Hi everyone! It's been a while since my last post and I apologize for that. But this may become the norm as projects and work has been creeping up on me.
Now I've recently started working on a small project that involves invoking terror into the player. When I was talking to a friend of mine about it, a question came up regarding the difference between horror and terror. Some people may think that these two words are the same but there is a difference between the two.
Horror is something that comes externally. It's something we see in the world that in turn gives us fear. But terror is something that comes internally. For example, when you get scared watching a film like Nightmare on Elm Street, Critters or Friday the 13th, that's horror. But when you get scared of the darkness after watching the film, that's terror. Basically, horror is something we see whereas terror is something that comes from our mind (such as the
fear of death).
Now you may argue that some people get terrified when they see spiders, and this is true. But the terror isn't from seeing the spiders, it's from imagining them up close and seeing their fangs, eight eyes and hairy legs. They're mind soon convinces them that the spiders are crawling all over them, making them shake, jump and go crazy. That's terror.
By now you may be wondering why I'm talking about this. Well it's more to help you determine what kind of fear you wish to invoke from the player when they play your scary game. Games that are considered horror are ones such as the Resident Evil series. But one game that may be considered terrifying is Amnesia: The Dark Descent. If you've played both, you'll understand the difference in experience between the two games.
Most of the time, to invoke terror, you let the player's imaginations fill the gap because you probably can't make something as scary as what their minds can think up. So don't think that in order to scare people, you need to put in scary monsters. Sometimes, the absence of monsters can instill more fear.
Anyway, that's all for this week. I'm hoping to do another post next week but I can't promise anything. Thanks for reading!
Wednesday, July 24, 2013
Sunday, May 19, 2013
Engage First, Monetize Second
Hi everyone. Before I begin, I'm currently busy working on a table top game so I may miss a week or two of posting on my blog (such as last week).
Now let's get on with it. This week, I want to talk about engaging the audience first before trying to monetize your game. Making profit from your game is fine, but you shouldn't make this the first priority. I know this sounds stupid and perhaps moronic, but what I'm trying to say is... your first priority is to make a game that is engaging. Design your game with the aim to engage, satisfy and hook your players. When you've figured that out, then you can think of how to monetize your game. If you haven't read it already, I previously made a post in the past where I talked about micro-transactions and the do's and don't's. I recommend reading about that before continuing.
So, engaging your audience first... if you can engage the player in your game and hook them in, they wouldn't mind spending more money on your game because they will see the game as worthy of the extra dollars. This is why some people are willing to pay extra for special editions or box sets of a game. This is also how you create game loyalty.
I'm sure you've heard some players asking developers to make a game available on certain systems or re-release a game. For example, some people want Square-Enix to remake Final Fantasy 7 and some want Konami to develop Suikoden 6 or at least make Suikoden II available on the PlayStation Network. These people are willing to spend more money on games that they most likely already played. But the reason why they want this is because they loved the games.
This is your main goal, make the players fall in love with your game. If a person loves something, they won't hesitate to spend money on it (just like partners and hobbies). The thing you want players asking themselves is "is this game worthy of my time and money?". However, be careful that you aren't using the Skinner Box method to falsely engage the players. You want them to truly like your game.
If you don't know what a Skinner Box is, you should watch this video:
Skinner Box
Anyway, I'll use myself as an example. I've played many MMOs and MMORPGs since I started with Ragnarok Online back in high school (back when Ragnarok was free to play). Each one I've played, there was always a Cash Shop where you can spend money to buy extra stuff. But I never did. Then DLC content became popular and even then I wouldn't spend money on them, despite me liking the games. But last year I broke my streak with Guild Wars 2.
I had spent not only around $270 on the Collector's Edition, but an additional $180 through micro-transactions (buying both convenience and vanity items) and I may spend more in the future. Guild Wars 2 is the only game where I have spent additional money on it on top of its retail price. That's how much I love the game. Mind you, the additional content are purely optional. You can do nearly everything else in the game for free from the exploration, living stories, PvP, WvWvW and so forth.
Anyway, that's it for this week. Thanks for reading!
Now let's get on with it. This week, I want to talk about engaging the audience first before trying to monetize your game. Making profit from your game is fine, but you shouldn't make this the first priority. I know this sounds stupid and perhaps moronic, but what I'm trying to say is... your first priority is to make a game that is engaging. Design your game with the aim to engage, satisfy and hook your players. When you've figured that out, then you can think of how to monetize your game. If you haven't read it already, I previously made a post in the past where I talked about micro-transactions and the do's and don't's. I recommend reading about that before continuing.
