Thread: RE: [GD-Design] Speed kills
Brought to you by:
vexxed72
From: Neil S. <ne...@r0...> - 2003-12-27 18:02:51
|
> I just did a slightly more cohesive write up on this, in case > anyone is interested: > > http://bookofhook.com/Article/GameDesign/SpeedKills.html Hi Brian, I think the overall idea of how fast the player perceives things to be happening is pretty spot on, and it certainly applies to a much wider range of games than people might think. Any game where time is a factor will be affected by this, although obviously to varying extents. What I'm not so sure about is the idea of just using a global time slider, because I think there are more fundamental reasons why the player's perception of of the game is affected by the game's speed than the speed itself, and I wonder if there are ways to exploit them to better effect. I'm not sure if I'll be able to articulate what I mean by this, but I'll give it a go. ;) If you imagine a game where there are, say, 10 things the player has to be doing at the one time, e.g. moving, shooting, outsmarting his opponent, timing moving platforms and powerups, etc., not only does he have to be able to do all these things, but he has to be able to do several of them simultaneously. When you're doing something that has become second-nature (either through practice or natural skill), dealing with 10 different aspects of it at the same time also becomes natural. If you have to think about any of these aspects at a conscious level, your ability to multitask is far more limited. Now, if we assume that a novice player is doing almost everything consciously, he would have to 'timeslice' through them if he were to do them all, which will be very difficult and much slower than if he were doing them subconsciously and simultaneously. In games where he can simply not do some of them (e.g. positional tactics in Quake), he will generally take this option just to give him a chance of performing the essential tasks with any skill. In simpler games where none (or few) of the tasks are optional, he will feel overloaded and find it difficult to do even the most basic things a lot of the time. If you reduce the speed of the game enough, the novice's timeslicing should become nearly as effective as an expert's subconscious, simultaneous approach, making the gulf between the two much smaller. Of course, this assumes that the expert cannot also take advantage of the drop in speed to exploit higher-level tactics or whatever. So, although reducing speed will help the novice greatly, so would reducing the amount of stuff he has to timeslice through. I think we have seen a very simple example of this in action in racing games, where you can usually select an automatic gearbox, removing one thing the player has to think about: changing gears at the right time. Formula 1 games take this a bit further by providing automatic braking and other such helpers. By selecting the right number of helpers, novices can give themselves just the right number of things to deal with, so that they can drive a good lap, at full game speed, without becoming overloaded and confused. You might argue at this point that this is no different to changing the number of hits it takes to kill a monster or similar game rule changes, but I think it is. Rather than changing the physics of the world or giving the player more ammo/health, we leave the game world alone and simply help the player overcome his limit on the number of things he can deal with at once. In this sense, it is more similar to the global speed change than it is to arbitrary game rule changes. The advantages this has over a global speed change are that it is compatible with multiplayer games and doesn't suffer from the sluggish feel that a global speed change might introduce. Having said that, the global speed change can be very effective and is simple to implement, so I do think it has its place, and it may be that it combines very well with helpers so that you can get a nice tradeoff between the game speed and the level of help you need to give the player. You also don't have to limit yourself to "input helpers" like the Formula 1 game. Anything which removes conscious thinking from the player will help him deal with more things at once so, for example, Quake could have a "map helper" that shows the player where he is and gives him advance warning of armour/weapons that are about to spawn, both things that would take up quite a lot of his "conscious runtime" if he were to do them himself. There are probably lots of examples of this type of thing actually working in games already. All I'm really suggesting is a more specific approach to coming up with these things, while avoiding things that can fundamentally change the gameplay. Hope that made some sense... ;) Cheers, - Neil. |
From: George W. <ge...@ap...> - 2003-12-29 05:38:13
|
Hey Brian, I agree 100% with what you're saying. Personally, I'd love a speed slider in almost all the games I (try to) play. I've long fell off the 17 to 35 demographic and just can't play the twitch games like I used to. Of course this won't help with multi-player (net) games where each player most likely has different response times. (I'm just screwed there. ;-) But for single player games it would be great. ;-) This reminds me of two hardware hacks we did way back when. Tweaking the speed (and paddle sizes) in the original PONG and the "slow-motion" NES controllers that would hit the start button twice at a variable rate to slow down game play. ;-) -- Enjoy, George Warner, Schizophrenia Optimization Scientist Apple Developer Technical Support (DTS) |
From: Cruise <cr...@ca...> - 2004-01-02 00:56:23
|
I agree with the general principle, but, "all generalisations are false", and there are certainly a few exceptions. Beat-em-ups spring to mind straight off - while, yes, Soul Caliber would be easier if the game was slowed down, the gameplay does change with a slower game. Compare the first few Tekken games to one of the many Hyper-super-duper streetfighters...because of the sheer speed of the latter, any real planned strategy becomes impossible. Basic responses (opponenet in air, use high attack, etc.) are fine, but not the tactical waiting game Tekken was, with specific counter-(and counter-counter-)attacks. While not all of this is due to the speed, a large proportion of it is. Some gameplay choices and tactics do become impractical with differing speeds. I guess it just boils down to moderation - changing anything enough will have an effect on the gameplay. Conversely, most variables can probably be changed without having an affect on the gameplay if changed subtley. So yeah, I agree that speed is an often, and very useful, method of adjusting difficulty. But so are lots of other things if used /correctly/. -- "quantam sufficit" [ cruise / casual-tempest.net / transference.org ] |
