Game Design Discussion

Before going ahead, I'd like to make a note:

This thread is not a dumping ground for game design ideas. We have threads for that. While it might be beneficial to bring up an idea you've had for analysis and/or comparison, please keep to the theme of general game design.

If you're a regular viewer of Extra Creditz, you might have noticed that they made some suggestions for game design literature in their last episode at the time of this writing. I picked up the first one they suggested: The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses.

It's a pretty interesting read and sets down some excellent points. One concept that I think rings especially true is that of "emergent complexity", and I'd argue it's one of the most important concepts in the book and all game design, whatever you want to call it.

Essentially, a game with emergent complexity is one that has simple, consistent player interface mechanics, but with enough versatility that complex scenarios and interplays can arise between player and game, or player and player. An excellent example of a traditional game with emergent complexity is Go, which is based simply on putting down your black or white pieces on a grid, one at a time, in an effort to surround the other player's equivalents. It's a game that, with one mechanic and simple rules, produces an endless amount of strategy.

If you're wondering if a particular game has emergent complexity, consider the following question:

"Is this game simple to play and, if so, does it self-generate interesting scenarios or situations via the nature of its mechanics?"

If the answer is "yes", then the game you're talking about might just have emergent complexity. A classic video game example is Pac Man, wherein the only player input mechanic is control of the titular character.

Has anyone else done any reading on game design, or made any of their own observations? Anything you'd like to bring up? General thoughts?

That certainly seems to be the objective for a lot of indie games these days, though how successfuly they are varies. Problem is though that you really need to think the system over carefully: if there's not enough depth or too limited a moveset some player will eventually develop the "perfect" moveset that will win everytime, yet balance too much and players may become annoyed at all the technical rules and restrictions.

The Battlefield series is a good example of this. The earlier games basically put you on the field with the capabilites of a standard FPS shooter, filled each map with various vehicles and objectives to capture, and told you to start killin'. The amount of variety and freedom it gave was fun as hell at first, until players starting learning the caveats of certain maps and weapons, and then abusing them to the point where the system became broken. Later games tried fixing it by placing restrictions, but those restrictions led to complaints about their favorite things being removed or feeling artificial for requiring new, odd rules.

The point of emergent complexity is that some semblance of balance should be a natural result of the system. To take an example I like, say you've got a sword fighting game with high, middle and low attacks. There are defensive abilities, but we have to take into account two players or adversaries striking at the same time. In real swordplay, high defeats low, low defeats middle and middle defeats high. We'll use that. Now, let's put a rule in where using a dedicated defense gives you a fraction of a second's advantage after blocking.

So now a player has three options:

• Attack where an adversary cannot defend, or is unlikely to defend.
• Attack in a way that counters an adversary's attack.
• Block an incoming attack and take initiative from there.

With a few simple mechanics that all relate to one-another and provide flexibility in approach, all the while providing systematic balance for each option (countering is risky, blocking lets your adversary attack first, attacking an opening could be blocked or countered), we can create a great deal of depth through even a simple system.

You would not believe how many games have a variation of Rock Paper Scissors at their base strategy.

Bumping this because there isn't really a specific place for game design on the fora and I have a conundrum I already tried asking about in WB:

A quisckave system solves that problem handily. Basically you can save to continue later at any time, but once you load that save, you can't load it again so you'll have to quicksave again.

Plenty of games like Majora's Mask, Dragon Quarter, a lot of portable titles, etc have this feature.

The auto saves in From Software's games also do this pretty well. You never lose progress, but you also can't avoid losing your Blood or Souls nor get back lost resources if you bought something you didn't want.

That was my first thought, but there's two problems:

• When the game makes the file, there's nothing to stop the player from copying it and save scumming to their hearts content (the Ace Attorney series has this problem despite being on a handheld), especially for a PC game.
• While it lets the player stop and start whenever they want, it also abruptly stops the game and restarts it (which means when the player comes back, any attempt to craft the experience of travelling from one save point to another's gone out of the window).

