Group items tagged

exposure to environmental agents

If a skill is too basic, it will not help make your mechanic feel deeper. At that point, it becomes a simple task the player must complete, like checking items off a shopping list.

Further, when you really think about it, when you say "move from point A to point B," you're actually talking more about the objective of a challenge and not the skill required to achieve the objective.

I kept adding new objectives, but failed to add many meaningful skills.

While players found the Inspector Bot wacky and funny, adding him did not succeed at the goal of making the Tractor Beam game mechanic deeper.

come up with an "Activity Statement"

a simple sentence that describes a challenge by stating both the objective of a challenge and the meaningful skills that the player must use to obtain his objective.

"I want the player to jump up to that platform."

"I want the player to double jump straight up and then glide down to that platform" or "I want the player to time his jump to avoid the fire spouts and land on that platform."

1. Identify and list your objectives. a. For each, ask yourself: "Is this objective functionally a duplicate of any of the other objectives in my list?" If it is, ask yourself if you really need it. Do you really want to spend the time on teaching your players how to interact with it? If the answer is no, cross it out. 2. Identify and list all your meaningful skills. a. For each ask yourself: "Is this really a meaningful skill? Not too basic? Not an objective?" b. Ask yourself: "Is this skill functionally a duplicate of any of the other meaningful skills in my list?" If it is, cross it out. You're tricking yourself into thinking you have more skills than you actually do. Having taken stock, do you now find you have too many objectives? Not enough meaningful skills? At this point, I'll bet you've discovered that, yes, somehow that's happened. At this point, just do the same exercise I suggested above to help my past-self get over his tractor beam problems: 1. Add one or more new meaningful skills to the list. a. As you add them, ask yourself the same questions as above. "Is this skill really meaningful? Is it too basic? Is it really an objective?" 2. Go through all your challenges and improve your Activity Statements 3. Prototype the new content. 4. Play-test. Is your problem solved? If so, then you're done! 5. If your problem isn't solved, go back to step 1 and try again.

"I want the player to move a bomb its starting spot into that energy slingshot and use it to blow up a target." "I want the player to slide these blocks around inside a groove and arrange them in a specific order." Both of these Activity Statements, "use the energy slingshot to blow up a target" and "arrange the blocks in a specific order" describe skills that are much more meaningful than the others.

For example, here is a simple Activity Statement that could apply to most of the challenges in Portal: "I want the player to use the portal gun to get this block on top of that button."

The Activity Statement: "I want the player to command his array of Gadgebots to get him past blockades," in the end, is too vague. It doesn't give enough information to tell whether or not the mechanic will deep enough.

This gave way to challenges with very complex Activity Statements like "I want the player to record himself going to that button, which opens a door. Then I want him to play back the recording and, once the hologram hits the button and the door opens, I want him to go through the door." You'll notice clear objectives "go to the button to open the door" and "go through the door" as well as good meaningful skills "record himself" and "play back the recording."

"I want the player to move a wacky robot from his starting spot to a button on the floor." "I want the player to move a bomb from its starting spot to a spot in front of that door." "I want the player to move a block from its starting space so that it blocks that laser beam." "I want the player to move an explosive rocket block to that button on the floor." You'll notice that the above statements all clearly outline objectives, but no meaningful skills.

Often, in game development, a design that looks great on paper doesn't turn out as well in practice as you'd hoped. It comes across as "shallow" or "flat." Perhaps play-testers, publishers, or peers describe it as "needing more variety" or as "feeling repetitive."

Buzzwords to watch for: The game is "a one-trick pony," "repetitive," "or needs more variety." Feedback that can be fixed with these kind of content expansions tends to describe the game as a whole. Players feel they don't have enough different things to do on a global level.

Buzzwords to watch for: A given game mechanic is "boring," "repetitive," or "just not fun." Feedback that can be fixed with theatrics improvements usually describes a single game mechanic, but is vague and "touchy-feely."

Buzzwords to watch for: A given game mechanic is "too shallow," "too easy," or "flat." Often players will say the mechanic started out fun, but that it quickly got repetitive or boring. It's a good idea to pump up the theatrics when you get feedback like this, but while it might help players tolerate a mechanic for longer, it will only go so far. When theatrics fail, it's time to knuckle down, roll up your sleeves, and get to work on making your game mechanic deeper.

Clear objectives are a must if you want to create depth in your game mechanic.