Game design: What to do when the player is doing poorly
This topic has been on my mind for a bit. Namely, the penalties for failure in gaming, how they work and how they evolve over time. Basically, what to do when the player screws up? Whether they’re consistently using a bad strategy (spamming the attack button in DW6) or not reacting fast enough (bullet hell), failing to see a pattern, (boss fights), or whatnot. I'm going to limit these to single-player games.
I’ve identified a few types of outcomes:
1) Game over/new game. This is the most common result from early arcade games. 3 lives, then back to the beginning. It carried over to the earliest console games: 3 lives, 3 continues, then back to the beginning. Another example is the infamous Steel Battalion, which I will buy someday if I win the lottery. I’ll lump in arcade games that constantly require you to keep putting money in to keep playing if you suck (Gauntlet, TMNT, Golden Axe, Street Fighter 2, etc). In the days of games lasting 30-40 hours, this is becoming less practical. Hardcore gaming aside, of course.
2) Loss of time/progress. This is probably the most common today. What I mean is, if the player does badly (by getting killed, for example), the game sends them back to an earlier progress point. This is easily divided into two sub-categories. The first is sending the player back to a game-defined checkpoint. The second is to send the player back to whenever they last saved (many PC games with quicksave have this feature). Both of these options are incredibly common these days. I find that on the 360, it's moved more towards the checkpoint rather than save point system. Obviously, there are hybrids such as save points within a level that the players can use multiple times.
3) Adjust difficulty. I've seen games where the game auto-adjusts the difficulty if the player loses too much. The less said about this, the better, I'm thinking. Attracting the casual gamer is fine and all, but hand-holding is a bit much.
4) Handle it in-game. Provide plot or gameplay outcomes to the player not doing well, without necessarily showing a 'Game Over' screen. This is the most complicated one and most difficult to pull off. I can think of only a handful of examples.
One general example is the idea of multiple game endings. Often, making bad decisions results in the game punishing you in the plot, if not the gameplay itself.
There are also games where you don't so much lose, as get penalized with a bad score if you play poorly. For example, pretty much any game where your goal is to complete the level as soon as possible but you can 'die' as many times as you want. Any level where a timer counts up instead of down qualifies.
An example of direct gameplay consequences is Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance. I haven't played it. However, I'm told that if you lose an ally, the game simply removes them from your party, the plot, and the game. "Did you lose a character that seemed to have a great backstory and relevance to the game? Oh, that's ok. You'll just play the game without them, without their dialogue, the quests they'd have initiated. Ever." Another example is the first Wing Commander game. If you die, game over; restart the mission (category 2). If
you eject from your ship, you get the 'bad' mission outcome. Eject enough times and you're shunted to more and more hopeless missions that result in bad endings.
Another example I could think of might be secret areas: If you don't explore properly, you miss out on added content or hidden options.
Obviously, there are many different combinations available. Some games have both player save points and checkpoints. Some games knock you back to the checkpoint if you lose the main character and have in-game consequences if you make other bad decisions. There are also some games that allow the player to save as often as the like, whenever they like, but will terminate the entire game; start from scratch, when the player loses. Examples of this are roguelikes that force a player to start a new game if they die, but don't penalize a player who has to leave.
I imagine many hardcore gamers hate the idea of saving whenever possible, as well as the whole of option 3 on the grounds that them coddling players who play badly or a way for game designers to shirk the responsibilities of balancing their game's difficulty fairly. ("ah, who cares if the player dies, we'll give them enough continues that we don't have to balance it").
I have some arguments to make. First, the game should be a learning experience. If the player is playing badly, then the game should provide some attempt to instruct the player what they're doing wrong and/or what to look for next time. This should be happening REGARDLESS of what consequence method the game chooses to use.
I personally am not a huge fan of option one (game over), at least for today's games. It's generally a matter of debate. I do agree that it does force players to learn to be skilled more than most other options do. In general, it could possibly work if the entire game is designed around this idea. I'd like the idea in a more old-school style game, where your main (or only) objective is survival, time, or a high score. It's the stuff that tournaments are made of, but it's not the stuff that fun is made of.
Loss of time: This can work perfectly reasonably, and many of today's games put it to excellent use. I have nothing against game-generated checkpoints. Putting a player back at the beginning of a boss fight, or enemy wave, platforming sequence, etc, is perfectly fair. In particular, it makes learning from one's mistakes easier. If a player gets killed by a boss a couple times in a row, without too much (real-life) time passing, it's easier to spot a trend or pattern: "If I duck the first two fireballs and roll out of the way of the missile, he opens up his weak spot."
Infinite Save: Not a big fan. It can essentially eliminate any penalties for failure whatsoever, given enough save files.
Reduce difficulty: Definitely not. The reward for playing well is a harder game, and the punishment for sucking is an easier game? Just... no. There is one and only one way I can see this working well: Score. Envision a time-based game where getting hit makes the game easier, but going x minutes without being hit increases a score multiplier. This could possibly work. Other than that, I don't see it being a good game design method.
Handle in-game: I honestly think that this is what most games should aspire to. My hope is that the gaming community tries to migrate towards this, where feasible. It isn't always feasible, of course. But consider the richness of a game that effectively rewards a player for doing well with its plot, with its gameplay options. Perhaps even a purely graphical enhancement: The better you play, the more costumes you unlock. Plus your character now has spiky armor and an octarine lightsaber.
