One of the most difficult challenges that faces every game designer is to put themselves into the player's shoes. Players are people and, therefore, unique. As players ourselves, we have all asked ourselves at one point or another whilst playing a game "where do I go?" and "what do I do?". The fundamental cause of this problem is that designers are people too; they design each mechanic, puzzle or level in a way that is logical to them and with their own personal tastes in mind, either consciously or subconsciously.
The solution is for a designer to walk an extremely fine line between hand holding the player and keeping them completely in the dark.
The Legend of Zelda series showcases a prime example of this balance by employing the method of icon-based gameplay. When the player enters a dungeon in the game world they are traditionally given a new tool that they are then taught how to use via solving progressional puzzles. For example, when the player recieves the "hook shot" they are taught that it can only attach to consistantly iconic "anchor points" by having to use it to escape the room that they are currently in. The player is also given a travelling guide that will give them advice if they ask for it but even though the player might ask for advice once or twice they will eventually come to learn that as soon as they see an anchor point, they know that they can use the hook shot to attach to it.
 |
| The Legend of Zelda - Twilight Princess |
However, with the release of New Super Mario Bros. on the Nintendo Wii, Nintendo decided to include the "Super Guide" to hand hold players if they chose to use it. An interactive hint guide, it provided the player with text hints and even played sections of the game for them if they found it too difficult to complete. It allowed players with a low level of skill to complete and appreciate the entire game rather than turn it off in frustration if they were unable complete a specific level.
 |
| Nintendo Super Guide - Original Patent |
Is a game diluted when the player's hand is held by the designer? Is a game frustrating when the player is left in the dark or is it simply a matter of preferred difficulty? What other effective methods, such as icon-based design, can be employed by game designers to teach the player where to go or what to do?
Enjoying these short and sweet posts Mr Rowe, hope you keep up the Monday blog routine :)
ReplyDeleteI'm gonna try and shy away from mammoth topics like accessibility, difficulty and audience segregation as I delved into those in a recent dissertation and don't want to run in the same circles in this little comment box; rich and worthy of discussion though those topics are.
What your post actually made me think of, knee-jerk, is the central issue of "guiding" the player. You are absolutely correct of course, in that definitively "good" games design should involve slick subtle solutions like consistent iconography and maybe even constantly present back-up information via concepts like Navi. Working on Lego games as we do, we are of course encouraged to ensure an low skill or age-impaired player would never be lost or confused, that they are constantly aware of their goals and options. Lego games of course employ even more blatant iconography through our use of color-branded pads and marking of inetractive objects as lego bricks.
I must say though, as a long-term or "veteran" gamer, I have become so accustomed to the different tactics (and seen behind the curtain so many times) that the consistent guidance has started to grate on me to the extent I really enjoy when a game is brave enough to not tell me anything and just let me be to work it out. Because I'm used to the usual "good" methods of guidance, I find it very refreshing when they aren't there, even when it could technically be considered "bad" design.
A fine example is Machinarium.. which I know you hate ;D Although frustrating stuff like the uncancellable animations and geometry/interactive confusion DID genuinely annoy, I look back and am stunned I managed to muddle my way through such an obtuse and un-intuitive game full of such devious not-always-logical puzzles. But I did muddle through and complete it, so I guess I didn't NEED the guidance at all, much as the game does have a handful of hint and guide mechanics in reserve.
As we have discussed, the current industry climate is to streamline a game to a level of hand-holding where the player basically holds a button to make the thing "go". Walk into a room and the camera jams an objective in your face and a text bar explains what the obective is while your character verbally reminesces about his objective.
It's the opinion of a gamer who has been around the genres a few times more than a designer protecting the "new audience", but I feel just as much like an idiot when patronised by the guidance systems as when I can't work out what to do..
Apologies for the length of this reply! ;D
Ok, I am an idiot!!! I've used my iPhone to comment and some how it's ended up on your last post! Here it is on the CORRECT post!!
ReplyDeleteOnce again, the humble opinion of a casual gamer:
I think this is one of the finest lines in gaming that ultimately adds to gameplay. I love a good puzzle, in fact some of my most favourite games of all time revolve around puzzles (in a direct way). I totally agree with tour blog and the opinions you've expressed about the way a lot of games these days guide gamers often carrying them through the majority of the experience. Having said this I do think back to some of the games I have played and promptly got bored/lost interest in directly due to the fact I just couldn't think of a way to get past a certain level or find a way to go.
This was my main problem with the tomb raider franchise. I hated the fact you were just left to your own devices in some cave or city (in the latter games) not knowing where to jump or how to get to some random ledge. I was more at home with the Assassins creed franchise with their quick scan of the route but not necessarily spoon feeding you.
Another example, but in reverse, is the resident evil games. I LOVED the early playstation games. Never, do I believe, has the been a better mix of puzzle solving and action. There were so many items/keys that you need to progress and all they gave you was a simplistic map so you could mentally note where you've been and where you've found these items. Unfortunately a long came resi 4 & 5 which, don't get me wrong, are great games in their own right but the franchise then concentrated more on the action and turned to simple "here's a key you're going to need later on" tactics. It was almost like a scalextric, you could have fun playing it and control some elements, like speed, but you know that as long as you follow the rules your lil car will reach it's designed destination.
In conclusion, I don't think there's a need to be spoon fed but direction is needed. This can be applied through simple means as already suggested like icons and basic maps. There is nothing wrong with making gamers think rather than just button bash their way to victory!
Hmmmmm (well firstly, points for the zelda reference) I personally dont mind either way, I think having the CAPACITY to turn a 'super guide'on and off is surely not HARMFUL in any way, and if it helps some people then surely it can only be a good thing.
ReplyDeleteI do however dislike the idea of the guide playing throughy difficult parts for that player... thats just plain cheating ¬_¬
But thats just me XD
See, I quite like the option of using these "Super guides" in game to bypass certain things. As an example with Machinarium, to use it, you have to pass a seriously irritating and time consuming mini-game. Which stopped me from bothering a few times.
ReplyDeleteI don't like the "Sit and watch the game being played" feature in NSMB, but it's not something you need to use, as such. More like, if you were to buy the game for a 5 year old and left them to sit and zombify in front of the Wii for a few hours a day, then it'd help them out.
Good example from above comments was the Tomb Raider / Assassin's Creed comparison. I really hate unclear games, or ones where you're left to your own devices in a massive amount of space. I like the approach of "Where do I need to go next?" and if that doesn't help a further "Idiots guide" approach.
Professor Layton also handles it in a good way, although it's used for standalone puzzles, with the Hint system. Progressively more give away hints, with a final obvious super hint. It keeps the player progressing, rather than giving it up and starting something else.
There's still games around that don't use any such thing and as a recent example I'll use Super Meat Boy. It's billed as a rock hard twitch reaction platformer anyway, but there's no difficulty scale, no "auto-play" and no "this is the line you use". It's left down to you as a player, and your skill, to bypass these zones.
To sum up, I'm all for that approach to be in games, in the background, if people want it. At the end of the day, if you don't want that feature, you shouldn't need to use it. But it's there for those people that do.