Getting It Down on Paper

It might seem obvious, but actually getting ideas articulated and put down on paper can be very difficult in a group of people that have never worked together. It is nice for everyone to have some input and talking out ideas, but there comes a point where all of the nebulous spinning becomes counter productive. Much of this past week has been the team taking the parts of the game most important to them and going off to make visuals to present the rest of the group (and the over seeing faculty). Flow charts and rough concept work is the name of the game at this stage. In the long run, this will help everyone to see exactly what each person is trying to describe and avoid confusion going forward where a great deal of more time will be at risk if assets have to be redone.  

The Great GDD

This week the team has been focused on producing a viable GDD (game design document) for Red Sun. It is a huge undertaking to try to pull together so much information prior to making any prototypes, but our curriculum has us doing it in this order.

Some of the more notable discussions have revolved around the UI. It is ideally all the information the player needs to make informed choices and risks. Ideally keeping the amount of information easy to read and not cluttering the screen has been the goal.

The second discussion has started about extra lives. It seems like an obvious thing to have. The classic 1up is a very common feature in a number of games. As a counter argument though, there are a number of games that have lives where they seem trivial (i.e. the recent mario games) while still being successful. There are others that have opted out of having lives entirely but the player is still able to run into the fail state of dying (usually from running out of health) like Legend of Zelda, Okami, etc.

Both of these aspects of the game have the potential to change the feel of play and going forward it will likely be an unknown until we have a working prototype to play with.

Meaningful Player Choice

Red Sun is a platformer that takes a hard look at play choice as part of its foundation for compelling game play. Below is a brief look at the different types of player choice and a few examples of how they have been used in the past and how they are being used now. 

Player choice has been a driving force behind compelling game play. There are many different kinds of choice a player is asked to make in games. The most prevalent of these choices is arbitrary choice that happens in the natural choice in game play. These choices can be showcased in the presentation of a set of stairs. A player may jump up the stairs or walk up them, it is a choice but the outcome to this choice does not impact the game beyond the moment the choice is made. The second form choice takes is calculated choice. These choices have a right and wrong answer such as picking a sword that has plus 8 attack power over one that has a plus 7 attack. Picking the sword with the higher attack power grants the player benefit on a calculable level. The third form of choice, and the focus of this brief discussion, is meaningful choice. This involves direct impact of game play or player experience through the choices which do not necessarily have a right or wrong answer. This is often presented as a conflict of desires a player may have. They can only choose to do one of two or more of these actions to resolve said conflict. (Source: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/130452/improving_player_choices.php?print=1 )

As far back the first Super Mario Bros released for the Nintendo Entertainment System in 1985 there was meaningful player choice, at least in its most basic form. The mushrooms represented a power up to Mario, who both grew in size and became more durable upon obtaining, but the conflict was presented by the movement of these power ups. Upon being revealed they rapidly started to move away, off screen and the player was putting themselves at risk of death by perusing. The conflict presented has a risk and reward that was clearly put before the player and a very small amount of time to make the choice as soon as the mushroom was on the move to make it in. (Play Super Mario Online: http://www.dan-dare.org/FreeFun/Games/More/NewMarioFlash.htm )

A second example of early meaningful player choice could be observed in Icewind Dale (2000 release). The character creation did not have a right or wrong answer depending on what manner of tactics the player wished to employ over the course of the game, but the experience of the player was drastically different depending on if they chose to be a magic user or melee character. The conflict became making a character appropriate for tactic choice before seeing the battle field and being flexible during game play to adjust.

Following in the footsteps of Icewind Dale, the most recent release in the Fire Emblem series, Awakening continues to offer more choice to the play through the game. A player is presented with far more units than can be brought along or leveled in a single play through and must choose which units they wish to use. (Source: http://ramblingofagamer.blogspot.ca/2013/06/fire-emblem-and-player-choice.html ) The units are able to assist each other in battle and gain bonus for doing so. On top of the tactic level of play, the units make up support groups which tie into story elements. The story and player experience changes depending on which units are used and how they interact together during the story progression.

A recent example that involved the change of choice type was that of the World of Warcraft talent tree. Prior to the Cataclysm expansion in December of 2010 there was a clear, calculable choice for optimum characters in the talent tree. There was a correct configuration because it gave a distinct numerical advantage over every other combination of talents. After the release of Cataclysm the talent trees were overhauled to choices based primarily on player preference. The benefits given for each arrangements of the talents were more a comparison of apples and oranges than any direct evaluation of numbers. (Source: http://us.battle.net/blizzcon/en/blog/3773320 )

Player choice is a hotly debated topic and is continually evolving in the industry but there are two variants I would like to propose for the Red Sun Project. Moral and ethical questions were popularized in dialogue trees in recent years in games such as Mass Effect and Dragon Age. My first variant would be to take a step back and reintegrate complicated questions into player actions. Often in games the enemy units are presented to a player and they must be killed, destroyed, or otherwise disabled for the player to progress. My proposal would be to allow the player to actively be able to choose not to engage in combat if they don't want to. It may be more difficult or take more time, but the player would be able to bypass enemy units by performing puzzle tasks and going around. This variant is grounded in reality with the idea that when people are presented with an obstacle, for example someone in their way, they are able to take the time to avoid them. This presents fighting as a moral question. The fastest and most direct route is violent and frowned upon. To go around is the moral high ground but time consuming. Building on this could have aesthetic implications such as the violent actions leading to the levels looking increasingly dark or evil looking and the plot could become darker. The reserve of which would be the levels looking more colorful or pleasant with the morally right choices. This would make each choice have a clear impact and allow the player to have immediate feedback on their decisions.

A second variant would be to present ongoing player/npc relationships. There are many games that look at relationships as a switch. You are with or against them, but in reality there is some variation in most relationships where the level of closeness fluctuates. This would lead to a dynamic set of benefits that are either mutually exclusive or have a drastically higher cost to get both. If you are presented with two options by two NPCs, for example going to level A or level B first, the one you choose to go to first (let us say level A) will make your relationship with that NPC closer and they may come to assist you on doing that level and it is completable faster. You can then do level B, but the NPC that proposed going there first is angry with you and will not come to help. The player is able to go through both levels but the experience going to both is different depending on the order which they are taken.