Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

 
Advanced search

1411279 Posts in 69323 Topics- by 58380 Members - Latest Member: bob1029

March 28, 2024, 03:40:23 PM

Need hosting? Check out Digital Ocean
(more details in this thread)
TIGSource ForumsCommunityDevLogs[Prototype Demo Out Now! (0.1.0)] Chamile - Non-linear, Power-up Platformer
Pages: [1] 2
Print
Author Topic: [Prototype Demo Out Now! (0.1.0)] Chamile - Non-linear, Power-up Platformer  (Read 5837 times)
Milky
Level 0
**

zzz


View Profile
« on: April 16, 2019, 08:58:55 AM »


Current Available Build Status

First rough prototype is out! You can download it below!
Build is very old at this point, project is on hold for now.

https://foolsmilky.itch.io/chamile

(Extract the zip file, run the exe, no instillation required)

==============================================================================

Intro

This is the DevLog for Chamile! It's a power-up platformer inspired by several games, not the least of which is "Kid Chameleon", the 1992 Sega Genesis Cult Classic.

Project Summary

- Sega MegaDrive/Genesis visuals (9-bit RGB)
- Sega MegaDrive/Genesis sound
- Similar Stage and Level structure to the original Kid Chameleon
 + Nonlinear level and stage paths, secret exits, etc.
- Tons of power-ups to use throughout the whole game

Project Status

I am currently serving as the designer, programmer, and music/sound designer for the game. I may also serve as the artist for the game, but am definitely open to bringing on another member of the team.

The game is in part funded by me, and I have planned to start a crowd-funding campaign down the line.

Unfulfilled Roles (Artist)

I am now looking for artists to create assets for the game and possibly the Kickstarter. Please check it out if you're interested! https://forums.tigsource.com/index.php?topic=70406.0

About Me

I've been a lifelong game player and am pursuing game development as a full-time job. I graduated college with a Major in Electrical Engineering (Which may never be used again), and a Minor in Computer Science.

I have done some casual design and lots of level creation in my free time, as well as composed some music. I actively study game design as well as music, and am also working on my art skills.

I am working full-time on this project and expect to continue that way until the project's completion.

Table of Contents
Page 1
  • Main Inspirations [1]
  • Main Inspirations [2]
  • Music [1]
  • Power-ups and Pitfalls
  • The Flow of Levels
  • Map, Stage, and Level Structure
  • Traditional Platformer Pacing
  • Non-Linear Pacing
  • Enemies and Hazards
  • Player Verbs and Verticality

To Be Done
  • The Design of Chamile
  • Level Design

Note: I'm a bit of a rambler and have quite a lot to talk about in regards to the games I've been inspired by and the design for this project. Sorry if these posts are a little unfocused, but writing this stuff out is how I really solidify my thoughts and decide what I want to do.

[Aug 1,2019]Going to be a bit of a break from the long text posts as I start to brainstorm and playtest more ideas. Hopefully will have some cool things to show soon. Thank you to everyone who has read these posts and commented, I hope you've gotten something from them, and there will be more to come.  Smiley

[Dec 6,2019]I've cobbled together a rough prototype for people to check out. It's very basic platforming that's meant to show off a bit of non-linear level and stage design. Please let me know what you think.

[Jul 1, 2020]I am now looking for artists to create assets for the game and possibly the Kickstarter. Please check it out if you're interested! https://forums.tigsource.com/index.php?topic=70406.0

[Aug 27, 2020]
After talking with many artists about experience, rates, and project goals, I began to get very panicked about dealing with someone only online through Discord regarding this amount of work. I'll either handle this by muscling through, changing my approach, or putting the project on hold. The art is crucially important, and for that reason it's something I feel is best done in conjunction with someone I can trust and speak to very regularly.

I'm assessing the strategy for the future and figuring out what I can still do in terms of time and budget. It may involve putting the project on the back-burner a bit, which is unfortunate.

Thank you to everyone who has expressed interest in the project. It really does mean a lot to me, and know that the project itself means a lot to me to. I am looking to improve myself so that I can make the project the best it can be, and am assessing good ways to see the project through to completion.

Hope to have an update for you soon. Smiley


[Sep 10, 2020]
Hey everyone!

As I've worked through the scope of the project and my current efficiency, I've decided that the project shouldn't receive the level of full-time work. I am not achieving what I need to during my workdays, and the project can still progress if I decide to work on it in my free time.

Thank you to everyone who has shown interest in the project, it means a lot to me. I am currently deciding what level of work I want to put into the project in my spare time, or if I should get a few smaller projects under my belt before I continue a project of this scope.

We'll see how things go, and I'll be sure to update to all as things progress. Smiley
« Last Edit: February 02, 2021, 03:40:59 PM by Milky » Logged
Milky
Level 0
**

zzz


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: April 16, 2019, 08:59:35 AM »

Main Inspirations [1]

In this post I'd like to lightly detail the games which I have been inspired by and explain what I feel makes them important.

Kid Chameleon


Kid Chameleon




Kid Chameleon (Maximum Levels) Speedrun in 41:51 [World Record] by TheWinslinator

Kid Chameleon is a power-up platformer released for the Sega Genesis in 1992. It contains 103 levels(!) and 9 different power-ups which the player can use.

It's a game known for both it's maze-like level structure, and its punishing nature. Kid Chameleon allows for the player to take many different routes through it's levels through the use of Level Flags and Teleporters. But the original game used the level system traditional to arcades, with no sort of save or password system. Combine this with the game's natural difficulty, and it ends up being something which not many players have completed.

Kid Chameleon may be considered a cult classic, but it sought out an experience that I feel few games since have tried (or succeeded) to replicate.

- Maze-like Stage and Level Structure
 + Multiple entrances and exits for levels
 + Highly varied level shapes and paths
- Large sense of vertical movement
- Power-up specific pathways and exits

Although over-simplified, Kid Chameleon achieves a mystical quality by having an highly explorable space despite having no procedural generation. It can be played in many ways, both in terms of what levels the player chooses to go through, and what power-ups they take along the way. Despite it's shortcomings the game manages to intrigue the player and reward their curiosity and ambition.

Kirby


Kirby and the Amazing Mirror (GBA)

The Kirby franchise is one which many people feel is consistent. But not everyone agrees what that consistent quality is. "Kirby games" are one of my favorite kind of games ever
and I can boil down a few of the decisions that I feel Hal has made to keep Kirby at a consistent quality.

1.   Kirby can always fly, leaving no vertical area untouchable.
2.   All of Kirby’s abilities can do basic damage.
3.   Areas can be gated off by requiring a certain type of elemental damage in order to progress.
4.   Kirby’s movement is not drastically changed by any power-up, and no power-up can remove his ability to fly up.

While these design decisions may not seem like much, they are truly built of quite a number of smaller but equally important and concrete decisions. Looking at almost all of the games in the Kirby franchise, we can see a general impact of those decisions.

1.   There is little to no platforming challenge in the franchise.
2.   Many abilities shoot projectiles or beams forwards in order to do damage.
3.   No vertical area is untouchable. Instead, some areas are gated off by needing specific powers.
4.   No power-ups really change your movement options.

While there are many advantages to the decisions made here, I can't help but feel that Kirby ends up being limited in its scope. In short, it has trouble expanding into more difficult and more varied content. Although it can be relaxing, many Kirby games have entire sections where the player simply needs to "Walk forward, press attack button, repeat".

Kirby's simplicity can be elegant, but holds it back in many regards which games like Kid Chameleon buck in favor of more difficult gameplay and even less linear design. But Kirby is definitely not without it's more intricate design decisions.

Kirby and the Amazing Mirror

The Kirby franchise has many entries, all of which have a unique spin. I choose Amazing Mirror here not just because it is indicative of the typical Kirby experience, but because its spin involves a large web-like world which can be explored nonlinearly.


Moonlight Mansion Map (Source: KindarSpirit)

Kirby and the Amazing Mirror requires the player to set off in search of several mirror pieces. This leads them to many areas which contain an end boss somewhere in their maze of screens, with many smaller areas and secrets to explore and find. I like this structure most of all, because the world feels like a strongly interconnected place, as opposed to a series of numbered levels. The many shortcuts and branches within these maps lead to whole other stages, or secret areas containing treasure. This nonlinear design can seemingly take control away from the designer, especially when the player can simply change their direction to traverse whole new areas.

In short, I think there is strength with this non-linearity. It allows for interesting secret design, cohesion in the world, and deeper reactivity to the player's choice of path and power-up.

Kirby and the Crystal Shards (Kirby 64)


For many, this may be a Kirby game that they did not even know existed. There was only one Kirby title released for the Nintendo 64. The other Kirby game developed for the N64 would eventually be pushed to the Gamecube as Kirby Air Ride.

Kirby 64 is yet another Kirby game that is clean and pleasant, but regarded by some as too easy. It is a rather linear game, with not a ton in the way of exploration. The shards in each stage of the game can be collected by exploration, defeating bosses, and by destroying power-up specific barriers. Kirby 64 did not really leave an impression on me with how it structured its levels, but more how it structured its power-ups.


With 6 base power-ups, each power-up could be combined with another to make a completely new power-up. It not only impressed me due to opening up the possibility space. It also impressed me with a natural dynamic by which the player is rewarded by experimenting, with versatility and more power. Similarly to Mario's original power-up process of [Small -> Large -> Fire Flower], Kirby allows for the process of [Normal -> Single Power -> Combo Power].

Although some of the power-ups felt far more useful than others, it's the possibility space and kinds of gameplay dynamics that this design affords that really interest me. This Kirby game ends up having about 34 different power-ups, but many are relegated to the function of "Do damage in front of you." It's the power-ups which change Kirby's movement, or give him a different effective range that really interest me. Kirby is far from a Metroidvania game, where power-ups are permanent. It's also pretty far from a Roguelike, where power-ups shape the kind of "Run" you have. But I feel that there's good potential in being able to make choices about your powers that feel impactful, even in a linear and deterministic game.

On a minor note, the recent Kirby (Kirby: Star Allies) for Nintendo Switch invoked a similar idea to these power-ups. But for those of you who have played it, you may recognize that it's not actually all that similar. In my opinion, it also falls into the "Elemental Damage" issue, where Fire/Water/Ice/Electricity/etc. are all elements in a game, but they're not really unique, they all essentially just do extra damage.

Hopefully these kinds of insights shed light on the potential that the Kirby design has, but sometimes has trouble reaching. It's simplicity helps make it easier for newer players to understand, and makes the game more relaxing, but often ends up preventing any player from a truly deep experience.

Super Mario Bros. 3


Super Mario Bros. 3 is often regarded as the best Platformer of its time, and as one of the best Platformers ever. I think it deserves its praise mainly for its use of varied level mechanics and clear focus.

Most levels in Super Mario Bros 3. have some sort of "mechanic" which is explored throughout the course of the level. Even though the "Angry Sun" only appears halfway through its own level, it's one of the most iconic elements of Mario for those who ran from it. The large shifting platforms of some levels, the auto-scroller airships, and the big-small levels of SMB3 all manage to mix things up for the player without feeling too out of place.

These level mechanics are effective not simply because of variation, but because they are easily understood. The player does not know them by explanation, but by observation. The implications that these mechanics have on gameplay are understood almost immediately, and the variations on that mechanic can be carried out for the duration of the level.




Super Mario 3D World's 4 Step Level Design | Game Maker's Toolkit

Although the "4-Step Level Design" of Mario is more readily seen in later Mario games, I believe that this design has its roots in this Mario game, the first time Mario was truly introducing level-specific mechanics, and "tossing them out" by the end of the level. The variety for the player is high, and most of the mechanics do a decent job of presenting the player with novel gameplay scenarios.

Sonic The Hedgehog 2


Sonic 2 is often in contention for the best 2-D Sonic game. It was a step up from Sonic 1 in many ways, and had quite a variety of interesting levels and encounters with Dr. Robotnik. Its music is iconic, and has some of my favorite spritework in the series.

Sonic 2 is simply a good example of how to create gameplay around a consistent character. Sonic's new ability to spindash allows him to use speed to get up ramps, dispatch enemies, and jump large gaps. Sonic 2 features lots of ways in which Sonic can better navigate a stage even with this seemingly small set of skills. Sonic 2 also begins the more "path" level design of Sonic, allowing players to use their knowledge of a level to bypass large sections, avoid pits, and ultimately go fast.

The largest lessons to learn from this iteration of Sonic are how levels are designed around Sonic, and how a stage's theme can incorporate new and interesting mechanics.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2019, 10:19:18 AM by Milky » Logged
Dune
Level 0
**


Hey!


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: April 16, 2019, 02:21:52 PM »

Power-up platformers with nonlinear level structures are fun indeed, I'm interested in seeing what kind of setting and tone you choose for your game once you're done going over your references. Grin I remember playing Kid Chameleon as a kid on a CD-ROM genesis collection port and, not surprisingly, I didn't get very far. However, I've been replaying Yoshi's Island recently, and it's definitely throwing me for a loop with its nonlinear levels. There are a lot of hidden paths I totally missed on my first playthrough, and lots of strange power-ups (I forgot Yoshi could transform into vehicles... it's as weird as it sounds). I thought I knew the game pretty well, but I constantly find myself moving through new rooms and exit points I've never seen before. I play a lot of metroidvania games and am used to having maps give me hints that there are branching paths or secrets nearby--it's an entirely different experience having no guide whatsoever!

In summary, you may want to take a look at Yoshi's Island to further explore the kind of game or feeling you're going for. I enjoyed reading your analysis of Kid Chameleon and look forward to hearing more about your project!
Logged
Milky
Level 0
**

zzz


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: April 17, 2019, 06:34:39 AM »

Power-up platformers with nonlinear level structures are fun indeed, I'm interested in seeing what kind of setting and tone you choose for your game once you're done going over your references. Grin I remember playing Kid Chameleon as a kid on a CD-ROM genesis collection port and, not surprisingly, I didn't get very far. However, I've been replaying Yoshi's Island recently, and it's definitely throwing me for a loop with its nonlinear levels. There are a lot of hidden paths I totally missed on my first playthrough, and lots of strange power-ups (I forgot Yoshi could transform into vehicles... it's as weird as it sounds). I thought I knew the game pretty well, but I constantly find myself moving through new rooms and exit points I've never seen before. I play a lot of metroidvania games and am used to having maps give me hints that there are branching paths or secrets nearby--it's an entirely different experience having no guide whatsoever!

In summary, you may want to take a look at Yoshi's Island to further explore the kind of game or feeling you're going for. I enjoyed reading your analysis of Kid Chameleon and look forward to hearing more about your project!

Hi, Dune! Thank you so much for your thoughtful reply, I appreciate it.

To be honest, Yoshi's Island is sitting here in my Source Material, but I was already crowding that second post with even the few series already there... I played Yoshi's Island in college and was very impressed that the game still held up and was very fun! Without posting my larger notes, it uses transitions to different areas very well, and also uses it's varied collectibles to create small local challenges throughout its levels. Also because of that structure, it encourages repeat play and full understanding of the level to achieve a perfect "100" score. And obviously, it has one of the strongest visual aesthetics that a 2-D platformer has ever had.

If people don't mind walls of text (I wish I could spoiler tag whole sections so they were hidden) then I'll be sure to post my shorter write-ups for all of the games and series.

I have 4-5 page write-ups that I've done about several design aspects but they're too long to post here... Maybe I can post them to a blog outside of here and let people read my design analysis somewhere else.

Again, thanks for the post, and hopefully I will have more organized and condensed versions of my thoughts that I'll be able to post right here.

