Better

by Rahman Majere

Created on: March 12, 2011

What are the key features of a great game? In his book on game design [1], Richard Rouse elaborates on the fundamental aspects that determine the innate quality of a game. This article aims to analyze those issues in the context of the increasing complexity of modern games. We will also look at the great games of the past and question whether their relative simplicity are necessary to the design. Throughout this article, topics such as aesthetic improvements, game series and several other relevant ideas will be discussed.

* Aesthetic Improvements

It is extremely obvious that video games have continuously improved in the area of aesthetics. Recall the earliest instances of video games such as Space Invaders and the later generation of the Mario Brothers. Immediately after that, we have the likes of Warcraft and Duke Nukem. But it was games like Command and Conquer that truly gave rise to the idea of not only good in-game graphics and sounds but also dedicated cutscenes of cinematic quality. Indeed, some game developers have even hired talents in various areas such as acting and computer graphics to create game environments of fantastic realism.

Few would argue that such a trend is bad, but some have expressed concerns over the nature of these cutscenes to say nothing of the time and resources spent making them. It is important here to realize that a primary element of a game is its interactivity. Yet, most traditional cutscenes do not require or respond to any kind of input from the player. Such a concern is valid, but there are several good arguments that addresses this issue and others that pertain to aesthetic improvements in general. 

i) High quality cutscenes that can be interrupted

Anyone familiar with the Command and Conquer series will likely know of Kane. Joseph D. Kucan portrayal of the character is nothing less than sheer genius. Due to such great talents, most players will actually rather enjoy the cutscenes rather than viewing them as a chore. Of course, many modern games also allow the player to skip the cutscenes to jump right back into the game. Some games like the Final Fantasy series, however, often disallow certain cutscenes to be skipped and this brings us directly to our next point.

ii) Interactive cutscenes

Consider the previously mentioned Final Fantasy series. In Final Fantasy 8 for instance, we have minor cutscenes every single time we call upon a certain ability (Guardian Force). But the makers of the game realized the repetitive nature of such a mechanic and have cleverly made the cutscene into a mini-game based on timing. We can see the logical continuation of such an idea in Dead Space 2 where the protagonist Isaac Clarke is faced with numerous cutscenes which tests the player's reflexes. Failure is met with the grisly demise of the character while success is rewarded with the progress of the game. It is also interesting to note that traditional plot elements are ingeniously placed within the native game environments as well.

iii) Immersive in-game environments

We have seen how the aesthetic complexity in Dead Space 2 does not detract from the gaming experience. Instead, the fantastic attention to the details in the game environment and cutscenes only add to the joy of playing the game. Of course, it is not only the graphics that contributes to such an effect. As early as the mesmerizing scores of Heroes of Might and Magic 2, we can already see how good music can immerse the player into the game environment. In the case of games like Dead Space 2 and perhaps some of the Resident Evil titles, music can also be used to achieve a specific mood. Compare how the first Alone in the Dark differs from Dead Space 2 and it is obvious that aesthetic complexity tends to enhance games rather than obscure their gameplay. 

* Complexity of Plot

Although the topic does not really include a discussion of plots, it is necessary to examine them nonetheless. This is due to them being intricately connected with the gameplay. Technology, plot and theme are all interrelated ideas and none should be taken in total isolation without considering the others [1].

The earliest video games have nearly no plot whatsoever. Old games like Super Contra have little back-story other than the fact that the heroes must defeat the villains. Later on, the Command and Conquer series as well as offerings from companies like Blizzard Entertainment include stories and plots of ever increasing sophistication. Someone who has never played a video game may well be amazed at the intricacies of games like Deus Ex and especially Heavy Rain. The latter, in particular, has been the realization of a vision that many previous game creators have tried to capture. Heavy Rain straddles the line between games and movies, blurring the distinction at times.

Is this necessarily a good thing? Well, this is answered to some degree in our previous discussion on cutscenes. It's true that the earliest attempts in making games akin to interactive movies have failed terribly. This goes back to the problem of the games leaning too much in the direction of movies and forgetting the element of interactivity that is crucial to the gaming experience. Gamers want to feel that their decisions matter and not be stuffed into the backseat with the developer firmly in control of things [1].

