Chris Dahlen"If you can walk, you can dance." Chris Dahlen explores the difference between a "challenging" game and a "cinematic" game.
Issue 37: Casual Friday - A-A-B-A-A-A- CRAP!
- Thread starter The Escapist Staff
- Start date
Original Comment by: groovychainsaw
Surely the best answer to this is to have an adaptive difficulty level, so every player enjoys the game and is challenged equally, regardless of skill or prior experience? I disagree that there should be hard games only for the most skilled. The beauty of the viennese waltz is that even if you are not a great dancer, you can still dance through to the end, albeit somewhat ungracefully, no?
Surely the best answer to this is to have an adaptive difficulty level, so every player enjoys the game and is challenged equally, regardless of skill or prior experience? I disagree that there should be hard games only for the most skilled. The beauty of the viennese waltz is that even if you are not a great dancer, you can still dance through to the end, albeit somewhat ungracefully, no?
Original Comment by: Evil Timmy
http://10mbit.com
One of the reasons is, undoubtedly, the heavy scripting and amazing set pieces you often get for the finale of a game. If you end up repeating any battle in an average game, it'll be the one against the final boss, it'll involve a fair number of new textures and models, and the map it's set in will be unique and amazing. If the game uses much music, you can be assured there'll be an 'end fight' and 'final cutscene' song. Developers don't want their work to be wasted, and consumers don't want to feel they haven't gotten all the game they paid for.
I'm a fan of adaptive difficulty, but I also think it should be tweakable by the user, basically some sort of bias to the adaptive algorithms. That way, if I feel like getting serious and having a real challenge at the risk of reloading, I can do so; at the same time, if there's a part I find annoying or frustrating, or I simply want to enjoy the same gameplay mechanic a at a lower difficulty, I can do that as well. And I don't have to count on the programmers and a QA team to have created a universal system that knows exactly how difficult to make the same game for every individual who plays it.
http://10mbit.com
One of the reasons is, undoubtedly, the heavy scripting and amazing set pieces you often get for the finale of a game. If you end up repeating any battle in an average game, it'll be the one against the final boss, it'll involve a fair number of new textures and models, and the map it's set in will be unique and amazing. If the game uses much music, you can be assured there'll be an 'end fight' and 'final cutscene' song. Developers don't want their work to be wasted, and consumers don't want to feel they haven't gotten all the game they paid for.
I'm a fan of adaptive difficulty, but I also think it should be tweakable by the user, basically some sort of bias to the adaptive algorithms. That way, if I feel like getting serious and having a real challenge at the risk of reloading, I can do so; at the same time, if there's a part I find annoying or frustrating, or I simply want to enjoy the same gameplay mechanic a at a lower difficulty, I can do that as well. And I don't have to count on the programmers and a QA team to have created a universal system that knows exactly how difficult to make the same game for every individual who plays it.
Original Comment by: amswong
Really enjoyed this article. I'm not sure I'll ever go back to play Ninja Gaiden, but it was a great gaming experience.
And crucially, I never thought it was unfairly hard. Ok, you died a lot, but almost all of those deaths were the result of you, the player, making a mistake. When all my synapses were firing, everything became seamless - normal enemies were dispatched in a flurry of jumps, throws, and perfectly timed attacks. It's a feeling commensurate to being "in the zone" when playing sports. On the flipside, I could enter the same room five minutes later, and get completely slaughtered if I wasn't playing with proper concentration.
There's a reason last-gasp victories are sweeter than complete walkovers.
Really enjoyed this article. I'm not sure I'll ever go back to play Ninja Gaiden, but it was a great gaming experience.
And crucially, I never thought it was unfairly hard. Ok, you died a lot, but almost all of those deaths were the result of you, the player, making a mistake. When all my synapses were firing, everything became seamless - normal enemies were dispatched in a flurry of jumps, throws, and perfectly timed attacks. It's a feeling commensurate to being "in the zone" when playing sports. On the flipside, I could enter the same room five minutes later, and get completely slaughtered if I wasn't playing with proper concentration.
There's a reason last-gasp victories are sweeter than complete walkovers.
Original Comment by: Tom Edwards
http://www.steamreview.org/
I'm not quite sure what this article is trying to say, apart from "some games are designed with mechanics in mind while others are designed for their plots, I appreciate mechanics more". Is that a fair summary?
http://www.steamreview.org/
I'm not quite sure what this article is trying to say, apart from "some games are designed with mechanics in mind while others are designed for their plots, I appreciate mechanics more". Is that a fair summary?
