surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
I've had this same discussion with my friends and I a few times. Basically how the truly great games take a seemingly mundane game mechanic and do so many different things with it that it always feels new. Great rant!
Also thanks for recommending Chains the other day via Steam, I bought it (it's a gorram dollar) and love all of it.
Also thanks for recommending Chains the other day via Steam, I bought it (it's a gorram dollar) and love all of it.
Another good example would be how the level pack / mod Research and Development for HL2 really takes the gravity puzzles beyond _another_ type of seesaw that populate the HL2 games in general.
So you seem to really want to play a Zelda game, as examining how to use generally simple game mechanics in generally unique ways is kind of what defines a good Zelda game.
And I'm not ready for the four knocks :(
And I'm not ready for the four knocks :(
I actually generally dislike games like that. One problem is that practically the only examples of that kind of thing are all puzzle games. But somehow having one very simplistic set of mechanics which are twisted to do different things becomes supremely redundant to me. It makes it seem to me like the designers are trying to make it look like I'm playing something different when I'm still only using that singular set of mechanics. But those two levels in Uncharted were great. I think because they had all of those mechanics already there and putting them all together and making you rapidly switch between them is much more engaging than the other levels. I'd love to see more games that do that the whole way through.
Great rant!
What's the name of the three in line type of game?
It looks interesting, but i didn't quite understand what it is called.
What's the name of the three in line type of game?
It looks interesting, but i didn't quite understand what it is called.
good rant. You should have mentioned portal as a game with a simple game play mechanic turned on its head.
And i completely agree with you, i would love to see this design philosophy taken more seriously in main stream games.
And i completely agree with you, i would love to see this design philosophy taken more seriously in main stream games.
@Maxx -- the way I see it, Zelda is exactly the opposite of what he's talking about. Zelda gives you a handful of different mechanics (in most cases, a weapon) and mixes them together. For example, even though 4 or 5 temples might have places that you can use the grappling rope, you're still just using it to get from point A to point B.
If I understand Anthony correctly, you should be using the grappling rope by itself to solve a number of different problems, not just getting from point A to point B. Instead, Zelda gives you one weapon/mechanic for each type of problem (get across this gap, kill this enemy, light this torch, etc.)
If I understand Anthony correctly, you should be using the grappling rope by itself to solve a number of different problems, not just getting from point A to point B. Instead, Zelda gives you one weapon/mechanic for each type of problem (get across this gap, kill this enemy, light this torch, etc.)
I think Portal is already a game that does that. It combined FPS mechanics, with platforming, introduced the concept of portals and then twisted that same concept over and over again in really interesting and complex ways. I think most of us can agree that we could use more games that take that approach to game design and then execute it with the level of polish Valve puts into all their games. Anyway good rant, Anthony.
agree with the rant as usual, but as I see it, the difficulty in what you suggest is coming up with original ways to change and rework those FPS/platforming/whatever mechanics in ways that are not only different, but provide an added experience for the player, rather than being different for different's sake. Yes, expanding upon the mechanics of what has become the most popular genre of videogames would be a fantastic thing, but it's coming up with the specifics that are the hard part.
I just went back and played one of the two levels I skipped on the last stage(world). That game is amazing. I agree with what you said though. The last levels on each stage are always the best. They take the mechanic and do tons of awesome and fun things with it. Remember that level where the ground is rotating?
Also, just recently got braid. I have a question about that. Is getting the "stars" crucial to completing the game? or would it be sufficient to just get the puzzle pieces? I am loving it, but I have other games to play too...
Also, just recently got braid. I have a question about that. Is getting the "stars" crucial to completing the game? or would it be sufficient to just get the puzzle pieces? I am loving it, but I have other games to play too...
