Monday, January 25, 2010
Formula, Innovation, and Compromised Ideals
One part of my desire to create indie RPGs (and indie games in general) has been to do something different. To break the mold, make games that push the comfort zone, do something different, cross arbitrary category boundaries imposed by marketers and journalists, shatter preconceived notions, and really expand the horizons of what games can be.
And then I find myself - and other indies - doing the same ol', same ol'.
This is not really an indictment. But it was bugging me a little a few weeks ago as I was implementing one of those "find the n-part key" quests. In this case, the key is a spell broken into three parts that must be joined together to form an arcane password that... well, you get the idea. What it really amounts to is, "Make sure the player has explored these three locations before letting them move on to the next part of the game."
It's lame. It's trite. It's overused. It may not be completely creatively bankrupt, but it's definitely in need of overdraft protection. But it works, dagnabbit! It's been disguised in many forms, but it comes down to a simple mechanic that's not too far removed from hunting the down the colored keys in Wolfenstein 3D to get to the exit.
A lot of folks (myself included) evangelize the indie game movement as this incredible revolution of innovation and ground-breaking ideas. And this has definitely been the case. Just this last year, there have been some amazing, innovative (and sometimes downright STRANGE) indie titles released that have even questioned the very definition of the term "game." The Path comes to mind.
But that doesn't mean indie games must be constantly running on the ragged edge of innovation. How much "new" does a game have to provide? And what constitutes "new"?
Ultimately - if a game is in any way commercially oriented - it has to be geared to appeal to the audience. That is what must drive innovation, not the other way around. And that is not a simple equation. Sure, players and critics alike claim they desire innovation - something new - but at what cost are they willing to obtain it?
Brian "Psychochild" Green recently wrote about the problems of innovation, and refers to it as a paradox - innovation comes at the expense of other things gamers value, such as high production values, polish, and "perfection" of core game mechanics. And innovation is risk. Almost by definition. If it ain't broke and you try and fix it, somebody's not going to be happy about it.
I don't know if that excuses me from falling back on tried-and-true formula. Or anybody else. It behooves any game designer to question their design choices. But I don't think that picking one's innovation battles and otherwise sticking with a foundation of familiarity for players is necessarily a compromise of one's ideals.
At least that's my story and I'm sticking to it.
Labels: Frayed Knights
- posted by The Rampant Coyote @ 8:20 AM (Permalink)
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
"And then I find myself - and other indies - doing the same ol', same ol'."
Problem: Quest mechanics (explore, fetch, use, talk, kill, protect) and tools (player running about, inventory management, fights, cut scenes, "quick-time events" etc.) are pretty much always the same.
Here it is really hard for you a developer/designer to come up with something innovative.
Solution: Better story & scenario to integrate these things to give the player who seeks variety and innovation a motivation. (Not that I believe that most players really expect innovation...)
Yes, he will still do all the things mentioned above (like a FPS gamer is still shooting at moving targets) but they have to be used to create the illusion that the whole affair is bigger than the sum of it's parts. He shouldn't even be thinking about the game mechanics but *why* he uses them. To accomplish his goals (which you provide).
In other words: You need worthy goals and sometimes perhaps even a McGuffin.
Hey! It worked before: Killing a dragon to rescue a princess - promising a kingdom and hot royal sex!
Example: EXPLORE three areas, FETCH three parts of a spell, USE the spell as a key - amount to opening a very important door and the player *has* to be really curious to see what's behind it.
But if it's only some rotten bones and the Ring of Arbitrariness you failed as the game designer.
It's very similar to flooding the player with hordes of liches and several skeleton armies: The fights will get repetitive and thus boring. If you make the lich a single powerful enemy that is hard to reach and very hard to beat (unless you use the right tactic) then the motivation practically rises automatically as the player expects a moment of satisfaction after he has done the deed.
Flooding the player with masses of enemies can work, too, though but then you are in a Diablo-like game that gives the player the illusion that he'll find interesting objects after clicking all the enemies away.
So ultimately it's all about gratification.
Problem: Quest mechanics (explore, fetch, use, talk, kill, protect) and tools (player running about, inventory management, fights, cut scenes, "quick-time events" etc.) are pretty much always the same.
