Should seperate forms of gameplay in a game lock together, or be like choices in a buffet, which are optional? Would you say that any form of gameplay in a game, in order to be relevant and satisfying, must impact all the other forms of gameplay? Let''s say you have 3 distinct forms of gameplay: - First person shooting - Off-road racing - Arcade-based puzzles that gain the player some kind of reward Imagine that you don''t want any one of these elements to predominate: You don''t want, for example, to have an FPS that has a bit of racing and throws puzzles at you every once in awhile (sort of how Red Faction did, with its ending and vehicle driving throughout the game). You want the game to be a true hybrid of these elements. Which would be better: To make the forms of gameplay simply strategies that different players can pursue, giving the player freedom while sacrificing quality on elements they may not use (and which may appear irrelevant for those uninterested)... (The example above might be: You''re playing in a world that supports 3 distinct classes: Gunner, Racer, Technician. You can get to your goal of making money by fighting, racing, or solving puzzles. You get to choose how much you specialize in each form of gameplay, and concentrate only on those forms you''re most adept at.) -Or- Make all of the gameplay elements mandatory throughout the game. You restrict freedom, but you make the game possibly more cohesive all around. No form of gameplay seems to be just tacked on, since it impacts all the other forms of gameplay in some vital way. Example above again: You race in huge deathmatch arenas where you try to not only drive, but shoot the other drivers. When your vehicle takes critical damage, you have to either repair it via an arcade puzzle sequence while enemies are racing around you and shooting, or go FPS mode on foot, hiding behind obstacles, until you can reach another vehicle on the field. Both are different types of games, but I''m wondering which you would imagine to be more satisfying? -------------------- Just waiting for the mothership...

oooh... puzzle-repair, what a great idea!

but on topic, I like the idea of forcing players to juggle the elements of the game regardless of whether they really like any of them. The catch is that this probably depend more on the nature of the game in question.

If I was developing an action/RPG (al a Diablo) I would have puzzles scattered around as the defense for certain items which the players may like to get their grubby little paws on. However, in a situation where freedom of activity is paramount, I would try not to make any puzzles a central obstacle for completing the game, unless there were some way players could find hints/pieces of the solution, within the world.

If the game is a competition between players just like your Racing/FPS example then I would mix them thoroughly. Like having the recoil from heavy cannons impede effective driving, and having repairs affect everything from vehicle handling to weapon damage.

It is very important to consider the game you''re working on, as neither is a better design, they are separate ideas.


struct {person "George D. Filiotis";} Symphonic;
Are you in support of the ban of Dihydrogen Monoxide? You should be!

quote: Original post by Symphonic
oooh... puzzle-repair, what a great idea!

but on topic, I like the idea of forcing players to juggle the elements of the game regardless of whether they really like any of them. The catch is that this probably depend more on the nature of the game in question.

Anytime you force the player to do something that he doesn''t want to do. You run the risk of him putting the game down and never picking it up again. Be careful how you weild your power.

- Matt

I think Quazatron is one of the best games showing the 'Whatever style you like'. For those of you who don't know, in this game you were controlling a robot which could fight with his enemies in two modes: arcade - running around and shooting/ramming enemies and 'grapple' - you engage the enemy robot and try to 'hack' his inner circuits by solving a kind of puzzle. After you hack the enemy robot, you can 'wear' his parts (the energy drive, guns etc.) - some of them could be destroyed, depending on how well you solve the puzzle. So, you actually had to 'grapple' enemies from time to time, as their parts tended to 'wear off', but in many cases it was just a matter of player's choice if you 'grapple' or actually attack the enemy. Steve Turner, the programmer, later self-plagiarized this idea in Ranarama, though this game had enemies that you couldn't kill with 'grapple', and a few 'warlocks', which could be killed by usual means (giving you nothing), and also by solving a puzzle (which gave you some helpful 'runes').
Both games were created for Spectrum, and you can easily found them on the Web.


[edited by - Chentzilla on January 5, 2003 4:32:58 AM]

in my opinion, capture the flag in halo is a good mix of puzzles , teamwork, racing and firt person shooting.

as long as you dont use the tanks and those sticky gernades.

i think earthworm jim 2 had a bad mix and a good example of loosing a players interest. each level was different and for the most part, thinking back, i enjoyed that aspect until the hot air ballon bomb level, it was too hard. when i came to a level i didnt like, i gave up on the game.

Damn Wavinator, you sure seem to have a lot of questions lol

Why have more than 1 gameplay element in a game when the player is able to pretty much ignore some of them? Would you not be better served by concentrating your development time on perfecting one element? You''re essentially sticking 3 separate games into one executable, with a lot of your work duplicated. Because of this, I don''t see any point in having more than 1 form of gameplay unless they are very closely intertwined and practical for the player to swap between at any point.

[ MSVC Fixes | STL | SDL | Game AI | Sockets | C++ Faq Lite | Boost | Asking Questions | Organising code files | My stuff ]

I think intermixing the need for each type of playing deepens the dimensions of the game itself. Making each an effective way to play the game deepens it even more.

For example, If the player wants to defeat an enemy vehicle, he could hop out and fire his missile launcher or use his vehicle to shove them over a cliff. Pulling out the missile launcher runs the risk of getting run over, where the vehicle is a very visible target.

Battlezone allowed you to hop out as a pilot, and you could insta-kill other pilots by sniping them, but mostly that's all being a lone pilot offered in the game.

[edited by - Waverider on January 6, 2003 5:38:47 PM]

most many-in-one games didn´t do particularly well on the market... take battlezone for example, it got great reviews but sold very few copies. for some players (i.e. those that like arcade tank sims AND first person shooters AND strategy AND base building) it was the best game ever, but most players disliked one of the many elements and stopped playing.

I say concentrate on one element only, do that right and give it diversification within its bounds. Alternate styles of playing are only required where the max number of people have to come together (massively online gaming). For a singleplayer game you should forget about it, it´s probably not worth the extra effort.

quote: Kylotan
...I don''t see any point in having more than 1 form of gameplay unless they are very closely intertwined and practical for the player to swap between at any point

This is the heart of the issue, I couldn''t have put it more succinctly.

It is also worth considering, that many (strategy) games offer multiple different styles of gameplay within the context of their settings. XCom is an excellent example, and I think it demonstrates good use of gameplay mixtures.

In some sense, these multiple styles equate to ''zooming'' to the scale which is most fitting. So that you aren''t trying to use a combat-based interface to play sections of the game that are largely concerned with rescource management.


struct {person "George D. Filiotis";} Symphonic;
Are you in support of the ban of Dihydrogen Monoxide? You should be!