Fortunately, game developers have since learned the lesson well. For example, we have the beginnings of plot divergence in games as early as the arcade version of Dungeons and Dragons: Shadow over Mystara! Games such as Deus Ex exploits such ideas by combining them with their feel of being a political thriller. Even Jeff Vogel's fantastic budget Geneforge series offer the gamers plenty of choices with regards to how their actions affect the overall story.

Of course, offerings like Morrowind and Oblivion takes the idea further by giving the player the chance to explore a huge interactive environment without pushing him or her down any predetermined path at all. Such games are often labeled as "sandbox" due to their open-ended nature. Often, the complex plot is simply lurking in the background.

We see this idea of a complex backstory exploited in both the Starcraft series and Dead Rising series to good effect. The complexity of plots makes it possible to create logically consistent series. For instance, Dead Rising 2 has many instances where answers only lead to more questions. Had the developer simply opted for the usual "mad scientist's zombies trying to destroy the world route" and left it at that, then it may be harder to create convincing sequels.

Likewise, the introduction of the Scrin in Command and Conquer 3 (C&C 3) single-handedly redefined how the entire Command and Conquer universe is viewed. Although the series' conclusion in C&C 4 has some shortcomings, we can easily see the potential of such complexity. Blizzard Entertainment, in particular, is extremely adept at this. Even their earliest products such as Diablo and Warcraft 2 contain hints of an epic struggle that lies beyond the current scope of events the player is currently engaged in. For instance, in Diablo, we are introduced to a fairly complex (for its time) lore that hints at the greater picture. Indeed, some of the best games these days have plots that rival our fondest cinematic and reading experiences. This is hardly surprising, for many of them *are* indeed products of the same talents of those industries. As a side benefit, complexity of plots in games inspires complimentary creations in other medias. These movies and especially books, in turn, flesh out the lore even more. That, of course, makes it even easier to create logically consistent sequels since not all of the backstory needs to be told in the game itself. This is especially desirable to the dedicated gamer as the quality of gaming can be enriched by not only the in-game plot shenanigans, but also out-of-game materials that can psyche the gamer for the current and future games.

* General Gameplay, Artificial Intelligence and Control Schemes

Aesthetic advances and ever increasing plot complexity are only really possible because of technological improvements. These same improvements also make it possible to have relatively sophisticated gameplay and control schemes. For instance, the kind of computations required for games like Alpha Centauri may not be possible in the early models of computers. Is such complexity really good? It depends mainly on the actual game design. Complexity, in itself, is merely a potential. The problem lies in three areas, namely the gameplay itself, as well as the control scheme and artificial intelligence.  

i) Gameplay

Very few Turn Based Strategy (TBS) fans would condemn a game like Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri for its complexity. Far from it, the gameplay complexity inherent in such a game only adds to its replay value [1]. Even in Roleplaying Games (RPG) like Baldur's Gate, elements of intricate strategy exist. This applies to other genres of games as well. Of course, the problem here is exactly how much is too much? For instance, Alpha Centauri's steep learning curve is sometimes cited as being a major turn-off for newer players.

There are two key important points here. The first is that games like Alpha Centauri and Birthright: The Gorgon Alliance are in the minority. These open-ended games are usually turn based and their nature is such that a gradual increase in complexity is difficult to achieve. Instead, the player is thrown right into the deep end of the pool and face the complexity all at once. Fortunately, many game developers realize this problem and even in Alpha Centauri itself, there are helpful tutorials. These tutorials as well as the general way in which the increasing complexity is handled is extremely important as they may form the first impressions of a game. If it is handled well, then complexity will greatly enhance the gaming experience and add layers of depth to the game. Failure to properly guide the player into the game world will result in the player getting frustrated with the seemingly tedious nature of the game.

Our next point is with regards to how the complexity arises in conventional games. One of the desired Holy Grails of many game developers is emergent gameplay. This means that the game has an organic quality to it and complexity arises due to the game being more than just a sum of its parts. To that end, even software bugs which would otherwise argue against a game's complexity can be helpful. For instance, as early as the arcade classic Joust in 1982, software bugs have been known to create innovative gameplay. While that game may not be seen as complex, the situation in Starcraft is different. Anyone who plays the game will know how emergent gameplay arising from solid design concepts can create a game that takes a moment to learn and a lifetime to master. Indeed, the complexities of Mutalisk stacking alone is almost a science and art unto itself. And this brings us nicely into our next section which is controls.