But the player still loses their progress toward the next checkpoint/door to before if they want to stop, don't they?

edited 1st Apr '17 3:06:21 PM by Bisected8

Yes and no. They lose the distance they traveled, but any items obtained or experience gained stays, puzzles remain solved, and ostensibly in the case of a survival horror game without respawning enemies or something similar enemies would remain dead, so the actual sum progress lost could be easily mitigated.

I thought the whole point of the Souls games was that dying lost you all your souls, carried other penalties, and that returning to the fire (unless you expend a specific item) cost you all your souls anyway?

Depends on the souls game. Bloodborne doesn't really have penalties for death besides losing blood echoes.

And there are other rewards besides souls you can get. Shortcuts, keys, weapons, armor, etc. Making a run to get things and not caring if you die in the process is a valid tactic.

EDIT: Also, you can go to the menu and just. Quit game. You won't even lose your progress. You'll be right where you were.

You can't save manually, but Dark Souls autosaves a lot. Autosaves have nothing to do with bonfires.

edited 1st Apr '17 7:33:07 PM by unnoun

Bleh, I keep forgetting you can do that. Soulborne games can do it that way, because the player is basically being kicked back to a checkpoint (bonfire/lantern) and there's no "plot" to progress through because it's pieced together from the lore in the environment instead of being fed to the players as they make their way through the level.

But what I had in mind is more linear "hard checkpoint"experience; if you die, you reload your save with no further punishment (as in Resident Evil and Metroid/Castlevania). So if the player stops and comes back after a while (say a day), they're basically coming back in a completely different state to the one they were built up to as they were exploring.

Should I rethink that?

That sounds like punishing a player for wanting to step away from the game and, like, go to sleep, go to school, get some food, that sort of thing. That seems a bit unreasonable to me.

Also, you only lose all your souls when returning to a Dark Souls bonfire if you wind up there because you either died or used the Darksign. Just sitting down at a bonfire doesn't really do anything other than alter your respawn point, refill your estus flasks, and respawn normal enemies.

Exactly. That's why I want to still implement a system that lets the player take a break without losing anything or being a detriment to the experience.

Asked and answered. You were dissatisfied, but you either compromise your experience or go hardline on it and do not allow any quicksave.

Your concerns with copying save files are moot. The people who were gonna do that, were gonna do it no matter how much work you put in to stop them (see: Undertale and how people circumvented the permanence of a specific ending).

I also don't quite get what you mean by this:

This sounds like you don't want people to be able to take a break at all, honestly.

My entire problem was finding a way to let the player take a break. If I didn't want that, why would I even start this discussion?

Basically, what I meant was it would break the gameplay loop (explanation). What I want's basically a large loop that goes:

1. Start from a save point/checkpoint/other safe place.
2. Explore the various paths and try to find Neat Things(TM) — the more Neat Things (TM) you have, the more you have to lose if you die.
3. Either return to the safety of the starting point with any Neat Things (TM), or find the next one, giving them a payoff and bringing them back to point 1.

The satisfaction of point 3 comes from the loss of tension built up in point 2, so if the player stops playing at point 2 and comes back to it later:

• The tension's gone, so there's less of a payoff (or the tension's been there all along, which means the game's been stressing the player out IRL, which might discourage them from picking the game up again).
• The player might have forgotten what they were doing, and has no safe way to reorientate themselves (since if they die, they lose the Neat Things(TM), which defeats the purpose of letting them quit in a way that doesn't cost them anything).

That's what I wanted to talk about; a way for the player to be able to start at point 1 in the loop every time they begin the game, without making them feel obliged to keep playing if they're between checkpoints, but also not letting them abuse it in a way that prevents the tension building up at point 2. Or at least how to find a balance.

edited 5th Apr '17 5:03:07 PM by Bisected8

His problem is that you've shot down all suggestions for a system in between the two.

If what you want is the tension of having to reach a save point... just have that be the only means of saving your progress. It's a little outdated and players will probably be frustrated by it, but it's not that unusual or out of place in the modern day. If any compromises to that would hurt your vision, don't compromise.