Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

 
Advanced search

1411283 Posts in 69325 Topics- by 58380 Members - Latest Member: bob1029

March 29, 2024, 07:58:44 AM

Need hosting? Check out Digital Ocean
(more details in this thread)
TIGSource ForumsDeveloperDesignRequest for help: Six main types of game structure, improve my definitions
Pages: [1]
Print
Author Topic: Request for help: Six main types of game structure, improve my definitions  (Read 1597 times)
PeteDevlin
Level 0
***


View Profile
« on: June 21, 2014, 02:23:07 AM »

Hi - If you're reading this anew, then let me bring you up to speed.

I have been looking to refine definitions for the six main types of game structure I have identified (and possibly add to) and find additional example of each type. It’s part of a bigger spreadsheet that I’m compiling that will help others to have a framework for appraising game ideas before they set out to make something.

Each of the types of game refers either to the structure around the main game idea or perhaps what playing feels like. I know some games may feature aspects of different types, but our discussion keeps throwing these up. Here is what we have so far:

Type one: Toys

Games that generally require no specific expectation of the player to have to do something, but allow to player to work at their own pace or generally just play around. The more players put in, the more they may get out, and each player’s outcomes will be different. - (Minecraft, Animal Crossing, Tamagotchi (minus death), The Sims, Noby Noby Boy, possibly Mew-Genics)

Type two: Arcade - One core idea

Games that require some form of skill but keep most of the play to within the single level, save for higher difficulties. Learning, developing, and ultimately mastering a skill is perhaps a core feature. - (Tetris, Super Hexagon, Drop 7, Super Crate Box, Threes!, Flight Control, Canabalt)

Type three: Single mechanic exploration

Take a single mechanical idea and explore it in its most singular straight forward sense. Levels/stages/tracks can be built quickly as no specific rewriting is required from one level to the next. Randomisation can be a feature - (Meat Boy flash, Spelunky, Mario Kart, the original Angry Birds, Battleblock Theatre, The Binding of Isaac)

Type four: Full mechanic exploration

My personal favourite. Take a single core mechanic, but explore it in depth producing a different set of challenges and then distil this to find the ‘truth’ of the idea. Each level/stage will ask individual questions, but each chapter/world will ask an overarching question different from the other worlds. Skill and flair may play a part, but players will ultimately feel deep sense of satisfaction once a challenge has been overcome - (Super Meat Boy, World of Goo, Braid, Portal to a smaller extent)

Type five: Instatized, set piece based, no levelling up required

Games with a core idea and where each level is based around a specific set of actions/scripting that requires instantized content. Skill isn’t massively important as the game focuses on getting the player to experience the content. Players can complete the game with the resources they are given at that instance, and usually with the same set of attributes they start the game with - (Fez, GTA, Call of Duty single player parts, Mario Galaxy, Shadow of the colossus)

Type six: Set piece, levelling based, metroidvanias

Games that use progression, attainment, gathering, improving as gates to progression. Players are to ‘level’ up or ‘unlock’ as they proceed, as the core idea, as in ‘players cannot finish the game with the same attributes they start out with. Also reliance on carrying those ‘obtained’ attributes through the game with them - (RPG, Metroid, most Zelda games)

Eventually I'll put out my spreadsheet for review.

Thanks
Pete
« Last Edit: July 03, 2014, 11:31:53 AM by PeteDevlin » Logged
Cinder
Level 0
**



View Profile WWW
« Reply #1 on: June 24, 2014, 07:08:33 AM »

You said that "types of game refers either to the structure around the main game idea or perhaps what playing feels like"

I read through this I saw it as a valid approach to game classifying but let me preface this statement by saying that I've been awake for about 22 hours now.

I bring up that quote because as I was reading I kept losing sight of it. And as I'd go back to read your introduction your tiers started sounding familiar for two reasons.

The first is that whenever you hear a review or a first impressions of a game (at least one that's semi formal) they will use these types of methods to describe them, i.e. it feels arcade-y which is a "feel" that you've formalized here. Like for instance I've heard the games you describe as toys as feeling "sandboxy".

The second reason it sounded familiar is that these types of distinctions are made a lot around gamers only we call them genres. It is also important to note that what we call genres are not really genres by rote

Here's a description of game genres from the wikipedia article because research is hard: "Video game genres are used to categorize video games based on their gameplay interaction rather than visual or narrative differences. A video game genre is defined by a set of gameplay challenges."

Sounds like what you're doing here to me, only yours seem like more meta-genres that are trying to express more about a game than just one core set of mechanics it has. Kind of the way Steam calls "indie" a genre somehow. They're just trying to convey to you these other factors that enhance the experience that are brought about by the hands on, personal nature of indie titles. By they do it by a word they call a genre to try and convey these feelings, just as you've done with "toy" and "arcade".

Anyways. Just some thoughts on the post. Actually quite irrelevant if you think about it. But hey, I'm tired.

