Monday, February 08, 2010
Game Design: Suspended in Groundhog Day!
I watched the movie Groundhog Day again... on, surprisingly, Groundhog Day. One of the Best Movies Ever, IMO.
I always thought the last line of the movie, "Let's live here! We'll rent to start." was kind of a weak punchline. But this time I got the "oh, DUH!" revelation. This guy has been living in this town for years. Possibly decades, by some of the implications in the film. Director Harold Ramis posits the opinion in the commentary that it was ten years, and later suggested it was probably more like 30 or 40 years. So how could he possibly go back to his old life?
Yeah, sometimes I'm kinda slow that way.
But anyway - I really brought it up to talk about time loops in games. It's apparently been used in games quite a bit. Some examples include the Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask, and of course indie game Braid, where manipulating the flow of time is really what the game was about (it was billed at one point as "Groundhog Day" meets "Memento"). There's the Persona 3: FES expansion episode The Answer which takes place inside a one-day time loop. I was kind of disappointed that the time loop didn't play a larger role in the story and gameplay than it did. But it did end up being the big Maguffin plot device that brought the characters into battle against each other, as they took sides over an opportunity to rewrite history - to bring back their fallen friend but risk losing what he sacrificed himself to obtain.
But the game I really think of when I think of the time loops in Groundhog Day was a science fiction text adventure by Michael Berlyn, published by Infocom, called Suspended. It was supremely difficult, IMO. Which is probably why I never beat it. In Suspended, you are a character in cryogenic suspension who's brain has been used as a "living computer" for a central system that keeps a terraformed planet running smoothly and safely. An earthquake has caused a catastrophic failure at the facility, and you awake to full consciousness in communication with several robots who you need to use to repair the facility before too many turns (and too many people die).
If you fail, the population assumes you have gone crazy and are deliberately destroying the world (as, apparently, your predecessor did). They come to the facility and remove you from your suspension - killing you in the process.
Now, the major trick to the game was that each robot was very quirky, having major limitations and a unique ability. One robot always communicated via bizarre poetry about the flow of the electrical systems. Only one robot had visual sensors. Only one had audio sensors. The time limit meant you could not simply move the robots around in one group to get all the information at once to get a clear picture of what was going on and to do everything that needed to be done.
In many ways, the game required you to play it through to failure, many times, to get a better understanding of what was happening and what had to be done. Eventually - well, in theory, as I never got that far - the game would come down to careful management of your robots in some optimal fashion to fix the facility before the angry mob came to kill you. And you could then optimize further to get a better score, or to play at a higher difficulty.
It was a novel concept, and not one often repeated - at least to my knowledge. Maybe because it was so friggin' hard that people got frustrated just getting a handle on what they were supposed to do that they quit. But I think there are ideas there - from the early days of the hobby - which have merit and should be re-explored in modern (indie?) games.
First off - the time loop. Suspended didn't really have one, but as a player you felt like you were in one. The game was very short - it was supposed to be played over and over again until you got it right. What about incorporating that concept right into the game, so that you didn't exactly "lose" the game so much as progress to the next restart.
The other idea was that - in repeating the same scenario - you didn't really control just one character. You controlled several completely independent characters --- the robot. The "you" in Suspended was really a non-entity. You really played the robots - up until the point your frozen meat-suit got sacked. So what about a game of time-loops where you play not just one character trying to "get it right," but several characters, with their interactions compounding on each other. This could be done simultaneously across blocks of turns (which might be confusing), or switched between by player control (as in Suspended), or could be done sequentially - with the formerly player-controlled character becoming an AI-controlled NPC attempting to mimic the player's sequence of actions.
I say attempting to mimic, because the player's currently controlled character could totally change things up - like killing the former player-controlled character and changing that whole timeline.
From a story perspective, this could be a very fun place to explore, too. Do any of the characters have in-game memories of the previous "run?" Do all of them remember the previous runs? Do they know that each other remembers?
And - like my little "duh" moment above - what happens the Next Day? How are they changed? And what happens if there are no "do overs" the next day, but the consequences are almost as dire?
The possibilities seem to be delicious. AND - extra-special bonus - because the game would only simulate one event (say, one day) and a limited number of locations - it could very easily be done by an indie.
