Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

 
Advanced search

1411196 Posts in 69314 Topics- by 58380 Members - Latest Member: feakk

March 18, 2024, 09:22:20 PM

Need hosting? Check out Digital Ocean
(more details in this thread)
TIGSource ForumsDeveloperDesignTight gameplay
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5
Print
Author Topic: Tight gameplay  (Read 8345 times)
Graham-
Level 10
*****


ftw


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: February 05, 2013, 10:26:53 AM »

I also think 3d games are designed poorly. In general they aren't any worse than 2d - well I can't make that statement for sure - but their added complexity runs ahead of their design quality, making the difference more pronounced.

For example, 3d designers - all the time - make random decisions about enemy behaviour (and level design etc), without considering all of the consequences. Then there are all these corner cases and stuff. The designers try to make controls that give the experience they want, but end up with something imperfect, because they are trying to solve so many challenges at once. That is a poor explanation but I think it is accurate.

Paul, your comment about "realism" comes in. The designers make an enemy attack look cool. Then they need a way for the player-char to react in a harmonious way. But they don't know how to express that simply, _while_ sticking to their "controls" constraints. In 2d they would choose some constraints, like .6 seconds of animation; change in position by 0.3 units up, 0.2 units back; then draw sprites to match. But with 3d they are worried about the camera, and what if the character is on "X" kind of terrain, and whether the animations look consistent (I imagine).

3d path-finding, and all kinds of things, expand all problems drastically. Designers aren't clear about what's important, then bite off more than they can chew and so on. I think 3d is still under-explored, more than being a "design wall."

« Last Edit: February 05, 2013, 10:40:48 AM by Graham. » Logged
rivon
Level 10
*****



View Profile
« Reply #21 on: February 05, 2013, 10:43:34 AM »

For example, 3d designers - all the time - make random decisions about enemy behaviour (and level design etc), without considering all of the consequences. Then there are all these corner cases and stuff. The designers try to make controls that give the experience they want, but end up with something imperfect, because they are trying to solve so many challenges at once.
Can you give some examples?
Logged
J-Snake
Level 10
*****


A fool with a tool is still a fool.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #22 on: February 05, 2013, 10:55:01 AM »

As example nearly every console-shooter (except for modern warfare) but especially killzone2 makes the following mistake. It wants to add weight/feel to the aiming, so added acceleration and heavier response times are written all over it. As a result the user navigates like a tank. What's so difficult to understand that a thumbstick is already an indirect input-device for aiming, why adding even more layers to it?

Then you often see the problem that the designers don't unerstand code execution and gameplay geometry. I only need to start Halo4 and it becomes evident.
Logged

Independent game developer with an elaborate focus on interesting gameplay, rewarding depth of play and technical quality.<br /><br />Trap Them: http://store.steampowered.com/app/375930
rivon
Level 10
*****



View Profile
« Reply #23 on: February 05, 2013, 11:14:58 AM »

I was asking Graham about what he meant. That said, I don't think that console games have input-lag with gamepads. But they definitely have input lag in the PC version with kb+mouse. I thought that this was done to make the game play the same on PC as it is played on consoles (which is just dumb). I totally hate mouse delay (Quake-like instant mouse movement is so much better).
Logged
Alec S.
Level 10
*****


Formerly Malec2b


View Profile WWW
« Reply #24 on: February 05, 2013, 11:20:43 AM »

It might be fun for some, but here is how I look at it:

All you do is perfecting a primitive skill at comparingly high brain-activity expense. Your brain is better in more interesting tasks and the primitive tasks can be executed a lot better by a primitive calculator. These are the aesthetical problems I have with these things, that is why I like to keep unnecessary accelerations to a minimum, and give the player all the possible support to control as directly as possible all the stuff he actually wants to do. If the game gets easier by that then the quality of the challenge has to improve, instead of limiting the quality of controls (let me just call it that way).


I disagree with this assessment, as the human brain is very good at internalizing things like acceleration and friction so that it feels like second nature.  It's the same reason that we can quickly calculate the trajectory of a thrown ball without a degree in physics.  Something like backing up to take a running jump so you have the necessary momentum is a very natural action.  

Despite having a very slippery gamefeel, Super Meat Boy feels extremely tight to me because of how well the game is designed around the slippery controls, and how natural they feel after a short time playing.  Meanwhile a game with instant acceleration can feel stilted and unnatural.