So, engaging your audience first... if you can engage the player in your game and hook them in, they wouldn't mind spending more money on your game because they will see the game as worthy of the extra dollars. This is why some people are willing to pay extra for special editions or box sets of a game. This is also how you create game loyalty.
I'm sure you've heard some players asking developers to make a game available on certain systems or re-release a game. For example, some people want Square-Enix to remake Final Fantasy 7 and some want Konami to develop Suikoden 6 or at least make Suikoden II available on the PlayStation Network. These people are willing to spend more money on games that they most likely already played. But the reason why they want this is because they loved the games.
This is your main goal, make the players fall in love with your game. If a person loves something, they won't hesitate to spend money on it (just like partners and hobbies). The thing you want players asking themselves is "is this game worthy of my time and money?". However, be careful that you aren't using the Skinner Box method to falsely engage the players. You want them to truly like your game.
If you don't know what a Skinner Box is, you should watch this video:
Skinner Box
Anyway, I'll use myself as an example. I've played many MMOs and MMORPGs since I started with Ragnarok Online back in high school (back when Ragnarok was free to play). Each one I've played, there was always a Cash Shop where you can spend money to buy extra stuff. But I never did. Then DLC content became popular and even then I wouldn't spend money on them, despite me liking the games. But last year I broke my streak with Guild Wars 2.
I had spent not only around $270 on the Collector's Edition, but an additional $180 through micro-transactions (buying both convenience and vanity items) and I may spend more in the future. Guild Wars 2 is the only game where I have spent additional money on it on top of its retail price. That's how much I love the game. Mind you, the additional content are purely optional. You can do nearly everything else in the game for free from the exploration, living stories, PvP, WvWvW and so forth.
Anyway, that's it for this week. Thanks for reading!
Sunday, May 5, 2013
Clones, Copies and Inspirations
This week, let's talk about developing games based on existing ones from downright cloning a game to games that are inspired from existing ones.
There are at least two ways to approach designing a game. The first is to design a completely original game, which can be difficult to do at times. Everyone has a great idea but pulling it off is an entirely different matter. This can lead people to the second approach, take an existing game and develop a new one based on said game. Now this approach has a few variants.
Some people can take the laziest route and simply clone a game. This usually involves keeping all the core mechanics and changing the visuals so it looks somewhat different. An example of this is Triple Town and Yeti Town with the latter being a clone of the former game. Don't EVER take this route because you're riding on the back of someone else's success. It's even worse when the cloners don't acknowledge the game they cloned.
The next route is improving an existing game. This involves developing a game similar to an existing one except the aim is to fix its flaws and leave alone what isn't broken. Another way of looking at this route is developing a game that's inspired from an existing game.
However, this can be tricky because it can be borderline cloning. But it depends on how you handle it. For example, recently, NimbleBit released a game called Nimble Quest. When it was released, several people accused them of cloning an existing game called Call of Snakes. However, NimbleBit has said during an interview that they were inspired by the Call of Snakes game (see link below for the interview).
In the end, Nimble Quest turned out to be a great game, some saying much better than Call of Snakes. Which is great because NimbleBit not only improved on an existing game's idea, but they gave Call of Snakes credit for their inspiration.
This is how our industry moves forward. As we improve on each other's idea, we bring new innovations to the table. Also, think about this... when people clone or copy a game, they will always add at least one new feature to avoid their game being seen as a blatant clone or copy. Though it's nearly always obvious to the public, the need to add at least one new feature can be positive, negative, a new innovation or be the foundation of something revolutionary.
I've placed an interesting video of a TED talk regarding the above but in the fashion industry.
Now, I'm not promoting cloning, copying or the like... I'm merely giving you another perspective to this subject. I know it can be painful to see a game based on yours becoming more successful, but know that without your game, it wouldn't be possible.
Well, that's it for this week. I hope I've opened your minds to this part of the gaming industry. See you all next week!
[Links]
TED - Lessons from fashion's free culture: Link
NimbleBit Interview: Link
There are at least two ways to approach designing a game. The first is to design a completely original game, which can be difficult to do at times. Everyone has a great idea but pulling it off is an entirely different matter. This can lead people to the second approach, take an existing game and develop a new one based on said game. Now this approach has a few variants.
Some people can take the laziest route and simply clone a game. This usually involves keeping all the core mechanics and changing the visuals so it looks somewhat different. An example of this is Triple Town and Yeti Town with the latter being a clone of the former game. Don't EVER take this route because you're riding on the back of someone else's success. It's even worse when the cloners don't acknowledge the game they cloned.