Labels: Adventure Games, Game Design, Movies
- posted by The Rampant Coyote @ 5:10 AM (Permalink)
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
As the primary element of game-play...? No, restarting over and over and over ad nauseum is not my idea of fun at all! Just the thought of playing a game like this aggravates me! (I utter despise Suspended to this day!)
I have considered something similar however. I think it might be interesting in a RPG to have an element of reincarnation where, if a character dies, instead of resurrection a new character could be created with some abilities or skills based on the dead character. As a simple example, if the dead character had a high agility, perhaps the new character would start with a special bonus to his agility.
I have considered something similar however. I think it might be interesting in a RPG to have an element of reincarnation where, if a character dies, instead of resurrection a new character could be created with some abilities or skills based on the dead character. As a simple example, if the dead character had a high agility, perhaps the new character would start with a special bonus to his agility.
I agree with xenovore - even though it's a fascinating concept in both theory and implementation (especially Suspended which seems to bend the limitations of the genre) I personally find it annoying to be subjected to it.
I generally don't like too constricted time limits but playing things over and over is torture for me.
I indeed already have problems with a toned-down concept that is realized in two examples:
- The Last Express, a graphical real-time adventure by Jordan Mechner happening on a train. If you aren't in the right spot at the right time you miss something (essential).
- The Hitman series. While appearing to be run-of-the-mill action adventures/shooters they are in reality trial-and-error puzzlers where you have to discover the right tactic to optimally solve a given mission. You can't solve missions by simply running and gunning through them - you'll attract attention and some missions require you to be at certain positions in certain time windows.
Your success is measured in money(!) as killing innocents will result in deductions as will buying too much equipment at the start of the mission. The best comparison I can find is a racing(!) game where you try to find the ideal racing line to get the best lap times.
Personally, I like to improvise and get the feeling that I just got by (the Uncharted games overdo it: After you jump from a ledge it often crumbles down - but only exactly after you made the jump...)
I generally don't like too constricted time limits but playing things over and over is torture for me.
I indeed already have problems with a toned-down concept that is realized in two examples:
- The Last Express, a graphical real-time adventure by Jordan Mechner happening on a train. If you aren't in the right spot at the right time you miss something (essential).
- The Hitman series. While appearing to be run-of-the-mill action adventures/shooters they are in reality trial-and-error puzzlers where you have to discover the right tactic to optimally solve a given mission. You can't solve missions by simply running and gunning through them - you'll attract attention and some missions require you to be at certain positions in certain time windows.
Your success is measured in money(!) as killing innocents will result in deductions as will buying too much equipment at the start of the mission. The best comparison I can find is a racing(!) game where you try to find the ideal racing line to get the best lap times.
Personally, I like to improvise and get the feeling that I just got by (the Uncharted games overdo it: After you jump from a ledge it often crumbles down - but only exactly after you made the jump...)
# posted by 
: February 08, 2010 1:04 PM
: February 08, 2010 1:04 PM
Never played Suspended, but might have to track it down if it's not a console game.
I like the idea and would play it, if I recognized that it was part of the plot device. I am strange in that respect. LIke Calibrator I don't like having to either a)do it over and over again till I figue it out or b)do it over and over again until I get lucky. But, if I knew I was doing Ground Hog Day or Replay by Ken Grimwood, I would see the game device for what it was.
Strange, I know, if there is a logical reason for the rail game device I can understand it...but if it's the mechanic of the game I hate it.
cl
I like the idea and would play it, if I recognized that it was part of the plot device. I am strange in that respect. LIke Calibrator I don't like having to either a)do it over and over again till I figue it out or b)do it over and over again until I get lucky. But, if I knew I was doing Ground Hog Day or Replay by Ken Grimwood, I would see the game device for what it was.
Strange, I know, if there is a logical reason for the rail game device I can understand it...but if it's the mechanic of the game I hate it.
cl
I have to disagree with everyone above me. I love it when games have this as a prominent game mechanic.
I think Chris is on the right track though. It can really disgruntle players if the mechanic isn't made apparent to them up front or very soon into game-play.
Both Dead Rising and BOF: Dragon Quarter used the 'time loop' mechanic and I love both to this day, but many gamers hate them for the very same reason.
In Dead Rising, it only takes 6 hours to beat the entire game. No matter how good you are or how much you suck, your game ends at the six hour mark. You are trying to survive 3 days in a zombie infested mall, with numerous events and survivors to find if you are in the right place at the right time. If you aren't, you miss them, and some can prevent you from continuing the main storyline, but you can still keep playing.
