Blinky's Revenge

Levels of Analysis

2011-08-17T12:47:00.000-07:00

Some weeks ago Filip Couliuanos did a piece for Gamasutra about gameplay analysis. Its really good, read it. In very general terms, he looks at two AAA action games (Batman: Arkham Assylum and X-men Origins: Wolverine) and basically looks at what the player is doing and how much time he spends doing it. This system simply adds up the minutes the player spends doing a certain action (be it combat, watching a cinematic, solving a puzzle or moving through the game world) and then plots them in a color coded graph.

With the whole game charted you're then able to analyze its overall pacing. In the example above (the pacing graph for X-Men Origins), we can clearly see that boss battles are all piled up at the end of the game, presenting a large spike in pacing. This method is really good at presenting an overall view of a game's pacing; specially for AAA games, where there are several things to do which can be divided in clearly differentiated chunks.

However, if the chunks are not clearly differentiated (for example, if during a puzzle you also engage in combat) this turns into a problem. Couliuanos tries to solve this using the catch-all term "Special Gameplay" which would include any section where the mechanics deviate from the game's core. Although this does not reflect the true pacing of the section, it does help find where a potential spike or valley in pacing could occur.

A bigger challenge comes from games where there is not a lot of variety in what player's do through out the game. Retro, indie and older titles are a great example of this. Beat 'em ups like Streets of Rage, shooters like Contra or vehicle combat games like Icebreakers (shameless self-promotion, I know) don't have a lot of variety in player actions; however this does not mean they have a flat pacing. How then do we describe it. This will be the subject of our next entry.

An elegant solution

2011-08-08T14:23:00.000-07:00

Suddenly you find yourself on the spotlight. You discover a major flaw in your game, and anything you do to try and fix it will start to ripple through all aspects of the game....what do you do? Specially when the game has already had some time in production, the prospect of taking a decision that will (potentially) change several aspects of the core game is scary. However, if you discovered an issue with your core gameplay, its a decision you will have to make. Core design problems are game-breakers, and they should be fixed as soon as they show up.

So Generally, when one finds a game design problem your natural tendency is to go straight to the simplest solution. Overpowered weapon, make the player drop it as he leaves the room; walking around is boring, place random enemies around the level, jumping too high, place a ceiling..... These are simple to implement, and they are (somewhat) isolated from the rest of the design, so they become reeeaaally tempting. However, there lies its problem. They are patches, they are not integrated with the design and they don't really solve the core problem.

On the other hand you could try and implement a whole new design; scrap everything, we're taking it from the top. New design means new programming, new assets, new everything.... but its worth it, to make a fun game. That is until you try to explain the rest of your team why it is that all their hard work is to be scrapped. Iteration is a given in the industry, but with milestones coming up and angry managers demanding to know what's the hold up, you can't restart the project.

So what to do. Well there is a third option....I'll be honest, its tough, its not evident, and it might be tricky to explain. The idea here is to slightly change the environment around the problem so it becomes a non-issue. Its much more subtle, instead of blocking the player from taking an action, you make it riskier, you try and dissuade him. I call this an elegant solution.

An elegant solution is the one that tweaks the game in such a way as to turn the flaw into a choice. Without forcing the player's hand and without redesigning the mechanics, the elegant solution changes the circumstances under which the player makes his gaming decisions. For example: imagine a 2D shooter where the player has a high jump. This is important because it allows the player to jump onto platform, start combos, etc... However, this is also gives rise to bunny-hopping. You find out the player is able to jump all through the level and not even fire a shot. If you're already in production, go back and change the jump height will be a level apocalypse: platforms will have to be reset, art will have to be remade, months of work will go to the recycling bin. On the other hand you could stop the player from shooting while jumping. Then the game looses part of its essence, it looses action, and the problem still persists.

A third option would be to reduce the horizontal speed while jumping. Sure the player can keep avoiding bullets by jumping, but now he won't be able to advance as fast.....he has now a choice. Now the player can choose: slow and safe by jumping, or fast but challenging by running. Of course, for it to be truly meaningful, there must be some risk on both accounts; maybe you could sprinkle some AA enemies throughout the level. This solution only affects the player and enemy positioning, and it creates a new set of meaningful decisions. This would be an elegant solution.