 Smiley
Logged
Milky
Level 0
**

zzz


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: May 13, 2019, 10:15:46 AM »

Main Inspirations [2]

Sonic The Hedgehog 3 & Knuckles


So this is the big one. A huge game, technically spanning two cartridges, involving 3 different playable characters, and spanning 14 different zones. It has great spritework, an amazing soundtrack co-authored by Michael Jackson, and a bunch of heavily themed zones with a bunch of set-pieces. I'll have to break this one down a bit.

Spritework

S3&K has a bunch of intricate zones. They have lots of unique mechanics, all with unique and lively assets. The colorful parallax backgrounds, nice use of foreground elements such as foliage, and bouncy blinking sprites make many of the stages feel alive.

Though I neglected to put this earlier, it's very important to note the grand theme of "Natural vs. Artificial" in nearly all of the 2-D sonic games. The games balance lush green leaves with cold gray steel, and do it all to quite a nice effect. That dichotomy allows for quite the variety of level themes, with many different color schemes to add to that variety.

  • Gear Rotations
  • Blinking/Spinning Lights
  • Dust and Particles in Natural Environments
  • "Heatwave" Effects
  • Palette Swaps for "Darkening"
  • Faux Geometric Rotation

Music

S3&K is considered by some to have one of the best soundtracks on the Genesis, and it's pretty beefy. 2 songs for nearly every stage, a bunch of level and special stage music, and several more songs for the unique 2-Player race stages. This aspect will be better covered in the "Audio" section, but the main takeaways for S3&K are the use of percussion, how non-melody instruments fill out the sound, and the strength of the main melody.

Level Design

S3&K exhibits some of the most iconic and potentially interesting path design in the Sonic series, while also including some more linear and traditional takes to levels. It's worth mentioning that some levels have sections completely devoted to Knuckles, but ultimately, those sections tend to be linear and relatively straightforward.

The most interesting thing that this game does with its design is the frequency of nodes and branching paths. The player can skip some sections outright, have to repeat some, and simply fall into others. Thinking about a level such as Carnival Night Zone Act 1, you may be wondering just how nonlinear it was. Looking at it all at once however, should immediately make sense of its scale. I've included the maps here, but they are very large. The first is the map hosted on its source site, while the second is one which I've annotated with the colored unique paths, and stars around the "nodes" in the stage.

Note: Both of these images are very large
Carnival Night Zone Act 1 from SonicRetro (https://info.sonicretro.org/images/3/30/S3_map_CNZ1_raw.png) [14,336 × 3,200]
Carnival Night Zone Act 1 Annotated (https://i.imgur.com/rnnvQfY.jpg) [7,168 x 1,600]

The level is designed to allow the player multiple paths out of every node, each which are unique and contain their own type of challenge. Those paths are designed to link back up at specific points, giving the player progress while still allowing for a more open experience. Many of the levels in S3&K are designed in this way, and provide a number of benefits.

Design Choices
  • Present the player with skill challenges which changes their path
  • Have secrets which changes the players path
  • Allow the player to fall to paths below
  • Randomly mix up the players path
  • Lock off the paths with checkpoints and gates

Resulting Gameplay
  • The player can be rewarded through challenge with resources or a different path
  • The player is incentivized to engage with mechanics and try new paths
  • The player must learn some mechanics to progress
  • When in doubt, the player can always move forward (As long as they know which way that is)

To summarize, this is a relatively effective way of providing Sonic The Hedgehog the ability to explore. Sonic always wants to run forwards in both design and gameplay. Presenting the player with this level design is a bit like letting the player ski down a mountain. The player may take nearly any path they want, but essentially, all paths lead downwards, and all have some forward momentum. Aside from a few pitfalls, there are almost no places where the player can accidentally repeat content.

These are the kinds of levels that tend to be exciting and replayable. Once a player has learned the mechanics of the stage, they see new ways to interact with it. Getting better power-ups, finding secret stashes, and discovering the important large Rings are all things that the player gets to do once they become more proficient. And once proficiency gets even higher, players will try to take the optimal path, which may demonstrate the best use of mechanics, and feel the most rewarding.

https://youtu.be/yOM8JNOd6Dc?t=739
Carnival Night Zone Act 1 - Mike89 getting to the boss in only 38 seconds

Power-ups
There's a design here similar to SMB3 where having a power-up is simply better than not. Each power-up gives Sonic an ability which may even wish he had all the time.
  • Fire - Activating in the air pushes Sonic forwards. Also negates fire and lava damage
  • Water - Activating in the air sends Sonic straight downwards at which point he bounces. Also allows for breathing underwater
  • Electric - Activating in the air double jumps. Also attracts nearby rings

The shields also can block projectiles, but should be most noteworthy here is how each shield varies in utility. This rounding out of the ability really makes each power-up feel distinct, and as though the player might want different power-ups in different situations. The movement options granted by each are more or less effective in each of the levels shortcuts and paths. This means that there is no doubt that one would want a shield, but that the different shields provide benefits for slightly different playstyles.

Aladdin


People still discuss today whether Aladdin for the Genesis, or Aladdin for the SNES is better. While there are things to be gleaned from the SNES version, I'll just discuss a few things that I like about this version.

The Negative

Developed by Disney and Virgin Games, this Aladdin game has you moving a highly animated Aladdin across perilous jumps, slashing away enemies, and throwing a limited number of apples. Despite many issues, I find that this game has a number of redeemable qualities. The main mechanics are not too bad, but the presence of instant-kill pits makes this game have some pretty precise jumps. It also has no password system, meaning that it has to be completed in one shot, and developers during the "Rental" age were more than happy to have you rent again because you didn't complete the game yet.

The games punishing jumps, lack of continues, and timing challenges mean that the fun it provided was pretty temporary.

The Positive

Fortunately, the game has some great spritework, clean Disney animation, and its more atmospheric sections are nice. It feels grittier than its SNES counterpart, and extenuates that feeling with clever shading on its detailed foregrounds and assets. Ultimately it looks real nice.

To pay it some compliments on the gameplay side, the sword feels good to slash around, and has multiple ways to slash. The game also gives Aladdin multiple ways to jump, with a higher jump being produced when Aladdin stands still, and a horizontally faster jump when Aladdin jumps while moving.

But I haven't even gotten to my favorite part of the game.

Gems

Lastly, I really appreciate the games reward system with gems. It's potentially the games greatest feature. Each level contains red gems which can be collected  for use later in the Peddler's shop. While seemingly generic, the gem and store dynamic provide a strong baseline for providing the player with a deep mechanic that fosters a relationship with the game.

Although the difficulty of the game and inability to input a password are very limiting, they at least give the player an incentive to play well, but just as importantly, something to spend gems on. For 5 gems, the player can get an extra life. For 10 gems however, the player can get a "Wish" which serves as a Continue for 6/4/3 extra lives (Depending on difficulty). This system, despite only having 2 things to purchase, gives the player a direct choice. If the player only has 7 gems for example, they can get a single extra life now, or wait and get a whole Continue later. Even though that may seem straightforward, extra lives let the player continue from a checkpoint, while a Continue will always start the player at the beginning of the level.

Not the most dynamic system, but its easy to see how the player can form a "Price vs. Value" relationship with the game. The gems will feel like they have a certain value in the player's mind, and that value may even fluctuate depending on the player's situation. The gems themselves are plainly placed in the stage, and are often a reward for going out of the way, completing a platforming challenge, or defeating an enemy. This means that the player gets very few gems for running straight through the stage, and far more for exploring the level and completing small challenges.

This gem system provides the player with small incentives. As a small reward, an individual gem can produce a small challenge, leading to more incremental level design which asks the player the simple question of "Is this gem worth it?" The shop with its meager two options actually communicates a choice to the player, and rewards them for thinking critically and playing effectively.

Although fighting hard for extra lives isn't the most fun thing to do at times, this simple resource system adds depth to both level design through gem placement, and a good "shopping" dynamic. These two things work hand in hand to give the player a reason to get gems, and to encourage them to play more wisely throughout the game.

Toy Story


Although it could be just as punishing as Aladdin, Toy Story is one of the most impressive games of its time. It features 18 levels which consist of traditional platforming challenges as well as several bosses and minigames. The graphics were very impressive at the time especially since many of the objects which rotated as if they were 3-D. There was also a whole level which rendered a somewhat 3-D environment where the player had to collect Aliens, and multiple driving sections, one of which rendered distant objects at different levels of zoom.

The Negative

Unfortunately, this game has been criticized for having some dull gameplay, but it tends to make up for it in its variety. The 2-D Woody sections are relatively linear, and the driving sections can be very difficult. Couple that with the "one-shot" lives system, and you have a game which is pretty difficult to beat in one sitting.

The Positive

Just like Aladdin, impressive visuals tend to offset gameplay issues for Disney. Many of the sprites here are based off of models, and as such, can rotate and twist, and they end up looking pretty detailed. Some of the sprite-work is nice, and there are some imaginative themes for the levels. I especially enjoy the use "3-D" objects as projectiles, as the rotations are always nice to look at.

Technologically, the game is really quite amazing. There's good uses of Mode-7, parallax scrolling, and the "Faux 3-D" effects used in certain levels. This game also does a bit of a "Mode-7" trick on the sides of solid rectangular objects which I still don't understand, but would like to replicate.

Difficult as it was, the game does provide some interesting gameplay scenarios. Woody cannot defeat most enemies, but instead can entangle them with his whip, preventing them from doing damage. It's a nice way of thinking about the world in this imposing way, where Woody must make it out of a jam, dodging hazards and foes alike.

In this same way, the game features a pretty interesting boss, "The Claw". While it does have several distinct points of health, the player does not damage it simply hitting it with Woddy's string. The player must wait for The Claw to grab Buzz, at which point the player must whip an Alien into the air and then whip it again to hit The Claw. It can be a difficult boss for newer players, but it's this kind of lateral design that makes the boss so memorable.

Toy Story's atmospheric and sometimes muted colors do a good job of selling the experience. The huge platforms and structures with the use of Mode-7 really make the world feel huge. Ultimately, Toy Story has a great atmosphere. Despite it having some boring sections, and also being quite a punishing game, it's still impressive for its technological achievements and overall feel.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2019, 01:37:07 PM by Milky » Logged
Milky
Level 0
**

zzz


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: May 16, 2019, 12:28:13 PM »

Music [1]

The Strengths of the Genesis

The Sega Genesis and Mega Drive mainly used a Yamaha YM2612 sound chip. I think as a general rule, the examples of this chip being used to its fullest potential are relatively slim. Especially with the tools we have in the current day and age, it is far more possible to extract value from the chip. For this project, I've selected the VGM Music Maker made by Shrio.

VGM Music Maker - (https://battleofthebits.org/lyceum/View/Vgm+Music+Maker/)

VGM Music Maker is a music tracker for the YM2612 chip with some added features.
  • 6 Channels of FM Synthesis
  • 3 PSG channels
  • Sample Support

To put it simply, this program will allow for the relatively quick creation of instruments and tracking, as well as supporting samples for things such as percussion or voices. As an example, carpathia808's deconstruction of Chemical Plant Zone gives a good idea of how each channel may be used.




Chemical Plant Zone - Oscilloscope Deconstructed by carpathia808

As I experiment more with the program and learn how to better synthesize some instruments, I should be able to determine what kind of audio I can expect. The program is pretty robust, and I look forwards to testing its capabilities.

Musical Inspiration

There's tons of things that go into musical inspiration, video game music or otherwise. I try to expose myself to new kinds of music as well as listen to videogame soundtracks from all eras. For now, I'll mainly post good examples of music from the age of the Sega Genesis.

"Empty" Music

With so many limits on the creation of instruments and composing of songs, many games in the 16-bit era sounded relatively generic. It took good composers and a lot of effort to really get desired sounds out of both the Sega Genesis and the SNES. When done poorly, I feel that many of the songs of the age sound quite a bit emptier than they should have, and only songs that fit their empty style could get away with such a lack of sound.

Take for example, two songs from Aladdin. The first is "Prince Ali", an otherwise great song, hampered by what I can only imagine was the inability to do to much with the song from a license standpoint.




Aladdin - Prince Ali

It's a bit of a cheap shot, but in this instance, we have an example of what this song is supposed to sound like: The song in the movie. Comparing the bombastic and grandiose image and sound of the film to this song makes it appear flimsy, quiet, and relatively ineffectual. Again, based on what some of the other songs in the game sound like, I suspect that the songs based on film songs were restricted in some way to only really provide the melody.

Now compare that to an original song for the game, Camel Jazz:


If we're being honest, this song also barely uses any instruments during a good chunk of its duration. But it's different not just because it isn't standing in another song's shadow, but because it sounds far more intentional. It's smooth and jazzy, with an intro that lets the opening chords accompany a simple percussion line. It's simple, but it's effective. This style fits the "amount" of sound that is being put out, and ends up being one of the game's best songs.

Filling out the Sound

Despite the average track being lacking, there are of course examples of great compositions that really sound "full". Note that this doesn't necessarily mean that more instruments is better, or that the song being louder is more effective, but that every instrument is used, and used properly.

The largest factor for filling out sound is the percussion and bass line. Many songs lacked either one or both of these in their song, which is what tends to make a song feel empty. A good example of both is Hydrocity Zone Act 2. Although not every song deserves chest-thumping bass or loud drums, many songs feel relatively lifeless compared to a song like this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WR3Eh_516JQ
Sonic 3 & Knuckles - Hydrocity Zone Act 2

It shouldn't be overlooked that percussion and a bassline are not just for bombastic and energetic songs like Hydrocity Zone Act 2. The "background" instrumentation is still the bulk of the sound in calmer and quieter songs and needs to be chosen just as carefully. Column Dive is a relatively relaxing song, but still makes great use of percussion and the classic Genesis bass guitar as an almost backup melody.


Inspirational Tracks

Since it's easy enough, I'll take this moment to detail a few of my favorite tracks from both the Sega Genesis and the SNES. I continue to listen to all kinds of music for inspiration, but I'll simply post the videogame tracks here. I'll mention something I like about each, and what I feel can be gleaned from the song.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slKNBP7VEvI
Forest Interlude - Donkey Kong Country 2

Regarded as one of the best videogame soundtracks ever, it's difficult to pick a single song from DKC2. If you can block out how well the song is arranged for a bit, you can come to appreciate just how good each instrument is. All instruments fade into the ambiance, the sound swells to an a brilliant roar, and the main melodies are all clear. The whole soundtrack is excellent at setting atmosphere, and this song shows several ways in which to set the mood for an environment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLOTT8wRsVI
Volcano Valley Zone Act 2 - Sonic 3D Blast (Mega Drive)

To contrast Forest Interlude is a grittier and sharper ambient track from the Sega Genesis. Video game music is some of the only music which is planned to constantly loop, and the more ambient tone of 3D Blast fits that looping relatively well. It's more droning instruments and soft but repetitive percussion make this lava stage feel both dangerous and natural.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIFMRGOV-Kg
Funkotronic Beat - ToeJam & Earl

The Toejam & Earl soundtrack may be one of the better examples of the Genesis' sharp sounds being a boon rather than a grating annoyance. Most of the instruments and the percussion are staccato, which a strong bass that feels pretty twangy. As a relatively chill beat to explore a level (And you could be exploring for awhile), Funkotronic Beat manages to be my favorite. It also has the unique riff of Toejam & Earl where each song enters a "Breakdown": most of the bass removed, with added hard-hitting drums and record scratches. This is another good example of silence being less of a hindrance, and more of a style choice.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrI1vri1JTA
Cave - Tiny Toon Adventures - Buster's Hidden Treasure

I chose this track for a few reasons. It's kind of wild, and has some strange instrumentation, but it does a lot with it. I admit that I don't really care for instruments jumping around your ears, but I think that the song has a lot of potential. If you've listened to some other more percussion-rich songs, you may in fact feel that this song is literally missing a channel for it. The song is decent, but I think that it falls short of an even greater ambiance due to the complete lack of beats keeping up the tempo. The bass and high-pitched percussion do a decent job, the song isn't as colorful as it could be.

