How to estimate the depth of the game mechanics. Part one

In this article on game design, Mike Stout, former designer of the Insomniac Games studio, shares useful information about the depth of game mechanics and examines the issues of their excessive congestion using the example of the Ratchet & Clank series of games.







Problem



In the development it is often the case that the design looks great on paper, but in the game it gives a completely different effect, it looks superficial and “flat”. From the publishers, testers and developers you can hear the characteristics of "monotonous" and "monotonous."

')

From time to time, any game designer will hear such reviews. I came across this problem in all the projects I was working on and found three ways to solve it.



If, during the game, users lack the diversity in mechanics, you can add new elements to it - expand the scope.



• Words-indicators: the game “boring”, “not enough diversity”, “the same thing”.

• If such feedback can be answered by expanding the content, this is a problem of the game as a whole. Players lack global diversity.



If players believe that a particular game mechanic is dull and stupid, you can always add external elements to it - increase rewards and drops, make more cool special effects, work on the sound - in general, improve appearance. Seeing such "redecoration" that does not change the game mechanics, players usually say that the problem has been solved.



• Indicator words: specific game mechanics “tedious”, “uninteresting”.

• Such feedback often applies to individual game mechanics; this is usually the individual emotional perception of the user. The problem is solved with the help of "facelift".



If the players believe that a certain game mechanics is too simple and “interesting at first, but quickly bored”, then the game mechanics should be deepened.



• Indicator words: “very simple”, “too easy”, “dummy”. You can often hear that at first it is interesting to play, but very soon the mechanics become boring and monotonous.

• Of course, in this case, you can add special effects, but this will only distract players for a while, and the problem will again be felt. We need to gather strength and work on the deepening of the game mechanics.

Each of the three situations described may be a topic for a separate article, but let's consider the most insidious of them - the deepening of game mechanics.



I hope that by the end of this article I will be able to give a detailed description of the methods that I use to identify the causes of the lack of depth in one or another game mechanics. Moreover, I will try to share useful techniques that help deepen the game mechanics.



For a start, we will define the concepts



Before proceeding to the discussion of depth, I want to explain a little terminology, which I often use in this article:



Game mechanics. Speaking of "game mechanics", I mean any important part of the gameplay in the game. I will give an example from the classic The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past. The game mechanics here are sword fights, boomerang launches, swimming, puzzles like “Fifths”, avoiding dangerous situations, using certain weapons and so on.

Game test. A test is any part of a game scenario where a player’s dexterity and skills are tested under the conditions of one or another game mechanics - for example, a room in a dungeon in a Zelda game, sliding on rails in Ratchet & Clank or a military battle in Halo.



So, what does the "depth of game mechanics" mean?



Here is how Dictionary.com defines the word depth: "The totality of knowledge, wisdom, feelings, understanding of the essence ... characterizes everything that is created by the human mind - works of art, statements and so on." As can be seen from this wording, the concept of depth can be interpreted by each person in his own way.

For me, this is a feature of the game, in which the user can reuse their skills in certain game mechanics. The test should not be too prolonged, otherwise it will bother you, and should not end too quickly, so that the player can gladly apply his skills.



One thing is clear: depth is what we strive for in creating the majority of game mechanics; it is not entirely clear how to achieve this.



In my experience, I was convinced that two things are necessary to achieve the optimal depth of game mechanics:

• A clear goal that helps the player understand what to do to achieve the result. The blurred goal and the need to act intuitively leads the players to the idea that mechanics lack depth.

• Sophisticated gaming skills, on the basis of which you, as a game designer, can create good challenges, and which players, in turn, can apply to successfully complete the game.



Goals



When a player is confronted with a test, he must be clearly aware of his goals. In other words, he must have a good idea of ​​how the test should end.







When players at The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past see such a door, they know that in order to advance through the plot they need to find the Big Key. This is a very simple but good example of a goal. Seeing the door, the player realizes that he needs to find the key and bring it back.



Specific objectives are required to achieve the depth of game mechanics. As I have already noted, if a gamer does not understand what the result of this test should be, he will perform random actions instead of demonstrating possession of game mechanics.



Thoughtful gaming skills



Sophisticated gaming skills are all that a player must do to pass the test from start to finish. In other words, to make the player understand the task that the challenge confronts him is only half the battle.



The word "thoughtful" is the most important part of this definition. If the skill that is necessary to apply for passing the test is too primitive, then the game mechanic will lose depth and become for the player something like deleting items from the shopping list.

A classic example of too simple a skill is the phrase “move from point A to point B”. Such a "test" is very similar to the quest "press the button to win." It is too easy, there is no depth.

Moreover, if you think about it, using the phrase “move from point A to point B”, we denote the goal of the test, and not the skill that is needed to achieve this goal.



At first glance, the difference is insignificant, but this is the most important point. Taking into account this particular nuance of creating game mechanics, you will be able to identify what will form its depth.



Sophisticated gaming skills: a story with morality



When I was working on the Ratchet & Clank 2 project as a second designer, I was assigned the task of developing the game mechanics of the attracting beam “Tractor beam” for two levels. The mechanics of the beam allowed Ratchet to freely move large objects marked with the appropriate symbol. In fact, this is the "redecoration" of the classic mechanics of the movement of blocks from games like The Legend of Zelda.



Work on the training trials did not cause difficulties. The player was asked to move the blocks from point A to point B so that he could, moving along them, get out of the pit. But when I began to create more complex tests, problems appeared. I very quickly came to a standstill. It was too easy to move things from place to place, but it was hard for me to go beyond the tutorial and offer a variety of challenging tests.



At that time, I had not yet suspected such an important point as the difference between thoughtful and primitive gaming skills. Then I did not realize the significance of clearly defined goals. Due to the lack of necessary experience, I simply began to load this mechanic with new elements in order to add depth to it. If you now have a disapproving cry, then you understand correctly. I myself react so when I write about it.



Upon reflection, I decided to make the player take and drag a strange robot (if, reading this, you think that I decided to do a "redecoration", take the pie from the shelf). The player had to place the robot on the marked places in order to open the doors. Naturally, this did not work as well as we would like, so I continued to “decorate” the mechanics (heavy sigh).



I added bombs that could be used to undermine the doors, as well as slingshots for firing bombs at targets.

It seemed to me that the blocks are great for hiding behind them from the laser beams.



I also added special blocks with explosive rockets inside, with the help of which it was possible to undermine the doors.



And finally, I added blocks sliding along the floor in a groove. The player was faced with the task of arranging the blocks in a certain order, but they were moving one groove one at a time and constantly blocking each other’s path.



All this "improvement" ended up being hated by programmers, and the mechanics became oversaturated. Players could not cope with it. Trial testing has shown that the mechanics are too confusing. We had to devote the lion's share of the time allotted to tasks with a attracting beam only to working off the skill so that the players got a minimal idea of ​​what the task requires of them.



Looking back now, I understand why this mechanic lacked depth: I constantly added new goals, but did not pay much attention to thinking through game skills.



Later I will talk about this in more detail. In the meantime, this example vividly illustrates that it is precisely the well-thought-out skills that, unlike goals, deepen the mechanics.



In the process of working on the mechanics of the attracting beam “Tractor beam” I learned a very valuable lesson: the reason for the insufficient depth of the game mechanics often lies in a large number of goals and a lack of thought-out skills.







Despite the fact that the players liked the Inspector Bot, its introduction to the mechanics of the attracting beam did not add depth.