The value of clasics

2011-07-27T19:51:00.000-07:00

A couple of days ago I bought Archon: classic through steam. This little known gem is a strategy game created in 1983 (one of the first strategy videogames ever created) for the 8-bit consoles of its time (Apple II, commodore 64, NES, etc...). I had never played it before, but beign a nut for strategy games I couldn't resist not playing it. To my surprise I found that, even though the gameplay is quite deep (with different abilties per side, tactical differences depending on the square and global powers for the palyer to activate) it was plagued by technical issues. The version I bought was a modern reskinning, and yet I found it was plagued by bad AI pathfinding, graphical glitches and other technical errors.

At first I was shocked....they surely didn't put much effort into this homage. But then it hit me.....this game came out in the early 80s...what if all those glitvhes are actually PART of the game. It would make sense for a game in the commodore 64 to have bad AI pathfinding; lots of games had those issues. Then I became very exicted as I thought that I was having the "authentic" 1980's experience. The real deal.

This got me thinking....when porting an older game, should the designers update them completely; including their AI, gameplay, etc... or should they leave them as they were? Actually the game offers a solution. They did both. They have the classic version (8-bit graphics and sound, original gameplay, buggy AI) and the modern version (updated graphics, couple new mechanics, but still buggy AI). This what all developers should do if they find themselves rebooting an ancient game, offer both the original and the updated version. I know this means more assets, but considering the original assets are so old they are basically antique that shouldn't be much of a problem. Using this method you are sure to present a contemporary gaming experience AND pay due respects to the original.

Design == Communication

2011-07-18T13:17:00.000-07:00

The role of a designer is somewhat fuzzy to define. Truth is, they do lots of stuff that are not always related to each other. From scripting to script-writing and from difficulty curves to HUD design, the designer touches many areas (thou by no means masters any of them completely). What this does is that we have a wide array of "types" of designers. Even if its not a formal position, every designer knows what he is good at and what he enjoys doing most. For example, I've always considered myself first and foremost a system designer (which means I'm good at game mechanics) with story design coming in on a close second. Level design and usability design.....well let's just say I'm working on improving them :)

One would think that this means that different types of designers need different skills, and its true. A hard math base is not as useful for script writing as it is for scripting. However there is one skill that is absolutely essential for any designer. They need to be a good communicator. And I'm not just talking about communicating with the player; this is a given. That's the whole point of designing games in the first place. I'm talking about communicating with your team. As mentioned above, the game designer can't be a specialist in all areas; hence he has to be able to get the whole team to truly understand a project and how what they're doing fits in the big picture.

Failure in this is terrible for moral, as the team stops feeling ownership over the project once they see their work being scrapped due to a misunderstanding. This is the designer's fault, and as such, he has to take responsibility to fix it. Word of advice, make your meetings as clear, as dynamic and as engaging as possible. At first, my meeting with the team consisted of handing out lists of the assets/mechanics/what ever, and together going through them. This (in theory) allowed them to spot troublesome parts right away. However in practice, they lost attention half way through, and found it hard to remember what was said (or even if the meeting took place!). Bad communication. Now what I do is create a simple, graphic, animated PowerPoint presentation that explains the general ideas. It sill analyzes everything one by one, but because they can see it in "action" its easier for them to understand it and remember it. Of course, its more work on my part to create a slide presentation, but its definitely worth it.

When do we face the enemy?

2011-07-11T14:12:00.000-07:00

Turn based strategy games have been around for a long, long time. Older than real-time strategy games, older than you and me...heck, even older than the country we live in. Checkers, Go and Chaturanga (the forefather of chess) have existed for millennia, and have greatly influenced our perception of what constitutes a game. It is then no surprise that they are also represented as video games. From the early adopters such as Civilization, to forgotten gems such as Heroes of Might & Magic, many great games have assimilated and expanded the same basic mechanics that were created by their tabletop counterparts.

