Game Design: Speed of Game
I'm a fan of slower-paced, more methodical games. I'm one of the (apparently rare) breed that values a good turn-based strategy or role-playing game. Games like X-Com, Civilization, and Master of Orion are among my all-time favorites, and I think part of the reason I enjoy many of the console RPGs is the option (in many of them) to play in purely turn-based mode, as the game pauses as you give commands to your characters.

Yet on the flip side, I've been frustrated with some real-time action games being "too slow." Not often with professional games, but it happens - more often in spots and segments. What's the difference?

To me, the "Speed of the Game" is in the availability of meaningful player interactions - or, barring that, even player decisions - at each point of the game. At any point where, as a player, I don't have anything to do and I'm waiting on the game, I get bored.

This happens most often in the early stages of some RTS games, where I'm waiting for things to get built. Fortunately, most RTS games usually have things to check up on and tweak while 'waiting,' and the pace often transitions to frantic quickly enough that the anticipation of the potential early rush is enough to keep it exciting. Many of the more modern RTS games also give you an explorer / scout type unit that can play with while you are waiting for city management to become interesting.

Certain RPGs with lots of empty geography to travel through can also feel very slow. Sure, there's the threat of random encounters from point A to point B, but that too frequently becomes more frustrating and annoying than exciting. While there may be some twists and turns around obstacles to keep the player from falling asleep while otherwise holding down on the controller in a single direction, it's not enough.

Extensive and lengthy cut-scenes - particularly those that commit the near-cardinal sin of being non-interruptable - can also severely detract from the feeling of game speed.

Turn-based games - at least those where the player isn't waiting for the computer or other player to finish their turn - don't usually have this problem because the player can always make the fairly significant decision of moving on to the next turn without making any major decision. In effect, he's manually "skipping ahead to the interesting parts." I found myself doing this in games like Civilization, Master of Orion, and Galactic Civilizations. The trick is making sure that this isn't something the player should feel obligated to do often. The player should usually have things to tweak and play with to optimize his progress.

In games like the Thief series, Rainbow Six, or Deus Ex, the decision to "do nothing" could also be very significant. While hiding in the shadows, timing the moment of action could be difference between flawless success and game-ending defeat. So long as the player doesn't find himself stuck waiting too long for the right moment (and different players have different tolerances for this kind of thing), it can be even more exciting than the full-bore shoot-em-up. The difference here is that the player is constantly evaluating the relative merit of taking certain actions RIGHT NOW versus the a few seconds from now - and is allowed to take significant action at any time. This is unlike the early-stage RTS game where the player may technically be free to take action, but any action other than holding the current course is trivially stupid.

While this seems like a pretty elementary rule, one easily discovered with minimal playtesting, I do see it violated from time-to-time, particularly in some indie games (often by first- or second-time game developers). The pace can rise and fall, but the player should never feel like he's just waiting for something to happen.

Labels: Game Design

- posted by The Rampant Coyote @ 3:29 PM (Permalink)