Here it is really hard for you a developer/designer to come up with something innovative.
Solution: Better story & scenario to integrate these things to give the player who seeks variety and innovation a motivation. (Not that I believe that most players really expect innovation...)
Yes, he will still do all the things mentioned above (like a FPS gamer is still shooting at moving targets) but they have to be used to create the illusion that the whole affair is bigger than the sum of it's parts. He shouldn't even be thinking about the game mechanics but *why* he uses them. To accomplish his goals (which you provide).
In other words: You need worthy goals and sometimes perhaps even a McGuffin.
Hey! It worked before: Killing a dragon to rescue a princess - promising a kingdom and hot royal sex!
Example: EXPLORE three areas, FETCH three parts of a spell, USE the spell as a key - amount to opening a very important door and the player *has* to be really curious to see what's behind it.
But if it's only some rotten bones and the Ring of Arbitrariness you failed as the game designer.
It's very similar to flooding the player with hordes of liches and several skeleton armies: The fights will get repetitive and thus boring. If you make the lich a single powerful enemy that is hard to reach and very hard to beat (unless you use the right tactic) then the motivation practically rises automatically as the player expects a moment of satisfaction after he has done the deed.
Flooding the player with masses of enemies can work, too, though but then you are in a Diablo-like game that gives the player the illusion that he'll find interesting objects after clicking all the enemies away.
So ultimately it's all about gratification.
# posted by 
: January 25, 2010 8:59 PM
: January 25, 2010 8:59 PM
I've never been crazy about innovation for the sake of innovation. Look at novels, which have been around a lot longer than computer games. Authors who really try to be innovative usually fail to create a good book (not always the case, but usually).
Instead, a good author takes themes that have been examined a million times before, writes a book in the same general way authors have done for centuries, and still manages to produce something unique and valuable. But he doesn't imitate the past as much as build on it.
In your case, I couldn't care less about innovative game mechanics. Sure, if you find something new that really works, great. But innovation for the sake of innovation? Forget it!
If the story really grabs me, I won't even notice that I'm following a tried and true pattern in following it. If those three locations are wonderful areas to explore, I won't even notice the device used to get me to explore them. If I CARE about the characters in the game (this is something I demand in my fiction, but which computer games haven't yet accomplished), it will seem wonderful, even if the gameplay is identical to RPGs I've played many times before.
Instead, a good author takes themes that have been examined a million times before, writes a book in the same general way authors have done for centuries, and still manages to produce something unique and valuable. But he doesn't imitate the past as much as build on it.
In your case, I couldn't care less about innovative game mechanics. Sure, if you find something new that really works, great. But innovation for the sake of innovation? Forget it!
If the story really grabs me, I won't even notice that I'm following a tried and true pattern in following it. If those three locations are wonderful areas to explore, I won't even notice the device used to get me to explore them. If I CARE about the characters in the game (this is something I demand in my fiction, but which computer games haven't yet accomplished), it will seem wonderful, even if the gameplay is identical to RPGs I've played many times before.
In a nutshell: If the innovation doesn't enhance the fun, then it's worthless.
And I'll take polish over innovation any day.
And I'll take polish over innovation any day.
I think it is important for indies to use innovation to differentiate themselves from mainstream titles. That doesn't mean they have to innovate in every area of their games though. I think you've got to mitigate the higher risk of innovation with lower risk aspects like lower production values or smaller scale, etc. IMHO innovating in every aspect of a game would be a sure recipe for disaster.
I guess a successful indie title would have enough innovation to give it that "wow" that will attract gamers from their mainstream titles, but at the same time play it safe and smart in areas where innovation wouldn't be of much benefit. Striking that balance could be tough to manage, I guess. Of course, production values and scale are nice too, but innovation is where indie studios can really compete in the market.
Post a Comment
I guess a successful indie title would have enough innovation to give it that "wow" that will attract gamers from their mainstream titles, but at the same time play it safe and smart in areas where innovation wouldn't be of much benefit. Striking that balance could be tough to manage, I guess. Of course, production values and scale are nice too, but innovation is where indie studios can really compete in the market.
# posted by : January 26, 2010 8:58 PM
: January 26, 2010 8:58 PMLinks to this post:
<< Home