I do agree with what you said about the heavy feel of a lot of modern shooters.  The fact that I can still remember the gamefeel of Gears of War, despite only having played it briefly a few years ago is an impressive feat in itself. However, I also found that feeling of weight that they worked so hard to accomplish rather unpleasant to play.  
Logged

Graham-
Level 10
*****


ftw


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: February 05, 2013, 11:21:20 AM »

(to Rivon's reply)

Most 3d games are like that.

Gears of War is sluggish because of the size of everything. It would be difficult to handle the camera, and make the battles fair, if the player had more control, and the core pacing element wasn't lost.

Zelda OoT battles are less nuanced than previous installments because of the camera's position. You fight one enemy at a time, with little attention to terrain - usually - and you fight gimmick bosses.

Fallout 3 has seriously unbalanced combat. Melee is a _lot_ better than ranged. The levels aren't designed for 1st person shooting. There is the - I forget the name - "pause and aim" screen, that the series has always (?) had. So if you go ranged you are stuck playing at a slower pace, because you have to use the "pause" screen. If the game gave you "tight" shooter controls then there would be too much variety in player skill sets, and balancing the leveling stuff would be harder for the devs.

Like J-Snake was saying, Bethesda took away control because they couldn't design  challenges. The 2d Fallouts did not have the same pacing issue. They challenged you with complex scenarios and tight control over your abilities. The 3d one castrated you with "whatever points" that your "pause and aim" screen ate into.

Assassin's Creed tried to be Prince of Persia in an open world. In the game there are all these little nuances to the streets and everything, but they are too detailed for you to learn them well enough for it to affect your strategy. Most missions devolve into maybe an interesting climbing challenge, followed by timed counter attacks, then a run through the city into a random hay pile. The designers clearly wanted the world to feel like a puzzle that you mastered but ended up with a maze of mud.

The devs improved the series by making more interesting challenges. They added mission variety in the later games, but the core experience of stalking, assassination, and run, is still flawed.

There is no reason they could not have made the first game as detailed as the rest just by designing levels and/or abilities. The later ones would have been even better if they had done so. Interesting 3d level design, for aesthetic value, clashed with mechanical value, because the designers didn't perceive the consequences to both kinds of value in the design phase. This also explains the over-abundance of rarely used items/weapons and mission types: band-aids for a fundamental problem.

I love Ass Creed btw, for the record.

The camera work in FF7 is excellent, because each shot is chosen precisely. Therefore the player can admire a scene from the best view the entire time, and do so without having it shift around on him, playing without thinking about the best intersection between perspective for mechanical purposes and aesthetic.

FF shows the complexity in making a 3d scene both navigable and visually interesting. 3d designers just do whatever, almost like designing look and play experience separately, and take whatever intersection they can get.

One major issue with the move from 2d to 3d is just about where to put the camera. In 2d you don't have to worry about sight lines so you can just design controls. In 3d you have a whole new world of problems to explore.

Obviously this is an abstract subject. I don't expect these argument to conclusively prove anything.

--

I agree with J-Snake's example.
« Last Edit: February 05, 2013, 11:37:06 AM by Graham. » Logged
Graham-
Level 10
*****


ftw


View Profile
« Reply #26 on: February 05, 2013, 11:30:41 AM »

To J-Snake, Alec, talking about momentum etc. I think - and this may be obvious - that momentum is fine. You just have to design challenges around that momentum. If the player expects "tighter" (i.e. "different") controls in your game, it is because you haven't trained him to see that the controls he does have are suited to the challenges he is facing, either because the challenges are poorly designed or you haven't presented them well enough.
Logged
ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)
Level 10
*****


Also known as रिंकू.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #27 on: February 05, 2013, 11:42:05 AM »

yeah, super meat boy had momentum and a lot of people said its controls were tight (though i'm sure you can also find people who complained about the controls as well)
Logged

J-Snake
Level 10
*****


A fool with a tool is still a fool.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #28 on: February 05, 2013, 12:23:20 PM »

It might be fun for some, but here is how I look at it:

All you do is perfecting a primitive skill at comparingly high brain-activity expense. Your brain is better in more interesting tasks and the primitive tasks can be executed a lot better by a primitive calculator. These are the aesthetical problems I have with these things, that is why I like to keep unnecessary accelerations to a minimum, and give the player all the possible support to control as directly as possible all the stuff he actually wants to do. If the game gets easier by that then the quality of the challenge has to improve, instead of limiting the quality of controls (let me just call it that way).


