deadly in
HL2.
What I like about Half-Life is that it gives you unique environments
to run around in. They always change the powers of the enemies, what
the ground is like to move on, how big the corridors are, how well
you can see. It changes the environment then forces you to think on
the fly. The enemies use basic tactics.
Rainbow Six is a lot slower. You can't react as quickly. You need to
think ahead. You need to choose your cover wisely. You need to scope
the enemies. You really need to remember where they are. You have to
make decisions quickly. You have to pop in and out of cover. That
sort of thing is getting tired thanks to Gears and Uncharted - I
haven't even played Uncharted.
3 types:
. tactical shooter: Half-Life, Rainbow Six, Gears of War, Mass Effect
-> reacting to the environment, uniqueness of situation
. perfection shooter: Quake, UT, CS
-> mastering maps, guns, opponents
. arcade shooter: Halo, Return to Castle Wolfenstein, Time
Splitters, Bioshock, Dead Space
-> lots of movement and shooting
That doesn't actually split us by mechanics though. These are the
types of skill demanded by shooters:
. map memory
-> after seeing an area once, or a 1000 times.
. strategic understanding of guns/equipment
-> in what general ways should each piece of equipment be used?
in what kinds of situations? against what type of enemies?
. pointing and shooting
-> this includes lead times, distance measurement, handling
recoil, shooting bursts, aiming for the head - or body part
. enemy pattern projection
-> know how they think, where they'll go, how they'll react to
each of your decisions
-> know how they'll move given that you already know how they
think. this is knowing how enemy AIs move before they know you
are there.
-> how much health does each enemy have?
. tactical assessment
-> considering all the enemies and what you have, what are the
best places to go for cover? how long should you stay there?
where should you move to next? account for sightlines, the
chances of being pinned down, who you can shoot, and where you
can move to after. who should you shoot next? when should you
reload? what gun should you use? from where is it best used?
what flank should you attack from?
. movement
-> basic platforming. go from point A to B quickly. sometimes
you have to jump, climb ladders, thread your way through rough
terrain.
-> avoiding bullets. this is common in Halo. it includes
avoiding rockets and other slow moving attacks.
. judging sightlines
-> what places can see what?
. picking objects out
-> see enemies, gun fire, cover, vehicles, and other
mechanically relevant objects.
. remember where static things are
-> how long can you remember for? how accurately? under what
kinds of pressure?
. map "reading"
-> given that you don't know/remember a piece of the map can
you intuit which direction will lead you where? to health? to
upstairs? to a flank?
Note a major mistake. Horror goes a lot better with tactical
shooting. Interesting! Why? Because horror is built with suspense.
Constant action actually takes the mind off of horror. Notice how the
Dead Space series has become more overtly action oriented over time?
It has less horror and focuses more on the jump scare. It is still
scary but less so. Why? Because the mechanics led them that way -
also the money.
Some major ways in which existing games don't "run with what they
have":
. Counter Strike doesn't teach players how to play
. Bioshock is gimmicky. all the levels are aesthetically themed in
a similar way. the adventuring aesthetics don't complement their
own need to provide mechanical relevance. areas don't have a
distinct "feel," not enough anyway.
. Dead Space isn't tactical enough, relies too much on surprise,
has too many corridors, doesn't use the limb cutting mechanic for
tactical variety. shooting a leg is like shooting a head that moves
in a different way. there's usually little tactical relevance to
shooting one left over another, vs a head. always shoot the easiest
leg to hit.
. Halo requires too perfect of a way to play. watch someone on
Legendary. they play in a very specific way. the game is also
always on it relies on bullet sponges too much.
. Gears is crazy with the bullet sponges. you don't move around
enough. you usually have your head down.
. Modern Warfare is actually pretty good. well so are these other
games. MW has good tactical variety, different environments,
characters. what it likes is a good push towards proper execution.
that game is too easy to force your way through with a grind. there
is always a lazy less interesting way to play.
. Quake and UT are straight-up hard.
. Half-Life doesn't have enough shooting. it relies too much on
gimmick encounters and platforming, though both are very
interesting. I would like to see more varied battles in and around
their terrain.
. Time Splitters enemies are basically all the same. robots are
boring. blahhh.
* review
I've discussed the major shooters. Getting some pictures of each
shooter could help a ton. Then I could sort through them somehow,
watch a slideshow and just take notes.
I have the basic mechanics. Shooters are about aiming and shooting
and platforming and tactical analysis. They are very much about the
mouse. They use the keyboard well. They take advantage of the
high-detail ability of a computer monitor. They also exploit the
ultra precise mouse. Not only that, the mouse can switch between
precise and broad movements easily - gamepad analogs cannot do this -
and shooters exploit that too.
