Casual Game Design, Chapter 2 (Gregory Trefry).

Casual Game Design, Chapter 2 (Gregory Trefry).

Intro

Hello and welcome back to my blog.

I’ve been feeling under the weather for the last 1-2 weeks, so I ceased updating the blog.

Now I’ve fully recovered I plan to update weekly on weekends, starting today.

The Book

Last week I read the first and second chapters in Gregory Trefry’s book, Casual Game Design.

The book focuses on designing games that appeal to large audiences, many of which may not have played games before.

The end of the chapter focuses on refining an existing concept, and the process of designing the levels for your game.

Design the Levels

In this section Trefry lists some level design guidelines, and explains how to go about them. Below I have broken down the guidelines into individual quotes, and interpreted what Trefry is saying.

Be Empathetic

Trefry says, “First-time designers mistakenly take level design as a contest between designer and the player. The ethos seems to be, ‘But can you beat this!?’ This is the wrong approach.”

By this Trefry is saying that newer level designers often try to create levels that actively defeat the player; as though playing the game is some kind of bloody gladiatorial contest. Indeed I have seen an approach similar to this in the later levels of the platformer Super Meat boy. The later levels of the game are designed to absolutely challenge the player, and force them to use all their skills in order to succeed.

The next few quotes tie heavily into the agile software development process, Scrum, and its User Stories. (A user story is a way of breaking down the mechanics and actions of the game into ‘stories’ which the player would like to experience. E.g. in a platformer, ‘The player will want to jump.’

“You need to be able to put yourself in the position of the player, and see the game through their eyes.” “They don’t know all the tricks and secrets hidden in the level.”

“But then you must also ask yourself, what would the players like to do? What will make them enjoy the level?”

Here Trefry is simply saying that the player must use empathy to experience the level and game from a new players point of view. This is after all, the audience who will be playing the game.

“They want to win. Your challenge is letting players do that without letting them see that you let them win.”

Trefry is saying that player’s ultimately want to win the games that they play. I think this is even more crucial for casual games, since the audience will not be used to failing at a game, and so may instantly give up playing it.

If you can’t beat the level then it is waaaaaaaay too hard

“As a general rule of thumb for causal games I feel the designer should be able to beat early levels in a game with one arm tied behind his back.”

As you can see, the first level in Super Meat Boy takes literally under 5 seconds to complete. The player can make two small jumps to reach the central platform or they can wall jump using the left wall and complete the level extremely quickly.

"It’s entirely possible to design a level that is unwinnable by setting a goal score too high or a jump too far. You have to be able to play through your level from beginning to end and prove it’s winnable."

Trefry is demonstrating that it is absolutely essential for the designers to play through and complete every level in their game, to prove it is possible. This example reminds me of the Validate feature in the Track Editor mode of Trackmania 2: Canyon.

Once the player creates a custom track, they must press the ‘Validate button (Looks like a flag) in order for the track to be playable online. Once the button is clicked the player will be teleported to the start of their track, so they can race it from the beginning to the end to prove it is possible. This simple system prevents people uploading broken tracks, that are physically impossible to race on.

Design for the General Audience not the Hardcore

“You need to take their demands into consideration, but like democracy you need to answer the majorities needs first.”

“The large majority of your casual audience is not hardcore. They want challenge in the order of an invigorating hike, maybe some light scrambling over rocks. They don’t want to scale a 100ft cliff, covered in ice.”

Super Mario Galaxy 2 is a platformer that satisfies both parties. The game features two help systems, Hint TV, and Super Guide, that greatly aid players new to the franchise, or gaming in general.

The first system is called Hint TV. Carefully positioned throughout the game are a number of small TV screens. Once approached the screens show a small gameplay clip, showcasing a new mechanic in the game, such as a new power-up. Newer players can watch these TV’s to gain valuable information on how to complete levels, and use Mario’s various abilities. Experienced players can avoid the TV’s if they so wish, and figure out the game’s new controls and power-ups for themselves. This system benefits both casual and hardcore players.

 

The second system, Super Guide, has a more pronounced effect. If the player dies a fixed number of times in any level, a character appears and offers to play the level for you, while you watch. The caveat of this is the player only “earns” a bronze star at the end of the level, rather than the normal golden star. This system allows a new player to watch the computer player’s, pre-recorded actions, showing how to pass certain obstacles, and how to utilize items and abilities. Once the Super Guide has finished a run, the player can re-play the level at any time via the map screen and go back into the level to earn the full reward, the golden star.

Ease players into the Game

Ease players into the game. Introduce one element at a time.”

“Since players must spend so much energy learning the game in the first few levels, don’t overwhelm them by making them learn tricky levels too.”