You can save, but only in one file slot. No backup saves. Each new save overwrites the one before it. Capcom did this both to introduce true tension, and because of the 'time loop' mechanic. When you die, you can start from the last save, or you can start from the beginning of the 3 days again.
But it truly is like Groundhog Day.
When you start again, you remember what everyone will do, who will be where, and when things will occur. In addition, your character retains all the skills he learned and health increases he gained.
Dead Rising is like an action filled zombie-killing puzzle as you try to find the optimal play method and strategy to see all the events,the story unfold in full, and rescue as many survivors as possible.
Capcom fully expected people to restart several times before beating the game.
Dragon Quarter was the same way, only more so. (Which is also, come to think of it, a Capcom game!) It was incredibly short by RPG standards, but brutally hard until you leveled up through mutiple deaths and "reincarnations". The whole goal of the game was to find a way to protect the innocent little girl Nina and reach the mythical surface world before your curse killed you or her illness killed her. The events in each playthrough changed in subtle or drastic ways depending on how many "reincarnations" you'd experienced so far.
I would love to see a Back to the Future game based on this mechanic and the ones you talked about. Kind of a Hill Valley sandbox for you to play in with your time machine, playing with the timeline for kicks and story purposes.
Eventually it all comes down to the fact that some gamers love "trial and error" games and gain satisfaction from getting a little or a lot farther each time. Some gamers want a more linear experience, or at least one where they aren't expected to repeat themselves constantly.
In that fashion, the "time loop" gameplay sounds a bit like the old arcade machines where getting a few more points each time was reward enough if the gameplay was good.
I think Chris is on the right track though. It can really disgruntle players if the mechanic isn't made apparent to them up front or very soon into game-play.
Both Dead Rising and BOF: Dragon Quarter used the 'time loop' mechanic and I love both to this day, but many gamers hate them for the very same reason.
In Dead Rising, it only takes 6 hours to beat the entire game. No matter how good you are or how much you suck, your game ends at the six hour mark. You are trying to survive 3 days in a zombie infested mall, with numerous events and survivors to find if you are in the right place at the right time. If you aren't, you miss them, and some can prevent you from continuing the main storyline, but you can still keep playing.
You can save, but only in one file slot. No backup saves. Each new save overwrites the one before it. Capcom did this both to introduce true tension, and because of the 'time loop' mechanic. When you die, you can start from the last save, or you can start from the beginning of the 3 days again.
But it truly is like Groundhog Day.
When you start again, you remember what everyone will do, who will be where, and when things will occur. In addition, your character retains all the skills he learned and health increases he gained.
Dead Rising is like an action filled zombie-killing puzzle as you try to find the optimal play method and strategy to see all the events,the story unfold in full, and rescue as many survivors as possible.
Capcom fully expected people to restart several times before beating the game.
Dragon Quarter was the same way, only more so. (Which is also, come to think of it, a Capcom game!) It was incredibly short by RPG standards, but brutally hard until you leveled up through mutiple deaths and "reincarnations". The whole goal of the game was to find a way to protect the innocent little girl Nina and reach the mythical surface world before your curse killed you or her illness killed her. The events in each playthrough changed in subtle or drastic ways depending on how many "reincarnations" you'd experienced so far.
I would love to see a Back to the Future game based on this mechanic and the ones you talked about. Kind of a Hill Valley sandbox for you to play in with your time machine, playing with the timeline for kicks and story purposes.
Eventually it all comes down to the fact that some gamers love "trial and error" games and gain satisfaction from getting a little or a lot farther each time. Some gamers want a more linear experience, or at least one where they aren't expected to repeat themselves constantly.
In that fashion, the "time loop" gameplay sounds a bit like the old arcade machines where getting a few more points each time was reward enough if the gameplay was good.
# posted by : February 08, 2010 5:11 PM
: February 08, 2010 5:11 PM
Suspended sounds similar to Adam Cadre's game Varicella. Varicella, the player character, has two hours (turn-based) to put into play his cunning plan to dispose of his rivals. You, the player, have no prior knowledge of the scenario, but by saving, reloading, and restarting, you can formulate a cunning 2-hour plan to dispose of your character's rivals. Challenging, but fun, and with a good story and excellent characterizations.