Original Comment by: Thomas Crymes
I think the days of only being able to beat a game through skill should be over.
If I buy a game for $50 or $60, I should be able to enjoy the way I want to enjoy it, and I should be able to get to the end, because the end is the destination, the reason for playing.
If I wanted to play for playing's sake I'd boot up Geometry Wars and have endless fun.
With the advent of gamer scores, we can have our cake an eat it too. You can assign achievements based on how a player finishes the game. If you are desperate to prove your manhood, you have an achievement to back up your bragging.
I don't play games to be frustrated. I play them to have fun. Nowadays skill is reserved for the multiplayer experience.
I think the days of only being able to beat a game through skill should be over.
If I buy a game for $50 or $60, I should be able to enjoy the way I want to enjoy it, and I should be able to get to the end, because the end is the destination, the reason for playing.
If I wanted to play for playing's sake I'd boot up Geometry Wars and have endless fun.
With the advent of gamer scores, we can have our cake an eat it too. You can assign achievements based on how a player finishes the game. If you are desperate to prove your manhood, you have an achievement to back up your bragging.
I don't play games to be frustrated. I play them to have fun. Nowadays skill is reserved for the multiplayer experience.
Original Comment by: Atul
http://www.toolness.com
I'm not sure if I completely agree with this dichotomy between "challenging" and "cinematic"--just because a game doesn't take "skill" to win doesn't necessarily mean it's not challenging.
I think it was Sid Meier who said that "a game is a series of interesting choices". A cinematic game can certainly be a series of interesting choices that challenge the player--for instance, take Planescape: Torment. Combat in this game isn't much fun; as with Jade Empire, you're practically guaranteed to win no matter what you do. But what makes this game interesting and challenging is the plot choices that you're forced to make throughout the game; when confronted with some of these Choose-Your-Own-Adventure style options, I'd often spend several minutes just thinking about what choice I wanted to make. When it came down to it, the decisions I made didn't have much bearing on whether I ultimately "won" or "lost" the game per se, but they did potentially affect the characters and the game-world. My point, though, is that even though this game wasn't "challenging" in the sense that it required skill, it was still fulfilling and challenging in a different way, because it was a series of really interesting choices.
http://www.toolness.com
I'm not sure if I completely agree with this dichotomy between "challenging" and "cinematic"--just because a game doesn't take "skill" to win doesn't necessarily mean it's not challenging.
I think it was Sid Meier who said that "a game is a series of interesting choices". A cinematic game can certainly be a series of interesting choices that challenge the player--for instance, take Planescape: Torment. Combat in this game isn't much fun; as with Jade Empire, you're practically guaranteed to win no matter what you do. But what makes this game interesting and challenging is the plot choices that you're forced to make throughout the game; when confronted with some of these Choose-Your-Own-Adventure style options, I'd often spend several minutes just thinking about what choice I wanted to make. When it came down to it, the decisions I made didn't have much bearing on whether I ultimately "won" or "lost" the game per se, but they did potentially affect the characters and the game-world. My point, though, is that even though this game wasn't "challenging" in the sense that it required skill, it was still fulfilling and challenging in a different way, because it was a series of really interesting choices.
Original Comment by: chunter
http://www.xanga.com/chunter
There's such an animal as games that "let you win" and then let you keep playing in a more challenging mode for the "real" ending, although I can only think of a few right away. If I may return to the dancing analogy, or rather, provide another one, good video games are like The Blues: more fun to play than to listen to. There's only three chords in The Blues, arranged generally the same way, with the same notes in the scale when it's time for you to sing or play it, but you're expected to give it your own feel and personality, and there aren't a lot of people that do it in a consistently interesting way.
This relates well to fighting games, but I don't see how it relates to Ninja Gaiden: Yeah, it's hard, but it's kinda like figuring out the choreography of a live stunt show. There's really only one way through. Most platform games and some action puzzlers have this shortcoming.
I think I only partially see the analogy.
http://www.xanga.com/chunter
There's such an animal as games that "let you win" and then let you keep playing in a more challenging mode for the "real" ending, although I can only think of a few right away. If I may return to the dancing analogy, or rather, provide another one, good video games are like The Blues: more fun to play than to listen to. There's only three chords in The Blues, arranged generally the same way, with the same notes in the scale when it's time for you to sing or play it, but you're expected to give it your own feel and personality, and there aren't a lot of people that do it in a consistently interesting way.