Thou we can spend another century or two analyzing every aspect of what makes TBS games tick, today we will compare just one aspect, the order the execution of your orders during your turn; in other words how your turn plays out. In most strategy games, the core mechanic consists of issuing orders or moving units in order to achieve a goal (generally killing/eating/ hoping over another unit). However, once you have issued the command, the order in which they are completed changes the strategic importance greatly (and in that sense, the whole game). There are two mayor ways that units can execute their orders: they can be followed immediately after the order is given (as in chess or XiangQi) or they can be done simultaneously with the other units at the end of your turn (as in Diplomacy or the videogame Frozen Synapse).

Games where the units follow their command just after the order is issued are more reactive in nature. Thou a good player will try and predict the opponent's strategy, at a tactical level he will be concentrated in reacting to the current game state (how the unit and board are accommodated at any given time). For example in Risk; because each combat is resolved right after the attack, and due to the random nature of the combat, the player's moves are determined directly by which battles he won or lost. If he is able to enter a new territory, or if he must press an attack....all these are dependent on what just happened. This allows for a (relatively) fast pace, as the game state is very fluid and the changes it takes are incremental.

On the other hand, games where the units move simultaneously are more predictive in nature. As all combat is resolved at the same time (or at least without the player intervening) then the player is forced to think about how all their units will end up after the dust settles. In many games that use the mechanic, the opponent's orders are ALSO executed at this time, so the player has to also try and predict what his enemies will do. This is the case of Diplomacy, where player's write down their orders and then execute them at the same time. Here you really don't know how the map will end up, and hence the importance of allies and betrayal. Here the pacing is slow (-er), as the preparation phase of attacking carries a lot more weight. Even if it changes few times during a game, the game state changes dramatically.However, the moment the orders are enacted are incredibly tense.

There are then hundreds of little variations on the exact issuing of orders, how combat is resolved, etc that change the game's flavor, but those are too many to list here. However, one of the most important decisions on designing a TBS game is this one, when do we face the enemy?

Moving along

2011-07-04T13:07:00.000-07:00

A picture can say a thousand words; animated it can say another thousand. Movement adds a whole new dimension to the message sent by an image (time to be precise). This also applies to game design, and its useful to keep in mind at all times. When designing a new enemy, when considering player feedback, even when planning game UI; movement allows the player to better understand your world at a glance.

Now, movement, is not the same as speed. Speed can be baffling; it can confuse and frustrate. Almost always, high speeds signify danger. Sometimes that's exactly what you want :) The eviscerating vertigo that comes from moving rapidly is always exciting. But then again not all games are to be exciting, sometimes you want them to be peaceful and relaxing....even then, movement is important.

Take a game such as Flower for example. The game is meant to be appeasing, to have a zen-like quality to it, that makes very different to what most gamers are used to. The serene skies and colorful grounds make it very easy on the eye. However, its the movement of the blades of grass, the playful tumbling of the flower petals that really sells you the pastoral scenery. Picture if you will, the same colors, the same grass and the same flowers....but all still. As an image in a gallery it would be very pretty to look at, but it wouldn't be alive. It'd be stiff, as a corpse, beautiful but not reachable, as it would follow its own rules, in a world without time. In the end, only death is truly still.

When thinking how to communicate with the player, how to create emotions, remember to play with movement. Be it adrenaline-pumped action sequences, or peaceful reflection, it can all be accentuated by making even the tiniest animations to the tiniest parts of the game. Few images are associated with an apocalypse as much as the sight of paper fliers being carried by the wind. Few scenes accentuate the beauty of nature as much as running water. If possible include movement in all possible aspects of the game, even if its very slight, as this way the world become so much more alive.

Why I want to fail

2011-06-20T13:00:00.000-07:00

Last week I started playing Zynga's Empires & Allies. Its a Farmville type game with a little bit of RTS sprinkled above it, such as combat (well a toned down, pick-a-party-and-compare-their-stats type of combat anyway). This does add depth to the game, as finally your resources are spent in something other than more resource-makers. This would, in theory, allow the player to choose over which resources to spend and how to do so, as not all investments are guaranteed returns. If you build a battleship, it may sink, and all those resources go down with it.

This is good; this is a meaningful choice, and that's what good games are made of (more on that in a later post). Yet there is a glitch in Zynga's plan (at least from my perspective); you never fail. In other words, you harvest so many resources with so little effort that you'll be hard pressed to get those counters to zero.