Tons More

I could probably post at least 20 more tracks, but I may leave that for a different day. Hopefully I've articulated myself well, and that I'm moving towards a better understand of this music and music as a whole. Please feel free to let me know your favorite tracks or your thoughts on this music either here or in a direct message, I'd be happy to discuss them. In time I hope to be posting some of my original compositions on here as a look into what the game's soundtrack will be like.
Logged
Dr. Büni
Level 0
***



View Profile
« Reply #6 on: May 16, 2019, 01:01:40 PM »

Kid Chameleon plus Kirby and the Snes/Genesis Toy Story are some amazing inspirations for a game. Wishing you luck, and color me interested. Also, that video on the Chemical Plant music track is extremely interesting.
Logged
Milky
Level 0
**

zzz


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: May 21, 2019, 01:11:02 PM »

Power-ups and Pitfalls

This section is seriously a work in progress so I'm not going to nail down a summary right now. Ultimately, it's about how to shape and prioritize the different parts of the work so that they work well together.

For games with power-ups, there are several aspects to the gameplay.

  • "Universal" Player Ability
  • The Power-ups
  • The Level Design
  • The Stage Design

For now I'm going to focus on the first two: Universal player ability and the power-ups.

"Universal" Player Ability

Every 2-D platformer has some set of abilities that the player has access to (almost) regardless of the other states which they are in. Mario can run and jump, but can only break blocks when large. The Kid can jump and climb corners, but can only climb walls as The Knight. Shantae can whip when in her normal form, but can wall-jump and dash in her Monkey form. Kirby can always fly (Even in Cupid and Bird form), but has much better attacks when powered up.

Each transformation for the player-character often adds abilities, but can sometimes take abilities away. It's very important to highlight the dynamics that each of these games have, as they very directly affect the kind of level design that can and should be created.

Power-ups - Strictly Better

This dynamic is found in many of the games, most notably the older installments in the Mario series. Having a mushroom is strictly better than having no mushroom in nearly every case. Having a fire flower is better than just having a mushroom in nearly every case. Even in the newer Mario games with multiple "good" power-ups, "smuggling" an Ice Flower to a level without it isn't very significant. Despite having some choice there, all of the second-tier power-ups are better than simply not having one, so this tends not to be the outlet for gameplay variety.

Pros
  • Getting power-ups feels good
  • Tiered power-up systems reward skilled play
Cons
  • Linear power-up system with no real choice
  • Often accompanied by level design with little choice

Power-ups - Tool-Kit

This is the system often present in Metroidvanias such as Shantae and Monster Boy. You collect different transformations over the course of the game which you can switch to at almost any time. Level are specifically designed around what power-ups the player has, often with specific elements which can only be interacted with using a certain power-up. Often in this system, each power-up has a strength, and the player can switch between them to use each strength appropriately.

Pros
  • Metroidvania sense of progression
  • Specific levels made for each power-up
  • Player gets to use their toolkit effectively
  • Tight and cohesive design
  • Rewards understanding of each power-up
Cons
  • Power-up design can end up being limited
  • Often accompanied by linear level design
  • "Back-Tracking" is often the extent of non-linearity
  • Choice is not usually a factor

This kind of design deserves a larger analysis than I will give here, especially at how effective it is in the experience it does try to deliver. Games like these are great at providing variety to the player. Speaking just on Monster Boy and the Cursed Kingdom, there is pretty much a whole section dedicated to a new monster once it has been acquired. The player then gets to use that Monster, whenever appropriate, for the rest of the game.

The issue with this kind of design is not that the gameplay is easily executed, but that it is easily figured out. In fact, it's often quite literal in how it is communicated to the player. The Snake climbs the snake walls. The Elephant breaks statues. The Ice-Fire power-up breaks the only Ice-Fire barrier in the game. While this design occasionally presents ambiguity in some situations, there is often no exploration in how to solve a problem.

And make no mistake, I don't think that this design would be better off with more difficult execution. That isn't the issue. The issue is that simple nonlinear obstacles are beaten through simple nonlinear thought. This affords consistency of player experience, but sacrifices player expression, and tends to forgo deeper and freer level design.

To be more succinct, linearity is an essential tool in ensuring players have the same necessary experience. But linearity in path design ensures that there is only one path to take. Linearity in power-up design ensures that there is no question of what power-up is right for a given situation. Designers sometimes feel pressured to make certain things more simple so that no one will get left behind or frustrated by a given challenge. While simplicity and linearity are great tools for certain parts of games, I don't think that they should necessarily be the whole design.

Power-ups - Mutual Exclusivity

This kind of design is simple, and is what we think of when it comes to Mario and Kirby games. The player can only have one power-up at a time and (usually) has little to no way of storing power-ups. This means that the player often has to choose what power-up they're going to take for the challenges ahead of them.

I've saved this one for last not because I'm about to present the design of Kid Chameleon (or my own game for that matter) as a design free of pitfalls and a direct improvement on the other designs. In fact, this design has many potential issues that the other designs deftly avoid. There's a reason Mario gets strictly better, there's a reason Kirby can always fly, and there's a reason nearly every power-up in these games gets better by doing better damage.

Specifically in most Kirby games, Kirby's power-up is mainly a definition of where Kirby can do damage, and how much damage Kirby can do. The Fire power-up breathes out Fire in front of Kirby, doing a steady stream of damage. The Hammer power-up allows for a very powerful swing, but that has a considerable wind-up animation. In Kirby games, Kirby doesn't change much, he usually just gets a hat that tells you how you do damage.

This design offers more player expression by allowing the player to have a "favorite" power-up. They can do their best to obtain power-ups they like, and keep them as long as they can. In Kirby, taking damage does not always result in losing your power-up. And even if it is ejected from Kirby, Kirby can swallow the power-up right back up, only fulling losing the power-up on a death. It's clear that HAL values the player's choice especially when they allow the player to get one of three power-ups before a boss fight if they would like.

The design combines with the nonlinear level scheme to allow the player even more gameplay variety. Some power-ups are faster than others like the Wheel, and can be used to zoom through certain sections quickly. Some power-ups have ranged damage that passes through walls, allowing Kirby to hit distant switches. Others are "strong" and have the ability to break stumps or blows to get rewards or access different paths.

If you can reduce these kinds of abilities to key-words, it means that each ability in Kirby is not only stylistically different in its damaging abilities, but also has unique ways of interacting with the environment.

Pros
  • Player expression in power-up choice
  • Better rewards experimentation
  • Levels can be designed with keywords in mind
  • Player choice can be rewarded and challenged in different ways
Cons
  • Potentially harder to playtest
  • Harder to balance (Can have very high power spectrum)
  • Levels often must be designed for any power-up obtainable beforehand, leading to potentially watery/unfocused design
  • Must handle player relationship with rewarding/challenging every possible choice

Before I get to how I would handle this kind of design, I'd like to highlight how Kirby's design deals with these pitfalls. A key part of Kirby's power-up design is due to the two factors which I've already mentioned.
  • Kirby can fly
  • Power-ups are mainly "How does Kirby do damage?"
These are seemingly simple design choices which have pretty far-reaching impacts on the game. Firstly, Kirby being able to fly means that no vertical area is inaccessible to Kirby. Compared to other 2-D platformers from the Genesis era, Kirby is far more player-friendly in this regard. Some games had huge vertical sections where a player could fall a lose tons of progress. They had difficult jumps which became frustrating especially with enemies present. And lastly, they had platforming sections which were difficult to understand, and obtuse secrets with very little way to understand how to access them.

Secondly, all Kirby power-ups being able to do some form of damage ensures that Kirby is never "useless". Although some power-ups do more damage than others, they are all pretty reliable. This is most easily seen in Kirby and the Crystal Shards, where all of the power-ups are pretty much defined by how they defeat enemies. This gives many of the games their consistency, ensuring that the player can always tackle the obstacles in front of them.

So I think HAL has done a good job of designing Kirby in a way that players have a consistent experience, have very little chance to get frustrated, and understand the obstacles in front of them. Kirby and the Crystal Shards is actually most impressive to me because of how it let you mix-and-match power-ups. It combines Kirby's original design with the two-tiered design of Mario: Get one power-up, and last long enough to combine it with another. It's a great way of exploring all of the different power-ups that you can obtain, and also tends to be decently balanced (Until you figure out how good some of the best power-ups are).

What A Pitfall is Worth

Kid Chameleon is also a game where power-ups are mutually exclusive, but I wanted to talk about it last, as it's the design that I am primarily launching off of.

Kid Chameleon is a cult classic by nature because it is a game which has some frustrating lows which have to be pushed through to get to the mystical and rewarding highs. It's definitely a game of its time for several reasons.
  • Lots of precision platforming
  • No checkpoints in levels
  • Lives system which kicks you back to the beginning after a Game Over (Once you have no more Continues)
  • Long vertical and horizontal sections
  • Instant-Kill pits
  • Vertical design fighting against very little vertical visibility

Now many games avoid the more negative aspects of platforming as shown previously, but it is the safer design and not the avoidance of pitfalls that ends up avoiding a design like Kid Chameleon's. Put shortly, good design doesn't necessitate awful drawbacks.

Because this is about lots of parts of design which work together, this section is going to be a bit of a ramble for now.

Life/Continue System

Things like punishing lives systems and large losses of progress on death are not really a healthy part of these old games' design. They're choices that were put in older games to discourage quick completion and have you renting the game over and over, not really to give you a healthy sense of challenge.

So do lives and Continues have a place in any design? I think the prevailing wisdom in recent years is a definitive "no". Lives and Continues are seen as a vestige of old design, and purely a result of unfair and lateral motives.

I think the best to do when you encounter a system that seems wrong or poorly executed is to see if it had positive outcomes which do not necessitate that very system. For example, you may want to make your game thrilling. exciting, and risky, but you don't necessarily need to give the player limited lives to do. In this way, you can start to think about a system that achieves similar positive dynamics, but isn't so intrinsically related to the negative dynamics.

Ultimately I think this system does a "great" job of amplifying the loss that the player feels. A mistake that sets you back a bit isn't so bad, until you realize that you're one life closer to getting a Game Over.

The overall psychology of loss (especially in games) is pretty complicated, but I think the best way to evaluate the dynamics present in a design is to think about how your players evaluates their situation and the decisions which they can take. As much as I advocate for choice, I feel like losing a life in many games is a statement of "Okay do it again, but better this time" which can feel claustrophobic. It can be healthy and potentially exciting to try a challenge again as you learn more about it (IE: The whole Rogue-like genre). But that kind of design facilitates that because the player doesn't know what's going to happen next.

When your player feels like they have failed "so badly" at a challenge, and cannot think of a new way to approach it, they are at a loss. There is nothing more defeating than the feeling of "I've done all I can" which is exactly what most difficult linear games end up doing. This feeling is offset in many games in a number of ways, but how can you offset that in a platformer if the only way to go is forwards?

I think that not only non-linearity is key here, but overall choice as well. Differing paths can be nice, but I think giving the player more choice over the kinds of power-ups they can take makes an effective combination for giving the player an "out". If you copy Kirby's design here, a player can lose to a boss, and then try a different power-up out of the 3 presented and try again. This doesn't just help give the player a new angle on the challenge, but the player gets to explore and experiment a bit when they otherwise would not have. I think this kind of design affords the player a lot of interesting options.

  • Currency which can be collected over the course of a level
  • "Vending Machines" which sell lives or power-ups for currency at start of level/checkpoints/boss
  • Trading lives for power-ups and vice versa
  • Allowing the player to go "backwards" to avoid a level
  • Allowing players to skip certain challenges
  • Always offering an easier path when a difficult path is present
  • Offering very strong power-ups for a high price
  • Rewarding players for not taking a power-up
  • Mini-games which reward players with power-ups and currency (Similar to S3&K)
  • Rewarding the player for restricting themselves

It's important to note that all of these could be incorporated into a level at some point. Even if a player has just lost a life and has to do a whole level over again, these kinds of relationships with the game allow the player to get themselves out of a sticky situation. And they are all important in empowering the player to make decisions instead of making them feel like they have run out of options.

Precision Platforming

Especially with games like Kid Chameleon, platforming feels most "precise" due to frequency and setbacks. Singular precise jumps are not an issue, especially when players are attempting to solve a problem or clear an obstacle in a creative way.

Precision platforming still has a place in the design for this project because it is still fun and exciting when removed from its more punishing aspects. It is not necessitated by any part of the design, and it is not difficult to envision a game where the jumps are generally easy, but I lean towards allowing players certain paths with more difficult platforming.

Checkpoints

I think checkpoints are a great way of solidifying the experience of a level without disrupting it. Particularly I feel that Sonic 3's checkpoints were very interesting. Hitting a checkpoint was a accompanied by a nice ping, and did not need the player to stop or slow down in any way to get it. You barely notice it until you die, at which point you're pretty happy that you hit it even if you forgot about it.

I admit that it can be disrupting to the flow of the game however. Not because it sets you back necessarily, but because it's disorienting. It's more a problem in Sonic games where the player is potentially shooting past landmarks, but Mario games tend to be pretty understandable. It may be worth thinking about how a player might just continue right where they are, possibly at some cost.

Overall, checkpoints are an effective way of making large sprawling levels without having to kick the player all the way back to the start when they make a mistake.

Raw Difficulty

Combined with a punishing lives system, is just plan and simple difficulty. Some of the enemies specifically in Kid Chameleon are fast, plentiful, and shoot projectiles. Getting through alive is bad enough, but getting through with your power-up intact can still be a challenge.

It should go without saying that I'd very much like to tone down how difficult things are in some of these games, but I'd still like to create some very difficult challenges for more skilled players which are far more optional. This is a project that I hope will be good at facilitating multiple playstyles, and multiple skill levels. Difficulty has its place, but I'd prefer to reserve it to certain paths, secret levels, but more importantly, keep the "easiest" path visible and clear.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2019, 07:17:47 AM by Milky » Logged
Milky
Level 0
**

zzz


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: May 22, 2019, 01:13:21 PM »

The Flow of Levels

As games advanced through the Genesis era, they got far more varied level shapes. A level's shape, size, and boundaries define the kind of flow that is experienced by the player. It gives and takes from the enemies, hazards, goals, and objects in the level in order to give the player a solid gameplay experience.

Level Shape

I like to look at level maps for certain games to get a "big picture" sense of how they work. I'd like to highlight some basic level shapes.

Shape - Rectangular


Full Size - https://i.imgur.com/Me1Sdyt.png
Super Mario Bros. 3 Level 5-3 (Source: Rick Bruns)

I purposefully picked a Mario level that winds back on itself, but the idea is pretty much intact. In levels with one fixed direction and one dynamic direction, you don't have much of a choice but to go forwards. This is how most levels in Mario operate, even in the "New Super Mario Bros." series. The experience is tight and relatively controlled, leading to a pretty consistent experience between players.

Make no mistake that these games still have secret rewards like Tanooki Suits, P-Wings, and Magic Flutes. But due to the nature of the levels, they're often relegated to the classic "Jumping over the level" procedure as in the original Mario warp pipe access.