Are shooters better on the PC? Yes, they are. Get used to it. But
console shooters have a serious advantage. They let you sit on the
couch as more accessible. Console shooters are more like
action-shooters. They have less to do with the actual shooting and
often make up for it with other things.
But then you have Goldeneye and that game ruled. Lots of people play
Modern Warfare online, Battlefield. They care more about movement and
trash talking. Goldeneye ruled because it was with your friends
beside you. That`s a lot harder of a thing to setup with computers.
Go LANs!
I`ve got the major skills used. I might have to look into some level
design soon. It will be super cool when I have all of my coming
analysis in my head while playing through some awesome games. Then
I`ll be able to soak up all that level design.
Note. The most important part of shooting - the most characteristic
part - is the shooting. You kill a guy by pointing the mouse. You
also have to worry about your position. That`s shooting.
Move in all 3 dimensions. Have different kinds of terrain. Have maps
the player masters and learns. Have new opponents and familiar ones.
Have a wide selection of guns to load out with, then another
selection to have access to on the fly. Have abilities and grenades.
Have levels. Have XP. Have different looking environments, different
enemies with different skills, abilities and equipment. Have
differently shaped areas, monsters, lighting and sound.
Have different movement patterns for enemies, different sizes. Have
an element of surprise. Allow tactical variety in a situation. Make
sure the player is always doing something different. Teach him the
basic skills. Control for ROI cycle size. Make some of it dynamic
based on success.
* next
I need to group the mechanic types into 3 groups. Then I need some
example levels that demonstrate the breadth of each type. Then I can
review these levels based on memory of others games, maybe
referencing some pictures and videos.
Then I`ll probably pop up to long cycle sizes, or maybe not. I may
also consider the atmosphere. I want the player to have a purpose.
What kinds of emotions lend themselves to shootersÉ Since you are
moving and shooting you are in 1st or 3rd person. That`s an important
part of shooters. Being zoomed out creates an action game. So you
want games that focus less on abstract feelings. You want your
enemies to be like people, or at least the things we encounter in
life. I don`t know what that means.
1.2 fast implementation
------------------------
1.2.1 intro
~~~~~~~~~~~~
What I want is a cycle around the 3 core: play, express, share. If I
have that it will be easier.
The player plays anything. Then he expresses.
For play lets just take Mario. Assume the player is playing Mario.
1.2.2 expression
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
* implicit expression
How can we express? Two kinds:
. implicit
. explicit
Implicit expression happens during normal play. While a player is
playing Mario he is making a statement about himself. He is being
cautious, aggressive, emotional, inconsistent, fancy, optimal,
skillful, all in various contexts. Implicit expression is this. It is
everything that is true about the connection between a player's state
and what he inputs into the game.
What are the things that he "says?" What are all the major emotions
that a player goes through? What are his thoughts? Accomplishments?
How best is his experience recorded and represented?
3 kinds of representation:
. changing character
. changing world
. changing NPCs
+ character
For example, Mario could reflect the player's style by becoming
naturally influenced by it. If a player is more aggressive maybe
Mario becomes more naturally aggressive. He starts to take on an
aggressive tone.
This kind of reflection is like a mirror. There is little distortion
or analysis. If the player does X the mirror reflects X, though with
reduced power. I think a lot of aggression results in a little
permanent aggression.
How long does the impact last? If I'm aggressive for 2 minutes does
that create a temporary effect? Maybe there is a "level average." So
as I play the level, my character reflects how I've been playing that
level. So by the end of the level I am level-2 angry and level-3
silly. The values partially reset for the next level.
Maybe at major moments in the level my state changes. Check-points
create a window to reset my momentum. Maybe for 30 seconds my actions
have triple the weight.
There's also distorted reflections. In Fable you get scars for being
evil. What if the character becomes stronger if he uses one move a
lot, or maybe he becomes weaker with it. Maybe he can develop an
addiction to something.
+ world
The character reflects an average of what the player has done. It can
also reflect very particular decisions, such as customization,
equipment loadout, and battle scars. That last one is an indirect
result of a decision. The world however reflects events, and even
more particular decisions.
I can show craters from battles, or constructions made as a
representation of how the player thought about the world. The world
can be segmented geographically, representing a division of time -
close places in the world are close places in the journey. The
character reads like a summary and the world reads like a timeline.
+ NPCs
NPCs are kind of a combination of world and character. They are a
summary of the player's actions, but often individually focused on
particular groupings of them. Your father will have different shared
experiences with you than your mother, and not only that he will have
a different perspective on the experiences he has shared with you.