In theory this would be a non-issue. The more resources the player has the more he can spend and the happier he will be. Its this logic that's behind this decision; and for the most part of Zynga's audience (the casuals), it works. They keep spending and they keep happy. However to appeal to a more core audience, the game has to allow the player to f@#$ it up...

This is because, no failure state subtracts from the total depth of the game and the meaningfulness of player's decisions. If there is no punishment for making a wrong turn, then the player is able to keep making those bad calls. It doesn't matter what you decide...you'll keep winning. And if your decision doesn't matter, than the game lacks depth. This is not exclusive of casual games; many MMO have the same problem at high levels. Also GTA had this issue, by the end of the game you had so much cash and so few things to spend it on, that the players just ignored it. There was simply no meaning to it.

Its ok to give the player a helping hand; or to make a game easy. Some people just prefer to play relaxing, unchallenging games. And that's fine. Flight Control, Angry Birds and Bejeweled are great, relaxing casual games; but they all have a point where you can lose the game. Never forget to include it.

The Why is as important as the How

2011-06-13T13:04:00.000-07:00

When designing a new feature for a game, one always has to think how it will affect the rest of the game. Games work as wholes, and if you move one part, then everything else is affected. Even simple things, like a new HUD or a new menu system changes the rest of the design.

Propagating all the changes a new decision creates is always a hassle, and sometimes its really tough to keep track of it all. One thing you can do in these cases is to make a list of all the changes a game design will go through. You just start thinking of each system in your game individually (having a list of those also helps ;) ), and start listing all the adjustments that will have to be done.

But, here comes the sweet part, next to each change, you list the reason why you're doing it. This is very, very useful. Not only will you get a clearer picture of how the game is changing, but it will also tell you if your new ideas are truly useful, or just disguised feature creeps. Also, it helps your team understand the rationale behind each decision, and speeds up debate about implementation. I've found that it is much easier to push for a cool new idea if you can show them why its necessary from the get-go.

So there you have it. When adding a feature, don't just make a list of changes, but also of the reasons behind them.

Blog Re-launch

2011-06-12T15:53:00.000-07:00

Hey everybody! I know, I know, I haven't updated this in quite a while. I'm sorry. The thing is, I found a job as lead game designer at Xibalba Studios in Monterrey, and had to move there. It was a tricky relocation, and I dove head first into work, so there wasn't much time for anything else. However, after all the dust settled, I remembered this blog; and how much I liked to write on it. So that means it time to relaunch the site....new theme, new pics, same topic we all love... games!

I'll do my best to update every monday; I don't promise great, ground breaking insights, just my humble opinions. If anyone has got anything to say, don't be afraid to comment.

C'ya around.

Gooish level

2009-01-12T14:05:00.000-08:00

World of Goo is an expectacular game. (period, in case you missed the last pixel). Its a game that seems to offer the whole package: great graphics, catchy tunes, easy-to-learn-hard-to-master gameplay, etc... In other words, the whole lot. Its one of the few independant games that made it to the top games of 2008. Its just that good. We could talk about the esay on the eye graphics, that makes this game recognizible from a mile away. Or about the gameplay-dependant tunes, that change as you play to highlight the actions, yet don't feel repetitive or boring. However, I'll focus this small article on one of the prime ascpets of this game... the level design.

Generally in a puzzle game we have a simple set of rules that control a simple set of movements that you can make in a simple environment. This is one of the pillars of repetitive gameplay. KISS (Keep it simple stoopid). World of Goo of course is no exception. However it does something really special, it actually changes the gameplay.