This relates well to fighting games, but I don't see how it relates to Ninja Gaiden: Yeah, it's hard, but it's kinda like figuring out the choreography of a live stunt show. There's really only one way through. Most platform games and some action puzzlers have this shortcoming.
I think I only partially see the analogy.
Original Comment by: mofomojo
One of the most important elements of a game is no punishment for death in a game. Games are more important than easy to control characters and fun and interesting elements, but I want to get to play quickly.
By this I mean, for multiplayer games, no respawn times (perhaps one of the most pointless ventures ever trolled by devs.) and for single player games : low startup times and not having to load again when I die.
Since I die on one level, I should not have to load the level again. If I do, as a dev, you're clearly doing something wrong since the level still should be loaded on the RAM. If not, then you're doing something wrong.
Loadtimes are the worst thing to happen to games. Yes, THE WORST. I want to spend more time enjoying a game, and enjoying all the elements of a game. If I get stuck at a boss, I am not enjoying what I paid for.
Adjustable load times and zero respawn times are the key. Players need to be rewarded for sucess, not punished for failure. Being punished for failure makes me do one thing : Shut of the Xbox and throw the fuck remote across the room.
One of the most important elements of a game is no punishment for death in a game. Games are more important than easy to control characters and fun and interesting elements, but I want to get to play quickly.
By this I mean, for multiplayer games, no respawn times (perhaps one of the most pointless ventures ever trolled by devs.) and for single player games : low startup times and not having to load again when I die.
Since I die on one level, I should not have to load the level again. If I do, as a dev, you're clearly doing something wrong since the level still should be loaded on the RAM. If not, then you're doing something wrong.
Loadtimes are the worst thing to happen to games. Yes, THE WORST. I want to spend more time enjoying a game, and enjoying all the elements of a game. If I get stuck at a boss, I am not enjoying what I paid for.
Adjustable load times and zero respawn times are the key. Players need to be rewarded for sucess, not punished for failure. Being punished for failure makes me do one thing : Shut of the Xbox and throw the fuck remote across the room.
Original Comment by: Mark
The punishment mentality is a relic from the arcades, where you had to pay to play and once you lost the game was over. There was a technical and an economic reason to make the player start over often. It rewarded perfection and punished everything else.
I don't think games should necessarily not punish failure.... I just think that they shouldn't punish imperfection.
The punishment mentality is a relic from the arcades, where you had to pay to play and once you lost the game was over. There was a technical and an economic reason to make the player start over often. It rewarded perfection and punished everything else.
I don't think games should necessarily not punish failure.... I just think that they shouldn't punish imperfection.
Original Comment by: Duncan
http://ghostsinthegame.blogspot.com/
There is a certain kind of mentality that enjoys the constant grind of death/re-spawn that results in a game designed to force the player to play with perfection. This same personality belongs to people who speed run Mario games, or memorize DDR step lists until they are able to recite them (and dance them) with perfect timing. To the majority of people, these perfection-seekers are known as masochists.
Games should be playable. Find unique ways to teach the players to do better. If death is the way (and it should be less and less), then make it quick, and let them try it again. Otherwise, let the challenge be in playing the game. Being perfect is not for everyone, or even a large number of people. Games with story, progression, and designed extension should be played. If the only way through is to get the combos just right, everything in order, then you've made a game just as narrow as if it had no gameplay at all. (Don't believe me? Go and play Brain Dead 13 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image
ragonslair-arcadescreenshot.jpg]. These have good story, but limited and boring game play.)
DDR is fun for lots of people because the ones who aren't as good can play it too. They can see improvement as they play, but they may never have the drive to play a perfect game.
http://ghostsinthegame.blogspot.com/
There is a certain kind of mentality that enjoys the constant grind of death/re-spawn that results in a game designed to force the player to play with perfection. This same personality belongs to people who speed run Mario games, or memorize DDR step lists until they are able to recite them (and dance them) with perfect timing. To the majority of people, these perfection-seekers are known as masochists.
Games should be playable. Find unique ways to teach the players to do better. If death is the way (and it should be less and less), then make it quick, and let them try it again. Otherwise, let the challenge be in playing the game. Being perfect is not for everyone, or even a large number of people. Games with story, progression, and designed extension should be played. If the only way through is to get the combos just right, everything in order, then you've made a game just as narrow as if it had no gameplay at all. (Don't believe me? Go and play Brain Dead 13 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image
ragonslair-arcadescreenshot.jpg]. These have good story, but limited and boring game play.)DDR is fun for lots of people because the ones who aren't as good can play it too. They can see improvement as they play, but they may never have the drive to play a perfect game.