The next route is improving an existing game. This involves developing a game similar to an existing one except the aim is to fix its flaws and leave alone what isn't broken. Another way of looking at this route is developing a game that's inspired from an existing game.
However, this can be tricky because it can be borderline cloning. But it depends on how you handle it. For example, recently, NimbleBit released a game called Nimble Quest. When it was released, several people accused them of cloning an existing game called Call of Snakes. However, NimbleBit has said during an interview that they were inspired by the Call of Snakes game (see link below for the interview).
In the end, Nimble Quest turned out to be a great game, some saying much better than Call of Snakes. Which is great because NimbleBit not only improved on an existing game's idea, but they gave Call of Snakes credit for their inspiration.
This is how our industry moves forward. As we improve on each other's idea, we bring new innovations to the table. Also, think about this... when people clone or copy a game, they will always add at least one new feature to avoid their game being seen as a blatant clone or copy. Though it's nearly always obvious to the public, the need to add at least one new feature can be positive, negative, a new innovation or be the foundation of something revolutionary.
I've placed an interesting video of a TED talk regarding the above but in the fashion industry.
Now, I'm not promoting cloning, copying or the like... I'm merely giving you another perspective to this subject. I know it can be painful to see a game based on yours becoming more successful, but know that without your game, it wouldn't be possible.
Well, that's it for this week. I hope I've opened your minds to this part of the gaming industry. See you all next week!
[Links]
TED - Lessons from fashion's free culture: Link
NimbleBit Interview: Link
Saturday, April 27, 2013
2 Meaningless Words
First, I apologize for missing last week. I had a bit of a writer's block as well as some projects I've been busy with. Now, let's begin with this week's topic. When you're talking about your game, there are two words you should avoid using - "gameplay" and "fun".
First, let's talk about "gameplay". The word arose in the 1980s during the early days of video game development. It is used to describe the overall experience of playing a video game (usually excluding sound, visuals and other external factors). However, the word "gameplay" is too vague when describing a player's gaming experience. When I describe a game to someone, I don't use "gameplay". Instead, I just go straight to describing it's mechanics, purposes and goals.
Basically, describe the game with relevant details and then let the other person determine whether your game is fun or not.
My Game Design tutor even questioned the very word itself. He told his students that the word didn't make sense to him. It was like asking a person who had just read a book "so, how was the bookread?" In fact, my tutor told us that we were never to use the words "gameplay" and/or "fun" for the remainder of our time in tertiary school.
With that said, let's move on to the word "fun". When describing your game, never use "fun" because it's subjective. What I find fun may be boring to you or vice versa. Using this word shows that you're lazy and that you don't truly understand your game. The only times you should ever use the word "fun" is when you're the player.
When you want to describe your game, take a look at it and ask yourself why people would want to play it.
Remember that one of the things you need to keep in mind when developing your game is your target demographic. If you're developing a hardcore real-time strategy game, you're going to work on things that challenges the player and/or requires them to master certain micro/macro skills. So when you're describing said game, you wouldn't just say that the game is fun, you'd say that it's challenging and skillful so your target demographic will understand.
Well that's it for this week. Thanks for reading and see you all next week!
First, let's talk about "gameplay". The word arose in the 1980s during the early days of video game development. It is used to describe the overall experience of playing a video game (usually excluding sound, visuals and other external factors). However, the word "gameplay" is too vague when describing a player's gaming experience. When I describe a game to someone, I don't use "gameplay". Instead, I just go straight to describing it's mechanics, purposes and goals.
Basically, describe the game with relevant details and then let the other person determine whether your game is fun or not.
My Game Design tutor even questioned the very word itself. He told his students that the word didn't make sense to him. It was like asking a person who had just read a book "so, how was the bookread?" In fact, my tutor told us that we were never to use the words "gameplay" and/or "fun" for the remainder of our time in tertiary school.
With that said, let's move on to the word "fun". When describing your game, never use "fun" because it's subjective. What I find fun may be boring to you or vice versa. Using this word shows that you're lazy and that you don't truly understand your game. The only times you should ever use the word "fun" is when you're the player.
When you want to describe your game, take a look at it and ask yourself why people would want to play it.
- Is it engaging?
- Is it challenging?
- Is it addicting?
- Does it bring nostalgia?
- Does it evoke a certain emotion?
- Does it encourage mastering skills?