Shape - Box


Full Size - https://i.imgur.com/tXScIn9.png
Aladdin - Level 4 Sultan's Dungeon (Source: Tymbrimi)

To bump up the scale, we can jump 5 years later to an Aladdin level. Although definitely still rectangular, it more closely resembles a box in the way it has the player go through both horizontal and vertical sections. There are small alcoves that you can access along the route with extra enemies, rewards, and the Peddler's Shop.

But ultimately, despite creating such a different line of flow, the level tends to be only slightly less linear than a traditional Mario level. So it almost seems like the size was used for impressive scale for the level, to incorporate vertical platforming, and to add in small "offshoots" for small exploration.

Level Flow

It should be obvious that most shapes can still be pretty linear. So it's important to truly understand the level dynamics which actually create a nonlinear experience, but still can create an experience nonetheless.

Flow - Sonic's "Ski"

As shown in the previous section on inspirations, I think there's some interesting things about Carnival Night Zone Act 1.


Full Size - https://i.imgur.com/rnnvQfY.jpg
Sonic 3 & Knuckles - Carnival Night Zone Act 1 (Source: SonicRetro)

If you can manage to see the lines I've drawn on this massive map, you can see that there are tons of spots on this image that aren't very linear. At these spots, the player can...
  • Choose between more than one path
  • Rise/Fall into a different path
  • Have the game "randomly" decide your path
  • Find secret paths and rewards
  • Skip large sections of the level

From that list of options, the implications on the gameplay become somewhat obvious. The player is able to...
  • Experience good variety on repeat plays
  • Choose a different path after failing
  • Skip sections of the level when needed
  • Find secret paths and rewards
  • Lose their sense of direction when switching paths or exploring
  • Feel "stuck" in certain paths

Now this would be a home run of design if it weren't for those last two factors. You can also throw in "Having to create a ton of content to constitute paths", but that becomes less and less of an issue when the player explores and replays the game.

There's a somewhat common experience that people playing Sonic have in certain levels: they are often unsure of which way they should be going. As you can see with this level, "go right" isn't always a proper instruction. Strangely enough, "go higher" isn't always the solution either, and isn't even required in some of the faster, lower paths. To put it simply, without proper guidance, level design like this can leave players unsure of what to do, which is often an even worse thing than it sounds. A lost player is more likely to...
  • Spend far more time and less productive time in the level
  • Run out of time (A "Time's Up!" in many older games)
  • Backtrack and actually lose progress
  • Encounter more hazards and enemies, increasing the chance of a mistake

It should be obvious what this does to the experience.
  • Stops being immersive
  • Pushes the player out of their flow state
  • Makes the player feel unsure/anxious
  • Angers/Frustrates the player

But many of you may be thinking that you've never really felt this way during this level. Maybe you've never felt lost in a Sonic game at all. This is probably because of all of the ways that this level (and other levels in general) are able to communicate directions to the player. The design does this in both obvious and subtle ways.
  • Literal gates popping up to block backwards progress
  • Literal sign-posting or arrows
  • "One-Way" obstacles which are difficult or impossible to go backwards through
  • Color changes to indicate proper direction
  • Background layers to express different environments (EX: Indoor/Outdoor)
  • Paths of currency or rewards
  • Directional consistency (IE: Certain things always face towards or away from approaching direction)
  • Changes in music, or presence of certain audio
  • Lighting

I only say subtle because they are subtle in nature despite having a huge impact in player psychology. When you need direction you often pick up on hints, no matter how small, in order to make a decision. All of these techniques (and more) can add some much needed color and direction to facilitate a game which is less linear and more exploratory.

In this way, Sonic tends to make a kind of "ski" design for its levels. Paths may be different in length and challenge, but they all give forward progress. There is almost never a path which makes the player repeat content that they already have, and (as long as good direction is preset) the player often knows which way to go. It's very similar to skiing down a mountain: There are tons of different trails and even ways you can go down those trails, but they all essentially lead downwards towards the end. This establishes a relationship with the player where they can always feel confident about moving forwards, no matter if that is left, right, up, or down.

It's worth noting that this kind of design is still important even in heavily exploratory games like Metroidvanias. Although you won't always be "skiing" forwards, you still need to guide your player effectively and only have them backtrack for good reasons, instead of being because they're utterly lost.

Flow - How to Get Lost

Speaking of being lost, here's "Nightmare Peaks II" from Kid Chameleon.


Full Size - https://i.imgur.com/o2a35G0.png
Kid Chameleon - Nightmare Peaks II (Source: DarkWolf)

In a this level you start almost in the mid-left of the stage, while the goal flag is surprisingly in the top left. If you proceed right, you’ll be taken through a gauntlet of platforms and traps, which ultimately end you up almost back where you began (or dead). The real answer is to get the “Cyclone” power-up and fly up a secret shaft to your left, or go right a bit, then fly over to the left, never seeing almost 70% of the level. Now there are certainly players who have not had issues with this level or others, but their prevalence in Kid Chameleon means that open-ended level design was not necessarily supplemented with trust.

Although it can tantalize with far off prize blocks, this level gives little to no guidance to the player. It's difficult for a player to decipher many levels in Kid Chameleon due to this tendency to mess around with the direction and flow of the level. But to be clear, the mix up is not the problem.

Flow - How to Go Anywhere

Although I could talk about the dozens of techniques one can use to guide players, I simply want to express how important that guiding is. When playing a game, the player has certain understandings about what to expect. When dealing with relatively simplistic 2-D platformer design, there isn't much to go off of, and changing the player's direction and adding different paths is a very easy way to confuse them.

When your player does not feel guided, it's important to remember that the key issue is trust. If your player always feels like there is a point to what they are doing, they probably won't be worried about it, no matter what it is. And when your player feels like the game communicates something they can accomplish, the game will lose that trust when it turns out that it cannot be accomplished.

Does the player think that they’re going the right way in the level? Do they think that they’re going the right way in the stage? Does a path which appears more difficult give the player a shortcut, a reward, or an even harder challenge? Is it possible to go backwards? Without arcane knowledge, all these questions are relatively up in the air, and can only be figured out by rigorous testing, or intentional design. You may have communicated these things effectively with your design, but I believe that above all, the average player is going to vibe with your game less if they are punished for poor communication.

Nightmare Peaks II could be a great level with more guidance. Showing the player the rewards that they can get by playing the level more, making the power-up more difficult to get, or at least showing them the easy path would all be steps that I feel are in the right direction. It isn't a bad level because of all of its weird paths, it's a frustrating and punishing level for how little it communicates to the player.

Flow - Trust

"Getting lost" is just one way in which the player will lose trust in the game, becoming angry and frustrated, and give up. There are tons of ways that seemingly interesting systems communicate with the player poorly and fail to foster attachment. Many of them boil down to treating the player unfairly, or failing to meet their expectations. In this endeavor, making sure the player knows what they're supposed to know, and finding some way to tell them when they don't, is crucial to developing trust.
« Last Edit: May 24, 2019, 07:03:44 AM by Milky » Logged
Milky
Level 0
**

zzz


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: June 04, 2019, 08:53:20 AM »

Map, Stage, and Level Structure

This game's structure is likely to be modeled after those of Kirby and Kid Chameleon. Although there is strength to more linear approaches, I think that something more along these lines is right for this experience.

I'd like to shortly detail the way that these games structured themselves from large scale to small, and show what kind of gameplay results.

Map/Stage Structure


Full Size - https://i.imgur.com/FZ6wATp.png
Kid Chameleon Map (Source: Kid Chameleon Wiki)

Looking at this map can very easily show that Kid Chameleon has a complex structure. Right off the bat, it communicates a number of dynamics.
  • A vaguely "Main" path
  • Alternate paths
  • Small shortcuts
  • Large stage shortcuts
  • "Cul-de-Sac" detours
  • Mutually exclusive levels

Kid Chameleon uses this structure to give the player choices, as well as vary the gameplay experience. But what's the difference between negative inconsistency and positive variety? This mostly comes down the context of the gameplay and the relationship that the player has with the game. It can be a bit rough to use Kid Chameleon as an example as not many players were sitting down to construct a map like this when the game originally came out. We can guess that there are very few, if any players which could construct the whole map, as they'd have to have identified all of the shortcuts and secret exits along the way.

So let's look at the pros and cons of this map assuming that we can give the player any degree of knowledge for it (IE: Between telling them almost nothing as Kid Chameleon does, up to handing them the completed map).

Pros
  • Player explores into mystical and unknown environments
  • Player is rewarded through replaying and experimentation
  • Player experiences variety through multiple playthroughs
  • Facilitates multiple exits in levels (And can facilitate multiple starts)
  • Facilitates larger range of playstyles through different levels

It's worth noting that many of these cons are potential, just as the pros are. They can be mitigated and dealt with good design, or hampered by bad design.

Cons
  • Player feels lost
  • Player is unsure of what to do
  • Player is unaware of alternate paths
  • Player (due to any number of factors) only tries one route over and over
  • Player attempts path which is too difficult or does not fit their capabilities/playstyle
  • "Optimal" routes arise (Easiest route, most rewarding, etc.) causing some content to be avoided

Communication - Feeling Lost

Again, not all of Kid Chameleon's design parts necessitate each other; you don't need to design a game just like Kid Chameleon to access its better qualities. Personally, I don't find much wrong with its overall structure other than how that structure is communicated to the player. For most players, they will have little to no idea of where they're going in Kid Chameleon's map. It's good that nearly all of the levels are taking you forwards, but the different level branches remain unknown to the player early on. The player can't know if one exit over another is preferred as they all look the same. This can be a good thing at times, forcing the player to engage with truly unknown content. But for playing this game more than once, it's often frustrating rather than rewarding.

I think this one is actually a pretty simple fix. It doesn't even require mindlessly rewarding the player for completing every level. But it's important to reward the player for what they do accomplish, and simply communicate to them how far they've gotten. Knowing you made it to level 53 of Kid Chameleon probably would've helped many players try again after losing late into the game. Maybe if they knew how much there was left, they'd know how close they've gotten and played again. You don't have to demystify everything, but subtle communication can go a long way to telling the player that their efforts are not in vain.

Communication - Alternate Paths

With the game telling the player almost nothing, the player can only learn from several repeat playthroughs. And as many people can attest, that's a pretty perilous way to learn about Kid Chameleon. Learning the wrong path in the later stages is simply taking that route and probably losing your whole run. Finding shortcuts is lots of trial and error, searching for holes in every wall and scouring every corner of an enemy-infested map. While a nice hunt for secrets is a solid staple of older games, it probably doesn't have to be so punishing.

Just as you don't have to demystify the map, you also don't have to demystify the levels and their paths. Something as simple as a communication of how many exits a level has can be a good start for enticing your player. The player can search around knowing that the level has more than one exit. They can rest assured when a level only has one exit that any exploration they do is rewarded with resources. And when they easily finish a level with multiple exits, they'll be interested in playing it again to find the others. It can hopefully be seen that Kid Chameleon has the kind of design that facilitates this kind of gameplay, despite its shortcomings. Kid Chameleon made a lot of interesting choices in its design, but I feel that it suffered greatly due to lack of communication.

Communication - Difficulty and Reward

There aren't many hard and fast rules about how to make nonlinear gameplay. You don't technically have to make mutually exclusive paths equivalent in any way. But it's obvious that inequalities in this regard tend to do more harm than good. As stated before, "strictly better" paths and paths which are too difficult can arise when the player gains a better understanding of the game. And overall, I think there's a balance between how much of your content you want to never be played again once a player is experienced.

I personally don't have a problem with some levels being avoided for the most part, but I'd like to keep that kind of dynamic to a minimum. I think that the best design is going to be one where even an experienced player has a reason to switch things up and take a path which they normally would not. Maybe some paths are gated by a resource, maybe some are so difficult that they require a decent power-up, and maybe others are simply not to player's liking.

Despite this, there's a much larger area where this matters, and it is not to the experienced player. You're much more likely to disengage a new player with frosty communication and punishing gameplay. The more info you give on mutually exclusive paths, the more they start to feel like distinct choices. Maybe the player perceives one path to be more difficult, but the other to be less rewarding. Maybe they perceive one path to be more beneficial to their current state. Maybe they're just looking for an easier time because they eagerly want to get to later gameplay. Maybe they don't care, and are more than happy to pick randomly now and then the other path later. Maybe they'll pick the harder path because they think they're not going to make it anyway, and this will allow them to learn about the harder path.

There's myriad reasons that your player might make a decision. But without information, that decision is pretty blind, and your player may not forgive you for an undesired outcome. The more info you give, the more that decision tends to be meaningful, and the more the player can own that decision.

Furthermore, the more you communicate that there is out there, combined with withholding WHAT is out there, the more you inspire curiosity in your player. This is, at times, what Kid Chameleon does poorly. It's interesting to wonder just how long the game is when you're 30 levels in, but that sense of wonder can be a bit nullified when what's out there is a level that knocks you over. The sense of scale can also be lost on the player if they have no way of knowing just how MUCH is out there, which can stop them from being excited about exploring it.

In short, Kid Chameleon's bast structure is a good template for a nonlinear platformer, but that design leaves a lot of its potential on the table when it communicates poorly to the player. It can communicate difficulty, reward, scale, and length to the player in order to get them interested in the game. With good balancing, you can facilitate even experienced players varying their repeat playthroughs so that all content is used effectively. Good communication is crucial for giving a new player a great first experience, while good balancing is crucial for helping all players feel good about playing your game again and again.

Level Structure

So where does "good balance" come from? That's a pretty complicated question, and has a lot to do with level design, so here I'll just address how level structure contributes to the balance of the game.

As a level incorporates more branches, optional content, and mutually exclusive content, they tend to get more and more imbalanced. Add to that the multiple exits and maybe even multiple starting points, and it's easy to see how a level can become unfocused.

To put it simply, the more exploration and branching paths come in, the more you're pulling back the lens of focus. A Super Mario Bros. 3 level has a pretty direct line, and you can be pretty sure that every player is going to have a similar focused experience. When you pull back that lens however, you start to facilitate a larger variety of experiences instead of one focused one. And again, those experiences can be great, or they can be really boring and frustrating. As you do that, you also must make more multifaceted and larger experiences as a result, where some work can potentially go to waste.

But I think that's what's so great about the nonlinear design. You start to move away from a more curated and linear experience and start to focus on creating more natural kinds of environments. For all of its faults, Kid Chameleon (and Kirby at times) tends to have wild and natural environments which let the player feel like they are truly exploring something mystical. They don't always have clear paths, and they aren't always very welcoming of the player (for better or for worse). This is one of Kid Chameleon's best qualities, and is worth preserving despite the risks of that unfocused and frustrating experience.

In short, multiple paths and exits, large open areas, and explorable areas are all good for facilitating less linear gameplay. And ultimately, this kind of design serves to give the player more varied situations to try out, and less linear gameplay overall. But this kind of design only opens the door to that new kind of gameplay. Whether that gameplay is amazing or awful is up to the level design itself.
Logged
Milky
Level 0
**

zzz


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: July 24, 2019, 09:13:37 AM »

    Traditional Platformer Pacing

    In the previous section, I attempted to explain how the level structure can quickly become complicated due to communication. The key factor there is not just communication with the player, but also a factor of pacing. Essentially, Kid Chameleon and other nonlinear games create looser and more varied pacing. Here I'll detail some ways in which I feel that structure created issues for Kid Chameleon, how linear games control pacing, and how a future game can control nonlinear pacing better.