Also since you have Binding of Issac there with tier 3 you should go ahead and add Legend Of Zelda. They're...very similar.
Logged

starsrift
Level 10
*****


Apparently I am a ruiner of worlds. Ooops.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #2 on: June 24, 2014, 10:13:15 PM »

The designer in me wails at your need for such definitions. The ludologist in me wonders why.
Logged

"Vigorous writing is concise." - William Strunk, Jr.
As is coding.

I take life with a grain of salt.
And a slice of lime, plus a shot of tequila.
PeteDevlin
Level 0
***


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: June 29, 2014, 01:44:05 AM »

The designer in me wails at your need for such definitions. The ludologist in me wonders why.

It's all part of the creative process, finding a technique for pulling ideas apart and reassembling them in different ways. An attempt to find a technique for sidestepping writers block. Additionally, it helps with thinking about timescales - A type 6 would take so much longer than a type 3. If I set an aim to make a game in 6 months then I need to think clearly about what can be achieved.

Don't get me wrong, this is no way impacts on the artistic element of game design.
Logged
PeteDevlin
Level 0
***


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: June 29, 2014, 01:51:15 AM »

Sounds like what you're doing here to me, only yours seem like more meta-genres that are trying to express more about a game than just one core set of mechanics it has. Kind of the way Steam calls "indie" a genre somehow. They're just trying to convey to you these other factors that enhance the experience that are brought about by the hands on, personal nature of indie titles. By they do it by a word they call a genre to try and convey these feelings, just as you've done with "toy" and "arcade".

Yeah, I'd say this was about the structure of the piece. For instance if I describe a car with a gun on top, then by working through each of these tiers I get a completely different games. The car control/race element is irrelevant, it's how you present that up to the player. The choice a designer finally makes should be the thing that drives their progress and planning should match accordingly. It's also to help designers to know what to trim from a game to get to the core or the 'truth' of the game. Why doesn't Tim in Braid have a RPG style stat upgrade that lets him jump higher? Because it's wholly irrelevant. Why does't Spelunky have regular set pieces and exposition? Because it's wholly irrelevant.

Maybe I'm not explaining that properly. Have you had more sleep since last posting?
Logged
baconman
Level 10
*****


Design Guru


View Profile WWW
« Reply #5 on: July 02, 2014, 02:57:45 PM »

Perfectly valid, and trying to balance the typology - specifically the paradox between types five and six - is really what's hurting my ability to complete my design of "a game about gaming."

3 more types:

Type seven: Direct Competition

This is mostly multiplayer focused, but also features AI opponents and variation for single-player experiences; but is direct player-versus-player competiton where your universal abilities are comparable (if not identical) to each other's, and you are directly attacking your opponent or responding to their attacks against you.

Type eight: Indirect Competition

Similarly to type seven, you and your adversary are semi-paralleled in controls and abilities. But in this case, you're both competing to accomplish a particular goal *other* than orchestrating the downfall of your opponent.

Type nine: Exercise/Execution

More common in rhythm/music gaming (but also carries on to titles like Bejeweled Blitz and various edutainment), you perform a game's target tasks with a variable degree of accuracy; more accurate gameplay translates into better scoring and review of your performance.


PS: You think Spelunky doesn't have regular setpieces and exposition?  Gentleman That's cute. Dig deeper.
Logged

Cinder
Level 0
**



View Profile WWW
« Reply #6 on: July 02, 2014, 04:59:11 PM »

Maybe I'm not explaining that properly. Have you had more sleep since last posting?

Yes I have my friend. And all I have to add is that I like this idea of short hand. This covers things that are normally uncovered from games through discussion. This summarizes these thoughts quite well. I like the concept and I like the execution. Useful!!!
Logged

Eadow
Level 0
**



View Profile WWW
« Reply #7 on: July 03, 2014, 05:11:48 AM »

But how to define games like The Elder Scrolls then?? You can do whatever you want in then and there's no expectation of you, which would place it in the 'Toy' type. But the main objective of the game is to progress in it's questline and it features levelling and has actual progression. Will we ever be able to categorize games like this except for just labeling it 'Sandbox'??
I ask this because it is the exact type of game I'm making, and I'm completely lost on how to categorize it.
Logged

Follow me on twitter to know when new games come out @OPC_Eadow

Opposite Code - Because Freedom is Optional
PeteDevlin
Level 0
***


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: July 03, 2014, 11:45:42 AM »

PS: You think Spelunky doesn't have regular setpieces and exposition?  Gentleman That's cute. Dig deeper.

Ha, maybe I should. I still think the type grouping is correct, but I suppose you can drop some artistry into each type.
Logged
PeteDevlin
Level 0
***


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: July 03, 2014, 12:01:46 PM »

But how to define games like The Elder Scrolls then?? You can do whatever you want in then and there's no expectation of you, which would place it in the 'Toy' type. But the main objective of the game is to progress in it's questline and it features levelling and has actual progression. Will we ever be able to categorize games like this except for just labeling it 'Sandbox'??
I ask this because it is the exact type of game I'm making, and I'm completely lost on how to categorize it.

Are we talking about the online game or the main series?