This game is made up of a ton of different levels which are grouped in 5 different areas. The first one is simple enough and one could be forgiven of thinking that it just is an extended tutorial. It teaches the basics of goo building and contains all the usual puzzles for a building game (bridges, skyscrapers the works). In the second area you start using slightly different goos (the game's smallest building unit). These change the gameplay, but only slightly. They allow you to cling to walls, to use balloons, etc... The posibilities of construction suddenly expands and so does the gameplay. New challenges emerge that force the player to use the new goos. Then come the third level, where you use even more different goo's that now let you burn threads and destroy barriers. Again the possibilities exapnd even more and so do the challenges. Basicaly, instead of using goos to create building you find yourself designing fuses. Believe me, reading it is not as fun as building it. The game changes drasticly while maintaining the same gameplay. Next, comes the fourth area. Here the rules change...big time. You still build stuff, however, now the goos behave differently, using vectors to shoot them around. This just spills over the expansion cup and a cascade of creativity pours down. However, as different as it is the basic gameplay is still recognizable; you're still connecting goos. Finally the last area(aptly called the epilogue) is more of a nostalgia zone with three (incredibly tough) levels that use the same simple mechanic you used in the first area (ie buildings and bridges).

Hence we come to the core of the article. The secret to World of Goo's greatness is that despite its simple gameplay, it is a dynamic one. The gameplay changes and fluctuates between levels. It evolves. Each area bends the rules only slightly, but enough to keep it fresh; after many iterations, this changes drasticly the game itself, but keeps it recognizable. If there's any level pattern that works for a game it is the one used by this one: tutorial, challenge, change (slightly) gameplay, challenge, change it some more, challenge, go back to the first gameplay (what I call the nostalgia levels). This keeps the game fresh, intresting and fun.

Mission variety in strategy games

2008-11-24T15:40:00.000-08:00

If there are two genres to whom I owe my, ejem....let's call it affection to videogames, they are First Person Shooters and Real Time Strategy games. That might confuse some people as one is mindless destruction and the other is....well, mindfull destruction. However in the end they are about the same thing....destruction. However as fun as killing and utterly annhilating your enemy over and over is, I have lately been kind of annoyed by the repition of it all. It's specially true for RTS where create-a-base-destroy-a-base missions are the norm.

Ultimately RTS are war simulators. Be it at the tactical or strategic level, they simulate human conflict and appeal to our more primevial urge to come out superior in the battle for survival. However, let's be honest, most conflicts are NOT create-a-base-destroy-a-base..... as a matter of fact not everything in real world strategy involves destruction. They involve inteligence, planning, strategy, ambushes, guerrilla tactics, flanking, counter-intelligence and (...ok) a bit of destruction. However, most RTS games involve two types of missions: the aforementioned create-a-base-destroy-a-base type or the hold-an-area-while-hordes-of-enemies-come-towards-you.

One could argue that RTS are not real war simulators, yet this is not an excuse for the fact that there should be more variety in mission types and structure. Variety is good, it keeps the player engaged and adds to the replayability of a game. Then why oh why are we stuck with the same mission types and with the same enemy archetypes even if they are different games. Just to prove my point, how many times have you bought a new strategy game and started to identify the factions as zerg-like, protoss-like and terran-like and then use the same strategies you used back then to beat the game?

What can be done then to add variety to missions? One way cheap way is by putting a clicking clock that cuts your mission short. A timer is always an effective way to add preassure and make a simple mission an adrelanine rush. However this has already been done to death. A better way is by using the story to give more meaning to the mission. If base A serves basicly the same purpouse as base B (ie they are there simply to be destroyed) than there is nothing new and exciting breaching them. If destorying base A has an different overall consecuence for the story than destroying base B...than it get's intresting. It might not be in your immediate interest to destroy base B, or maybe it be better to destroy B before A. If you give the player th option to be a part of the inteligence, planning, strategy, ambushes, guerrilla tactics, flanking, counter-intelligence, than the whole game becomes much more meaningful.

One could also twich the gameplay rules in later missions to keep everything new. One should just be careful no to upset the player with this. Small changes that change the angle in which you have to play are the best. For example one mission could only give you resources if you kill an enemy unit, or if one of your units die. This changes the gameplay drasticly while not changing the whole game. If most missions have a special rule set, than each one will be memorable, and in the end the game will be a lot more fun.

Haven't I seen you around?

2008-11-22T10:42:00.000-08:00

Can't seem to put a name on that oh so familiar face you see walking down the street? Maybe you have played too many videogames.... There's a surprisingly number of people who just look like videogame characters. This page has quite a few of them. Here are some of my favorites:

Is the future looking retro?