I disagree with this assessment, as the human brain is very good at internalizing things like acceleration and friction so that it feels like second nature.  It's the same reason that we can quickly calculate the trajectory of a thrown ball without a degree in physics.  Something like backing up to take a running jump so you have the necessary momentum is a very natural action.  
I don't think so, being good enough for the typical activities you are used to doesn't mean it is good. And you can prove it yourself. You can just feel acceleration, but you are less good at estimating the resulting translation of acceleration over time. That is a significant difference. Regarding games you can understand and confirm it by testing it yourself that more linear systems are simply better to estimate. Just replicate mario-like accelerations in a prototype and compare them to a version offering you more direct and linear controls. Choose a distant and thin platform you have to jump on. In mario that sort of things is a typical challenge and only presented in the latest, more challenging levels (remember that one in mario bros on nes?), with more linear controls this problem is dramatically reduced, simply because there is less additional overhead your brain needs to take into account. Overhead is overhead, even when you are good in dealing with it, and as more the challenge increases the more it will be obvious.
Logged

Independent game developer with an elaborate focus on interesting gameplay, rewarding depth of play and technical quality.<br /><br />Trap Them: http://store.steampowered.com/app/375930
J-Snake
Level 10
*****


A fool with a tool is still a fool.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #29 on: February 05, 2013, 12:42:28 PM »

If you think you can estimate well the ballistic trajectory it is only because when the ball leaves your hand it has a linear horizontal motion. So the only dimension being exposed to gravity is the vertical one. Focussing on one dimension is manageable given that the gravity is a comparingly low acceleration, like you can estimate well enough  when you land on the water in a swimming pool because it is a one-dimensional problem and the acceleration is low.

So regarding all that look what happens in the mario example. You have to deal with a 2 dimensional non-linear problem, since the gravity pushing downwards and you steer horizontal to target the platform. That is why it becomes dramatically more difficult for many people compared to the daily situations you have to deal with.
Logged

Independent game developer with an elaborate focus on interesting gameplay, rewarding depth of play and technical quality.<br /><br />Trap Them: http://store.steampowered.com/app/375930
Alec S.
Level 10
*****


Formerly Malec2b


View Profile WWW
« Reply #30 on: February 05, 2013, 01:00:03 PM »

What I'm saying is that the human mind internalizes systems of acceleration and deceleration.  There's probably more small variables going on in a thrown ball than in any platformer control scheme (spin, air resistance, wind blowing it slightly to one side or the other, ect..., plus it exists in 3D space).  There's also an element of constant adjustment that the player is able to make, for example with jumps in Mario, they can accelerate in midair (not at the same rate that they can accelerate on the ground, though, so there is a reward for being mostly accurate in your initial jump, but with some wiggle room once you're off the ground).

Super Meat Boy might be easier without acceleration (something which could also be argued against.  If you slid down walls immediately at top speed, the game would be more difficult, if you moved to the side immediately at top speed, you would have less fine control over your movement; some times you just need a simple tap to get the amount of momentum in a certain direction you need.  At the speed the player moves in that game, if there were no acceleration or friction, I imagine it would be quite frustrating)  It would however be a lot less fun and would feel less smooth and natural to the player.  You could also argue that racing games would be a lot less challenging if you could move freely in all directions and there was no acceleration or friction, but it certainly wouldn't be as fun.
Logged

J-Snake
Level 10
*****


A fool with a tool is still a fool.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #31 on: February 05, 2013, 01:28:18 PM »

There is an infinite amount of variables that goes into the ball, it is just that you practically only see the linear horizontal motion and that is what you will base your estimations on.

It is important to distinguish between necessary acceleration and unnecessary layers on top. Acceleration is necessary for fine control but often you can tell where to draw the line. I have made a video about this exact thing in my super metroid tournament work. If you look at the running it appears almost instant. But you have still pixel perfect fine-tune control (introduced around 0:50). I recommend to watch it to get an idea what is really possible.




You have to know what your game is about, is it about actively influencing the curve of trajectory bar (like in Super MeatBoy) to pass certain obstacles or is the goal just to reach point B from point A. In A->B it is personally the better idea to focus only on the necessary acceleration to be more safe in your actions.
Logged

Independent game developer with an elaborate focus on interesting gameplay, rewarding depth of play and technical quality.<br /><br />Trap Them: http://store.steampowered.com/app/375930
rivon
Level 10
*****



View Profile
« Reply #32 on: February 05, 2013, 01:36:20 PM »

J-Snake, I don't understand why you chose to make TrapThem instead of SMTac. SMTac looks way more fun even though there is only movement and some shooting shown in the videos.
Logged
ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)
Level 10
*****


Also known as रिंकू.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #33 on: February 05, 2013, 01:45:27 PM »

trapthem looks more fun to me; if i wanted to play super metroid i'd play super metroid, not some clone of it. trapthem reminds me of dig dug + new features / game elements, which sounds pretty good
Logged