Steam sale finally pushed me over the edge and I downloaded Braid yesterday. I totally get what you mean. I would love a full fledged, mainstream game to take a concept like that and run with it.
what i really love about world of goo is that the difficulty is pretty much constant. the mechanics constantly change so the levels don't need to be harder and harder to still be fresh. with an exception for maybe the first 5 or so.
it's teh same for me with braid and portal everyone i know who could finish the first 6 or so levels in those could finish the game easily. i like that nd i think it showcases the really good design there
it's teh same for me with braid and portal everyone i know who could finish the first 6 or so levels in those could finish the game easily. i like that nd i think it showcases the really good design there
a small critique, you may want to do a little more scripting for this series, as you switch topics back and forth rather quickly.
as for my comment, your points of game design are the EXACT reasons why i enjoy nintendo software. it's the inherent limitations of the software that make for interesting games. in nsmbwii, you do the same sort of stuff you've always done in a mario title, but it adds very small things to the gameplay. ie, the tilt controls. in the beginning, these controls seem kinda tacked on, but as you continue and have to both tilt and platform at the same time, magic happens.
this is the thing that is missing from nearly ALL of the hd software this gen, and, i think, is the thing that barely anyone in the industry understands. for me, WOG was easily the goty 2008. not because the physics were so great, or the controls were so precise, but because the game design was so tight, and you always had a sense that the difficulty was progressing in a very interesting way. it wasn't that they simply added more enemies on screen.
the truth of the matter is that nintendo has been implementing this sort of gameplay into their software since the nes, and they're constantly lambasted in the press. so, i wouldn't hold my breath for the designers of the current hd systems to figure this out.
as for my comment, your points of game design are the EXACT reasons why i enjoy nintendo software. it's the inherent limitations of the software that make for interesting games. in nsmbwii, you do the same sort of stuff you've always done in a mario title, but it adds very small things to the gameplay. ie, the tilt controls. in the beginning, these controls seem kinda tacked on, but as you continue and have to both tilt and platform at the same time, magic happens.
this is the thing that is missing from nearly ALL of the hd software this gen, and, i think, is the thing that barely anyone in the industry understands. for me, WOG was easily the goty 2008. not because the physics were so great, or the controls were so precise, but because the game design was so tight, and you always had a sense that the difficulty was progressing in a very interesting way. it wasn't that they simply added more enemies on screen.
the truth of the matter is that nintendo has been implementing this sort of gameplay into their software since the nes, and they're constantly lambasted in the press. so, i wouldn't hold my breath for the designers of the current hd systems to figure this out.
The problem inherent with this argument, and while I want to agree with it, is the gamers themselves. With the increase in difficulty associated with repetition of game skills is what 99% of consumers AND REVIEWERS actually want. If you constantly change up the game mechanics, you fall into the trap of game reviewers and gamers bitching that they were not properly trained for those segments and that they felt detached.
Take the first Uncharted, for example, and the highly divisive monsters. You have a game that, up until this point, trained you to move from cover to cover and aim your shots (ammo is rare on Hard or higher difficulty). The game, while introducing unsettling adversaries, also completely changed up the way you play. Suddenly you couldn't afford the time to aim, cover was useful, and the old "when in trouble, punch" mechanics were not enough to stop them. Suddenly you were shooting from the hip and doing your shooting on the move. And here is where the game became divisive. Some people, like myself, enjoyed the sudden change and with it, the message that "that shit won't fly anymore" whereas others bitched and ranted and carried on about how they were improperly prepared for the change in gameplay style. Gamasutra themselves have three different articles on this issue.
Meanwhile, unless the game constantly ramps up in challenge ala Army of Two or Modern Warfare, gamers and game reviewers alike bitch about the sheer lack of increased difficulty. It's a hard balance to strike and ultimately, I can't fault developers for going the route that will spare them 7.0s or lower on Metacritic because the new gameplay dynamics didn't properly stroke Billy Jackedemoff's, of Edge Gamer, E-Penis sufficiently. Until game reviewers and game players quit bitching about games being "too easy" as a bad thing, it doesn't encourage the divergence from the norm.