2008-11-14T07:13:00.000-08:00

In an interesting article on gamasutra, videogame journalist Nayan Ramachandran asks the question, is this flood of retro-style games (which he calls neo-retro) just a fad or is it a new movement in gaming, maybe a new genre per se? It's undeniable that games like Braid, Mega Man 9, Contra 4, Geometry Wars are becoming a massive success both critically and in the players mind. They don't offer anything new, most of them are still use 2D graphics, however, even in a time when many games are becoming more complex, they are a smash hit. Why is this?

Many point to the cute well done 2D graphics, specially compared to those of the the early Playstation and N64 games. They have aged pretty well. This is not so much becasue of technological limitations, but becasue of the art design. Realistic games age baddly (period). Why? well beacue we have something to compare it with.....reality. As technology improves, new graphics come closer to our expexctations and basicly make old grahics look bad. This does not happen if the art does not strive in being realistic. Pacman, bomberman, mario....they will always look good because they fullfill their own standards (ie, being cartoony). Hence they don't age. If we made a remake of Donkey Kong for the Playstation 3, it will end up looking very much the same. Why? Because the art design said so.

However, graphics alone don't explain the neo-retro wave. Accesibility is the other keyword. We also have to look into the rise of casual games as to why neo-retro games are becoming popular. The games of yonder had an easy-going, pick-me-up-and-just-play attitude. You didn't have to learn all the combos, every inch of a map or a spreadsheet of data. They were simpler times, and for this new wave of casual gamers back to basics is just right. This explains the success of games like Geometry Wars. As the casual market rises, so will the quest for simple, fun games that aren't too hard to master and that can be played for short bursts at a time. This is why there are more retro games each year. What called to us back then (simple gameplay, easy on the eye graphics, intuitive mechanics) is still valid now, and for all those "new gamers" its just as appealing as it was for us back in the day. In the end, they are simply, still fun.

Super Kombat

2008-11-11T08:02:00.000-08:00

Hi everybody. Well as you might have already heard there's a bunch of new fighters coming in. I'm talking about the big ones: Tekken 6, Soul Calibur 4 and Mortal Kombat.....oh but its not JUST Mortal Kombat, its Mortal Kombat vs DC comics!!!!

Yup that's right, if you've always wished to kick Superman's red spandex behind (as this humble writer has always dreamed of) now's your chance. This is part of the big DC plan to create more brand awareness and cash off on the new comic revival. I'm not just talking about movies, there are also new comic series and games (there's also a new MMO, DCU Online, in production). Of course this helps the nobel cause of brining back the comics into mainstream culture. However what's in it for MK?

One might think that this crossover is in the same vein as Marvel vs Capcom (or SNK vs Capcom or Tatsunoko vs Capcom or Namco vs Capcom [ok this last one was an rpg] ), however we must remember that Marvel already had a fighting game under their belt, and a successful one at that (Marvel Super Heroes, 1995). Both companies had succesful fighting games, the same target audience and a similar fighting style (quick and with tons of combos). The crossover didn't change that.

However DC is another story, not only has it never had a fighting game (which, lets face it, its not such a big deal), but it has a different target audience. This is the heart of the problem. Mortal Kombat is famous for blood, guts and gore. It was the height of videogame violence, the pinnacle of pure decapitated, heart pulling, spine ripping bliss. It was THE controvery of the early 90's (Bill Clinton aside). And so far the series has retained that spirit. Yet, in this new instalment the blood doesn't flow as often, guts don't fly around and heads stay in their place.

Of course this is going to happen, DC doesn't want Flash to be skinned alive, Green Lantern's great green heart to be squished or Batman's spine being ripped out (only broken and only if you're Bane). Why would Midway do this then? My best guess is that MK did it for the same reason that DC... to attract new players to the franchise. Let's face it, the last couple of instalments of the MK series weren't the best or more succesful (thou they did have some creative design decisions, Kombat Chess comes to mind). This crossover is certain to gain media and fan attention, and maybe make up for Midway's woes. But I ask you oh wise reader, is this still Mortal Kombat? Is this game the same one that we all learned to love, one roundhouse kick at a time? I guess the point I'm trying to make is....has the spirit of the game still here?

