This is about letting a climax emerge from the gameplay (as oppose to the storyline). Not all gameplays have climaxes. If the game has a victory condition (unlike Tetris), how do you make the game most intense near the end, when the victory condition is almost met? For a game that has a victory condition, which do you think is more important: 1) structuring the gameplay so that there is rising action leading to a climax; 2) focusing on designing exciting elements that do not necessarily form a rising action or a climax (i.e. the most exciting bit might have occured at the 5 minute mark, but the game still has another 15 minutes before it ends; or, the excitment level is constant throughout the game--you get the same level of excitment whether you have played for 5 or 15 minutes.)

Every SHMUP that has an "end boss" has a climax to the gameplay.

As far as your question goes. It depends on the type of game play that you want. I do not think it is necessary to have a peak of gameplay but it is certainly acceptable in most games.

What is SHMUP?

Do you think that as long as the challenge in the game increases, and that the player can sense the nearness to beating the game, then there is a climax?

If the challenge does not increase, but the player knows how close it is to the end, it is like riding the elevator.

If the challenge increases, but the player does not know how close it is to the end, then when the end comes, the player is still in the anticipatory stage.

Many games where you are playing against a time limit have an alarm that sounds when you are almost out of time. Some may also have an accompanying visual alarm such as making the window frame flash or turning the character red or having a gauge which shows nearness to completion.

There are two kinds of time limits. In one kind, you lose if the timer expires. In the second kind, you win if you survive when when the timer expires.

In the first kind of time limit, if the player messes up at one stage, and knows that he does not have enough time to complete, then the tension is gone. In general, if the player has the knowledge to determine that he has lost, the gameplay cannot give a rising action and climax consistently.

The second kind works a bit better, unless it is too easy to survive that the player is only waiting for the game to end.

I am wondering whether there are some rules on designing a single-stage game where the rising action and climax exist for any skill level.

In games that can be divided into chapters, a skilled player can often easier pass the beginning chapters. I want to work against this so that the rising action and climax of the chapters stay the same during replay.

Several conditions to think about:

1) When the stage is close to be completed, a skilled player shouldn't be certain that he can win. This is to make victory not a sure outcome at any time. At the same time, the outcome should be (Sometimes you fight a stage 1 boss, you can tell yourself, "I may lose a life or two, but there is no way that this boss gives me a gameover." This is what I want to work against, because when that happens, the tension is gone although there is a boss.) However, this has to be done in a way such that the player does not think that the fight at the end is all that matters. The actions leading to the climax should carry a meaning to the end, but at the same time, the player shouldn't try to stay in the begining and grind in order to get an advantage at the end. This is to keep the rising-action a rising-action instead of a period of non-action.

2) The stage shouldn't perceive the strength or skill level of the player and adjust itself. This may sound strange, but here is my reason: when the player knows that the strength of the enemy is super-proportional to his performance, in many cases it becomes a strategy to lay low--to play without exercising the full strength. I want the player to play in full strength, knowing that his performance is not penalized by an adaptive stage. This also makes it true that when a level 50 player goes back to play in a level 1 stage, the player is fighting the actual level 1 enemies and feeling the climax, instead of playing the the level 1 stage with level 50 enemies, or 50-times the level 1 enemies.

3) To avoid a prolonged seesaw-ing gameplay, sometimes the player needs to be defeated. But the player needs to be defeated in a way that he cannot foresee. What I mean is that the player should feel pressed, but at the same time he should feel that he has the chance to complete the mission untill the game actually ends. Mostly, the player should feel fairness in the defeat. (i.e. when the player is defeated, the player shouldn't blame the game for being too difficult suddenly. In retrospect, the player can trace its own downfall to some flaws during the rising action and climax. But the player couldn't have predicted the downfall, because there was a real chance in the climax that he could complete the mission.

Quote:

Original post by Wai There are two kinds of time limits. In one kind, you lose if the timer expires. In the second kind, you win if you survive when when the timer expires. In the first kind of time limit, if the player messes up at one stage, and knows that he does not have enough time to complete, then the tension is gone. In general, if the player has the knowledge to determine that he has lost, the gameplay cannot give a rising action and climax consistently.