Super Meat Boy is a very challenging game, but it also eases the player gently into the experience. Indeed, the first 1-3 levels in SMB are incredibly easy, and virtually anyone gamer or not, can complete them.

The early levels introduce one mechanic at a time, beginning with jumping.

Next progressing to wall jumping up simple spaces to gain height.

 And finally moving onto sprinting and jumping, which allows the player to jump further.

Don’t forget to challenge players

“Without a bit of challenge, the game will lose all sense of vitality, devolving to no more than an exercise.”

“Sometimes challenge means making players actually lose a level, just to remind them they are playing a game and keep them on their toes.”

Build levels around a central concept

“The best levels are concise and clean. They focus on one central idea, running through different elaborations on that idea.”

“Focusing on one idea will help you find the core idea of fun in the level and help you polish that to a shine.”

Teach players to play the level

“A level should offer signals to the player that indicate how to approach the level.”

“If your game requires a particular kind of wall jump, set up similar structures for the wall jumps in the easy and hard parts. In this way players will begin to recognise what action they should perform to pass difficult spots.”

Give players room to explore

“Levels that introduce a new feature should focus on teaching the player the basics of using the feature. Completing the level should require the player to interact with the new feature in some basic and straight forward way.

In Super Mario Galaxy 2, the player gains access to the Cloud Suit power-up early on in the game. The suit allows the player to create up to three platforms in mid-air. Once the third platform has been created the suit disappears, and must be re-acquired in the level to be used again.

To finish the earlier levels the player need only create a simple set of platforms to take them to the level’s star.

“The first interaction teaches players the basics, the second teaches them to creatively apply their new tools.”

In later levels, players must combine Mario’s advanced acrobatics, (back flipping for extra height, long jumping for extra distance), in conjunction with the cloud suit to reach out of the way platforms, to eventually nab the star. The green laser walls knock you off the cloud to your death.

 

Occasionally break your own rules (carefully)

“The occasional shift in the patterns of the game can surprise and delight your player.” “It keeps the gameplay fresh and enables the player to feel they have creatively applied the mechanics of the game”.

SMG2 uses a ‘comet’ system to vary the level to level gameplay of the game. Every level in the game contains a ‘comet medal’. Once a set number of medals are collected, a comet arrives at a fixed level. The comet applies effects such as; sped up enemies, time limit, limiting Mario to one health, and shadow Mario clones. The clones will constantly spawn at the beginning of the level, and mimic your actions. If you stand still the clones will eventually catch up to you, doing damage as they collide.

 

All of these mechanics modify the normal flow of the levels, actively engaging the player with different types of gameplay.

Create a plan

“It’s crucial to outline your level structure. Layout where you think you will introduce new concepts, power-ups, enemies and content to the game.”

"Outlining the whole game helps you craft the overall experience of the game, progressing the game in complexity and difficulty. It will also help you see which elements you are using too often and which you are ignoring.”

Conclusion

Thanks for reading this entry about Trefry’s casual game design book and the information in contains. All being well I should be updating at least once per week every weekend.

Books Referenced

Casual Game Design, Trefry, 2010

Games Referenced

Super Meat Boy, PC/Xbox 360, Team Meat

Trackmania 2, PC, Nadeo

Super Mario Galaxy 2, Wii, Nintendo EAD

Video Game Analysis: KS1 Bitesize Games

Introduction

Today in small groups of 4-5 the class decided on a critical vocabulary for games, comprised of the below 5 gaming related terms. Below I have written the descriptions that my small group and myself came up with.

Interaction: If a game lacks interaction it is a puzzle and therefore not a game.

Goals: One or more goals are required or the game will lack purpose and the player will then lack motivation to play it.

Struggle: Every game must have an element of struggle, without a challenge there is no sense of achievement when victory occurs. (At the same time, a game shouldn’t be too difficult; a game where it is impossible to progress due to its difficulty will not be fun to play).

Structure: Is required in the game to present rules to the player which will influence how the game is played. A small change to the rules of a game can have a significant effect on player behaviour within the game.

Endogenous Meaning: All objects, components, etc. within a game only have meaning within the game. This keeps the game separate from reality so it has no impact on real life.

I have used this vocabulary to analyse two educational Bitesize KS1 games I have played. The mini reviews have been posted below.

Game 1: Shape Lab Math Game

Link to the first game I am analysing: http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/ks1bitesize/numeracy/shapes/index.shtml

Game 1 Interaction: The interaction present in this game is basic; the player can only click on the 3-4 shapes on screen. When the player wins or loses, there is limited feedback, the game simply says, “I don’t think that’s right!” “Try again”, if the player picks the wrong shape. If the player gets one question right an animation plays and they get a ‘thumbs up’ as a reward. If the player gets all 5 questions correct the game says “You’ve completed the medium level! Want another challenge?”