In a franchise one of the most important aspects to consider is to maintain the "spirit" of the original. This means that one has to take care to conserve all the aspects that make it unique. Any designer that works on a series must know this and must be very careful not to break that spirit. And here is the critique. Its a fine line Midway and DC are walking. More than its charctes, its moves and its combos (which started with Street Fighter), MK is recognizable for its ejem.... "mature content". Of course, gore isn't the game per se, it doesn't change the gameplay and the mecanics stay the same...and there are some new features in there that are really worth looking at (Free-Fall Kombat, I'm looking at you). However, innovation has to take care not to roll over the core of a series. I am giving the game the benefit of the doubt; maybe, just maybe, this change in the game doens't challenge the spirit of the game, and in the end we will retain the game we love and that gave us hours of fun.

Contraption of a game?

2008-11-08T06:12:00.000-08:00

Hi everybody, the other day, while I was kind of bored and had nothing to do, a friend of mine told me about this little game he found on the net. I didn't know it at the time, but this was the beginning of this month's addiction (not as unhealthy as it sounds). The game was Fantastic Contraption. So, in honor of this great game, I've decided I'd take a critical look to see what make it great and what it could do better.

First of all, the good bits. Fantastic Contraption is an online physics simulator in which you're challenged with moving a red piece (the shape and size change between levles) to a certain area. To do this you have to build catapults, vehicles, whips (I swear I saw one) or any other mechanism you can come up with. The gameplay is tremendously addictive (specially for engineers as it has been known as the 2008 plague at my college) not only due to the simple game mechanics and infinite replayability, but also because of the great variety of designs the game allows you to build. However, this wouldn't be as much a deal if it weren't because the game let's you upload your designs and show 'em to the world.

Lately games have been trying to build a comunity around themselves in order to extend shelf life ( see Pascal Luban's article on megatrends). This is not a new trend, the blizzard community goes all the way back to the 1990's. However this trend has boomed lately, specially since the comming of online console gaming. This has expanded the community not just in the competitive sense (which has existed for years), but also as a way to simply share content (and if the sporopedia has shown us anything is that it'll be here for still some time). That's why I applaud this design desicion, as it really does help keep the game fresh, even after finishing it.

However, it does have its low points, and I'm talking most of all about its interface. Thou at first look it might seem of the nice, simple, minimalistic type (another trend, specially since the rise of casual gamers), it does have problems once you actually start building the contraption. If you have many elements in the machine (which you will once you get to the tougher levels) they are laid on top of each other, hiding the element below. This turns into a hassel once you have to analyze what went wrong with your machine, and its even worse once you have to make changes. There will be many times when you accidently erase the wrong element because you couldn't see the one you wanted to delete. This is worse with the water beams, becasue they're animation makes it hard to see where one ends and the others begin. The zoom in and out features help a little, but sometimes the machine's "density" is too much even for them.

But how to solve this? A simple colored outline of the machine elements that are behind would help distinguish them better. This has been done before (in Age of Empires II for example, when a unit was behind a building), and it is pretty effective. Being able to see where a beam leads to, or the connection points of the wheels behind a mass of other elements would allow for the quicker construction of more complex designs. If the problem persists thou, we could color the outlines differently using a darker/lighter hue if the element is further back. Though this is more difficult to implement than a single color outline, it would help see which element is where and save the player loads of frustration.

Nonetheless, this does not break the game. The gameplay is very solid and the mechanics work as they should each and every time. In the end, Fantastic Contrapiton is a brilliantly executed game which entices the "One more turn" dilema (that's why it's known at my college as Engineer crack). I encourage everyone, especially engineers who want to bid their social life good bye, to play it. You can find a free demo here. Have fun.

Welcome

2008-11-07T07:43:00.000-08:00

Hi everybody! Welcome to my new blog. Here we're gonna analyze games from a game design point of view trying to point out the features that make or break a game. No these are not reviews, I don't give out scores and I do not get gifts (or angry calls) from publishers. Basically we take a design desicion made in a game and we see how it affects the gameplay. Some are good chocies, some are bad choices and some are....well those are the two main options. However, this is not a rave/rant blog; we consider why these were good/bad desicions from different perspectives. So with out further ado, I declare this blog officially open.