Remember that one of the things you need to keep in mind when developing your game is your target demographic. If you're developing a hardcore real-time strategy game, you're going to work on things that challenges the player and/or requires them to master certain micro/macro skills. So when you're describing said game, you wouldn't just say that the game is fun, you'd say that it's challenging and skillful so your target demographic will understand.
Well that's it for this week. Thanks for reading and see you all next week!
Monday, April 15, 2013
Micro-transactions
Welcome to this week's topic - micro-transactions. In case you don't know what micro-transactions are, they're basically transactions that you can make inside a game in order to get additional goodies. The cost of the transactions varies as well as the type of goodies. They can be clothes for your avatar, skins for your equipment, mounts and many others.
Currently, micro-transactions are found predominantly in casual games or "freemium" games (a portmanteau of "free" and "premium"). Developers allow players to download and play their games for free as well as offer micro-transactions for players who want premium content. If you have a smart phone, chances are, you've played a freemium game. These include Subway Surfers, Tiny Tower, Pocket Frogs, My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic and Clash of Clans.
Now, micro-transactions have recently gotten bad press due to some games being harsh on the players unless they opened up their digital wallets. So let's talk about the do's and don't's when it comes to implementing micro-transactions into your game.
Sell convenience, not power
First, let's define what convenience and power are. Convenience is anything related to saving time. In an adventure game, these are things such as more storage or a faster way to travel the world (the former saves time because you don't have to go back and store your items first before continuing on your journey). Power is essentially anything related to affecting another player's experience in the game. In a first-person shooter game, these are things such as a powerful weapon or the ability to go invisible.
If your game revolves around players competing directly against other players, then I highly recommend you never sell power. This is because if you do, you're turning your game into a pay-to-win model. You want your game to be fair and balanced for all players. If not, players who won't pay or can't afford to spend as much will simply stop playing since they know that anything they do will just get trumped by the people who are spending big money on the game.
In casual games, selling power should be avoided like the plague since its demographic is basically everyone. Is it fair for a child with no money to go up against a business man with money to dump? Don't think so.
If your game revolves around players competing indirectly against other players (such as competing for first place on a leader board), then it's more excusable to sell power. This is because you're not affecting another player's experience in the game.
Sell comfortably, not forcibly
If you are planning to implement micro-transactions into your game, don't purposely make the game frustrating in the off-chance that the player will be forced to spend money just in order to play your game normally. The benefits of premium content should not be the dominant factor in your game.
Premium content should be seen, not heard
The access to the premium-content in your game should be presented in such a way that it's not in the player's face nor should it interfere with their experience. Once you've taught the player how to access the premium content, place it passively in the game's flow where it will be seen and not heard. By heard, I mean actively reminding the player about your premium content such as through roadblocks or pop-up windows.
Think of it like the pit stop in a race track where the pit stop is the premium content and the track is the player's experience. While the player drives around the track, the pit stop doesn't make any effort to interfere with the player's driving. It just stays on the side where it is merely visible to the player. While driving, if the player ever wants to access the pit stop, they can simply enter it the same way they've been experiencing the race, by driving into it (thus not breaking the player's flow).
Clash of Clans does this very well by incorporating the access to its premium content into its user interface.
Sell vanity
One thing you can sell other than convenience or power is vanity. Vanity are things such as decorative items, clothes for your avatar or new skins for your weapons. They are purely visual and players will spend money on vanity because they either want to make a statement to other players or simply customize the look of their own game. This is why some people will spend a lot of money buying expensive clothes and jewelry.
Give premium currency for free
In most games, players must first buy premium currency in order to buy premium content. If you're planning to do this, I highly suggest allowing players the ability to earn premium currency by merely investing time into your game. This will allow players to set a long term goal in your game, thus encouraging them to spend more time playing your game, and not make it seem impossible for them to obtain the premium content. This ties in with selling convenience because if the player wants the game's premium content but doesn't have the time to earn the premium currency, then they can always spend money to obtain the premium content.
Well that's it for this week. Thanks for reading and see you all next week!
Currently, micro-transactions are found predominantly in casual games or "freemium" games (a portmanteau of "free" and "premium"). Developers allow players to download and play their games for free as well as offer micro-transactions for players who want premium content. If you have a smart phone, chances are, you've played a freemium game. These include Subway Surfers, Tiny Tower, Pocket Frogs, My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic and Clash of Clans.
Now, micro-transactions have recently gotten bad press due to some games being harsh on the players unless they opened up their digital wallets. So let's talk about the do's and don't's when it comes to implementing micro-transactions into your game.
