Posts Tagged ‘gamedesign’

Gameplay Suggestions for Dead Ends

Tuesday, July 1st, 2008

Here’s an excerpt from a press release on a new social issue game, Dead Ends.

“Dead Ends is a full 3D computer game commissioned by Channel 4 to support Disarming Britain, a major new season examining the effect of gun and knife crime on Britain’s streets.”

Overall, it is an impressive effort by student game developers who had an incredibly short amount of time to make the game, 6 weeks from initial approach to going live with public downloads. I think there are two kinds of social issue games. 1) An awareness building game and 2) a call to action game. Dead Ends succeeds as an awareness building game but I think would be more successful as a call to action game, which requires more resources. Overall I feel its biggest let down is that it doesn’t answer its own question, “why does this happen? Why do teens resort to gang life?”

The game allows you to play as a teenage gang member and a detective trying to find who murdered the teenager. I give big props to the developers for putting the player in the role of the gang member and the detective, rather than some outside observer, such as a journalist which many social issue games use. Yet, despite playing as people directly involved, the game has very little about the real life reasons for teens participating in gangs.

Again, I realize they had 6 weeks and for that it shows how important it is to give social issue games the time needed to develop a game that reaches its full potential by exploring the issues properly. Here are some ways the issue could have been explored further. As a teenager, you live in a low income home with only one parent. For gameplay, you struggle to take care of younger brothers and sisters while cooking dinner for them. You must race back and forth between the boiling pot on the stove and picking up your siblings to keep them from causing trouble. Your mother comes home from work, dead tired and expresses her concerns about paying the bills. Your family needs money quickly or else you will be forced to leave your home. You, the teenager must quit school and find work.

You go to school to hand in your papers notifying them you are leaving and run into a friend of yours. The friend mentions his gang is looking for people and they pay really well. You are free to choose whether to join or not. Pros – lots of fast money. Cons – risk going to jail. You can choose to get a job at a local fast food restaurant instead. Pros – stable, legal job. Cons – doesn’t pay enough and the family still can’t pay the bills. No matter what, due to the circumstances of your situation, you are forced to join the gang and hope for the best.

After joining the gang, you steal cars and earn a percentage on the price of the cars. The more expensive cars are more risky to steal but net you more income for your family. Soon drugs become an option and then turf wars erupt and finally the game ends tragically in the death of the player character.

As the mother, you play a short sequence where you try to do you job as best as possible, but are turned down for a promotion, possible due to a form of discrimination or your level of education.

The other component is to offer a solution. You play the part of someone who’s been sentenced to work with low income kids for a small crime they did. Your character, doesn’t respect the kids who come from low income homes but must learn to do so. You eventually help kids find suitable jobs and take skill building classes after school. The point here is to explore the issues of respect and fear and show the kids other options. The teenagers think fear is the way to get respect. They’ve never been respected in another way by an adult, especially by someone like you. Once your character learns to show them proper respect, they learn that there are other ways besides gang life to get the respect they desire.

With this approach, we see a bit more from multiple perspectives why a teenager may be driven to join a gang and ways to help them realize there are other options.

In closing, I think they could have been able to answer their own question if only more time and resources were allocated for development. Here’s hoping they get another shot at it soon.

© 2008, Reid Bryant Kimball. All rights reserved.

Achievments in Multiplayer

Thursday, June 26th, 2008

A friend of mine pointed me to this criticism of achievements in multiplayer games that happen to detract from the experience because the achievements don’t complement the intended gameplay. I agree 100%, achievements should be integrated into the gameplay seamlessly without encouraging players to deviate from preferred play behaviors.

Some examples:

In The Ship, an achievement could be successfully killing your target without being caught 5 times in a row. It fits within the intended gameplay and lets players be creative, to explore how they can accomplish the achievement.

A poor achievement for the The Ship could be asking the player to kill an opponent only with a knife. This forces players to play a certain way and if too many are trying to get the same achievement simultaneously it hurts the play experience for everyone.

In the early TF2 concepts, there was a plan to allow players to collaborate and help each other, such as a player helping to load ammo for a turret, which would increase the rate of fire for the other player using the turret. Achievements that encourage this kind of collaboration are highly desired.

Speaking of TF2, over at Rock, Paper, Shotgun they show just how much achievements can cause people to stray from the ideal experience the designers intend. I think a solution could be tying achievements to officially released levels. This way, people can’t make special maps solely for the purpose of farming experience points to acquire achievements.

For those trying to find a way to design better multiplayer achievements, a good question to ask yourself is, “If everyone in the game tried to accomplish this achievement simultaneously, would it detract or add to the multiplayer experience?”

© 2008, Reid Bryant Kimball. All rights reserved.