    Linear Pacing




    New Super Mario Bros U - Stone Eye Zone by Family Games

    As explained in a previous section, the "4 steps" of Mario's level design give the game clean and concise levels, but it also very strongly dictates the pacing of those levels as well. That traditional structure gives Mario levels relatively distinct challenges over the course of the level, with small breaks in between each, as well as localized challenges.

    Looking at "Stone Eye Zone", we can see the Stone Eyes used as platforms, with enemies and Sand Geysers placed around them to create interesting scenarios. These challenges are decently linear (You must go from left to right) and have some variety in the way they can be tackled (Throw shell, bounce off enemies, fly over challenge with power-up).

    In this way, we can probably imagine that Mario's levels have some sort of "entertainment curve" (or pacing, or flow, whatever you would like to call it) like this.


    Full Size - https://i.imgur.com/KnTtQ4X.png
    Basic Flow Curve

    This model is good enough for us now, as games traditionally have the player getting better ("Player Skill" increasing) at core mechanics and understanding the game's story, themes, and mechanics better as time goes on.

    Although poorly drawn, we can make some assumptions using this graph that ring true for even the level "Stone Eye Zone". There is a spike in difficulty at the beginning, which often represents a player learning about the new mechanic that they are faced with. This immediate challenge can actually be tough depending on the player and the level, and can frustrate a player which simply doesn't understand what to do. Secondly, the player now know the mechanic, sill start on the level's challenges. These will increase in difficulty and complexity, possibly combining with other mechanics in order to make newer and more varied challenges. Lastly, there will be a large challenge, and then Mario's classic "flag pole" challenge. Once again, a player gets closest to the top of the curve at this most difficult challenge.

    Ultimately, there's quite a few things that this kind of design affords the player, and a kind of relationship it builds with the player regarding "how things work around here".

    Linear Pacing Summary
    • Each level starts at roughly "Easy" difficulty
    • The player learns a new mechanic
    • The mechanic is unique to this level
    • The levels are mainly rectangular and short

    If you looked at this list and noticed that some of these points aren't essential to a linear level, you'd be right. In fact, none of them are. It's very important to note that the design of Mario games (and games similar to Mario) is often very intentional, and these decisions are made for a specific experience. This kind of design is great at having players of all skill levels learn new mechanics and get to play around with them before they get boring. The linearity of these levels ensures that all players approach a problem from roughly the same starting point, thus having a challenge more appropriate for fine-tuning and testing.

    So it should be apparent that quite a lot of decisions go into this kind of design. But this curve isn't just for the scale of a single level. This aspect of experiences matters on multiple scales, not the least of which are the stage and map.

    Taking Breaks

    Although the curve above is a rough approximation for a Mario level, it is very important to understand how these curves actually fit together.

    For example, let's imagine that there are only 4 levels in this Mario World. You must do them in order, and they come one after another. It may seem like you can slap 5 curves together to make the overall curve, but this isn't the case. Mario let's you take a break, so to speak.


    Full Size - https://i.imgur.com/oe1yt32.png
    Four Curves with "Breaks"

    Between levels, a number of things happen (At least, in nearly all Mario games after Super Mario Bros 2).
    • The "Level Clear" jingle and reward
    • Return to the map
    • Unlock new level(s)
    • A bit of story or exposition
    • Enter new level with title screen

    These seemingly are minor things, but they are the paint on the actual "break" which is taking place. The player has an extended downtime between distinctly different levels, and the difficult returns to only be slightly higher than it was before. The graph isn't the best representation of this, but the blue lines represent a bit of a cool down where these things take place.

    This difficulty break is pretty key to Mario's more universal appeal and accessibility. The game isn't ramping up significantly on every subsequent level, in fact it's barely ramping at all. There is just an ever so subtle difficulty increase with each subsequent level facilitated by the player's success. The game can't expect you to know a mechanic you haven't learned yet, but it can expect that you're getting better with each subsequent level and mechanic beaten.

    These things may seem painfully obvious, but the art of moving an experience forward and keeping the player engaged are complex and of the utmost importance. Mario's engagement comes from this ability to throw new and interesting mechanics at you which facilitates "Learning" itself as a core mechanic of the game. The pacing which matches this dynamic is one of short levels, breaks between levels, and a subtle ramping up of difficulty.

    This curve can also be further zoomed out to the scale of the whole game, looking at the individual "worlds" of Mario, but that's relatively self explanatory.

    Non-Linear Pacing

    This is where things start to get pretty complicated, so I'll try to simplify my thoughts, but I'll probably gloss over some important things.

    For now, let's look at how those "painfully obvious" aspects of design are easy to understand, but difficult to execute on properly.

    In Kid Chameleon, and even games which aren't non-linear pacing has a number of issues. The largest of these issues tends to be the most basic: challenges are placed back-to-back with little to no breaks between. At the scale of levels, this is easily illustrated with the Kid Chameleon examples in other posts here. Kid Chameleon has a unique design which places more importance on the level structure rather than clean separation of challenges and advancement of learned mechanics.

    So it isn't quite non-linearity which affects the pacing so drastically, it is more the manner and timing in which challenges are delivered, and how mistakes and failures are handled which define the pacing of these games.

    And in this way, Kid Chameleon has some issues. I've gone over how it can be punishing, but it's important to note that Kid Chameleon's structure causes long stretches of difficulty that almost doesn't end. When a level ends, you simply have a score screen, and then the title card for the next level. There is very little time separating these actions, and the lack of direction in the game doesn't seem to help.

    Linear Pacing in a Non-Linear Structure

    But how do those kinds of things affect pacing? And is the goal to have Mario's pacing but with another structure? For my goals, not quite, but we can start taking a look at how you can start to bend Mario's structure into different shapes, and how far you can bend it before it breaks.

    The Goal of Traditional Pacing

    This goal is pretty obvious; keep the curve intact.

    The main deficits that any game comes to are usually producing too much challenge at one time or too little challenge at one time. Even an interested player can disengage with something due to these two very widespread complains with even critically-acclaimed games.
    • "There was a huge difficulty spike"
    • "I just couldn't get past this one part"
    • "[Insert Part Here] took forever and man was it boring"
    • "It made me go through all this boring garbage all of a sudden"
    [/list]

    And though this feedback may be frustrating to hear, it can be very valuable. This is essentially telling you as a designer that the game is losing momentum for this player. Maybe they have enough momentum to push through that part, but either way, it may have something to do with your curve.

    So traditionally, we like to have a relatively clean curve, filled with curves of different scale. The player is challenged, then relaxes, then is challenged again, and relaxes. So does a game like Sonic achieve this?

    Fitting to Non-Linearity

    This is essentially what is discussed in the post about "Flow", namely Sonic's "Ski" design. By using techniques which provide the player with a sense of direction, and having nodes always direct forwards momentum, the player is bound to go forwards in a level. We can even assume a level containing basic shapes and one-way paths to be roughly similar to Carnival Night Zone Act 1.


    Full Size - https://i.imgur.com/rnnvQfY.jpg
    Sonic 3 & Knuckles - Carnival Night Zone Act 1 (Source: SonicRetro)


    Full Size - https://i.imgur.com/JtL2ftS.png
    Basic "Ski" Diagram

    Each blue circle is simply a node, or a "Room" in the level where a challenge or reward is (In the Sonic diagram, most nodes are denoted by a large blue star). The paths connecting them direct the player which way to go. As you can see here, all of the paths direct the player forwards, but to different rooms. This means that the player has a shortest and longest path that they can go through. It also means that they can experience variety, and also probably choose the path that they'd like to go on (Depending on randomness and their skill of course).

    For example, If you consider Carnival Night Zone Act 1 itself, there's quite a number of routes which the player has to do a small platforming challenge to get to. This also fits with the general philosophy of most 2-D platformers: the higher route often takes more skill to get to and is more advantageous. Regardless, the player goes through one challenge, has a branch of paths, faces another challenge, then more paths, etc. Sonic is a great example for this as those "branches" tend to have sonic going very quickly, gaining speed for a jump, or doing something spectacular. In most Sonic games, this means that they are essentially breaks: A time for the player to relax and watch instead of critically evaluate. Although the game has become more non-linear, the curve has been retained.

    Range in the Curve

    So this approach is effective in a number of ways (Again, listed out in the "Flow" post), but let's list out its aspects for the curve regardless of positive or negative assessments.
    • A curve is produced on every unique path
    • The overall level has a shortest and longest path
    • The overall level has a "most difficult" and "least difficult"
    • The general pattern of Challenge/Break is retained

    Looking back at the Ski diagram, you can see how this design can produce many different experiences despite all being in the same level. As branching decisions tend to be, they create exponentially more possibilities, even if those possibilities are very similar.

    And if we look at every single unique path which you can take in a level, we can then imagine that every curve (roughly) falls in between the most difficult and least difficult curves.


    Full Size - https://i.imgur.com/z8B10VL.png
    The "Range" of Curves Non-Linearity Produces

    For this kind of curve, we can imagine that the top curve represents the fastest and most challenging route through a level. The bottom curve can then represent the slowest, but easiest route through the level. It should be noted that this dynamic doesn't have to be like this (The curves could even be flipped), but this is how things tend to be for most games. Playing the level incredibly fast takes more skill, and going through things slowly and often "as intended" gives you a cleaner and more appropriate challenge.

    So ultimately, a non-linear level like this does not have one curve, but many potential curves that the player can experience. The player will end up on a unique path, and the branches and challenges on that unique path will shape that specific curve. Looking back at the "Ski" diagram, we can imagine that you would want to make the challenges to the "Left" easy and introductory, and the ones to the "Right" of the diagram more difficult. You could even introduce mechanics just like a Mario level, so that you could also retain introduction of new mechanics and expand on them as the level goes on.

    Getting More Non-Linear

    So hopefully this post combined with the "Flow" post explains how a game like Sonic creates multiple paths and replayability while retaining a curve which is still pretty solid. Although Mario is famous for its introduction and expansion of mechanics, you can even see how that design philosophy can be mapped onto Sonic.

    But having explained all that, can you go even further? Is the "Entertainment Curve" so sacred that it cannot be changed, or can we start to bend it in order to make an experience more freeing and exotic than ones of the past?

    In the next post I'm probably going to ramble about non-linearity a lot so please bear with me. My thoughts on this haven't quite found their mark yet, and I spend each day thinking about how to mold the kind of experience I feel 2-D platformers could use. Non-Linearity is difficult to handle, and I hope that these write-ups but more importantly the project that I actually finish show a little bit about what this kind of design can be.
    Logged
    Milky
    Level 0
    **

    zzz


    View Profile
    « Reply #11 on: July 26, 2019, 01:13:35 PM »

    Non-Linear Pacing


    Kid Chameleon - Cyclone JP Art (Source: Kid Chameleon Wiki)

    So this is where the fun begins.

    I've struggled a lot with the idea that "Flow" is the optimal state in an experience and that an experience must follow the somewhat rigid curves that have been laid out in order to be entertaining or meaningful. But so far I don't have a ton of examples to fight the prevailing literature, and no grand case to make against it.

    So for now, I'd like to make the same assumption from before, that this sinuous curve is what you want your experience to be, and you want curves at multiple scales. But the important part about non-linearity is that we've expanded the range of experiences that players can have even moreso than an interactive medium does already. Not only do players have different skill levels and preferences, but now the level has different paths and options for those players to take and choose.

    In this section I'd like to highlight how non-linearity can actually focus pacing for individual players, thereby providing them a unique and more tuned experience.

    Basic Player Options

    Providing the player with options is nothing new, but we don't always think of providing a new option as providing a completely different path. That's probably because options for the player come in many different flavors, from the very surface-level, to deep customization.

    "Strictly Better" Options


    Kirby and the Amazing Mirror (Source: listal)

    "Strictly Better" is a term lifted from Magic The Gathering which means just what it sounds like. If one option presented to you is better than another in all ways defined by the game's rules, then it is "Strictly Better".

    If we look at Kirby and the Amazing Mirror, we can easily see that Kirby can obtain many different copy abilities, most of which have some way of dealing damage. Many of these abilities don't change the way that Kirby moves, so they are almost strictly defined by how they do damage, and how much damage they do. If one ability does more damage per second than another, is it strictly better? If it is, this would mean that some abilities in Kirby are simply not worth having if another ability is available. That would then mean that the player is essentially not making any meaningful gameplay choices, they just have to know which copy ability is "Strictly Better" than the one which they have now.

    Despite ragging on Kirby here, this issue is not that clear cut. Some copy abilities allow Kirby to zip through enemies during use, and deal damage. Some allow Kirby to use a projectile in order to do damage from afar. And others (as stated before) do end up changing Kirby's movement abilities a bit. And these things make it difficult to say that even a single ability in Kirby is truly "Strictly Better" than another.

    Intangibles

    What is going on here is that these copy abilities have intangibility to them.

    An "Intangible" is an attribute of something that can't be compared mathematically or spatially. Simply put, it's an aspect of something that can't be easily compared to other aspects.

    From the Kirby example, we can observe multiple aspects of the copy abilities that makes them "technically" impossible to compare.
    • How they change Kirby's movement
    • If they can make Kirby invincible at all
    • How they do damage (Projectile, breath, contact, beam, etc.)

    Looking at these things, you can see how each of them can't technically be used to say a copy ability is better. In fact, some players clearly prefer some abilities to others almost solely based on how they look and how they do damage.

    But again, I pick on Kirby for a reason. Many of the copy abilities in even recent games have a tendency to be similar in execution rather than delivery. There's often more creativity visually, but I feel that many of the abilities are lacking in actual meaningful differences, resulting in very samey feeling abilities. In this way, the abilities are likely to not stand out, and ultimately feel far too similar to each other. This diminishes both a feeling of depth and choice, as well as potentially feeling bland for even a casual player who might feel like the abilities aren't unique enough.

    So Kirby does in fact have some intangibility in its abilities, but its often small enough that it doesn't turn the abilities into much of a meaningful choice. Combine that with most abilities not changing how Kirby moves, and the abilities can feel a bit samey.


    League of Legends Summoner Spells [2009] (Source: Snow Fox)

    So when does intangibility work better? One of the best examples of intangibility comes from Multiplayer online battle arenas (AKA: MOBAs). Games like League of Legends have hundreds of champions but they can't be easily defined by how much damage they do and how much damage they can take. If they could, there would be very little reason to choose anything but the best champions and spells (You also pick two summoner spells from the set pictured above).

    Instead, many of the champions (and their abilities) are varied in ways which don't just apply direct to attack damage and armor.
    • Movement speed
    • Dashing and blinking abilities
    • Ability to move enemies and allies (Portals, carries, swallowing units, jumping to units)
    • Tangential damage (Burn damage, more damage to creeps instead of champions)
    • Tangential armor (Temporary shields, shielding turrets and creeps)
    • Healing abilities (Direct heals, passive regeneration, healing allies, lifesteal)
    • Crowd Control (Stuns, silences, pulls, roots, heal prevention, damage reductions)

    Some of those things even seem like they should be comparable like "burn damage", but even that happens over time, where a player could be healed in time to live. It would take an incredible supercomputer to look at every aspect of a game so big and figure out what 5 champions make the "best" team in the game.

    And even if that supercomputer could do it, it almost still doesn't matter. The point of intangibility isn't to make something impossible to compute. Intangibles are just things which make options meaningfully unique and allow you to expand the possibility space of some aspect of your game. They restrict the menace of a "dominant strategy" by providing the player with alternatives, which might mesh more with their playstyle and preferences rather than them simply not knowing what the "best" option is. There's nothing to "prefer" about doing less damage, but there is something to prefer in terms of style and personal strengths.