Sell convenience, not power
First, let's define what convenience and power are. Convenience is anything related to saving time. In an adventure game, these are things such as more storage or a faster way to travel the world (the former saves time because you don't have to go back and store your items first before continuing on your journey). Power is essentially anything related to affecting another player's experience in the game. In a first-person shooter game, these are things such as a powerful weapon or the ability to go invisible.
If your game revolves around players competing directly against other players, then I highly recommend you never sell power. This is because if you do, you're turning your game into a pay-to-win model. You want your game to be fair and balanced for all players. If not, players who won't pay or can't afford to spend as much will simply stop playing since they know that anything they do will just get trumped by the people who are spending big money on the game.
In casual games, selling power should be avoided like the plague since its demographic is basically everyone. Is it fair for a child with no money to go up against a business man with money to dump? Don't think so.
If your game revolves around players competing indirectly against other players (such as competing for first place on a leader board), then it's more excusable to sell power. This is because you're not affecting another player's experience in the game.
Sell comfortably, not forcibly
If you are planning to implement micro-transactions into your game, don't purposely make the game frustrating in the off-chance that the player will be forced to spend money just in order to play your game normally. The benefits of premium content should not be the dominant factor in your game.
Premium content should be seen, not heard
The access to the premium-content in your game should be presented in such a way that it's not in the player's face nor should it interfere with their experience. Once you've taught the player how to access the premium content, place it passively in the game's flow where it will be seen and not heard. By heard, I mean actively reminding the player about your premium content such as through roadblocks or pop-up windows.
Think of it like the pit stop in a race track where the pit stop is the premium content and the track is the player's experience. While the player drives around the track, the pit stop doesn't make any effort to interfere with the player's driving. It just stays on the side where it is merely visible to the player. While driving, if the player ever wants to access the pit stop, they can simply enter it the same way they've been experiencing the race, by driving into it (thus not breaking the player's flow).
Clash of Clans does this very well by incorporating the access to its premium content into its user interface.
 |
| Clash of Clans - "Finish Now" is incorporated into the UI flow |
Sell vanity
One thing you can sell other than convenience or power is vanity. Vanity are things such as decorative items, clothes for your avatar or new skins for your weapons. They are purely visual and players will spend money on vanity because they either want to make a statement to other players or simply customize the look of their own game. This is why some people will spend a lot of money buying expensive clothes and jewelry.
Give premium currency for free
In most games, players must first buy premium currency in order to buy premium content. If you're planning to do this, I highly suggest allowing players the ability to earn premium currency by merely investing time into your game. This will allow players to set a long term goal in your game, thus encouraging them to spend more time playing your game, and not make it seem impossible for them to obtain the premium content. This ties in with selling convenience because if the player wants the game's premium content but doesn't have the time to earn the premium currency, then they can always spend money to obtain the premium content.
Well that's it for this week. Thanks for reading and see you all next week!
Sunday, April 7, 2013
Self-improvement through Video Games
This week's topic will be about how games can improve a player's knowledge as well as improve certain skills. Now, I'm not talking about educational games that are created for the sole purpose of teaching the player mathematics, English, history, science or so forth. I'm talking about those times when you had learned new words or had your reflexes improved simply because of a video game you've played in the past.
Below are some of the things a player can learn from playing video games.
With all this said, it is important then to keep your information as accurate as possible where applicable. This is rather tricky for me to explain as it varies from game to game. But for example, if you are inserting the Yakuza into your game for the purpose of portraying the Yakuza and using them as they are, then make sure you do your research about them first. If you are parodying them, change their name. If it's part of an alternate timeline, make sure that this is clear to the player.
I hope that made sense to you. Just remember that as game designers, you have the power to not only educate players, but change their perspective on certain things, good or bad. So just remember that the next time you develop a game.
Anyway, I'll stop here and leave you with a link to a news story about how a young boy saved his sister using skills he learned in World of Warcraft. Thanks for reading and see you all next week!
[LINKS]
Boy saves his sister
Below are some of the things a player can learn from playing video games.
- Knowledge of a certain topic such as history, weapons, myths, etc.
- Languages
- To never give up
- Co-operaticve tactics
- Strategic planning
- The difference between good and bad
- Virtues such as patience, loyalty, chivalry, etc.