NPCs also mix in their own opinions. They are a mixture of a summary
of their own pasts mixed with their perceptions of some of yours. When
you interact with them you are seeig a comparison of your behaviour
against other possible behaviours - theirs. You see yourself with
perspective.
This is why companions are so endearing. They make struggles appear to
exist in a larger story, grounding them. Your struggles _do_ exist in
a larger story, and NPCs make that clear.
+ summary
Basically you pick the things you think a player might want to know
about what he has done and create a way to show it to him. You want
to highlight the interesting aspects of his journey, the ones that
illustrate truth, and allow the player to reflect.
* explicit expression
Explicit expression is more complex to talk about. Explicit expression
is the player turning around to do something awesome based on the
inspiration he has received from playing. Some examples:
. outfitting your party in a turn-based RPG, buying stuff in town,
making levelling decisions. this is based on experience in battle.
. building stuff in Minecraft. This is you just expressing your
ideal aesthetic, and some functional analysis of how best to live
in the world.
. editing a level in Little Big Planet. You have an idea of what
would be fun and try to express that. You want to use your insight
from playing in a way that makes them more, clarifies their value,
and allows you to build onthem.
Pretty much anytime a player does anything in a game he is learning
about that game's world and mechanics. He is thinking about them. When
he is given a chance to express himself he can express any of those
thoughts that he had.
The player can take anything he has learned and build on it. If he is
playing Mario he has insight into the following:
. jumping mechanics. the best way to jump in every context. how
each jumping pattern makes him feel. how each level design produces
a jumping pattern.
. how the aesthetics make him feel.
. how NPC patterns affect the challenge and how he feels.
. what challenges give him the most trouble, the most frustration,
how to deal with these feelings in order to improve.
He gets insight into how each aspect of the design affects his
experience; how he reacts to each scenario; how he develops over a
session, or multiple; how he needs to think in order to improve or
reach his goals; what he actually needs to do in-game in order to
succeed. When we design we think about the player. We think about how
he will think at each moment, how he will think over time, and what
he will do.
Our goal is to create the best experience for him. His goal is to
study his own experience so that he can play better, so he can learn
what kind of mental state gives him absorption, what kind of design
gives him that mental state, and what kind of design gives others
that mental state.
What I want is for a player to turn around after a session and do 3
things:
1. Analyze what he did do so that next when he does it he can
improve his absorption.
- this is playing new situations better, like a new level of
Mario, or an old level with 0 memory about its structure.
2. Analyze the situation based on what he learned so that he can
apply his observations towards improvement in-game.
- this is playing old situations better, like replaying a level
for the 10th time and applying a strategy, or outfitting your
party and equipment setup for fighting the boss for the
second time.
3. Create a new structure to play through/with that will be
interesting in its own way, based on observations just made.
- this is building something in Minecraft. It is creating a
level in LBP. It is making a decision to head north towards
Narshe - instead of somewhere else - for your own engagement
only (not to reach a game-defined goal). You have made a
level design experience that affects only you.
Obviously the goal is to ramp up to creating level design for others
to become engaged in.
* examples
What are some specific things a player would create in Mario?
So lets say that Mario changes to reflect the player's style. The
most important thing would be... the degree of playfulness. Anytime
the player does something that doesn't help him reach his goals
that is considered playfulness.
If I import your Mario into my world I get the degree of playfulness
with it. Maybe playfulness is also based on the situation. So there
is a greater degree of playfulness for certain themes, around certain
enemies. Maybe there are certain patterns of playfulness development.
Maybe I should look at what I wrote and try to come up with some
specific examples. This is going to be difficult.
What I really want to do is "empty the player's tank, of creativity."
When a player plays he fills up with ideas. The idea is to give him
an outlet, and give him a way to record what he has already
expressed, implicitly.
The player alternates between filling up and expressing. If he can
express interesting things, things that engage him, then we let him
continue to express. If he cannot express interesting things then we
put him back to work, playing the game. He cycles between playing and
expressing.
We also want to record everything that he does. If he is 20%
aggressive, 20% better than before, 20% acute, then we want to show
that somehow. 3 levels: lifetime, level, encounter. We want averages
for each, reflected through the character's behaviour. We want 3 main
gauges of what the player is doing.
There are also 3 kinds of contexts at each level, 3 encounter types,
3 level types, and only 1 game type. One context might be "enemies
that require finesse," or "enemies that require spatial reasoning,"
or "levels that are suddenly more challenging than the ones
previous." Really I'm looking for context divisions that produce the
widest variety in player responses.