Take the first Uncharted, for example, and the highly divisive monsters. You have a game that, up until this point, trained you to move from cover to cover and aim your shots (ammo is rare on Hard or higher difficulty). The game, while introducing unsettling adversaries, also completely changed up the way you play. Suddenly you couldn't afford the time to aim, cover was useful, and the old "when in trouble, punch" mechanics were not enough to stop them. Suddenly you were shooting from the hip and doing your shooting on the move. And here is where the game became divisive. Some people, like myself, enjoyed the sudden change and with it, the message that "that shit won't fly anymore" whereas others bitched and ranted and carried on about how they were improperly prepared for the change in gameplay style. Gamasutra themselves have three different articles on this issue.
Meanwhile, unless the game constantly ramps up in challenge ala Army of Two or Modern Warfare, gamers and game reviewers alike bitch about the sheer lack of increased difficulty. It's a hard balance to strike and ultimately, I can't fault developers for going the route that will spare them 7.0s or lower on Metacritic because the new gameplay dynamics didn't properly stroke Billy Jackedemoff's, of Edge Gamer, E-Penis sufficiently. Until game reviewers and game players quit bitching about games being "too easy" as a bad thing, it doesn't encourage the divergence from the norm.
@Joseph Leray
You mean like using the grappling hook to not only move from point A to B, but also to grab things that are far away, tear down statues when used with iron boots, steal items, raise sunken treasure, and make a giant slingshot? Because all of those are things you use the grappling hook for.
And if you're using only one tool to do a certain task, you're doing it wrong. In Ocarina alone, you can light a torch by using a Deku Stick on fire, shooting an arrow through fire, using a fire arrow, or using Din's Fire. Now, some puzzles call for using one of those specifically for whatever reason, but that's the same way with World of Goo and Braid. Some of the recent Zeldas have fallen into the trap of overprescribing certain ways to do things in certain situations, but in top form (OoT), it simply doesn't work that way.
You mean like using the grappling hook to not only move from point A to B, but also to grab things that are far away, tear down statues when used with iron boots, steal items, raise sunken treasure, and make a giant slingshot? Because all of those are things you use the grappling hook for.
And if you're using only one tool to do a certain task, you're doing it wrong. In Ocarina alone, you can light a torch by using a Deku Stick on fire, shooting an arrow through fire, using a fire arrow, or using Din's Fire. Now, some puzzles call for using one of those specifically for whatever reason, but that's the same way with World of Goo and Braid. Some of the recent Zeldas have fallen into the trap of overprescribing certain ways to do things in certain situations, but in top form (OoT), it simply doesn't work that way.
I certainly wouldn't place the convoy level of uncharted two and 'intelligent design' in the same utterance.
A cheap jab at the level design, that is not. To the suggestion that naughty dog are 'understanding the implications of what those mechanics mean' I'd wager quite the opposite. As you state elsewhere, they're a gimmick and, in my mind, nothing more.
World of Goo and various other 'not just a one-trick pony' indie games do have lovely ways of keeping themselves fresh - a good observation, I don't see a noteworthy point beyond that.
A cheap jab at the level design, that is not. To the suggestion that naughty dog are 'understanding the implications of what those mechanics mean' I'd wager quite the opposite. As you state elsewhere, they're a gimmick and, in my mind, nothing more.
World of Goo and various other 'not just a one-trick pony' indie games do have lovely ways of keeping themselves fresh - a good observation, I don't see a noteworthy point beyond that.
I pretty much totally agree about games really exploring a mechanic and implementing it in a bunch of ways. If it's done well, like in the examples you brought up, it's typically brilliant.
I have to say, this is one of the reasons that I love Scribblenauts - despite its terrible controls and 'ok-so-its-not-quite-as-innovative-as-they-claimed' - the game is constantly throwing new ideas at you that involve figuring out new ways to think, much in the same way as World of Goo, although in a much less linear fashion. While its true that some levels are somewhat repetitive mechanically speaking, there are also so many levels where I tried something completely out of the blue (like creating a tumor which a dragon I was trying to fight decided to chase into lava as a meal.) and was surprised with the results and the way they game had suddenly changed.