    Basic Paths

    So at first glance, paths aren't too different a choice from an ability or power-up. They're usually mutually exclusive, and you pick whichever one you think will be better or more fun. But while they may both be choices, we of course know that choosing a path is often a very meaningful decision both in and out of games.

    When I say path, I roughly mean a direction in any navigable field. Basically for a 2-D platformer, this is just "Left or Right" and "Up or Down". And knowing that, this may seem like a description of a bland decision to make. For example, any platformer that has let you pick a direction may not have had two paths that were even that interesting to begin with. And that's partially why it seems like making multiple paths is not a good endeavor.

    The Difference

    If you plopped your player down in a pit and gave them the option or "Left or Right", they're probably wondering what the difference is. Choosing a path isn't the same as choosing food off of a menu, because you have a lot less information about the two paths (Because, obviously, you haven't gone down either yet). You can maybe see some distance down any path by walking towards it, but you'll never really know until you start going down it. And needless to say, tons of paths even in 2-D platformers are one-way, meaning once you make your choice, you can't go back.

    The key issue here is that your player doesn't know the difference. You're often asking your player to make a choice between two possibilities that they don't have enough information on. They are unable to make an informed decision, and must make their best guess.

    The real issue here is with how the previous issue is resolved. If your player makes a poor decision, then the lens will be immediately (and rightfully) turned on the thing which put them in this situation: the game and its designer(s). And this isn't just an issue with basic decision-making. Many games have frustrated players because they made a "poor" decision before they had enough information to make an informed decision. This dilemma isn't even a 50/50 on whether your game will be good or bad, it's a 50/50 for if your player gets unnecessarily frustrated, or mildly tolerates something that they had to choose.

    Making "Not Knowing" Fun

    So that's the distinction I tend to draw here. Although choosing a path is obviously a "choice" a basic choice is where the player has the information that they need and its up to their judgement. Taking a path however is often a blind decision based on very little information, and is mainly guesswork.

    My personal goal however, is not to clear the fog of dynamics like this by giving the player all of the information that they need. Not only is it not very fun, but it ruins the mystique and sense of exploration that most games intentionally cultivate. Furthermore, the goal of your experience isn't to "Not frustrate" your player, it's to entice and engage your player using the tools available to you.

    There are many things which make paths distinct from each other, and I feel that a number of them are key to making a level both exploratory and replayable.
    • Length/duration
    • Difficulty
    • Reward
    • Where the Path Leads
    • Safety of the Decision (Or, ability to take both paths)

    Looking at things this way, it may even seem like there aren't many platformers that have distinct "paths" in their levels. This is partially because most don't, but also because others make their paths distinct enough to be significant. But Kid Chameleon has tons of these situations, which is partially why it's so important to make "not knowing" as fun as it can be.

    Handling Variance in Player Choice


    Full Size - https://i.imgur.com/RIHy8EY.png
    Kid Chameleon - Highwater Pass II (Source: DarkWolf)

    As the player is granted more choice and freedom, so shall the number of player experiences provided by your game increase (possibly exponentially). The more power-ups they can have, the more paths they can take, and the more places that they can end up increases the number of gamestates that have to be considered.

    Choice in Narratives

    Especially in narratively-driven games, this can be handled by using "beads" of choice: The options given for a choice balloon outwards for a bit to have a visible (If still small) effect on the game, then all of the outcomes curve back together to be roughly the same gamestate. Even more seemingly strange is when multiple options for a choice give next to no unique outcome, only to lead to the exact same gamestate regardless.

    These design decisions don't fit every game, but they games with highly-authored content very well. To expand narrative games is to make wholly new content, all new voicelines, and complete new storylines based on potentially minor decisions. In this way, narrative games reign in the vast scope of "story" and focus on telling a cohesive story while still doing their best to tallow the player meaningful interaction.

    Choice in Platformers

    Narrative games may seem vastly different than 2-D platformers, but they encounter very similar problems with content and gamestates. A choice is made meaningful to the chooser by all the ways in which it can affect things. In 2-D platformers (like the ones discussed here anyway), the player only really chooses what power-ups they get and which path they attempt to take. These choices seem small, but just like any other game, these choices can be made meaningful by providing real consequences and rewards for those choices.

    Here's a list of many mechanics I've seen in the games I've been inspired by. Although there may not be a single game that contains all of these aspects, one could very well make such a game.

    Choices in Platformers
    • Which path to take in a level
    • Which level to go to next (In-game portals, overworld maps, etc.)
    • Which power-up to use
    • To attempt a challenge for a reward
    • Which items to buy with currency
    • To unlock new paths/abilities with currency

    Although you might have a Mario game with only power-ups as a choice, there are many platformers that have succeeded simply by adding these aspects. And not just because they may add some sort of avenue for more skilled players, but because they may provide all players with an avenue for variety on repeat playthroughs.

    Making Every Choice

    The ability to choose at all is valuable, but it should be considered that choices can vary greatly in the player's mind depending on how they are framed, and what happens to the player as a result of their choice.

    Negative Results

    As a general rule, the more blind a decision is, the more someone will feel as if they were treated unfairly if things go poorly. This is (to put it briefly) one of the big issues with Kid Chameleon.

    In Kid Chameleon, there were tons of choices regarding which path to go in individual levels and tons of choice in what level to go to next. But you can easily demonstrate just how little the player knew about any of these things (On early playthroughs anyway).
    • The rewards in a level path
    • The difficulty of a level path
    • The length/duration of a level path
    • How many exits are in the level
    • The rewards in a stage path
    • The difficulty of a stage path
    • The length/duration of a stage path

    This list seems incredibly redundant, but I would argue that this is actually quite a lot not to know about the player's current situation. In fact, knowing even one of these things (especially relative difficulty of any of these things) would communicate quite a lot to the player.

    I would be the first to argue that not knowing a number of these things is actually positive, but knowing not a single one of them is probably not a good thing (At least, on a first playthrough with limited lives). I again rag on Kid Chameleon here, but I'm not sure that the issues here are fixed just by allowing the player unlimited lives or the password system introduced in later versions.

    Ultimately, when you "punish" the player for not knowing information that they can't really know, the player is not likely to see their situation as an unfortunate mistake, they're going to see it as punishment. And rightfully so, as the game that you've created was more than happy to have "I went down the wrong path and got bopped" as an outcome.

    And almost more important than the negative result in the first place, is the apprehension about future negative results. Depending on the challenges which your player faces in a game, doing poorly once may lead to future losses. This only furthers the player's frustration as they find themselves stuck in a situation that they couldn't have predicted.

    Positive Results

    While negative results are the player being frustrated and disengaged, positive results are the player understanding the effects of their choices and feeling engaged with the game. Positive results aren't necessarily the player having an easy time with the game, or getting a ton of rewards in the game, even though these things probably won't frustrate the player.

    The ultimate goal of any choice in this sense is to engage the player and have them feel more interested in the possibilities rather than less. This is again achieved by making the choices meaningful, even if they aren't hugely distinct.

    Here's a number of ways in which basic choices give the player both freedom and variety in their gameplay.

    Allowing the Player to "Bet" on Their Own Skill
    • Making "Continues" better value than "Extra Lives" (Aladdin example from earlier)
    • Putting items in risky places
    • Giving the player difficulty "ratings" for different content (And rewarding them more for harder content obviously)
    • Presenting completely optional content

    Encouraging Repeat Play and Experimentation
    • Making mutually-exclusive branching paths
    • Making power-ups and playstyles distinct and unique
    • Creating secrets (Including ones which are worth finding twice)
    • Giving enemies their own strengths and weaknesses
    • Including scores, highscores, and bonuses
    • Valuing individual choices as unique

    Most of those are self-explanatory, but I just wanted to better explain "Valuing individual choices as unique". This is often done by creating distinct categories and "modes" in which your game can be played, and then valuing each individual accomplishment. Games with multiple characters, multiple modes, and restrictive challenges allow players to have new ways to experience your game, which can help to round out the overall experience better.

    Lastly is "Accomplishment" and more skill-based things. I don't mean like traditional "Achievements", I mean valuing the things which your player accomplishes, whether that be through literal game rewards and consequences, or through extrinsic acknowledgement.

    Here's a list of things which can be rewarded, regardless of how it is rewarded.

    Encouraging and Rewarding Skill and Accomplishment
    • Time challenges (Per level, stage, whole game, etc)
    • Challenges to do things in a certain order/path
    • Per level challenges (Beat all enemies, collect all [item], never take damage)
    • Beating the game for the first time
    • Beating the game with a certain character or power-up
    • Beating the game under certain restrictions (Like Halo skulls, curses, etc.)
    • Persisting through a difficult challenge

    In the next post on player relationships, I'll start to explain how players respond to these dynamics and how to build a strong and enjoyable relationship with the player.
    « Last Edit: July 26, 2019, 01:29:07 PM by Milky » Logged
    Milky
    Level 0
    **

    zzz


    View Profile
    « Reply #12 on: July 30, 2019, 08:13:37 AM »

    Enemies and Hazards

    I need to pause here to discuss one other main aspect of levels before I move onto more level design. Here I'll discuss the ways in which enemies can input and output information based on game states, as well as more complex enemies which randomize their behavior to become tougher adversaries. This section attempts to explain how these enemies communicate their behavior to the player, as well as how each of these aspects of an enemy affect the player’s expectations and behavior.

    Enemy Aspects
    Enemies have several aspects (and attributes) which define them. Although some of them are obvious, others are subtler, and can communicate things to the player in a more nuanced way. Setting appropriate expectations can allow for effective communication with the player, allowing the game to present challenges with more variety and complexity.

    Aspect 1 – Body (Size, Shape, Color)
     

    Specter Knight Fights the Mole Minion

    The body and look of an enemy communicate a great deal before the player has even interacted with it. In Shovel Knight, these large knights (called “Mole Minions”) block an entrance way with seemingly no way to progress other than to defeat it. This is theoretically not even the first time that the player has seen this enemy, and yet it still communicates a few things to the player. In the Minion’s idle animation, it wraps its fingers around a staff-like weapon. It is larger than the player, muscular, and isn’t walking around, instead simply facing the player’s entrance. Now if we gather together several possible assumptions, we can make an educated guess about what this enemy is and what it will do.

    Assumptions
    • It’s an enemy
    • The player cannot simply walk past it
    • It will attack
    • It will attack with its weapon
    • The weapon is some sort of spear or staff
    • He may do close-range damage
    • It will have a good amount of health (tanky)
    • We must defeat it to progress

    After encountering this enemy, we know that many of our assumptions are true. The interesting this is that one assumption is potentially damaging. This enemy has two attacks, one of which involves shooting fire from its weapon which arcs across the screen like that of the fire from the large dragon enemies in previous levels. It could be argued that this seemingly non-magic entity is producing magic, and that this might not be communicated to the player, causing them to be surprised by the fire and take damage. I think this is offset a bit by the fact that his weapon is long enough that you can assume that it has great range. Either assumption will lead you to not get too close to him when you first see him, and that will give you time to recognize and hopefully dodge his fire attack.
     

    Shovel Knight's First Encounter with the Mole Minion

    To summarize, attributes like size, shape, color, and to a larger aspect, clothing, weapons, and gait (or lack thereof) communicate things to the player almost immediately. When choosing the appearance and movement behavior of an enemy, you want to make sure that some assumptions can be made, but not all. Still allowing for surprises is what keeps things interesting, so long as those surprises ultimately don’t unfairly punish the player.

    Aspect 2 – Behavior (Passive)

    Passive behavior is behavior that is innate to an entity, with little to no interaction from other entities in the world. Basically, what an enemy does when it’s just sitting or walking around. More specifically, this is usually any behavior an enemy exhibits before the player shows up.
            

    Passive Enemies (Waddle Dee, Goomba, Shy Guy, Angry Sun)

    As shown above, the enemies (excluding the Angry Sun) are most commonly known to simply walk around until jumped on or inhaled by the player. Their behavior is purely passive, and the player’s actions won’t affect their behavior in any way.

    The Angry Sun is included because it exhibits little to no active behavior. The only “active” thing it does is start attacking when the player reaches a certain spot in the level. At this point, it moves in relation to the screen itself, zooming down in a set arc on the screen every time it zooms back “towards” Mario. By having the Angry Sun “attack” a certain part of the screen that Mario is theoretically always in, the Angry Sun feels very aggressive and intimidating, even though its behavior is very predictable.

    There are many enemies like the Angry Sun which move, attack, and even shoot projectiles to impede the player, but don’t take the player’s position or actions into account. Enemies like this can be interesting, as mixing danger with predictability gives the player a high level of challenge without confusing them too much.

    Aspect 2 – Behavior (Active)

    Many enemies in 2-D platformers move in relatively simple ways and end up doing an action when the player is close to them. Active behavior is simply any behavior which takes input from states in the game. This can be as simple as jumping forwards towards the player or shooting a projectile when the player is near them.
        

    Active Enemies (Buzz Bomber, Mic Drop, Roller mk.II, Boo)

    Looking at the first of the above enemies, the original Buzz Bomber is a relatively passive enemy. It will fly towards the left until Sonic approaches, when it will stop, shoot a slow-moving projectile, and then continue flying. Somewhat like the Angry Sun, the Mic Drop will “activate” when the player gets close, but then do the same behavior (Swinging back and forth with intermittent electric shock) until it is defeated. The Roller mk.II is a more active enemy, spinning into a ball when Sonic gets close, and shooting itself towards Sonic’s location. This is a more interesting variant of classic “move towards the player” behavior, as this enemy must be knocked out of its spin before it can be defeated. Lastly is the most well-known example of an active enemy: Boo. This enemy takes both Mario’s position and his direction into account. It will only move when Mario is not facing it, and when it does, will wobble along a direct line (Or strictly cardinal lines in some of the games) towards Mario.

    As stated before, active enemies traditionally are enemies which use the player’s current position as their main input. The most common tendencies are for an enemy to activate when the player gets close, or to follow the player. Other times enemies may take note of the player’s state, for example, if the player is attacking the enemy may hold their shield up to block the attack. This often facilitates an enemy that cannot be outright attacked, instead an enemy that must be dodged and damaged when the enemy itself chooses to attack. Rightfully so, many of these enemies are knights and warriors with shields.
      

    "Knight" enemies (Goldarmor, Great Husk Sentry)

       These kinds of enemies are usually even more active: If they successfully shield an attack from the player, they may counter-attack immediately. Although this behavior may seem to punish the player, enemies like this which can be provoked give the player even more control over the fight. For example, baiting out the counter-attack of the Great Husk Sentry will allow the player to attack the other exposed sides of him before he brings his shield back up again.

    Aspect 3 – Determinism and Randomness

    Despite these aspects of enemies, both passive and active enemies can have randomness incorporated in their behavior to make them less predictable, allowing for them to use several behaviors that the player will have to keep in mind. Although Goldarmor from the above picture is an active enemy, he may use randomness to decide whether to attack when the player is simply standing in front, waiting for an attack. To be fair, I don’t know if Goldarmor, or any other enemy in Shovel Knight uses randomness in this way, but these enemies easily could.

    However, many designers choose to avoid this aspect of enemy and boss design, instead designing all enemies to be “deterministic”, meaning that they will always act the same given that the player behaves the same each time. This avoids player frustration, such as when a very quick attack is chosen randomly, giving the player little time to avoid the attack. It must also be tempered in certain ways, otherwise the enemy may become unbalanced itself, leading to boring or frustrating gameplay. An enemy which has several attacks but randomly chooses to do two may feel formulaic, or too easy to defeat. An enemy which destroys blocks at random times could end up “randomly” destroying all the player’s footholds before the player really has a chance to defeat it.

