A Manifesto on Game Design...

[Teh Crabe]

So I've hit that age where I'm getting nostalgic for games I played "back in the day" and wishing that the genre hadn't up and died.  So, like most of you, I've decided to go ahead and make my own game.  While doing so however, I've made a few design decisions based on an examination of myself as a target audience.  I thought I'd share them and see where people agree/disagree.

1. I remember challenging puzzles that required all manner of lateral thinking and hours of trial and error to solve pre-internet before I could just look up the answer.  Now, I don't have the time to play it out anymore, and with the info at my fingertips, I'm more likely to just google it if I'm minorly stumped.  So, goal number one, make it easier to solve the puzzle than it it is to just look it up.  The way I intend to do this is to make the puzzle respond well to any attempts to solve it.  Give hints, and have at least two methods of solving every puzzle.  Judging from my own experience, I'm not really going to care if the puzzle is too easy if I get a decent reward for solving it.  That leads us to:

2. Rewards for Effort - I intend to reward efforts to interact with the game with multimedia rewards, sounds, animations, etc. in addition to raising your score and completing the game.  I'd like to the design the games to have some degree of replay value, and challenge for those who want it.  I intend to have a total score of say 100.  You can finish the game with a score of 50.  All the rest of the points are rewarded for extra interactions not necessary to completing the episode.  Just getting the high score isn't enough of a reward, so there will be unique animations and puzzles, possibly even hidden items and locations for the dedicated gamer who HAS to get all the points.  Thanks to Apprentice's bonus puzzle for giving me this idea.

3. Integration of puzzles with the story is a good way to both keep the game internally consistant, and have them not require insane leaps of logic to solve.  The puzzles should advance the plot, not hinder the advancement of the plot.

4. So, tying in with availablity of time for games with work and living and such, I'd like to make my games in serialized episodes.  Bite-sized chapters that when played in sequence would make a complete game experience.  Obviously, this will compartmentalize things somewhat, in that you will probably close off the earlier areas of the game from the later areas, rather than having the whole to explore.  However, this isn't uncommon in adventure games anyway.  The episodic nature will allow people to play only as much as they want, when they have the time to do so.  

So, in closing, keep it short, keep it entertaining and responsive to every interaction, and make the puzzles ADVANCE the plot of the story rather than being obstacles to the advancement.  The game's solution should come naturally during the process of playing it, rather than needing to reference some outside hints.  If the player has the items to solve the puzzle at hand, the solution should be clear.

ANyway, this isn't so much a criticism of games out there, but more of a development diary I can reference as I progress.  To me, if I accomplish these goals and end up with something aesthetically pleasing and fun to experience, I'll have met my goal.  Thoughts, likes, dislikes, comments and arguments welcome.

[Gonzo]

So I've hit that age where I'm getting nostalgic for games I played "back in the day" and wishing that the genre hadn't up and died.  So, like most of you, I've decided to go ahead and make my own game.  While doing so however, I've made a few design decisions based on an examination of myself as a target audience.  I thought I'd share them and see where people agree/disagree.

Damn straight. I think a lot of us are here because something's just missing from today's games. Trying to recapture it is like the Holy Grail for us, and any fresh ideas are welcome...I picked up on a few of your points below here:

1. I remember challenging puzzles that required all manner of lateral thinking and hours of trial and error to solve pre-internet before I could just look up the answer.  Now, I don't have the time to play it out anymore, and with the info at my fingertips, I'm more likely to just google it if I'm minorly stumped.  So, goal number one, make it easier to solve the puzzle than it it is to just look it up.  The way I intend to do this is to make the puzzle respond well to any attempts to solve it.  Give hints, and have at least two methods of solving every puzzle.  Judging from my own experience, I'm not really going to care if the puzzle is too easy if I get a decent reward for solving it.  That leads us to:

I'll admit I actually *like* to be challenged in a game, but only if the solution is possible to work out without a walkthrough, and if the reward is sufficient. I quite liked it when an adventure game was a little bit tricky. When I played SoMI (my first ever adventure game) when I was very young, I spent a fair bit of time on Melée Island, very gradually working through the puzzles. That made it seem a huge payoff for all that puzzling when I got a brand new environment in Part II, and then Part III after that.