So yeah...I think the problem with changing up the gameplay has to do with how strict and linear you want a game to be. Some people play Scribblenauts and just use the same four or five items over and over again, simply because they can cheat the game in some ways and continue to do so with the same items. If there is a way to make a game feel as open as Scribblenauts and yet continue to force them into a linear path...well, then - you have yourself another genius idea like World of Goo or Braid.
So yeah...I think the problem with changing up the gameplay has to do with how strict and linear you want a game to be. Some people play Scribblenauts and just use the same four or five items over and over again, simply because they can cheat the game in some ways and continue to do so with the same items. If there is a way to make a game feel as open as Scribblenauts and yet continue to force them into a linear path...well, then - you have yourself another genius idea like World of Goo or Braid.
I own Chains but haven't played it yet, I'll have to give that a go. I very much loved the use of game mechanics in Braid, Osmos, World of Goo, etc. Great rant.
I think this is the main reason I love Treasure games so much. You take an established gameplay mechanic, and yet you keep make adjustments to it to keep the player on his toes.
Silhoutte Mirage and Ikaruga have the player either black or white, and you can switch just by turning the other direction or pressing a button, respectively. The entire game is based on throwing what crazy ass way to use this mechanic after another, the difficulty progressing at a steady clip instead of a random leap.
Sin and Punishment 1 and 2 are both rail shooters ala Star Fox 64. They each have a sidescrolling level in them, where the controls are exactly the same, but you play the game totally different. Its actually my fave level in the second game.
Silhoutte Mirage and Ikaruga have the player either black or white, and you can switch just by turning the other direction or pressing a button, respectively. The entire game is based on throwing what crazy ass way to use this mechanic after another, the difficulty progressing at a steady clip instead of a random leap.
Sin and Punishment 1 and 2 are both rail shooters ala Star Fox 64. They each have a sidescrolling level in them, where the controls are exactly the same, but you play the game totally different. Its actually my fave level in the second game.
LoopholeJumper:
"I don't see anything unique about World of Goo compared to Uncharted compared to any game ever made. They are all games, and they all use gameplay mechanics to deliver an experience of interaction with a virtual reality."
Do you even read the bullshit you type? By that rationale, all art is the same as all other art and thus not worth exploring in detail.
Banging the "Anthony is pretentious" drum, while a frequently worthwhile endeavor, doesn't have to go along with the "I'm too lazy to think about details so I'll dismiss any degree of thought beyond what I'm willing to put forth as pretentious" drum.
"I don't see anything unique about World of Goo compared to Uncharted compared to any game ever made. They are all games, and they all use gameplay mechanics to deliver an experience of interaction with a virtual reality."
Do you even read the bullshit you type? By that rationale, all art is the same as all other art and thus not worth exploring in detail.
Banging the "Anthony is pretentious" drum, while a frequently worthwhile endeavor, doesn't have to go along with the "I'm too lazy to think about details so I'll dismiss any degree of thought beyond what I'm willing to put forth as pretentious" drum.
@sheppy
" If you constantly change up the game mechanics, you fall into the trap of game reviewers and gamers bitching that they were not properly trained for those segments and that they felt detached."
"changing up the game mechanics" versus changing the context and application of the game mechanic are different. The question of how to surprise the player is one of the most crucial design considerations in any artfully crafted game, and both decisions are always in balance.
and because Burch has apparently self-banned any references to Half-Life 2, I suppose he felt it unnecessary to mention that Half-Life 2: Episode Two already did what he's talking about, and far better than we were ever prepared for.
Bar=Set
" If you constantly change up the game mechanics, you fall into the trap of game reviewers and gamers bitching that they were not properly trained for those segments and that they felt detached."