    Ultimately, randomness has a place in enemy behavior in that it can be good for creating novel situations for the player to deal with. It must be balanced to avoid pitfalls (Such as weighting different behaviors) but can spice things up in a way that a purely predictable enemy cannot.
    Context – Attributes and Design

    The context of an enemy refers to everything surrounding it. Although it may not be a direct relationship, an enemy in the wrong context, even with good behavior, will create uninteresting situations and squander potential for new challenges. Many well-designed games can use seemingly simple or easy enemies in new contexts to make them formidable and even deadly.

    Although I stated that it was things “apart” from the enemy that make up the context, I may include things like health points and damage immunities in context. Although these things may very well be “part” of the enemy, the behavior of an entity is the thing more intrinsic to itself. For example, an “Ice Goomba” that has one more health than a normal Goomba is going to feel nearly identical to a normal Goomba. However, place some on small platforms, and have the Goombas make those platforms icy when they die, and they’ll start to feel quite different from their counterparts. Here are some things that make up the context of the enemy.

    Enemy Context
    • Health*
    • Damage* (How much it gives and how much it takes)
    • Element* (Fire, Water, Earth, etc.)
    • What level it is placed in
    • The space around the enemy

    Now while the first three are probably still part of the enemy, the real focus here is the last two. The first three are still crucial in balancing enemies and making sure that they feel enjoyable to fight. However, the placement of those enemies in the overall game (IE: What level or stage) and where they are placed in the literal level of space are the crucial aspects of context. We can see this very clearly when we look at something as seemingly simple as the Propeller Rat in Shovel Knight’s “Pridemoor Keep”.


    Propeller Rats in Pridemoor Keep

    On paper, some people may not feel that using this much of a single enemy is a good idea. They may feel it works, but that the situations which the enemy presents itself in won’t be all that different. But there isn’t really context on paper. Looking at the picture above, we can see 3 instances of Propeller Rats in Pridemoor Keep, one of the very first “Lairs” in Shovel Knight. Looking at the first instance, we can see a very simple situation: A Propeller Rat flies towards Shovel Knight.

    For the sake of the example, know that the Rats move approximately one character-length directly towards Shovel Knight’s current position about every 1.5 seconds. This first instance simply has two rats fly towards Shovel Knight. There is very little obstacle in the way, and the dirt blocks encourage the player to use their shovel. Once they hit the Rat, they can learn that a simple hit is all it takes to dispatch a Propeller Rat.

    Once we move to the second instance, Shovel Knight has immediately changed something important. The low ceiling here makes it more difficult to attack the Propeller Rat, which is not hampered by the level geometry. The player will have to wait a bit and coax the rats downwards to be able to hit them. Not only does this expand on what the Rats can really do, but it also encourages the player to wait a moment and consider the situation. In the final instance, nine rats litter the screen, but the first 4 are the most immediate. The rats are not difficult to defeat at this point, but here the game is allowing for the player to dispatch them in a more freeform way. Rushing through and swinging the shovel is risky and exciting, as the rats move closer and closer if the player waits. Secondly, if the player has learned this, they can pogo on top of the Rats to cross the pits even more efficiently. At the end of this screen, the player can even pogo off a few rats in succession to reach a secret area.

    There are many examples of developers changing the contexts in which seemingly simple enemies are placed. “Enemy Placement” has been a slightly vague term for a time, but intentional level design can help create interesting moments that effectively communicate to the player. For as much as “repeated” enemies may be a mistake in design, the easily understood behavior of the rats and their repetition is a strength. Simple behavior allows the situation around the rats to be changed somewhat drastically, to present the player with interesting and exciting challenges without creating new enemies that the players will have to learn again. You can mitigate convoluted enemy and level design by having simple enemy and level design work together effectively.

    Hazards

    So while there's more to talk about with enemies, the category of "hazards" should be addressed first.


    Various Hazards

    While it may seem obvious that these things are hazards, there's a kind of strange dividing line between "hazard" and "enemy". But I believe it's also quite simple, and easy to pinpoint how you (or a player) sees the difference.

    "Enemies" tend to be things which we consider to be sentient. If something can think, even if it passively meanders around, we often consider it to be an enemy. When something has eyes, a face, or a mouth, we believe it has a will, and is (usually) out to get us. Lava doesn't usually have a will, but give it eyes and a face, and it becomes an enemy.


    Gargantua Blargg in Yoshi's New Island (Source: Super Mario Wiki)

    So why does such a distinction matter? To be honest, it barely would in a context where the player already knows what each enemy and hazard does. But that is not the context that players magically transfer into when they've seen an enemy for the first time.

    Knowledge of an enemy or hazard is gained initially when the player recognizes the element itself, and then more as they interact, avoid, or defeat it.

    In this way, enemies and hazards tend to cover a gradient. While there are very obvious exceptions even in the games discussed here, this is traditionally how these elements tend to go.

    Hazards
    • Stationary/Slow-moving
    • Large size
    • Passive
    • Usually damaging

    Examples: Spikes, Lava, Toxic Waste, Boulders, Poison (Gas), Waterfalls, Wind, Pits

    Enemies
    • Fast-moving
    • Small/Medium size
    • Active
    • Almost always damaging

    Examples: Robots, Bugs, Foot Soldiers, Beasts, Wizards, Bosses

    Instant Communication and Prior Knowledge

    The reason I lay these things out is because all aspects of an element (Size, shape, color, movement, sound) are going to communicate something to your player. Any element often communicates more than you think it does. Some elements communicate that they do damage, while others would shock the player if they did any damage at all. Some immediately communicate that they are a threat with a large amount of health, and others are surely dispatched in one hit.

    Many games afford the player a bunch of knowledge because they play off of traditional conventions and use innate or intuitive reasoning (common sense) to communicate quickly and effectively. There are even more conventions that games use (Green bubbly stuff = bad) to communicate with the player, as well as the language that the game itself creates with the player. Overall, this means that consistent communication is even more effective, allowing you to not only communicate without words, but more importantly, to communicate efficiently and very quickly.

    There's quite a lot to talk about here regarding how all elements of your game communicate visually alone, but I may have to save that for another section.

    The next section is about verticality and how it affects the flow and types of challenges present in a platformer. It will also be about challenge and eath. This will start to tie back into how hazards and enemies can be designed and eventually get to the greatest aspect of any platformer: the level design.
    « Last Edit: July 30, 2019, 10:56:38 AM by Milky » Logged
    Milky
    Level 0
    **

    zzz


    View Profile
    « Reply #13 on: July 31, 2019, 01:52:18 PM »

    Death (And Other "Setbacks")

    This is a topic that is deeply intertwined with 2-D platformers, and has been discussed at length with regards to older games. I don't have much more to add to the historical discussion, but much to say about how death and other setbacks affect gameplay experience and how they can be used properly.


    Kid Chameleon Game Over Overlay (Source: Kid Chameleon Wiki)

    Death isn't normally just a setback, but it's theoretically the largest setback possible in a classic platformer. Most games forced the player to fully reset if they exhausted all of their extra lives and continues, which is of course what gives most games of the Genesis-era their brutal reputations.

    To be brief, lots of these things (Especially "unfair" levels) were used to artificially lengthen games to pad them out, or very difficult to beat in one Blockbuster rental period. That specific kind of thing doesn't have a place in games nowadays, and there are more important things to consider.

    How to Set The Player Back

    We can consider setbacks to be another gradient issue between two extremes. Those two extremes being allowing the player to be invincible and not set them back when they make a mistake, to any mistake instantly defeating the player and returning them back to the beginning of the game. I'm sure it should be obvious that with few exceptions, almost all games fall somewhere between these two extremes. This likely means that every game has some sweet spot (theoretically) where it should fall in regards to these parameters.

    So let's look at most of the conventional methods of metering set backs, and how things straddle the line between brutal punishment, and dullness.

    Checkpoints (Traditional)

    Checkpoints may as well be defined as any division in your game which the player can start at. Some "levels" are just too large for one run through, so checkpoints often divide things into smaller chunks. Checkpoints allow for very large levels to be playable without being as much of a punishing endurance trial.

    But I think that's the obvious part. The less obvious part is how a checkpoint actually makes your level feel to the player.

    Checkpoints
    • Neatly tie up a "chunk" of gameplay
    • Signal the start and end of a gameplay chunk
    • Provide security
    • Establish value of gameplay completed

    For the last point, I'd assert that when the player hits a checkpoint, they feel fully done with the previous section of gameplay. It establishes the kind of challenge which the game expects the player to do, how much the player "should" be able to do before needing the checkpoint.

    This is not to say that placing less checkpoints means a simple increase in challenge and an increase in feeling of accomplishment. As said before, too far a setback may feel punishing, and too short a setback will start to diminish the meaning of what the player is doing.

    The placement of checkpoints can be as simple as dividing things into equally digestible chunks, or even just placing checkpoints before difficult areas. But almost any repeating element in your game establishes a sort of dialogue with the player, and it's important to consider the consistency and function of what you are trying to say.

    Checkpoints (Diagetic)

    To move to something more interesting, there are multiple games which make the checkpoints (and many other mechanical facets) part of the universe and switch up how they work mechanically.


    Full Size - https://i.imgur.com/fHIM2RF.png
    Ori and the Blind Forest (Source: psxboxindies)

    The first example is a well-known one in the form of Ori's "Soul Link" ability. Energy is gained during gameplay by defeating enemies and some contextual items in the world that give a bit of energy when interacted with. In this way, checkpoints are technically unlimited, but require the use of a resource which is otherwise used for special attacks.

    It's a seemingly simple question every time the player has a moment to stand still: Would you like a guaranteed checkpoint for the cost of some potential damage later on? Ironically, the system is actually kind of balanced with itself, as less ability to do damage will make it more likely that the player will make mistakes and need the checkpoint.

    This system also allows a checkpoint despite health or location within the level (As long as Ori is grounded and standing still), meaning that the player can create a checkpoint if they're in a tough spot. It affords the player a lot of options that they'd not normally have with traditional checkpoints.

    It's hard to say just what kind of impact this system has on the game, but I think that it has the potential to be very positive. Since things can ultimately be balanced around the choices available to the player, it's not a stretch to say that there is some balance where checkpoints are meaningful and the player has more control over their situation.


    Shovel Knight Death Screen (Source: Yacht Club Games)

    The other example is also well-known (There is even a blogpost about it from the designers themselves [https://yachtclubgames.com/2014/06/checkpoint-design/]). In Shovel Knight, checkpoints are activated when walked through just like most games. However, jumping and breaking the checkpoint will shatter it, rewarding the player with treasure. The checkpoints even have different values depending on where they are in the level. And as you may have guessed, a broken checkpoint no longer saves progress.

    As the designers touch on in their blogpost, this solution actually does several things at once.
    • Risk/Reward for breaking the checkpoint
    • Checkpoints can be broken at any time (Even after you've used it)
    • Checkpoints cannot be repaired
    • Checkpoint flame communicates difficulty (Bigger and brighter flames = more money = likely larger challenge)
    • Creates a riskier and much higher reward playthrough (Earlier armor and health rewards, for example)

    Not only this, but the player has multiple ways to interact with such a checkpoint even though they can only break it.
    • They can break the checkpoint on their first playthrough before they've even seen the future screens.
    • They can break the checkpoint after they just used it (Maybe now that they've learned what's ahead)
    • They can break the checkpoint on subsequent playthroughs with confidence

    This solution is not just good because of its elegance, I think it's great because how it affords options to all kinds of players. It also still serves its most basic purpose, as a simple checkpoint.

    Continues

    A classic kind of resource was a "Continue" which was often a larger setback than losing a life, but didn't send you back to the beginning of the game. While I think every kind of system has a place, this kind of resource was most at home in arcade-style games. It was relatively punishing, and actually most effective when it (ironically) was sustaining itself.


    Kid Chameleon Game Over Overlay (Source: Kid Chameleon Wiki)

    Because Continues were so crucial for a newer player, they became the most prized resource for those players. This encouraged exploration to find those resources, map knowledge to know where all of those resources were, and to play better. That means Continues are good, right?

    Good things arising from something don't (necessarily) make that thing good as well. The victory felt by some players does not (necessarily) validate a decision that pushed away a ton of players. Zooming in even more to just one player, one moment of victory at the end of a struggle doesn't (necessarily) validate all of the times the player frustrated.

    That's a lot of qualifiers to throw on there, but it's important to start seeing mechanics for their inherent value rather than what they provide to ultimately less meaningful contexts. That however does mean that we look at why doing anything over again is valuable at all.

    Doing Things Again

    So looking back at our gradient of smallest to largest setbacks, why do we redo anything at all? Is there value in a game that only rewinds a couple of seconds before we made a crucial mistake?

    As far as pacing is concerned, there's a pretty large benefit to gameplay being disrupted as few times as possible. It might be nice if the player learned all of the valuable lessons the first time, and didn't fail so much. But that's not often the reality of the gameplay.

    While starting over can be frustrating, there's not really a roller coaster without a sense of momentum. But there's nothing quite so halting as repeating monotonous content just to arrive at a challenge and lose all over again. Here I'll try to identify the bounds of the sweet spot that we seek.

    Set back too far (Long return)
    • Large loss of progress (Sense of loss and sense of being unfairly punished)
    • Repeating content which is too low-challenge (Monotony, boredom)
    • Repeating content which is too high-challenge (Frustration, boredom)
    • Disconnected pacing (Player is pushed to content which no longer curves properly)

    It's actually very important here to note that different kinds of challenges have different kinds of "challenge curves" depending on the player's skill and knowledge at them. To put it briefly, some challenges are much easier to complete upon a second completion, while others are just as hard as the first time. It's important to design challenges intentionally so that if they have to be repeated, they're of the appropriate challenge.

    It should also be noted that many games don't necessarily have poor communication so much as they have no communication. "Redoing" parts of a game is more frustrating when the player feels like the game has arbitrarily decided a restarting point, or barely recognizes that anything has happened.

    Set back too close (Short return)
    • Compromise of challenge (Challenge level may lower, also may become more "cheeseable")
    • Inability to return player to previous important content (In times where it would help for the player to repeat content further than where they are)
    • Inability for player to "do things differently" (Take different paths, power-ups, skills, resources, etc.)
    • Possible inability for player to backtrack (If it's something that the player should be able to do anyway)
    • Possible encouraging of "Min-Maxing" (Optimizing the challenge to the point where it isn't fun anymore, also may become a "perfect run")
    • Pacing does a "record skip" (Player stuck at challenge they're having trouble with for excessive amount of time with little or no breaks)

    Coincidentally, many of these latter issues crop up in 3-D games (Especially action games), but the issues are still very relevant to even a 2-D platformer. Auto-save features in those action games often cause players to play the game in safe and predictable ways rather than interesting and exciting ways.

    The Line Between Risk and Safety

    To segue to the larger issue of setbacks, we need only look at what these systems are designed to maximize: both risk and safety. We seek to make a game engaging through excitement, often conjuring risky scenarios that the player gets to partake in. Often to avoid the potential loss of progress for our players, we create spectacular sequences with death-defying scenarios that the player has to get through, but that can be easily retried. We then minimize the actual risk in gameplay by making things easier, but also by properly guiding our players to the proper way of fielding our challenge.

    To summarize, we want to drum up exciting and risky contexts, but still allow the player to trust that the game is concerned about the safety of the player's time and effort. On the two extremes we have Nathan Drake failing to grab onto a cliff in time and being set back 10 seconds, with Mario just barely touching a spike and having to repeat a whole level. While many experienced Mario players would be able to tell you how difficult and risky something is, it will almost never look quite as spectacular as holding onto a train crumbling off the side of a mountain.

