GDEV20-04-TradeOffs.pdf

Trade-Offs of Game Design Design Decisions Lecture Time! Trade-Offs: You Can't Please Everyone The word “trade-off” may be somewhat misleading Because there is a possibility that design decisions will allow opposing elements in a trade-off to coexist Balance VS Enjoyment You will...

Trade-Offs of Game Design Design Decisions Lecture Time! Trade-Offs: You Can't Please Everyone The word “trade-off” may be somewhat misleading Because there is a possibility that design decisions will allow opposing elements in a trade-off to coexist Balance VS Enjoyment You will spend time and effort tweaking your game for a perfect level of challenge But what is the “perfect” level of challenge? https://kotaku.com/no-mans-sky-4-0-patch-notes-relaxed-mode-twitch-drops-1849639850 Balance VS Enjoyment Is it for: The ones who always choose the hardest difficulty level because they're that good? The novice players who have no idea what you mean when you say, “WASD”? The ones who like using cheat codes or finding ways to become overpowered during the earliest portions of any game? Balance VS Enjoyment Best approach would be to study your target audience and base your game's standard level of difficulty on their skills Time spent on finding the perfect “easy” and “hard” modes of your game to improve accessibility might be better spent on adding more “normal” mode features, levels, etc. to improve the core experience In most games, changing the game's difficulty simply adjusts numbers like enemy density, damage values, etc. Balance VS Enjoyment While not always a direct trade-off, it still affects design decisions, especially those concerning level design Make X good levels for your target audience, risking a smaller audience? (Balance = well-designed core gameplay without flaws) Make X/N levels, each level redesigned N times to suit N different player types, risking design flaws? (Enjoyment = game is accessible to more people) Realism VS Understandability Depending on the game, the accuracy of simulating behaviors and phenomena found in the game may be directly or inversely proportional to the game's entertainment value https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/ac/Reality_poster.jpg Realism VS Understandability Abstract (simple) games can hook players more easily In games like arcade races and fights, players demand immediate satisfaction They don't have the time or patience to worry (or learn) about realistic physics Realism VS Understandability Accurate games provide more depth, but players will need more time to learn how to play In games like economic simulations, gameplay is mostly about discovering the hidden relationships between player actions and their consequences on the world Complex algorithms are needed for these Realism VS Understandability There is also a danger of not being able to communicate player decisions and their results well Even if the game accurately mimics its real-life counterpart, the player has to see that or at least why their decisions led to certain results Realism VS Understandability Consider the following: A flight simulator has realistic flight physics and controls, and so has a very steep learning curve The launch sequence in a dogfight game is often condensed to a single button press Realism VS Understandability Don't include too much realism in your game Might include the boredom that comes with real life scenarios Even simulators (sometimes) don't include certain parts, such as long wait times and faulty device failures Realism VS Understandability However, diluting the realism of the experience too much can take the fun and immersion out of the game Simulators are fun because they're like the real thing! https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/63/Dilution-concentration_simple_example.jpg Realism VS Understandability Modeling reality can improve understandability What do players assume when they see an in-game item shaped like a firearm? Why are (almost all) aliens in sci-fi games made to be humanoid? https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/18/Maple_syrup.jpg Realism VS Understandability The trade-off can be boiled down to: Simulator? (Realism = reflects actual phenomena) Not a simulator? (Understandability = easier to learn) Remember: Modeling reality can improve understandability! Structure VS Freedom In other words: Linearity VS Non-linearity How much freedom do we want to give to the player? https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bm8ETPICAAAndkS.jpg Structure VS Freedom Persistent online worlds Players can choose to go on (usually) structured quests and/or freely converse with other players Management games Players can perform a large number of various tasks, within the game rules Structure VS Freedom Story-driven games Players are often given one ultimate goal or a series of major goals, but they can also distract themselves for a while with side quests Human beings have and continue to be entertained by stories, which are linear in nature. Therefore? Structure VS Freedom The trade-off primarily affects story and progress Visual novel with no or minimal branching? Strict path from start to end? Only one specific way to achieve an objective? (Structure = linear) Open-world game? Multiple endings? Numerous viable playstyles to achieve an objective? (Freedom = non-linear) Mood VS Playability Some experiences cannot be represented accurately in a computer game without compromising the player's ability to enjoy them Have you ever wondered why you can still “see” even though it's nighttime in the game world? If a scene's lighting is too low, what do most players do? Mood VS Playability If a situation is not pleasant in real life, it will generally not be pleasant on a computer screen An example of an exception would be in horror games, where the presence of semi-invisible enemies can also create a sense of urgency https://steamuserimages-a.akamaihd.net/ugc/901003824403592766/9180F757AE9CC13FA5D77295D22630C548C666F7/ Mood VS Playability The trade-off dabbles a little in realism but primarily in how empowered the player will feel Player also feels as helpless/powerful as the character he/she controls? (Mood = commit to the fantasy) Responsive/smart controls/feedback regardless of the player character's situation? (Playability = game still allows players to easily do certain actions with simple input) Innovation VS Familiarity One result of having a well-established genre is the “standardization” of interfaces for games of that genre Even if the standard is not strictly enforced https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/94/Wasd-keys.JPG/220px-Wasd-keys.JPG