ii) Controls

Complex games, no matter how well designed, often requires complex controls. Some genres may be able to get around this problem to some extent. Yet, for certain genres especially those relating to strategy and simulations, the issue needs to be answered in a convincing manner. Recall our discussion on Starcraft and the complexity of some of its mechanics. I'm certain that many strategy game designers have wrestled with the problem of deciding on a suitable interface. In the case of Starcraft, Blizzard Entertainment has decided to stick to pretty much the same interface but with several minor but valuable improvements. For example, they have included fully customizable hotkeys and even the default ones are all on the left so that the right-handed player can easily reach all those crucial buttons with his left hand easily. On the other hand, left-handed players can always customize to their hearts' content. Such attention to detail will ensure that the adverse impact of complexity on control and interface will be minimized.

Sadly, the situation with simulations is a more difficult one. This is due to the nature of such games. On one hand, we don't want to burden the player with extremely complex control schemes and yet on the other, to capture the realistic setting of the thing being simulated will often demand precisely such an action. Such a dilemma is especially apparent in traditional console games where the number of buttons on the controller are necessarily limited. It is for that reason that certain genres such as real-time strategy are often not suited to console platforms.

Yet, there is a lot of hope in the form of control devices and schemes that do not conform to the traditional standards. Even in the dawn of gaming, we have customized arcade machines that are perfectly suited to the games they carry. Nowadays, game joysticks, specialized mice and a whole variety of other paraphernalia gives great options to both gamer and game makers. Of particular note is the introduction of devices such as XBox 360 Kinect, PS3 Move and Nintendo's Wii. These devices greatly expand upon traditional control schemes by taking as input movement beyond just the fingers or button pushing. It is also interesting to note the developments in biotic games and how players interface with such games.

As we can see, the controls that arise from increasingly complex gameplay need not necessarily be complex themselves. In the case of Starcraft 2, some minor refinements work perfectly well. Devices such as XBox 360 Kinect, on the other hand, has in many ways even argue for the possibility of simpler control schemes in the future.

iii) Artificial Intelligence

The core issue here is that game makers may be trying too hard to simulate artificial intelligence (AI). This is an extremely difficult issue as the Artificial Intelligence, while seemingly complex, is woefully dumb compared to a normal human. On the other hand, in games like chess where the rules and objectives are clearly defined, the AI is often overwhelmingly strong or at the very least function in a way that only makes the player realize how utterly alien that intelligence is. This is important as players often need to have a suspension of disbelief when playing a game. Few things shatter the illusion as quickly as seeing an enemy in the game behaving in an unexpected or foolish way.

As games increase in complexity, so does the demand on the game programmers to maintain ever more robust and intelligent AI. And that is a very difficult endeavor indeed. In simple games like Space Invaders, there's little to no artificial intelligence and that's as it should be since the nature of those games don't demand it. But modern games with their plot and gameplay complexity simply need believable AI or the whole gaming experience is lessened or even invalidated. Yet, emergent gameplay as well as the strength of multiplayer features can to some extent reduce this need for lifelike AI. In that sense, the increase in the complexity of games can actually make them better as game makers are forced to innovate and study game design principles.

* Conclusion

We have discussed and seen how the various concepts of plot, technology and gameplay are interwoven together to form the tapestry of the gaming experience. This article has also shown how the increase in complexity is also a generally favored thing. But before concluding wholeheartedly that such increasing complexity is completely beneficial, we need to mention its two undesirable implications. These are an increase in game development time which in turn causes bigger companies to fear taking risks. 

Yet, this may not necessarily be a bad thing. Consider how it took almost a decade for Blizzard Entertainment to create Starcraft 2 and how fantastic the end product is. As for companies unwilling to take risks, this is true only to a certain extent. Offerings like Heavy Rain, Deus Ex, Dead Space and even Castlevania: Lords of Shadow show the daring of some companies to break the norms, blend genres and introduce something new to gamers. Conversely, we have independent game developers like Jeff Vogel of Geneforge fame that operate on comparatively non-existent budgets. These independent developers have complete freedom and may create innovative games regardless of their level of complexity.

In the end, the real issues are the game design principles of the game itself. If they are sound, then the game will be a good one. As games increase in complexity, this author believes that their overall quality will only improve as game developers hone their craft. 

* References

1) Game Design: Theory and Practice (2nd Edition) by Richard Rouse

Learn more about this author, Rahman Majere.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.