- Hand-eye coordination
- Organizational skills
- Expanded vocabulary
With all this said, it is important then to keep your information as accurate as possible where applicable. This is rather tricky for me to explain as it varies from game to game. But for example, if you are inserting the Yakuza into your game for the purpose of portraying the Yakuza and using them as they are, then make sure you do your research about them first. If you are parodying them, change their name. If it's part of an alternate timeline, make sure that this is clear to the player.
I hope that made sense to you. Just remember that as game designers, you have the power to not only educate players, but change their perspective on certain things, good or bad. So just remember that the next time you develop a game.
Anyway, I'll stop here and leave you with a link to a news story about how a young boy saved his sister using skills he learned in World of Warcraft. Thanks for reading and see you all next week!
[LINKS]
Boy saves his sister
Sunday, March 31, 2013
Easy to pick up - Difficult to master
For this week, I'm going to talk about one approach to designing a game, especially casual games. The approach is to design a game that's easy to pick up, but difficult to master. This will give your game a very low barrier of entry but at the same time, provide longevity, a challenge and perhaps addiction (in the good sense of course). A few examples of games that uses this approach are Tetris, Bejeweled and Angry Birds.
Anyway, let's break the approach into two pieces.
Easy to pick up
As previously mentioned, designing a game that's easy to pick up gives the game a low barrier of entry. This allows the game to reach out to a much larger demographic ranging from the young to the old. But how exactly do you design a game that's easy to pick up? Simple... keep the controls and goals very basic. Let's use the aforementioned games as examples.
Tetris
Controls - Left - Move block to the left
Right - Move block to the right
Down - Move block down faster
Button 1 - Rotate block
Goals - Create a solid horizontal line of blocks
Bejeweled
Controls - Swap 2 adjacent tiles with one another either through selecting them or sliding them
Goals - Make a connection of 3 or more tiles of the same type
Angry Birds
Controls - Use your finger to pull back a slingshot and launch the birds
Goals - Kill all the green pigs
Now before I continue, I just want to be clear that when I speak of controls, I'm not talking about the physical controls of the game, but rather, what the player can do in the game. Anyway... as you can see, these games have very basic controls and 1 clear goal for the player to achieve. This gives the player less time to learn and more time to play.
I used this approach for one of my games, Bubbly, which you can download from my website. Bubbly is essentially a platform game but with only one control - jumping - and the goal is to just reach the top. I gave it to some of my friends to play and they all enjoyed the easy to pick up controls but the difficulty of mastering some of the levels.
Difficult to master
Now, let's talk about giving your game difficulty. I'm just gonna touch on this very briefly because I plan to talk about difficulty in a future post. But for the sake of this week's topic, difficulty should be given to the player via introducing new obstacles that challenges the player's mastery of the game's controls rather than introducing new controls for them to learn. The player should only need to overcome any obstacle by using the same controls they had learned from the beginning of the game.
That's it for this week. Thanks for reading and see you next week!
Anyway, let's break the approach into two pieces.
Easy to pick up
As previously mentioned, designing a game that's easy to pick up gives the game a low barrier of entry. This allows the game to reach out to a much larger demographic ranging from the young to the old. But how exactly do you design a game that's easy to pick up? Simple... keep the controls and goals very basic. Let's use the aforementioned games as examples.
Tetris
Controls - Left - Move block to the left
Right - Move block to the right
Down - Move block down faster
Button 1 - Rotate block
Goals - Create a solid horizontal line of blocks
Bejeweled
Controls - Swap 2 adjacent tiles with one another either through selecting them or sliding them
Goals - Make a connection of 3 or more tiles of the same type
Angry Birds
Controls - Use your finger to pull back a slingshot and launch the birds
Goals - Kill all the green pigs
Now before I continue, I just want to be clear that when I speak of controls, I'm not talking about the physical controls of the game, but rather, what the player can do in the game. Anyway... as you can see, these games have very basic controls and 1 clear goal for the player to achieve. This gives the player less time to learn and more time to play.
I used this approach for one of my games, Bubbly, which you can download from my website. Bubbly is essentially a platform game but with only one control - jumping - and the goal is to just reach the top. I gave it to some of my friends to play and they all enjoyed the easy to pick up controls but the difficulty of mastering some of the levels.
Difficult to master
Now, let's talk about giving your game difficulty. I'm just gonna touch on this very briefly because I plan to talk about difficulty in a future post. But for the sake of this week's topic, difficulty should be given to the player via introducing new obstacles that challenges the player's mastery of the game's controls rather than introducing new controls for them to learn. The player should only need to overcome any obstacle by using the same controls they had learned from the beginning of the game.
That's it for this week. Thanks for reading and see you next week!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)