I have more to say but I think I'll stop it here, with the basic options as I see them, and with my preliminary opinions. I'd welcome comments--both on some options I may have missed, as well as other people's opinions on which ones are favored. More on this topic later, hopefully.
I’ve identified a few types of outcomes:
1) Game over/new game. This is the most common result from early arcade games. 3 lives, then back to the beginning. It carried over to the earliest console games: 3 lives, 3 continues, then back to the beginning. Another example is the infamous Steel Battalion, which I will buy someday if I win the lottery. I’ll lump in arcade games that constantly require you to keep putting money in to keep playing if you suck (Gauntlet, TMNT, Golden Axe, Street Fighter 2, etc). In the days of games lasting 30-40 hours, this is becoming less practical. Hardcore gaming aside, of course.
2) Loss of time/progress. This is probably the most common today. What I mean is, if the player does badly (by getting killed, for example), the game sends them back to an earlier progress point. This is easily divided into two sub-categories. The first is sending the player back to a game-defined checkpoint. The second is to send the player back to whenever they last saved (many PC games with quicksave have this feature). Both of these options are incredibly common these days. I find that on the 360, it's moved more towards the checkpoint rather than save point system. Obviously, there are hybrids such as save points within a level that the players can use multiple times.
3) Adjust difficulty. I've seen games where the game auto-adjusts the difficulty if the player loses too much. The less said about this, the better, I'm thinking. Attracting the casual gamer is fine and all, but hand-holding is a bit much.
4) Handle it in-game. Provide plot or gameplay outcomes to the player not doing well, without necessarily showing a 'Game Over' screen. This is the most complicated one and most difficult to pull off. I can think of only a handful of examples.
One general example is the idea of multiple game endings. Often, making bad decisions results in the game punishing you in the plot, if not the gameplay itself.
There are also games where you don't so much lose, as get penalized with a bad score if you play poorly. For example, pretty much any game where your goal is to complete the level as soon as possible but you can 'die' as many times as you want. Any level where a timer counts up instead of down qualifies.
An example of direct gameplay consequences is Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance. I haven't played it. However, I'm told that if you lose an ally, the game simply removes them from your party, the plot, and the game. "Did you lose a character that seemed to have a great backstory and relevance to the game? Oh, that's ok. You'll just play the game without them, without their dialogue, the quests they'd have initiated. Ever." Another example is the first Wing Commander game. If you die, game over; restart the mission (category 2). If
you eject from your ship, you get the 'bad' mission outcome. Eject enough times and you're shunted to more and more hopeless missions that result in bad endings.
Another example I could think of might be secret areas: If you don't explore properly, you miss out on added content or hidden options.
Obviously, there are many different combinations available. Some games have both player save points and checkpoints. Some games knock you back to the checkpoint if you lose the main character and have in-game consequences if you make other bad decisions. There are also some games that allow the player to save as often as the like, whenever they like, but will terminate the entire game; start from scratch, when the player loses. Examples of this are roguelikes that force a player to start a new game if they die, but don't penalize a player who has to leave.
I imagine many hardcore gamers hate the idea of saving whenever possible, as well as the whole of option 3 on the grounds that them coddling players who play badly or a way for game designers to shirk the responsibilities of balancing their game's difficulty fairly. ("ah, who cares if the player dies, we'll give them enough continues that we don't have to balance it").
I have some arguments to make. First, the game should be a learning experience. If the player is playing badly, then the game should provide some attempt to instruct the player what they're doing wrong and/or what to look for next time. This should be happening REGARDLESS of what consequence method the game chooses to use.
I personally am not a huge fan of option one (game over), at least for today's games. It's generally a matter of debate. I do agree that it does force players to learn to be skilled more than most other options do. In general, it could possibly work if the entire game is designed around this idea. I'd like the idea in a more old-school style game, where your main (or only) objective is survival, time, or a high score. It's the stuff that tournaments are made of, but it's not the stuff that fun is made of.
Loss of time: This can work perfectly reasonably, and many of today's games put it to excellent use. I have nothing against game-generated checkpoints. Putting a player back at the beginning of a boss fight, or enemy wave, platforming sequence, etc, is perfectly fair. In particular, it makes learning from one's mistakes easier. If a player gets killed by a boss a couple times in a row, without too much (real-life) time passing, it's easier to spot a trend or pattern: "If I duck the first two fireballs and roll out of the way of the missile, he opens up his weak spot."
Infinite Save: Not a big fan. It can essentially eliminate any penalties for failure whatsoever, given enough save files.
Reduce difficulty: Definitely not. The reward for playing well is a harder game, and the punishment for sucking is an easier game? Just... no. There is one and only one way I can see this working well: Score. Envision a time-based game where getting hit makes the game easier, but going x minutes without being hit increases a score multiplier. This could possibly work. Other than that, I don't see it being a good game design method.
Handle in-game: I honestly think that this is what most games should aspire to. My hope is that the gaming community tries to migrate towards this, where feasible. It isn't always feasible, of course. But consider the richness of a game that effectively rewards a player for doing well with its plot, with its gameplay options. Perhaps even a purely graphical enhancement: The better you play, the more costumes you unlock. Plus your character now has spiky armor and an octarine lightsaber.
I have more to say but I think I'll stop it here, with the basic options as I see them, and with my preliminary opinions. I'd welcome comments--both on some options I may have missed, as well as other people's opinions on which ones are favored. More on this topic later, hopefully.