next »

[mihai]

Hi,

I am working on a real time trap/puzzle game in which you control some characters and you have to guide them through various traps and maybe enemies (no complicated stuff here, just mario style enemies with very simple/brainless behaviors) from start to finish. The game is supposed to have a story and a certain numbers of levels that walk the player through that story. Since the story is very simple, I am unable to decide how many levels should I put in. I expect players to complete the simpler levels in less than a minute and to complete more difficult levels in 10-15 minutes due to multiple tries and failures.

Any idea how many levels should I put in, giving it's just me on the team and I have to design them, implement them and test them? I don't know how many hours of gameplay a player expects from a game of this genre, so no idea here.

[Core Xii]

As many levels as are needed, no more, no less. One level for each fun, unique gameplay mechanic. There's no "hours expected of a game". Players play because it's fun, not because it wastes a certain minimum amount of time.

[mihai]

Well, I always thought people would say "oh, it was a great and fun game, but way too short". I'm happy to hear this is not an issue at all.

[Sankar]

I actually think players expect a minimum number of hours in a game if they are paying for it.
Time and Money are two variables that most people deal when buying anything, "How long it will last" is important.

You can find this in many reviews of Games: "The Game was too Short", "It would be okay for a ..$ game but for a ..$ I expected more" and so on.

When people aren't paying, they usually will ask for a sequel, or wish there was more to it.
For a Indie Puzzle Game, If I were paying for it, I would expect 3-5 hours on the first run. I'm not the kind of guy to care too much about time-trials and things like that, so for me, the first run is all I'm caring. (Sure, many games unlock extras after you beat it, and this is a different animal).

Beta-Testing is probably the key to this. You allow the players to take a look at the different mechanics/items/gimmicks, and then you decide how much you can stretch some things. Like maybe a "Upside Down" gameplay is so fun, that players will enjoy using it in 3, 4 levels. But a MegaJump skill is only fun twice. Its all about balancing.

Keep in mind that "all new all time" isn't variation nor diversity, its actually a pattern. The player never has time to master what he learned before and he is always expecting something entirely new. A good game balances this, it gives new things when you're almost mastering the old ones, it gives "new but familiar" things in between, and once in a while it throws a totally new thing just to make you wish for more of it.

Super Mario 3 is a great example of this.
Hope this post was useful!

[sublinimal]

"oh, it was a great and fun game, but way too short".

That's the best reception a puzzle game can have. All the more incentive to unlock all achievements, make levels with a built-in level editor, or just replay the main storyline every now and then. If it's several hours long and there's lots of forgettable levels, people will see playing through it as a chore, and once they're done they won't touch it again.

Again, this only applies to puzzle games. Of course RPGs would be the opposite, because the large-scale narrative and immersion matter the most, and every minute isn't carefully planned.

[Triplefox]

It's a target market thing. Levels are just one of several kinds of content you could be offering(story/campaign, items and powers, achievements, etc.) Some gamers are looking mainly to maximize value for money. They'll go for free or subscription games first and foremost because they can get more content for less money. Others want a specific type of experience and will pay extra for the niche product.

So it actually depends a lot on the context. Some examples:

If it's a web portal game, you're selling it to a sponsor, not the players, and they play it for 5 minutes tops. Most of the players on portals are similarly not going to complain over short or unpolished experiences since the game is free for them and it's one game of tens of thousands. The flip side of this is that if you try to upsell players on content and not features, they tend to freak out because the value of web portal content is so low.

If it's on a platform with cheap downloadables(Steam, App Store, etc.) and you're pricing it at the <$5 level you will get buyers who, like the web portal players, are mostly interested in trying out the game. Content matters more to these buyers, but content quality matters in particular. If the game lasts a long time that's a "bonus" but it's more important that they feel the purchase was worthwhile from the beginning.

If the game is at or above the $10 price point, either you have an amazing feature to sell or you have an eye-opening, tell-all-your-friends experience on the content side of things, even if it's relatively short. Open-world/procedural content can also do the trick here. (Minecraft, Mount & Blade...)

If the game is structured like an MMO or social game, the expectation is that there's always one more piece of content to motivate a continued grind. It doesn't have to be great content, there just has to be lots and it must feel unique.

[DavidCaruso]

Depends on the game's difficulty. If you're making an easy game where no puzzle takes longer than 15 minutes to think about and execute a solution then you'd probably want a lot of them (though not too many since it'd basically be entirely filler if you had 10 hours of braindead puzzles). If it's a harder game then you can get away with less puzzles that take longer to solve (though it'd still be about the same amount of work, since you'd need to think more about the puzzles you're designing). Of course the ideal is a long game with a lot of legitimately challenging puzzles, but you can't have everything.

You can find this in many reviews of Games: "The Game was too Short", "It would be okay for a ..$ game but for a ..$ I expected more" and so on.

Always thought this was kind of dumb. Reviews should rate almost entirely on value for time instead of money, otherwise we get cheap iPhone apps hailed as the best thing since they cost less than a better $60 console game. (Angry Birds, anyone?)