Death and Failure are Contrary to Videogaming

Thursday, June 26th, 2008

When I was younger, I used to play ice hockey and during practice once, I fell down trying to pass others. I thought my coach was going yell and scream about sloppy skating, but he didn’t. Coach said to the whole team, “It’s OK to fall down. It means you are challenging yourself, pushing your body to improve and strengthen your legs.” In other words, I was exploring the limits of my capabilities and fortunately, he did not punish me. I got back up and tried again. Then I fell down some more and it felt great.

After reading one of Clint Hocking’s presentations, it’s clear videogames allow players to explore. Players explore the game mechanics (rules and system dynamics), game space (world), and themselves. Just as when I was playing hockey, trying to explore the limits of my skills, games allow me to explore my skills and my perspectives about the world.

Games often use death and failure for various reasons such as to heighten anxiety/tension or to communicate incorrect choices by the player.

Yet, if games are about exploring and if we want games to encourage players to explore themselves, then using systems that punish players may actually prohibit exploration. Players may become frustrated and stop playing. They may seek out an approach that works and stick with that approach, without trying others in fear of more death and failure. Both of these hinder the freedom necessary to explore and learn from those explorations.

As an aside, not really related to the topic of games as an exploration, another reason to not use death and failure in a game design is because it simply destroys immersion. It breaks the fourth wall by reminding the player, “Hey, you’re playing a videogame! Go RELOAD your last SAVED GAME!”

It also breaks FLOW, the loop of players facing challenges, overcoming them via appropriate feedback loops and then facing increased challenges. Videogames that maintain the cycle of FLOW tend to be incredibly immersive. Players often note that they lost track of time and had no idea what else was going around them in the real world.

Whether you are looking to increase the immersiveness of your game or encourage players to explore the game and themselves, I suggest you think about what value using death and failure conditions adds to your game. You just might find you are better off without them.

© 2008, Reid Bryant Kimball. All rights reserved.

Gamedesign for gluttony

Saturday, March 8th, 2008

Clint Hocking, creative director at Ubisoft consistently makes me think and challenges me as a game designer. On his blog, he talks about an impressive card game that lets people explore the concept of gluttony. As a game design challenge for myself, I wanted to design a videogame that lets people explore the mechanics of gluttony. All of the following is on the fly designing and I haven’t edited it all.

When I think of gluttony, the concepts that come to mind are:

SLOW

HUGE

CUMBERSOME

UGLY

All are negative and fairly easy to put into a game. There must be a mechanic that allows the player to “eat”, to acquire something that is of value, yet there are consequences which in addition to the benefits, make the player SLOW, HUGE, CUMBERSOME and UGLY. Once that system is figured out, you can tie those negative consequences to the game. For example, say we are making a 2D platformer and as you acquire stars, you grow in size. The more stars you acquire the more your fame grows and that translates into points. Yet, the consequences are that your avatar will move much more slowly the larger you get. This will hurt your ability to acquire more stars that move faster than you or to avoid obstacles that get in your way. You’ll also become much larger, which will prevent you from acquiring harder to reach stars. It will make your movement cumbersome, you won’t be able to navigate tricky areas, you’ll have to go out of your way to find easier, alternate routes. Maybe you won’t be able to jump as high, won’t be able to crouch or may even fall down sometimes. Lastly, you’ll become UGLY and the people that adore you will soon find you repulsive and run away.

I was just typing this on the fly and suddenly, I realize while the mechanics are about gluttony, they can also be about greed and this could be a metaphor for people who seek fame. Those who seek to be famous, sometimes end up making themselves look ugly (plastic surgery) or they do things that make their personalities repulsive. With the new fame comes many demands for time and therefore, they move more slowly. They become “HUGE” as in, very visible and unable to escape the public eyes.

So, this was really fun, choosing a theme and coming up with a game on the fly. Question for you, would anyone play this?

© 2008, Reid Bryant Kimball. All rights reserved.

Videogames for Social Change

Saturday, March 1st, 2008

There was a lot of interest at the 2008 Game Developers Conference regarding creating videogames for social good, explore human themes or that at least are embedded with something important to say. I’m really happy to see this because it’s a goal of mine to create games around social issues that inspire people to take action.

Related to that, Philip Zimbardo (social psychologist of the 1971 Stanford Prison Experiment) is interviewed on Wired.com about his work and his theories as to why good people can become evil and treat others inhumanely. He says during the interview, “But once I switched to being the prison superintendent, I was a different person. It’s hard to believe that, but I was transformed.”

Here’s something to think about. I do believe videogames can be used to transform people, help them to be more open to different ideas and possibilities, to be more tolerant, and accepting of others. That’s all fine and dandy, but if I believe that to be true for the positive side of videogames, shouldn’t I be able to admit that videogames can do the same for the negative side? If videogames can make people more tolerant of others, can’t they also have the power to make people less tolerant?

It’s a scary thought, because, as creators of the most immersive and potentially most influential medium yet, we have a great responsibility not to screw things up for everyone else.

© 2008, Reid Bryant Kimball. All rights reserved.