Then we have NPC reactions. We have global opinion, opinion by
character type/location, and opinion by individual. Opinions are a
mixture of perception of player behaviour and personal past.
The world reflects particular decisions. 3 categories:
success/failure, style, exploration.
+ searching for 3 dimensions
Aside. What are the 3 main dimensions a player's experiences varies
by? Challenge is one, obviously. We also want story-like decisions.
So the player has to make strong decisions about how he wants his
character to develop. He makes personal decisions to do this. Then we
have strategic decisions. The player makes commitments to particular
kinds of strategies.
The problem is, we want to measure things the player would already do
in Mario, so I can't do the above 3. Challenge is okay. What else
does the player express in Mario? Maybe 3 different types of success?
For different kinds of moves? What about relative success, like
improvement? We also have fluent success, hot streaks, how many tries
passing a single challenge took. We have types of failures, what
enemies killed the player, in what way, what the player was trying to
do before hand.
Style is one dimension. How stylishly a player beats a section. Does
he value style over optimization? Style is when he does cool things
that aren't necessary. Style occurs only when the player does
something challenging. Then we have exploration. Exploration is when
the player takes his time to figure something out, to learn or study.
He studies an enemy's behaviour, how best to beat it, how the
mechanics of a level segment work, how a power works.
+ reflecting the player's decisions
What I want is a world the reflect's the player's decisions. There
will have to be many elements that the player revisits. There will
have to be a home, then paths that lead out to other worlds. Then
there will be a second home and so on.
The player branches out. The world is a living record of his
adventures. He gets powers and items and equipment and partners to
help mark his progress.
I need to figure out the major moments in an experience and reward a
player for all of them. Possibilities:
. completion of a quest (several levels)
- includes segments punctuated by a boss
- and side quests gone on voluntarily
(Minecraft gives special ores, which then can be used for new
things)
. completion of a quest chain. possible rewards:
- perishable items - for use in battle, construction of buildings
- NPC attitude changes, new partners, their willingness to do
things for you, give things to you
- new equipment (semi permanent), new powers (permanent)
- new aesthetics, achievements, trophies. these things just look
cool. high scores count here. you can get a new banner or cool
looking sign for your home.
- think the M that goes on Jinx's dojo (when you beat him for
the 3rd time).
+ explicit expression
What are the things that the player would want to express explicitly
in Mario? This is all level design. Think about the things a player
has to think about while playing but doesn't have the chance to
express naturally.
You know it would be really great if everything the player did
actually mattered in-game, in proportion to to its value to the
player while doing it. For example, in Mario my stylishness has no
effect on anyone. I can collect bonus coins and get nothing, free
lives, that's it. A free life only matters when you're low, when you
suck, or when you haven't figured out that they don't matter yet.
Your lives reset when you turn the game off anyway. How crap is that?
Yoshi coins are garbage too. If I do a stylish kill and die stupidly
where does my style go? In soccer at least my teammates see; that
counts for something. But in Mario I gain nothing. Everything is
gone. I don't want it to be gone. I want it to stay. When I do
something optimally I save time. When I do something well I get to
progress. When I avoid damage while holding a power I get to carry it
forward. But when I use style? I get nothing. Isn't Mario about
exploration? Isn't it about having fun? Then why do the mechanics not
support that? Why do they conflict with the obvious aesthetics, the
ones that try to encourage you to be impulsive, to do whatever you
want, the ones that are everywhere?
In Mario 64 at least they have the Stars. The stars were an invention
to give points for style. Some stars require style and some do not.
The player can go for the ones that he likes. The problem with the
stars of course is their reptitiveness - you're always playing the
same level - and the unecessary freedom given to the player. Not
balancing challenge with fun is too easy in that game. There should
be more structure in the order you have to go for the stars. Of
course this structure should be intertwined with the story, and
environment.
I can tell an incredible story if I can just get the player to
invest. Hmmm....
+ building things - what the player knows
The player wants to create levels that actually do something for him.
He wants to create levels that build on his knowledge. What does a
player know after playing Mario? Let's start with the Prince of
Persia, because that's what I've been playing.
I run around on walls. I have to map out an area in my mind. I have
to figure out where to go. There are a lot of mental dead ends. I am
often working with a difficult camera. The level design in that game
is actually pretty good. Lets start witht he basics:
. aiming/timing jumps
- getting the wall run start going properly. requires aim that
is partially relative to the camera, and timing for the R1 -
something Assassin's Creed does not demand.