I had been toying with a similar concept back when The Matrix first came out. The idea was more a combination of Lovecraft meets The Matrix meets Go! (the movie, not the game). The underlying plot involved persona's stuck in this computer world ala The Matrix but with a Lovecraftian like story. They didn't know they were computer generated AI. The story unfolded in time loops with each chapter going back to the beginning of the story but told from another character's perspective where in the end all the pieces came together.
It's been a long time since I visited this game concept but now that you brought this up I'm thinking about it again. I think something like this could really work if done right.
It's been a long time since I visited this game concept but now that you brought this up I'm thinking about it again. I think something like this could really work if done right.
The only two games I know that are truly "groundhog" day games are Space Ace and Dragons Lair.
suspend was interesting but imo Trinity was the much better game (probably infocoms best) and also had time travel :)
suspend was interesting but imo Trinity was the much better game (probably infocoms best) and also had time travel :)
I don't mind "trial and error" game-play, but any game that forces a restart/reload cycle on the player; that game is fundamentally flawed. To me that just seems like an easy way out, i.e. instead of coming up with a creative, interesting, fun design, the designer took the lazy way out, "Oh we'll just make the player reload..."
The GBA game Astro Boy: Omega Factor (action platformer) used something like this. The first playthrough was a purely linear chain of levels, though there were a number of optional discoveries, but you reached a bad ending, the inevitable end of the world. But after the end credits a deus ex machina granted you the power to go back in time, or in videogame terms you restarted the game with a level select screen and your previous character stats.
On this second loop events were altered to make it less of a repetition but following the same linear progression blindly would lead you to the end of the world again. Instead you used your character's prior knowledge of events and the level select to look for the cause of the catastrophe, opening more extra levels and dialogues outside of the linear progression as you went along, until you could trigger the combination of events that led to the good end.
There's also Shadow of Memories, for PS2 (I think), which starts with your character being murdered, and is offered to go back in time to avoid it, but each escape only seems to delay the inevitable. You then have to travel to more and more distant times to find the cause of all this.
On this second loop events were altered to make it less of a repetition but following the same linear progression blindly would lead you to the end of the world again. Instead you used your character's prior knowledge of events and the level select to look for the cause of the catastrophe, opening more extra levels and dialogues outside of the linear progression as you went along, until you could trigger the combination of events that led to the good end.
There's also Shadow of Memories, for PS2 (I think), which starts with your character being murdered, and is offered to go back in time to avoid it, but each escape only seems to delay the inevitable. You then have to travel to more and more distant times to find the cause of all this.
# posted by : February 10, 2010 5:18 AM
: February 10, 2010 5:18 AM
Isn't this a bit what they did in prince of persia; sands of time?
actually having literal time control as a part of the game mechanic could be very interesting, especially in a sort of twilight zone 'the end of time' sort of way.
Create a group, say the time lords (No relation) and some plot about something that's cut your own thread of time in the near future. Make it an FPS or rpg, with cool kookyness to the puzzling that involves manipulating the personal timelines of those about them, maybe even setting up 'perfection sequences' like the casino scene in 'next', groundhog day's 'perfect day', or even something like in 'paycheck' where you have left yourself clues.
Ideally however, it might be a different animal from fps or standard RPG altogether... more freedom than a regular rpg, but far less epic in scope... admittedly it sounds like a plot for one of those games like phantasmagoria, but it could still be fun to attempt. especially if there are multiple characters to deal with.
Hmmmm... make it something like fallout meets the incredible machine...
Post a Comment
actually having literal time control as a part of the game mechanic could be very interesting, especially in a sort of twilight zone 'the end of time' sort of way.
Create a group, say the time lords (No relation) and some plot about something that's cut your own thread of time in the near future. Make it an FPS or rpg, with cool kookyness to the puzzling that involves manipulating the personal timelines of those about them, maybe even setting up 'perfection sequences' like the casino scene in 'next', groundhog day's 'perfect day', or even something like in 'paycheck' where you have left yourself clues.
Ideally however, it might be a different animal from fps or standard RPG altogether... more freedom than a regular rpg, but far less epic in scope... admittedly it sounds like a plot for one of those games like phantasmagoria, but it could still be fun to attempt. especially if there are multiple characters to deal with.
Hmmmm... make it something like fallout meets the incredible machine...
Links to this post:
<< Home