Nowadays it's true you might not be 'stuck' for more than 10 minutes before you're tempted to a walkthrough on the Net, but I think it's one of the most satisfying things about adventure games when you overcome a slightly tricky puzzle without help, AND there's a reward there (as you touched on in point 2). Obviously I don't mean REALLY tricky, like some of the Discworld puzzles, but just ones that push you a bit.

Otherwise I think you can end up with Full Throttle - it's a great story and really cinematic, but it becomes like watching a film, because the puzzles are really easy. As an adventure game it's really flawed. I finished it in a few days. At 10 years old, having eagerly paid 40 quid of hard-earned pocket money for it (after DoTT and Sam And Max, it had to be worth it!) the week it came out, I was a bit gutted. It was fun, but all over too soon, with no replay value. With free AGS games most of us don't have to worry about dissatisfied paying customers, but it's a consideration if you want a game to feel like a real adventure. Yeah, the old-skool games sometimes took no prisoners - I always though the SoMI 'How to get ahead in Navigating' leaflet puzzle was pretty hard to solve yourself (rather than using trial-and-error), but it's a happy medium that you have to aim for. Most of the time they got it right in the old days, IMO.

3. Integration of puzzles with the story is a good way to both keep the game internally consistant, and have them not require insane leaps of logic to solve.  The puzzles should advance the plot, not hinder the advancement of the plot.

That's a very good point. Sometimes puzzles feel tacked on to lengthen the game and keep you in one location. e.g. You've got the call from the office, you need get down there now, but where did you leave your keys? Sometimes this sort of thing is innocently done early in design, but often it feels very artificial. There's not going to be a big reward when you do find the keys, it's just hindering the plot, and virtually all players are going to want to get down to the office. If the game's fundamentals are short, best to keep it short, because a tight quick plot is better than the same plot drawn-out with frustrating irrelevant puzzles.

[Teh Crabe]

I'll admit I actually *like* to be challenged in a game, but only if the solution is possible to work out without a walkthrough, and if the reward is sufficient. I quite liked it when an adventure game was a little bit tricky. When I played SoMI (my first ever adventure game) when I was very young, I spent a fair bit of time on Melée Island, very gradually working through the puzzles. That made it seem a huge payoff for all that puzzling when I got a brand new environment in Part II, and then Part III after that.

Nowadays it's true you might not be 'stuck' for more than 10 minutes before you're tempted to a walkthrough on the Net, but I think it's one of the most satisfying things about adventure games when you overcome a slightly tricky puzzle without help, AND there's a reward there (as you touched on in point 2). Obviously I don't mean REALLY tricky, like some of the Discworld puzzles, but just ones that push you a bit.

Otherwise I think you can end up with Full Throttle - it's a great story and really cinematic, but it becomes like watching a film, because the puzzles are really easy. As an adventure game it's really flawed. I finished it in a few days. At 10 years old, having eagerly paid 40 quid of hard-earned pocket money for it (after DoTT and Sam And Max, it had to be worth it!) the week it came out, I was a bit gutted. It was fun, but all over too soon, with no replay value. With free AGS games most of us don't have to worry about dissatisfied paying customers, but it's a consideration if you want a game to feel like a real adventure. Yeah, the old-skool games sometimes took no prisoners - I always though the SoMI 'How to get ahead in Navigating' leaflet puzzle was pretty hard to solve yourself (rather than using trial-and-error), but it's a happy medium that you have to aim for. Most of the time they got it right in the old days, IMO.