This feedback does not help children to learn since it does not tell them what they did right, or wrong, only if they succeeded or failed.

Game 1 Goals: This game has one single goal; to pick the correct shapes based on the properties the game tells you, e.g. symmetry, number of sides etc. The player sees two different animations, the failure animation shows the scientist character being electrocuted since you handed him the wrong shape, the success animation shows the scientist with his thumb up since you handed him the correct shape.

The player cannot get any other outcome other than success or failure.

Game 1 Struggle: This game contains a limited element of struggle. The player receives no penalty whatsoever for getting a wrong answer so potentially; the child can easily guess each answer, since there are only has three shapes he can click. if he uses this method he gets the right answer but won’t have any idea why.

The player cannot lose the game even if they get 100 wrong answers in a row, the game would just tell the player “I don’t think that’s right!” “Try again”. Since there is little element of struggle the game ceases to be exciting, and there is no ‘thrill of victory’ when the player wins the game.

Game 1 Structure: This game has a very strict set of rules and structure. The player either gets the right answer or the wrong answer; there is no freedom to choose a different path through the game. This gives the game very low replayability, since the player knows how the game will end.

Game 1 Endogenous Meaning: The information that very young KS1 stage children learn from this game may be useful in the real world, e.g. amount of sides certain shapes have, how symmetry works etc. Therefore this information is not endogenous to the game. The flash animations however have no real value outside of the game.

Game 1 Evaluation: Overall I believe that this simple shape recognition game partially achieves what it’s designed to do: to teach KS1 stage children about shapes. I also believe that with some simple modifications such as, a longer animation reward  when you win, a greater element of struggle created by giving the player 10 ‘tries’ to guess the correct answers, and finally an improved feedback system that tells the player why they got an answer right/wrong; that the game could be made much more appealing to younger children.

Game 2: Kung Fu English Sentence Game

Link to the second game I am analysing: http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/ks1bitesize/literacy/sentences/index.shtml

Game 2 Interaction: The interaction in this game is once again limited. The player has to create the correct structure for a sentence by clicking on 3-4 sections of a sentence in the correct order. If they succeed they will be treated to a fast acrobatic animation, when the person balancing on a rock, spins a stick very quickly while leaping over it. This animation may entertain young children but it is the same animation for every sentence that is put into the correct order. In contrast there are three different failure animations in the game. This increased variety may make some young children purposely lose the game just to see every failure animation.

Game 2 Goals:

There is a single goal in the game, to put each of the 5 sentences into the correct order. Once the player does this they have won the game. If they get an answer wrong they can try again as many times as they like, but there is still only two outcomes, success and failure. The player can play this game on different difficulty settings; normal, hard, very hard. In a way this creates a new goal for the player, to beat the game on the hardest setting possible.

Game 2 Struggle: In this game there is very little struggle because there is no penalty for getting the sentence order wrong. This makes the game very easy, and the player could potentially complete the game by guessing, if they play enough times. If they do this they won’t learn anything and thus the purpose of the game, to teach children about sentence structure, will have failed. Furthermore there is no satisfaction in victory, just like in the first game, because there is no element of struggle.

Game 2 Structure: This game has a very simple structure, the player must click on words in the correct order to form a sentence. This is a very strict rule set and it gives the player no freedom to do anything other than win or lose. If more words had been selectable the player could have at least formed multiple sentences on successive play-throughs; I believe this would add a bit of variety and replayability to the game.

Game 2 Endogenous Meaning: As with the first game, the information gained,  from the  Kung Fu Sentence Structure game may be useful to KS1 children in the real world. Therefore the information is not endogenous to the game since it has meaning in real life. The flash elements such as the art on the other hand, have no meaning in real life.

Game 2 Evaluation: Overall I believe this game to be slightly superior to the Shape Lab Math game in terms of graphical design; the miniature roaring waterfall in the background looks powerful and cartoon-like at the same time. I also think the animations in this game are also more interesting to watch since more movement happens in them. In terms of the actual game mechanics however, this game leaves a lot to be desired. Once again I think the game would benefit from a fleshed out feedback system, that tells the KS1 student what they did right, and what they did wrong. Furthermore I believe a "tries" system could be added. This would give the player a limited number of attempts to put the sentence in order, once all tries have been used the game would return to the first question. This would give the game an extra element of struggle, which would become satisfaction once the player bests the game.

Conclusion

In conclusion I found this exercise entertaining and interesting. It allowed me to put the critical vocabulary we'd created in class to the test against two basic games to see which elements they used or lacked.

Once again, thanks for reading. :)