Innovation VS Familiarity Players of a new game who are familiar with other games of the same genre can easily get started Not much freedom for designers who want to try something new, since they risk alienating players who expect a certain functionality set (ex. jumping and crouching in FPS games) Innovation VS Familiarity Innovative games are relatively difficult to: Explain to new players / playtest Pitch to publishers / sell to retailers Familiarity makes game design easier until you innovate Game has to uphold player expectations If it doesn't, you must be able to justify your decision to “do things differently” Innovation VS Familiarity The trade-off affects design decisions concerning game mechanics and dynamics Game does not fit under any current genre? (Innovation = completely new) Game is a clone of a well-known game? (Familiarity = been there, done that) Scope VS Concision A game with elaborate, detailed, or varied gameplay will take a long time to finish Good for most single-player and persistent online games Might backfire on multiplayer games with clear winning conditions Scope VS Concision Consider online games: People can leave anytime due to boredom, fatigue, real life, time zones, etc. Probability that all players will stay from beginning to end of a game session is inversely proportional to the number of players and the game's duration Multiplayer sessions, if part of your game, should be as short as possible Scope VS Concision The trade-off affects design decisions concerning multiplayer and expected play times Epic campaign that can translate to hundreds of hours? (Scope = need lots of time to finish the entire game) Game can be divided into 1-minute sessions? (Concision = minimum time commitment to finish a run or make some progress) Violence VS Isolation Stories (and games) often require conflict to be considered interesting Due to AI requirements, the easiest meaningful interaction to be had with non-player characters is violence https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/Esrb_ratings.svg/435px-Esrb_ratings.svg.png Violence VS Isolation Most game algorithms, such as collision detection and pathfinding, are very efficient, and lend themselves well to violent interactions Non-violent games tend to be very abstract VS https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/52/Left_4_Dead_Revised_Cast.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8d/NES_Tetris_Box_Front.jpg Violence VS Isolation Most games are based on conflict and combat Is it possible to have an engaging yet non-violent game with computer-controlled opponents? Are violent video games to blame for certain tragedies? Violence VS Isolation Ever heard of Natural Language Processing? It used for advanced text-based games like Façade and Acolyte, and was used for modern chatbots before generative AI The computer has to understand what you're saying / typing! https://static.giantbomb.com/uploads/original/0/3316/712040-facade.png Violence VS Isolation What about recognizing facial expressions? (Who's Lila?) https://www.gamedeveloper.com/design/becoming-a-barefaced-liar-in-reverse-detective-adventure-who-s-lila Violence VS Isolation The trade-off is meant to illustrate the difficulty in not relying on physical conflict for a game RAWR EXPLOSIONZ? (Violence = easily-implemented intelligent behavior of computer-controlled entities) Interactions that are difficult to code or that run a higher risk of failing to engage the player? (Isolation = difficult interactions that are prone to error even if the player did it correctly) Breadth VS Depth VS Pace Breadth describes the variety of actions the player can take Games like Civilization are very broad, and require the player to perform many tasks in parallel https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1f/FD_1.jpg Breadth VS Depth VS Pace Depth describes the level of detail with which an activity is portrayed in the game Flight simulators are obviously depth-oriented, but Call of Duty is too if you consider each weapon's sway, recoil, etc. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/33/DIR_Divers_Sandra_edwards_2010.JPG  Breadth VS Depth VS Pace Pace defines the rhythm of the game, determined by comparing the amount of time required to perform a complete set of actions to the workload that has to be handled in that time period https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ed/LONDON_MARATHON_24.04.2016_-_DSC05052.jpg/220px-LONDON_MARATHON_24.04.2016_-_DSC05052.jpg Breadth VS Depth VS Pace Turn-based games with no turn time limits have a very slow pace, one-on-one fighting games have fast pace, and RTS games where players control hundreds of individual units have very fast pace APM (Actions Per Minute), anyone? Is it possible to force a certain pace in real-time games? Breadth VS Depth VS Pace Deep and broad games should have a slow pace so that players can perform without unnecessary pressure Empire-building games target a patient audience https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/04/Imperialism_Coverart.png Breadth VS Depth VS Pace Deep and fast-paced games should not distract players with side issues For action games, keep in-game, non-cutscene story segments short to let the player focus on the fight https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/bc/Syndicate_2012_screenshot.jpg Breadth VS Depth VS Pace Broad and fast-paced games must not be too complex so that the player can still manage RTS games simplify their strategy element to the management of a handful of resources, buildings, etc. A broad, deep, and fast-paced game would overload the player's human brain WTB evolution plskthxbye Breadth VS Depth VS Pace The trade-off is arguably the most influential when it comes to a game's motor skill requirements Many varied activities to be done concurrently? (Breadth = lots of "context switching") Detailed and multiple actions for a particular activity? (Depth = complex gameplay feature/s) Low processing/reaction times required for the player? (Pace = average number of actions per unit time) Game Design = Frustrating Many good ideas are often incompatible with each other or are financially or technologically impractical How do we know which concepts should be thrown out the window? How do we know if an idea is worth the risk of breaking players' expectations? How do we know if players will find our game interesting? Game Design = Frustrating Just as in any other business, succeeding in game design will take luck and skill Up next: Luck and Skill (player’s, not yours) You should probably start with your game pitch already if you haven't yet