J-Snake
Level 10
*****


A fool with a tool is still a fool.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #34 on: February 05, 2013, 01:55:55 PM »

Both of the games will be made and both of them have their value, guys. In TrapThem it was initially the goal to examine the value of the new block-physics system, which will also go later into a metroid-like game. So TrapThem is nothing like dig-dug, pac-man or anything anyone expected on their first glance. It is a new puzzle-game of each own. DigDug just introduced a falling logo in the intro, that is where the idea of "cut out shapes fall down and connect when they reach ground" came from. The difference is that now you are determinig yourself where to drop shapes and what should connect to form new buildings, they are not prebaked like in all the other grid-based games. And that introduced just a new world of puzzles and trap-constructions I wanted to explore.
Logged

Independent game developer with an elaborate focus on interesting gameplay, rewarding depth of play and technical quality.<br /><br />Trap Them: http://store.steampowered.com/app/375930
rivon
Level 10
*****



View Profile
« Reply #35 on: February 05, 2013, 05:05:03 PM »

trapthem looks more fun to me; if i wanted to play super metroid i'd play super metroid, not some clone of it.
I didn't mean a clone of Super Metroid. I thought that what J-Snake had in SMTac was just a placeholder art, or was I wrong? I don't mean that what there is in SMTac currently is better than TrapThem now, but with more polish, more features, levels etc. SMTac could be a really great game (at least if it switched the Super Metroid theme with something original) and much better than TrapThem.
Logged
J-Snake
Level 10
*****


A fool with a tool is still a fool.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #36 on: February 05, 2013, 05:50:04 PM »

There is an original idea of high-tech-suit-combat and sci-fi exploration. It just takes some roots and inspirations of Metroid but expands them to its own thing. SMTac is just a related (8-way aiming only instead of analog-aim) version of it for Metroid fans in one slap since it is based on the same engine and same (or related) combat-system. It is an arena-fighter I can learn a lot from in the process, and the super metroid sprites are all right there, just need to rip them. That's it.

I heard pretty often that SMTac had the potential to sky-rocket to a very popular combat/shooter game, and that the gameplay-slices looked astonishing. And I know I can bring it. But as it stands TrapThem has to be the first step, I have to know.
« Last Edit: February 05, 2013, 06:24:31 PM by J-Snake » Logged

Independent game developer with an elaborate focus on interesting gameplay, rewarding depth of play and technical quality.<br /><br />Trap Them: http://store.steampowered.com/app/375930
baconman
Level 10
*****


Design Guru


View Profile WWW
« Reply #37 on: February 06, 2013, 11:03:37 AM »

I don't think tightness is inherently about fine control or acceleration/deceleration/lack thereof; I think it's more about how well the physics system and gameplay design fit together. Make the Mario argument all you want, Sonic the Hedgehog would NOT be a better game if you had constant/fine control. It would either be impossible, or boring as crap. That "fine control" you get in the game is something you earn with exposure to it.

Now, controller response time? That on the other hand IS a crucial factor. Doesn't mean that everything that goes on has to be totally immediate, but there should be a consistent predictable flow about it. That again, compliments with the gameplay.

Somersaulting/Wall Jumping is the only thing in Super Metroid that doesn't feel tight to me, a decisively tough element of the game that usually encourages sticking to the ground/surfaces as much as possible, and not bouncing around all over the place haphazardly (like players do with Link in Zelda II). Everything else is rather sticky and immediate-responsed.
Logged

Graham-
Level 10
*****


ftw


View Profile
« Reply #38 on: February 06, 2013, 11:16:10 AM »

Super Metroid's wall jumping is strange because the game makes you feel like you should be able to do it all the time. Maybe that's because of genre expectations. I don't know. But I felt it. Wall jumping was harder than I wanted it to be. Wall jumping in the new Super Mario Bros games is too easy. Or maybe I needed to get used to it.
Logged
baconman
Level 10
*****


Design Guru


View Profile WWW
« Reply #39 on: February 06, 2013, 11:28:10 AM »

Also, the mechanics in executing it. You have to be:

-within the acceptable collision range
-travelling in the opposite direction of it prior to pressing jump
-holding the jump button long enough to ensure you continue somersaulting, in case you needed to jump from the other side
-*NOT* be shooting, or collide with an enemy (save for Screw Attack).

I think it's most specifically that you can't press jump and THEN the other direction.
Logged

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5
Print
Jump to:  

Theme orange-lt created by panic