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

as mentioned, it depends on if you're selling it or not

if not, do whatever number you care to, it's freeware

if so, make it substantial enough that most players won't feel that you cheated them out of their money by charging $15 for a game that's 2 hours long (which was what happened with vvvvvv)

another alternative is to have a level editor and allow players to create and share their own levels, with automatic uploading/downloading of user-created levels, that way the game can have a lot of levels but you don't have to make them all yourself

[laserdracula]

Every level should introduce something or explore something previously introduced.  If it doesn't then axe it.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

be careful with taking that to an extreme though; if nintendo had lived by that we wouldn't have smb1 (where many of the levels are similar to other levels and don't introduce or explore anything but are just new configurations of old elements)

compare level 2-2 with level 7-2 for instance




notice any similarity? only difference is extra octopii

another one is 1-3 and 5-3




only difference is bullet bills

2-3 and 7-3 are also clones (7-3 has flying turtles, 2-3 doesn't)

[Nix]

I don't really like it when you see mechanics for just a level or two. Then it feels like the whole game is just a big demo or tutorial. This is one of the reasons that many flash games don't interest me a whole lot. Try to make levels unique in their puzzles and design, not just in the types of things in them.

[mihai]

In my game I have very few core game mechanics, however your experience with them is very situation dependent. You may have one experience in one situation and a completely another experience in another situation while performing the same mechanic. So I guess it all comes down to the level design itself, because mechanics can be quickly learned in a few introductory/tutorial levels.

[iffi]

I don't really like it when you see mechanics for just a level or two. Then it feels like the whole game is just a big demo or tutorial. This is one of the reasons that many flash games don't interest me a whole lot. Try to make levels unique in their puzzles and design, not just in the types of things in them.

Same with me - when I figure out the solution to a level I want to feel like I've learned a skill that I'm actually going to use later. Of course, constantly reusing the same mechanic can make it boring and repetitive, but if you figure out different ways to incorporate a mechanic or combine it with new mechanics it can feel fresh each time. World of Goo comes to mind when I write this (I would think of specific examples but I haven't played World of Goo in quite a while).

[Shackhal]

In a platform video game, the most important there is the mechanics of every level. Add some difference between them. Not just a new enemy or object. Changing the way that you use every ability the character have to pass the level is satisfactory to the player.

For example, the jump. In some games is a ability to cross cliffs or kill the enemies, but you can combining those two uses and use the enemies like stairs to reach inaccessible places before, like to cross a very large cliff or reach a very high platform with a ultra-super item, considered a "secret"

Find other ways to change the "level perspective" and you can do unlimited number of levels in your game. But of course, it must have an end and one accord to the story, even if is the simplest.

[Core Xii]

compare level 2-2 with level 7-2 for instance
[...]
notice any similarity? only difference is extra octopii

another one is 1-3 and 5-3
[...]
only difference is bullet bills

2-3 and 7-3 are also clones (7-3 has flying turtles, 2-3 doesn't)

You equate this to good game design? Super Mario Bros. was "good" in its time because it was one of the very first video games. It's total shite by today's standards.

A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away. Applies to game design as much as any other field. Case in point, Portal. Some people may have felt it to be too short but it was a tight experience; Not an inch of it was wasted. 'Quality over quantity' applies to time as much as matter.

Think of it this way: When the games industry grows large enough that you'll always have a new game to play, would you prefer those games to be stretched, padded timesinks or tight, superb experiences?

[moi]

The only thing that is important.
Is the story that you want to tell.
You can do it with one level, or one thousand.

[Sankar]

Actually SMB 1 holds its ground pretty well even today.
It's hard but rewarding and all the time you heard about "new gamers" searching for some online version of it to play, or downloading an emulator.

Sure, Mario Formula has been polished a lot and I believe Super Mario Bros 3 is probably the tightest one. but Super Mario Bros 1 is pretty decent too.

And overall, I agree with most people are saying:
Add new things, but let us enjoy the old ones. Games where you can learn something and use it are the greatest.

[gimymblert]

It's not all about the mechanics, pacing and rhythm is important too, smb1 was a master of timing and rhythm, reusing the same lay out with a minor variation was enough to create a new "music", I would say smb 1 is still very high craft by today standard, released now it would be an art game about level design rhythm.

http://critical-gaming.squarespace.com/blog/2008/6/22/mario-melodies-variation-part2.html

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

You equate this to good game design? Super Mario Bros. was "good" in its time because it was one of the very first video games. It's total shite by today's standards.

A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away. Applies to game design as much as any other field. Case in point, Portal. Some people may have felt it to be too short but it was a tight experience; Not an inch of it was wasted. 'Quality over quantity' applies to time as much as matter.

Think of it this way: When the games industry grows large enough that you'll always have a new game to play, would you prefer those games to be stretched, padded timesinks or tight, superb experiences?

i do, and additionally i think portal is a terrible game and holding it up as something to aspire to is terrible, it's an exact example of *what to avoid* (by the book level design, overly playtested and polished to death, and way too short); i'd play replay smb1 over replaying portal any day; once you play through portal once there's really no reason to play it ever again, but the opposite is true of smb1

[Sankar]

I gotta agree with Paul on this one.

While I do like the Portal series and I usually enjoy Valve Games, I think sometimes they playtest it so much that the final product looks cold, without taking any risks.