Main series: The open world go-anywhere-do-anything-thing is a feature, second to the purpose of experiencing specific set-pieces in a level up fashion. The ultimately end game is to obtain a sufficient level in order to take on the end challenge. The player cannot 'complete' the end challenge without developing their character and progressing through a number of other set pieces along the way.

The focus is on lots of set piece activities linked to the player being at a certain level. The design focus is mind blowingly complicated because it relies on a lot of main content being linked to the player level - You are trying to design a level up system, and all that entails, and simultaneously link that to the set pieces - Take one thing out or add one thing in, that reverberates through the rest of the game.

Playtesting is also a bitch - How do you test builds?? Hours long games that rely on you testing set pieces under presumptions. This must be the absolutely hardest type of game design. Are these the difficulties you find yourself facing?
Logged
Eadow
Level 0
**



View Profile WWW
« Reply #10 on: July 03, 2014, 04:23:02 PM »

Main series: The open world go-anywhere-do-anything-thing is a feature, second to the purpose of experiencing specific set-pieces in a level up fashion. The ultimately end game is to obtain a sufficient level in order to take on the end challenge. The player cannot 'complete' the end challenge without developing their character and progressing through a number of other set pieces along the way.

The focus is on lots of set piece activities linked to the player being at a certain level. The design focus is mind blowingly complicated because it relies on a lot of main content being linked to the player level - You are trying to design a level up system, and all that entails, and simultaneously link that to the set pieces - Take one thing out or add one thing in, that reverberates through the rest of the game.

I actually disagree with some of your points. In the newer TESs you an actually avoid the quest and levelling systems altogether, you can simply roleplay your character as a hunter or as a woodcutter and have the game play much like The Sims, with no real progression other than the story you give him (of course, that is only for hardcore roleplayers).
So games in which the player can simply ignore the main features and do something completely different I find really hard to categorize.

And yeah, about playtesting, it's really hard, but manageable if you plan everything in advance. The hard part is testing the things that only a few player might do. In the end it comes to a balance of giving the player enough freedom that they can fix it themselves when they stray too far from the path, while making sure that it isn't so free that it doesn't have a point.
Logged

Follow me on twitter to know when new games come out @OPC_Eadow

Opposite Code - Because Freedom is Optional
PeteDevlin
Level 0
***


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: July 04, 2014, 01:30:34 PM »

Have you got a devlog ongoing for your project?

I confess to wikipedia-ing TES and it describes a definitive plot so I took this as my lead on categorising - It's not not the same thing as Animal Crossing which has absolutely no 'win' condition is it?
Logged
Eadow
Level 0
**



View Profile WWW
« Reply #12 on: July 04, 2014, 05:24:53 PM »

Nah, I'm in the process of remaking my website and updating another game, but I hope that I can start a devlog next week. Smiley

Well, TES does have a main quest which you can complete, but it's completely optional. If you look back to the days of TES 3 : Morrowind, the game was more of a traditional RPG and definitely had an end point. But in Oblivion and Skyrim, the gameplay is much more free and the features and mechanics are less connected to one another. There should be a category for modular gameplay, when the player can simply ignore parts of the game in favor to what interests them. The word 'Fantasy Simulator' comes to mind to describe TES, but that's a silly description. Tongue

Here's a page describing role playing in Oblivion: http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Oblivion:Roleplaying
Logged

Follow me on twitter to know when new games come out @OPC_Eadow

Opposite Code - Because Freedom is Optional
SirEel
Level 0
**


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: July 11, 2014, 05:31:55 AM »

Even in Morrowind you don't have to do the main quest - I certainly never finished it. You can just go do the guilds, or try and kill everyone or steal everything or whatever. I started playing Daggerfall recently (TES 2), and it's much the same - there is a main quest, but if you don't follow it there's no penalty. That said if you don't follow one of the early links, you can lose the ability to follow the main quest with that character all together. I believe TES1 had a similar setup, and something like 17 dungeons that you had to do for quests to 'beat' the game, but if you weren't interested it had terrain 1.5x the area of Europe to explore instead!
Logged
s0
o
Level 10
*****


eurovision winner 2014


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: July 11, 2014, 08:10:53 AM »

i only ever did the first 3 main quests in morrowind. i actually found oblivion much less interesting to play "free" thanks to lame-o scaling enemies and almost identical dungeons everywhere.
Logged
valrus
Level 3
***


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: July 11, 2014, 08:44:40 AM »

The main questlines in TES games aren't for playing; they're to reinforce the feeling that you've gone off the rails and are ignoring something important Smiley  If there were nothing important to do, what would be the fun in avoiding it?  It's the difference between vacation and unemployment.

It'd be funny to picture the same structure in other genres.  Like a linear run-to-the-right platformer where there are plenty of opportunities to go off the rails, explore upward or downward, and pick herbs or whatever.  Even if this behavior is only mildly or irregularly rewarded within the game, there's an intrinsic reward to the feeling that you're goofing off/ going AWOL.

Logged
Pages: [1]
Print
Jump to:  

Theme orange-lt created by panic