That's what I'm getting at.  Personally, I don't have time to dedicate working out lengthy challenging puzzles.  I want the same feel, and I'm betting you can give someone a satisfying adventure experience without twisting up their brain.  How disappointed would you have been with Full Throttle if it'd been shorter and more focused (without the motorcycle riding which was dumb to include) and only cost a Dollar?  I bet you'd have liked it a LOT more.

[Gonzo]

I do like Full Throttle a lot, I think it rocks, but if we're looking at great adventure game design, it's probably not a shining example - even if you take arcade sequences and there not being enough 'bang for your buck' out of the equation.

FT's appeal lies more in things that reward the player, that we mere AGSers would find it hard to achieve - i.e. very cinematic FMV sequences, rich animation, extremely professional, polished voice acting, music and sound effects.

At its basic adventure game roots, the puzzles and structuring, it's weaker than most other LucasArts adventures.

If some AGSer came along and released a game with all the undeniable 'cool' of Full Throttle, it'd probably be about the best AGS game so far. People, myself included, would surely love it. But it's hard to produce a game like that without the resources of a massive company like the 1995 LucasArts. You have to look back to games with more limited technology, more on the level of the games most of us can make in AGS, that really delivered.

If we're creating a manifesto for the *ideal* adventure game, I think going along the FT line of puzzle theory would be a step away from it.

[Teh Crabe]

I really like what you're saying.  What I'm trying to do is narrow my focus so I can make a game using myself as an audience.  

See, I liked the challenging puzzles back in the day too.  But I don't have time to play those out now.  I need to sleep and work, etc.  Therefore easier puzzles would allow me to play through the game better on my schedule.  WHat can I do to increase the payoff so I still feel satisfied for playing through the game rather than "oh I'm so clever I solved those puzzles"?

Mainly, interactivity and animations and such.  I CAN provide that easier than I can provide innovative and challengin puzzle design (I'm an artist).

*Ideal* as in perfect for all gamers who enjoy the genre isn't what I'm shooting for.  I'm shooting for myself as the ideal gamer.  

Maybe I'll be the one to put out a game as nice looking and stylish as Full Throttle.  I hope so (minus the voice acting.  That's pushing it).  

So maybe manifesto wasn't the right word.  I'm not making a call to arms for others to follow, I'm just throwing some ideas out there on what it would take to satisfy me as a gamer.  I'm actually kind of circumventing too, because I'd like to think I'd want challenging puzzles and hours upon hours of epic gameplay.  But I don't have the time to do it.

I love CRPGs too, but I have yet to finish one upon becoming 16 and having to work for a living.  So how do you re-create the FLAVOR of an old adventure, while trimming it down and not making it too challenging to plow through in a couple of days?

[Gonzo]

I can see where you coming from, yeah. This all really hinges on what you're good at making, and what you're into in adventure games. Some people will concentrate on giving the player lots of fun, stylish animation, others will like to work on great original puzzles. That's either because of great talent at doing those things, or hard graft working at it to come up with the goods.

The idea of a 'manifesto' does interest me. In a way we did kind of have one with the ongoing Tips article from the LEC designers (can't remember which 2 it was) on adventuredevelopers.com. I didn't agree with all the points, but mostly I thought it was a really good guide to do's and don'ts in making adventure games.

[phact0rri]

I agree with the episode, concept.  Were "well for the most part doing this for free" and by centralizing a theme and taking a player from episode to episode instead of taking six years to develop a story is a good idea.   Then again I don't know if people usually come up with concepts as long as I do.  But I would like more series games, I enjoy as a player to not be plagued with never seeing the character again.  

Also its important to look at your target audience, you definatly should think about who you want to play this game.  I think a lot of people narrow the game's plot and enjoyment to themselves on that level.  And sure you might enjoy it, but its not going to be anything but good for you, and whats the point in that?  But there's also the the idea that "everybody" should play my game.  which again is a downfall in game design.  When you have an idea think about it.  and find out who would be best suited to play a game.