"changing up the game mechanics" versus changing the context and application of the game mechanic are different. The question of how to surprise the player is one of the most crucial design considerations in any artfully crafted game, and both decisions are always in balance.
and because Burch has apparently self-banned any references to Half-Life 2, I suppose he felt it unnecessary to mention that Half-Life 2: Episode Two already did what he's talking about, and far better than we were ever prepared for.
Bar=Set
I think that Uncharted 2 did what you're talking about pretty well, but more subtly. I just finished the campaign last night, and it really was a game I felt like I was getting better at. I mean, sometimes I would die a bunch of times in a row, so it wasn't a super seamless experience, but I did feel like I really had an awesome hold on the mechanics when I was in the section of the game with the big circular room with tons of "bad guys" and those mutant things. Roll, cover, shoot, point blank pistole shots, gaining vertical advantage, quickly pick up an RPG and shoot it off--it all felt really, really great.
yo anthony thanks a lot man, I just bought chains of the steam sale for 79 cents and will play it now
I feel a lot of developers use poor level design (or game design to a less prevalant extent) as a surrogate for challenging gameplay.
In particular, take the final level of Shadow of the Colossus (sorry). Obviously the last boss is supposed to be hard; every gamer knows that. But how they made this chap difficult was by designing the level in such a way that didn't rely on the player's skill or manipulation of gameplay mechanics, rather on awkwardly shifting camera angles and constrained jump-timing. Compare this to the increase in difficulty of the previous colossi, which was based on discovering a strategy and very little concerned with it's implementation.
This problem is far more obvious in older games than those of today (Revenge of Shinobi lol), but the problem does still recur. When the original gameplay premise cannot be developed further, more gameplay mechanics are placed on top of it, simultaneous to it, as in Zelda or Arkham Asylum, which is a really ham-handed way of adding depth to your game.
To make their game more challanging, the developers complicate the scene in an artificial way* because the natural way, ie. to explore the depth of the mechanic already instated, is out of reach for whatever reason (eg. it's too shallow, the developers were a tad unimaginative, it doesn't fit in with what they're doing etc etc)
*take for instance, that Tower of God game, or whatever it was called, that emulated old platformers by introducing new restricting laws ("Don't move left") as the game progressed. While the ham-handed method was intentional to pointing out those problems with the games on which it was based, I'm appealling to it that it emphasises exactly what I mean by 'artificial' and 'natural' ways.
---
If you like World of Goo, you should check out Fantastic Contraption if you haven't already. Enjoy :)
http://fantasticcontraption.com/
In particular, take the final level of Shadow of the Colossus (sorry). Obviously the last boss is supposed to be hard; every gamer knows that. But how they made this chap difficult was by designing the level in such a way that didn't rely on the player's skill or manipulation of gameplay mechanics, rather on awkwardly shifting camera angles and constrained jump-timing. Compare this to the increase in difficulty of the previous colossi, which was based on discovering a strategy and very little concerned with it's implementation.
This problem is far more obvious in older games than those of today (Revenge of Shinobi lol), but the problem does still recur. When the original gameplay premise cannot be developed further, more gameplay mechanics are placed on top of it, simultaneous to it, as in Zelda or Arkham Asylum, which is a really ham-handed way of adding depth to your game.
To make their game more challanging, the developers complicate the scene in an artificial way* because the natural way, ie. to explore the depth of the mechanic already instated, is out of reach for whatever reason (eg. it's too shallow, the developers were a tad unimaginative, it doesn't fit in with what they're doing etc etc)
*take for instance, that Tower of God game, or whatever it was called, that emulated old platformers by introducing new restricting laws ("Don't move left") as the game progressed. While the ham-handed method was intentional to pointing out those problems with the games on which it was based, I'm appealling to it that it emphasises exactly what I mean by 'artificial' and 'natural' ways.
---
If you like World of Goo, you should check out Fantastic Contraption if you haven't already. Enjoy :)
http://fantasticcontraption.com/
follow