I dunno... what about this example?

An RTS mission where you have to escort unit X to point Y within a time limit. If you accomplish the goal the mission ends automatically, so there is no waiting around. If Unit X is destroyed the mission also end automatically offering you the option to restart. And of course the same thing happens if the time limit passes before you reach point Y.

If it's the first time you have attempted this particular mission you have no idea how long it takes to get from your starting point to the destination. You also don't know how many enemies there are between the two points, so you don't know what sort of losses you can afford to have in the earlier parts of the mission. You don't know if you can travel straight toward the goal, or if the terrain is a maze, or if by going around the long way you will only have to fight 1/3 as many enemies. OTOH if you've already restarted once this raises the tension because now you know the mission is hard, and you are either playing as fast as you can or trying to take as little damage as you can. There is also the possibility that the mission is partially randomized, in which case you still don't know what you're going to encounter.

First time or not, you actually have 3 different gauges to worry about: the damage meter of unit X, the timer, and the number and type of your troops which are presumably being eroded as the mission goes on but may also level up if you gather experience or items. Some games also allow you to gather bonus items which will add time to the timer, and it may also be possible to repair damage to units or acquire new units.

Your example is almost identical to what I have below. The main difference is that I did not make a time limit, although the main enemy serves a similar function.

Mission: Flash | .exe

An emergent climax can come from a cusp, a threshold of time or progress that only really has two outcomes. For example, if you are facing an adversary that will grow exponentially in strength, like a gate guardian in Heroes of Might & Magic (stationary enemies that grow stronger each week), then there's a time in the game when you know you either have to defeat him now or never gain access to the treasure he guards, since his forces will far outstrip yours if you let him grow further.

If the enemies grow exponentially but are stationary, then there is a time when the player realize that the enemy cannot be defeated, yet the game hasn't ended, and the player has to either restart the game on his own, or take the extra step to rush the enemy to get himself killed. The extra step the player needs to do to end the game knowing that there is no way to win weakens the climax.

To have a true climax, the player needs to fight thinking that there is a chance to win all the way to the end.

If the victory condition is symmetric, then you should have the chance to win even if you are pressed against the wall. If the victory condition is not symmetric, sometimes it is okay to let the player know that the enemy has no chance of winning, but the player still have a chance to lose (in this case, a lose-lose situation).

Not all games have climaxes in each stage. Many puzzle games do not have such a climax structure. Take Sokoban (warehouse worker) for example, once you planned your moves, the time it takes to execute the plan weakens the climax. One thing that Sokoban games do, is to let the warehouse worker walk fast. So that while you are moving the boxes, there is a chance that you will make a mistake and have to restart. Then, the climax stays to the end because the pressure is on you not to make any mistake. It introduces the lose-lose situation in the end-game by allowing fatal mistakes.

Here is another example: The villain has kidnapped the princess. As you fight the villain in the end-game, the almost dead villain can use the princess as a shield. So if the hero makes a mistake, he may end up killing both.

[Edited by - Wai on January 12, 2007 9:40:27 PM]

How about this example, Wind Jammers for the neo-geo.

I still play and study this game to understand the large climax in the end of each round.

(for those who don't know Wind Jammers, it's a like a 1-on-1 closed volleyball game but instead of a ball the players use a Frisbee, plus some mini-games between matches.)

The rounds are 30 seconds long. The goals behind the players are green with a very, very small red part in the middle (or depending on what match you're in). Hitting the green area gives you 3 points while hitting the red area gives you 5 points (you also get 2 points if you manage to drop the Frisbee in the other player’s court).

The beauty of this game that in any round, even if you're in the last second and the opponent is 1, 2, 3, or even 4 points ahead you can still win by hitting the red area.

This part is the only reason why I even have the game till now. I play it every time I get a chance. The rush just keeps me going.

I very nice game. You should play it if you can.