Wednesday, April 17, 2013

Game Over! Retry? Podcast: Difficulties of drilling down design for a design podcast

So Jon and I have recorded 2 podcasts now (EP1) and (EP2), and while we've had quite a few technical difficulties (yes, the phone interference was probably my fault) and naming issues (we'll get a proper name next time), none has been more challenging for me than actual content creation.  It has slowly snowballed into much more work than I have anticipated of "two guys talking about games".  Let me expand upon that...

Our basic structure is one similar to most other podcasts, covering what the last two weeks of whatever we've been consuming, and use that as a jumping point to talk about things relevant to it.  In most other podcasts about games, you may hear stray observations of what works and resonated with the player, but for me, a lot of observations done at this level is simple, high level criticism that doesn't add a whole lot, and would be a pretty weak basis for a design podcast.  However, in the attempt of generating better observational talking points, once again I start playing games not because they're games, but as work, writing down notes, researching reference points, pin-pointing their design stratagies.

For example, in last week's episode on FarCry 3, I had questioned what the expected player progression in open world game design should be.  This led to a pretty big wild goose chase of looking at different open world games and how they approach loot collection, how maps and events are locked away, or just equipment unlocking/skill unlocking path.  I don't think we ended up going through all the various comparisons within the podcast itself (it'll probably take forever), but the research was done at some point and hopefully it did come out as more analytical.

However, at the same time, this also made playing the game much more of a chore, "like homework" than ever before.  A heads up preview: I'm playing through Bioshock Infinite right now (don't spoil it for me), and I've had to stop at two different points just so that I can pause, take notes, do some research, just to resume again.  I know that I've purposely looked away from certain scenes just to see how the game handles player inactivity; trying to replay the same scene and trying different strategies to see how different it feels; trying to break it by doing unexpected player things.  I'm sure that's not how they had expected anyone to play the game.  

=========

One quick thing though before I end this post (about Bioshock and/or games in general): how much player knowledge/information should be considered relevant for any given game?  Using Bioshock 1 for example: does knowing Ayn Rand beforehand colour or changes the play experience?  Or how about games like Dead Space 2, where an entire stage is lifted from Dead Space 1, letting players recall their play experience and creating a twist on top of their past memories?  How much should a game expect players to know as knowledge, and is it safe to build upon that assumed knowledge to advance plot or mechanics?

1 comment:

  1. > how much player knowledge/information should be considered relevant for any given game?

    It depends on what knowledge you deem relevant. Is the knowledge required for you to enjoy the game, or is it supplemental? If it's required knowledge this is probably a bad thing as you're limiting your ultimate player base. If it's supplemental than I see that as a good thing. Players who are already have the knowledge feel like they have a fuller picture of the game. Players who don't can easily acquire the knowledge if they choose. If they don't, the game still feels fuller because of it.

    > Using Bioshock 1 for example: does knowing Ayn Rand beforehand colour or changes the play experience?

    I'm sure it most certainly does. I've read some Rand and I've played some Bioshock, and I think they Rand's work definitely gives you a deeper perspective on the philosophies on display in the game. However, I don't think you need to have read Rand to understand it.

    > Or how about games like Dead Space 2, where an entire stage is lifted from Dead Space 1, letting players recall their play experience and creating a twist on top of their past memories?

    I can only comment on what you've described since I've played neither game, but I can't see this as a bad thing. If the player has played the previous game they get a new perspective on that piece of the game, but I don't think any players who hadn't played the previous game would enjoy it any less.

    This type of thing may actually be a safer sort of inclusion than the Bioshock example because you can make a bit of an assumption that players have played the previous entry in the series. This won't be true for all players, but certainly for a significant majority. This isn't any different than a movie sequels building on plots and themes from a previous film.

    > How much should a game expect players to know as knowledge, and is it safe to build upon that assumed knowledge to advance plot or mechanics?

    Expect no, but you can build off external knowledge if that knowledge isn't required to enjoy the experience.

    ReplyDelete