    True engagement with an experience hinges on the weight and risks of that experience. It can be difficult to engage a player with something too difficult but ostensibly exciting, versus something that looks exciting but is ostensibly quite easy.

    This balance between risk and safety is essentially what setbacks handle. Players all have a sense of fairness, and they will eventually be willing to put your game down after 2 minutes, or even after 2 hours if they feel that they have been treated unfairly (or are just very very bored).

    Walking the Line

    That's enough talking around the problem, what are some solutions?

    There are tons of ways in which games handle their risky challenges. In fact there's almost too many be detailed here.

    Roguelike Deaths


    Full Size - https://i.imgur.com/whKG1L6.png
    Binding of Isaac Afterbirth - "Isaac's Last Will"

    For example, roguelikes tend to be games where the overall experience takes 30 minutes to an hour, and death is a very real possibility. They mitigate this risk in multiple ways.
    • Permanent content can be unlocked for future runs through achievements (Especially early on)
    • Large "Death Screen" detailing player accomplishments and items obtained
    • Earning of permanent currency which then unlocks permanent content (Makes the run not feel like a waste)
    • Overall short playtime session for beating the full game, so death is never that much progress lost

    Even if not a single thing could be earned for playing (For example, imagine the player has unlocked everything), things like the "Death Screen" and other displays of acknowledgement help to make the player's time feel valued. As noted before, many games (especially older ones) were just so cold and silent when you made mistakes or had to restart.

    While some screen with a bunch of info, or even extra currency won't always make your player not feel the sting of losing a run, that isn't really a goal. The point of games like this is to help the player to understand that death is a completely normal thing to happen when they are playing the game. Death becomes far more of an understood outcome, and far less of a looming and anxiety-inducing one.

    You'll notice that the communication and resulting tone surrounding these normally very negative outcomes is what contextualizes those things in the player's mind. There's another game I'll mention which communicates to the player, but this one has been discussed many times over at this point.

    Dark Souls Bonfires


    Bonfire (Source: Dark Souls Wiki)

    There's a lot to talk about with regards to how Dark Souls presents challenge and the way treats death. But I'd like to skip most of that to just talk about the bonfire placement for a moment. The bonfires themselves are of course the only place which you can actually save in the game. You can leave the game at any time, but that will only temporarily save where you are. Any time you die, you will return to the last bonfire which you sat at.

    There are many action-adventure games which share similarities with Dark Souls, but not many of them have something which resembles a bonfire. In fact, many have invisible "auto-save" points, especially since most games certainly aren't as non-linear as Dark Souls is. Even the games that do have some "save object" don't achieve any kind of real tone in the way that Dark Souls does.

    In most games, the placement of "Save Rooms" (or some similar thing) feels good when they're plentiful, and just annoying when they aren't. With no chance of saving after a long section, a player usually gets frustrated and anxious. Upon a death here, most players will look at a traditional game and figure that it was designed poorly, and there isn't really a reason not to have a save point closer.

    You might know where I'm going with this, and feel that Dark Souls has been criticized many times by many people and that it isn't actually all that different.

    I think the feeling that I get, even from just a bit of anecdotal evidence and videos on the matter, is that the bonfires in Dark Souls are far more contextually grounded than the (again) cold "Save Books" and "Save Rooms" and whatever else is present in other games. The Bonfires feel carefully placed even moreso because they are in such a non-linear game, serving as nodes between areas rather than checkpoints on a linear rail system.

    Their design and purpose (The several functions that they have) also make them feel as though they couldn't just be placed plentifully and everywhere. You must intentionally sit at them to restore your health, Estus, and reset the world. Each individual bonfire can be kindled for more Estus. All of these things wrap up to actually eliminate frustration and communicate better with the player.

    You may be again saying something like "But it didn't eliminate frustration." I can sympathize with that stance, but I think the key difference there is that it is with the game itself, rather than a perceived mistake. One can obviously think that there should be more bonfires or that they should be spread differently, but even someone who knew nothing about Dark Souls before picking up a controller can tell that the bonfires were placed with care.

    The bonfires themselves serve so many purposes in a nonlinear world that even a new player can feel confident they were placed intentionally. After some time playing the game, you'll probably even get a rhythm and method for figuring out where they are placed. I think that regardless of perfect placement or not, the bonfires communicate much better with the player, and can only frustrate in gameplay rather than also frustrate from poor communication.

    Back to Mechanics

    There's many more examples of good communication, but I'll probably come back to more of them later.

    Next I want to get back to the mechanical depth of the power-up platformers and where that depth can be pushed even further: through player verbs and valuing player choices.
    « Last Edit: August 01, 2019, 06:37:20 AM by Milky » Logged
    Milky
    Level 0
    **

    zzz


    View Profile
    « Reply #14 on: August 01, 2019, 01:23:21 PM »

    Player Verbs and Game Dynamics

    I've talked a lot about environments, and there's tons to talk about with level design, but it's important to lay the groundwork for the things players can actually do in a game.

    Player Verbs


    The Wiz - Kirby and the Amazing Mirror (Source: Kirby Wiki)

    A "Verb" is any action that a player can take in the game. For Kirby, this means pretty much every ability that Kirby has even when Kirby has no power-up.

    Kirby's Abilities
    • Walk/Run
    • Jump
    • Inhale
    • Spit Out (Attack)
    • Swallow (Obtain Copy Abilities)
    • Float
    • Release Air (Attack)
    • Crouch Slide (Attack)

    Even when Kirby has no Copy Ability, Kirby has (even in the older games) at least one way to attack enemies. This ensures that Kirby, while not very powerful, can always dispatch foes and get around areas.

    As discussed before, Kirby's ability to fly infinitely ensure that Kirby can always access any area in a level (As long as its not physically blocked off). It's important to see how this list of abilities ensures consistency of gameplay, and never leaves the player in too bad of a situation.

    And when Kirby does have a copy ability, this simply means that inhaling is lost, being replaced with the copy ability's power. This doesn't change too much, as it's often a mode of attack, possibly with a movement option.

    Verticality

    So I've discussed in previous sections how Kirby's abilities shape Kirby's gameplay, but now I'd really like to dig deeply into how a game's world can respond to the abilities of the player in any game. Let's start with verticality, one of the more infamous aspects of classic platformers.


    Full Size - https://i.imgur.com/T9YAUpX.png
    Kid Chameleon - Ice God's Vengeance (Source: DarkWolf - VGMaps)


    Full Size - https://i.imgur.com/1ckeVxN.png
    Tiny Toon Adventures - Buster's Hidden Treasure - 2-3-Left2 (Source: Gennadiy_Master - VGMaps)

    We can start to understand a player's interaction with the world by breaking down the relationship between gravity and vertical movement.

    The obvious factors are that the player character in most 2-D platformers is affected by gravity. Jumping is the main way for the player to get over gaps and ascend a level.

    If we look at that relationship more abstractly, higher elevation tends to be a difficult state to gain, but easy to lose. Jumping is how the player moves to higher (literally) states in a level. This means that getting to certain high places in a level are a challenge, and often come with risks the higher or further away that they are.

    Looking at 2-3-Left2 from Buster's Hidden Treasure, we see a sprawling level with multiple vertical climbs and horizontal platforming challenges. I've used orange arrows to mark every place where the player can fall from one "section" to one they've already been in. This doesn't even include the furthest right two sections, where a fall can lose the player a good chunk of progress.

    This level is close to the epitome of vertical levels in old games, as a fall towards the final jumps can cost you potentially 80-90% of your progress. It has multiple long vertical sections with precise jumps, and some hazards along the way to trip you up.

    With a level like this, we can see that basic relationship between jumping and platforms. Progress is usually gained by jumping to higher platforms, and lost when a jump is missed.

    Here, platforms naturally lend themselves to dynamics which the player can interact with.

    Platforms
    • Platforms require timing/skill to jump across
    • Subsequent platforms are often riskier

    To tangent a bit, this kind of player-game relationship suffered quite a bit in older games primarily because of the small amount of screen space. Being unable to see jumps slightly off-screen, being unable to see what was above or below you, and not knowing what a pit looked like made navigating levels quite difficult.

    Mechanical Dynamics

    Using that abstraction, we can break down other dynamics of a level and the ways in which the player can interact with them.

    Verticality is an obvious one because we understand gravity and jumping. But we can think of all mechanics in terms of the things which they can do and the dynamics that they can (and do) create for the player.

    Basic Player Dynamics
    • Jumping -> Player can access new areas, gain vertical height, maneuver through space vertically
    • Doing Damage -> Enemies and hazards can have health and elemental attributes, player can balance moving and doing damage
    • Inhale/Swallow -> Enemies can be swallowed to gain abilities, things can be spit to do damage

    And here's where things get a bit more complicated. Verticality is so easy to understand and play off of because space is a very obvious dynamic. Being in one place is one state, while being in a different place is another. In a 2-D platformer, it has 2 axes, and is very visually identifiable.

    Something like damage is less obvious for multiple reasons. It isn't obvious how much damage the player can do unless there is some way to communicate it to them, or they just experiment. Health also only really has one axis, and depleting health to 0 usually means death. Although players usually have some way to heal, the dynamic here is often "Enemies and Hazards take health away".

    You can see that "You have health, you die at health = 0" is really the thing that sprouts these new dynamics. The logical question asked about health then is "How do I change this 'health' number?" It's very similar to the basic premise of a platformer: I have an "x" position and a "y" position, how can I manipulate them, and how does the game manipulate them?

    It then becomes obvious how this dynamic, just like verticality, creates risk and opportunities for the player. Lower health is riskier, fighting enemies while the player is at a safe health is easier, health can be a trade off for other rewards or even speed/difficulty, etc.

    Expanding Mechanics

    Once a baseline has been set up for a mechanic, the dynamics can spring forth (Organically or manually). Sometimes the possible manipulations will be obvious, but other times will be more subtle.

    To look at that expansion, let's take a rough brainstorming of all of the ways in which one can move in classic games.

    Player Movement Options
    • Walk
    • Run
    • Slide
    • Jump
    • Double Jump
    • Spin Jump/Special Jump
    • Twirl Jump
    • Long Jump
    • Wall Slide/Climb
    • Wall Jump
    • Dash
    • Teleport (Blink)
    • Lock-on Dash/Teleport
    • Boost
    • Ground Pound
    • Air Twist
    • Hover
    • Fly/Glide
    • Float
    • Swim
    • Water Walk/Run

    Aside from water, all of the options listed above can be done by a general character and require no contextual elements other than the ground or air. Many games obviously include level elements which contextually change the movement of the player, and provide more contextual actions, but that's too long of a list to write out here (See Celeste for good examples).

    Using the previous example of "Health and Damage", we can also create some general lists for how platformers tend to handle doing damage to enemies.

    Damage Attributes
    • Amount of damage done (Base values, armor, reductions, etc.)
    • Time period (Instantaneous or damage over time)
    • Damage attribute (Fire, Ice, Poison, Electricity, etc.)
    Damage Style
    • Contact Damage
    • Ranged Projectiles (Arrows, Throwing Stars)
    • Melee Weapon Damage (Temporary hitboxes) (Swords, Axes, Whips)
    • Explosions or areas (Radial damage, temporary hitboxes)

    While the list might seem small, this encompasses a pretty vast array of ways in which the player character and even enemy characters can damage each other.

    Brainstorming

    While there are thousands of platformers out in the world, it would be difficult to exhaust every possible kind of character and enemy when the above lists don't even encompass every possible mechanic. On top of that, it's not just about doing something new, but about being creative and doing something thoughtfully in order to make a cohesive and full-bodied gameplay experience.

    With those lists however, things can get a bit daunting. Admittedly, when I'm trying to think of new power-up/enemy/level ideas, I struggle for awhile to come up with much of anything. That's probably more due to my unwillingness to just try out a new idea before knowing how good it is, but I'm getting better at just playtesting things out.

    Summary

    The main point of this post is to highlight how the base systems of a game can expand to an exponentially large set out outcomes. Then, how you can start to think about which of those outcomes merge best with your ideas.

    As I work through this project, I will hopefully have ideas that showcase what I mean and display how you can start to flesh out the systems of your game.

    Going to be a bit of a break from the long text posts as I start to brainstorm and playtest more ideas. Hopefully will have some cool things to show soon. Thank you to everyone who has read these posts and commented, I hope you've gotten something from them, and there will be more to come.
    Logged
    Milky
    Level 0
    **

    zzz


    View Profile
    « Reply #15 on: December 06, 2019, 04:42:59 PM »

    Prototype (0.1.0) Out Now!

    https://foolsmilky.itch.io/chamile

    (Extract the zip file, run the exe, no instillation required)

    I've cobbled together a rough prototype for people to check out. It's very basic platforming that's meant to show off a bit of non-linear level and stage design.

    I have a bunch to write up about what directions I'm going in but let me summarize it with some quick bullets.

    • The goal is frequent and fast prototypes churned out for people to play/test
    • A different channel (That isn't bumping this thread constantly) for feedback (Probably Discord)
    • Prototypes will focus on levels, mechanics, physics changes, new power-ups, etc.
    • Until art is a focus, the prototypes will be functional and ugly (Need to get the core mechanics of the game up  as soon as possible)

    Thank you to anyone who reads this devlog or plays the game, I appreciate your time. I am working hard to provide more frequent and focused prototypes.


    Prototype 0.1.0 - Featuring this thing!

    I will soon be uploading write-ups where I discuss what directions I'm considering for physics, power-ups, level design, etc.
    This will be the basis of prototypes/demos going forwards, which should be more frequent starting now.

    Stay tuned! Smiley
    « Last Edit: December 06, 2019, 05:04:06 PM by Milky » Logged
    melos han-tani
    Level 10
    *****


    View Profile WWW
    « Reply #16 on: June 06, 2020, 12:04:22 AM »

    Looks cool, still working on it? I like all the blog posts.
    Logged

    Working on Anodyne 2! https://forums.tigsource.com/index.php?topic=65359.0 Made Anodyne, Even the Ocean, All Our Asias
    Milky
    Level 0
    **

    zzz


    View Profile
    « Reply #17 on: July 01, 2020, 03:57:21 PM »

    Looks cool, still working on it? I like all the blog posts.

    Hey, thanks for your interest! Sorry I didn't reply to this comment sooner, I've had my head down for awhile, so to speak.

    I'm very much still working on things and am trying to commission enough assets to get a "visually working game" up in the next few weeks. I plan to Kick-start (Or some other site) things in August, but time will tell how long things are taking.

    Depending on how things go I'll have a bigger update within 1-2 months.
    Logged
    Dr. Büni
    Level 0
    ***



    View Profile
    « Reply #18 on: July 08, 2020, 04:47:21 PM »

    Looking forward for updates. What is your plan for kickstarter? I read crowd funding has been tough these days.
    Logged
    Earworm
    Level 0
    **


    View Profile WWW
    « Reply #19 on: July 09, 2020, 09:01:16 AM »

    I really appreciate the well thought out posts and background on your inspiration and process. As someone who isn't a dev, it feels like a behind the scenes look into a world I've always dreamed about. I'm also an EE with a bit of coding experience - I'm interested in what led you to split away from your main field/day job and start developing full time. Also, how did your experience as an EE help (or hinder) you on your path to game development?

    I'm also amazed that you're tackling the development AND the music for the game. How do you balance the two? As a musician and composer, it feels like if I'm working on a game soundtrack then that consumes all of my time.

    Sorry for the barrage of questions!
    Logged
    Pages: [1] 2
    Print
    Jump to:  

    Theme orange-lt created by panic