- timing the wall run with saws
- jumping out of the wall run at the right moment
- to hit another object from various camera angles
- to hit various objects: poles, ledges, platforms
- based on: memory, visible position, shadow, other
relative markings (such as on the wall)
- to go as far as you can
- to get the fastest run, when on a clock
- same but with vertical wall runs
- wall jumping in time
- jumping from swinging pole, on first try or next
- similar to wall run jump positioning but with ledges
- jumping gaps. has some variety as wall run jumps but with the
adding difficulty of opening angle
. gauging distances:
- for wall run lengths: horizontal, vertical
- for jump lengths
. fighting
- enemy attack signals
- enemy attack pattern projection - which attack will they pick
next
- assessing position, not getting cornered, choosing most
vulnerable enemy
- attack maximum amount with getting damaged
- rewinding on the most damaging attacks
- blocking at the right time
- choosing the right attack: jump, attack, move-attack, dagger,
draw, guard; special: wall bounce
- combining the above together
- protecting Farah, tracking her health
- crowd management: stunning some enemies, daggering for a
reprieve, clearing space around a downed enemy
. figuring out a puzzle
- finding objects that can be platformed on
- noticing special objects: doors, buttons, weapons, crates,
cracks, "gateways" (entries/exits), enemies, sand clouds,
turn-styles, pull levers - vertical/horizontal
- running pathfinding through your head
- deducing options, general strategy
- getting into better positions to see what to do
- following your intuition
- replaying the puzzle in your head to think where you missed
something
- keeping track of everything in your head
- keeping your sense of direction even while moving through the
level
- combining all of these with various action challenges
- general logic: with the mirror puzzle, the "weapon system"
puzzle
- exploring, by looking for everything, following leads etc.
. weapon timings
- getting the rhythm - like "when to go" when several saws are
at work, several mocing pieces combined with spikes etc.
- executing properly, including roll timings etc
The player basically needs to think about the relationship between
the level and how it makes him feel. What frustrates him? Give him
the most challenge? The most pleasure? The most confusion? What are
the optimal strategies for beating it? etc.
How can constructions be tested?
The player also knows about the world. If there are any patterns that
link the environment to the mechanics/design he will pick up on that.
He will also know how he feels. If the level produces a lot of horror
then he will feel what? The desire to express his fear? Or his wish
for safety, and what that looks like?
The player should be expressing the top feelings that the game gives
right?
+ building things - what the player can build
I've already covered Prince of Persia. Next comes Mario. What does
the player know in Mario?
. enemy behaviours, how best to deal with them
. how to deal with a variety of problems
. how each situation makes him feel
. how he feels, in accordance to what the game is designed to make
him feel - important to get this right
Spike sideways. Assume The Impossible Game. The player can only do 1
thing. He can jump. That's it. We can choose when to jump. He wants
to get as far as possible. Either he makes a jump or he misses it.
What does the player learn while playing? He learns:
. what situations give him the most trouble
. which patterns are the most interesting
. how best to control his thoughts in order to succeed
He can build:
. interesting jumps
. jumps that will help practice his skills
. easy/hard jumps that give a good challenge curve or pacing
In other words what are the kinds of things a player could build that
would make him an optimal player? If he can learn to build these
things he will naturally become a better player. He wants to explore
all of the mechanics available to him. Ideally he can do this with
the level design mechanics that already exist.
He also wants to build things that are interesting. Maybe there are
particular patterns of challenge, particular orders of interactions,
things to do, that stimulate him. First he learns that pattern P gives
engagement level L, then he learns pattern P2 gives him engagement
_type_ T - like an emotion or something, some mental state. Then he
learns what patterns of engagement types maximize his engagement, and
create new types of engagement. Then he learns how to give successful
engagements to others.
1.2.3 share
~~~~~~~~~~~~
* intro discussion
The whole point of expressing is that you can share what you have. You
want to show people what you went through, so that you can learn more
from it. You want to create for others. Most importantly you want to
develop relationships, end up on a team, and create together. That is
the point of this game, to get on a team and create something
with them.
There are a lot of ways to share what you have done. In Minecraft you
just show the physical construction. What if players had a hub world
to browse everyone's constructions from. There was some way to vote
on which ones you like, which ones inspired you. Cool right?
You can share strategies and high scores. You can share what you have
earned. You can share the world around you. You can import your
character into someone else's world. They can import it. What is
imported acts in a natural way.
* dealing with specifics
Given the Impossible Game mechanics, what are some things that the
player would want to share? The player wants to share:
. his current state - what he plays like now, how he relates to the
game, what he is capable
. his major events - big things that have happened to him,
people/NPCs that he's won over.
. his creations: that reflect who he is, how he sees the game, what
he has created for others to consume
Probably need some specific examples of things the player could
create.
the Game 