From: Jacob T. \(C. D. Ltd\) <Ja...@Co...> - 2004-01-05 09:13:54
|
One thing that might be of relevance is for military training = simulations researchers discovered that is was better to train pilots on = faster than real time simulations i.e. +20% time speed up. Then when = the pilots came to do the same thing in real time in the real world they = found it so much easier because everything seemed so slow. But also of = interest I think the researchers discovered that the super speed = training had to be repeated more often because the brain adjusted to the = slower real time events quickly. I had just had the same experience with Mario Kart. After doing a lot = 150cc racing, I then went back to 50cc racing and it just seemed so = slow. I would guess about half the perceived speed but it isn't half = the speed in reality ! Jake -----Original Message----- From: gam...@li... [mailto:gam...@li...]On Behalf Of Brian Hook Sent: 24 December 2003 22:06 To: gam...@li... Subject: [GD-Design] Speed kills After talking to some friends about different games and their=20 respective designs, I realized something that is obvious in hindsight=20 -- game speed controls difficulty almost exclusively, at least in=20 action games. This means fighting games, shooters, platformers, you=20 name it. The slower the game is, the easier it is. In fact, this is so obvious that several games have used slow-mo as a=20 power up -- Max Payne 1/2, PoP, and Viewtiful Joe. And yet games today still insist on using the most idiotic variables=20 to control difficulty. From the immensely stupid "number of saves" of=20 Hitman 2, to the standard fare like "enemy damage", "hitpoints",=20 "health and ammo availability", they never just adjust the speed of=20 the game to match the response/reaction capabilities of a typical=20 player. And that's really what separates great action players from mediocre=20 ones, their recognition, decision making and response. The one game that could be improved the most with this is Madden 2004.=20 Instead of just affecting the speed of the game by, say, -40%, -25%=20 and 0%, and keeping everything else constant, they tweak a bunch of=20 variables that make it tough for a Rookie player to advance to=20 All-Pro, because the crutches they had on Rookie disappear. In fact, in the NFL it's even an adage that the difference between an=20 experienced player and a rookie is that "the game slows down" for the=20 experienced player. This is also true of full contact sparring --=20 experienced fighters "see" the fight at a much slower rate than=20 someone who isn't used to fighting. Would Soul Calibur be more approachable if there was a novice setting=20 that simply moved 25% slower? I would argue "hell yes". Obviously there are "fun factor" issues to consider, like obviously=20 don't make it slow ALL the time, but the general notion is there. -Hook ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials. Become an expert in LINUX or just sharpen your skills. Sign up for = IBM's Free Linux Tutorials. Learn everything from the bash shell to sys = admin. Click now! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1278&alloc_id371&op=3Dick _______________________________________________ Gamedevlists-design mailing list Gam...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gamedevlists-design Archives: http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_idU6 |
From: Brian H. <ho...@py...> - 2004-01-05 15:44:39
|
> One thing that might be of relevance is for military training > simulations researchers discovered that is was better to train > pilots on faster than real time simulations i.e. +20% time speed > up. That's a really good analogy, similar to when a batter is practicing with weights/multiple bats to make his bat feel lighter when he's at the plate. Your Mario Kart example is also dead on for what I'm talking about -- you're used to seeing things at relatively fast speed, so when it slows down it feels very, very slow. But for a new player, it's often still hectic (although I think in MK:DD's case, the difference between 50 and 150cc probably isn't enough). Brian |
From: Brian H. <ho...@py...> - 2004-03-19 22:15:48
|
I did a brief write up on save systems, others here may be interested in it: http://www.bookofhook.com/Article/GameDesign/TheZenofSavePoints.html |
From: Brian H. <ho...@py...> - 2004-03-29 04:43:15
|
A brief write up on online economies, specifically the role of currency. = I'm doing a series of articles on these, primarily so I can gather my= thoughts on a lot of issues. These are intended to be "survey" type= articles instead of "how to" articles -- the latter is kind of hard to do= since no one has built a fully functional and stable online economy =3D) http://www.bookofhook.com/Article/GameDesign/TheDesignofOnlineEconomie-3.htm= l Brian |
From: Jan E. <ch...@in...> - 2004-03-30 05:32:48
|
On Sun, 28 Mar 2004, Brian Hook wrote: >A brief write up on online economies, specifically the role of currency. >I'm doing a series of articles on these, primarily so I can gather my >thoughts on a lot of issues. These are intended to be "survey" type >articles instead of "how to" articles -- the latter is kind of hard to do >since no one has built a fully functional and stable online economy =) > > >http://www.bookofhook.com/Article/GameDesign/TheDesignofOnlineEconomie-3.html A really interesting article. Not that I'm trying to implement an economy in our game, but it was a fun read nevertheless. :) -- "I name you... Esmeralda Margaret Note Spelling of Lancre!" -- Terry Pratchett, Carpe Jugulum |
From: Mike W. <mi...@ge...> - 2004-03-30 08:53:48
|
speaking of economies ;} http://store.yahoo.com/realityzone/creature2.html#review i don't think any one has built a functional and stable economy period, but that's a discussion for another forum cheers mike w www.pureanarchy.net Jan Ekholm wrote: > On Sun, 28 Mar 2004, Brian Hook wrote: > > >>A brief write up on online economies, specifically the role of currency. >>I'm doing a series of articles on these, primarily so I can gather my >>thoughts on a lot of issues. These are intended to be "survey" type >>articles instead of "how to" articles -- the latter is kind of hard to do >>since no one has built a fully functional and stable online economy =) >> >> >>http://www.bookofhook.com/Article/GameDesign/TheDesignofOnlineEconomie-3.html > > > A really interesting article. Not that I'm trying to implement an economy > in our game, but it was a fun read nevertheless. :) > |
From: Ivan-Assen I. <as...@ha...> - 2004-03-30 09:29:27
|
> speaking of economies ;} > > http://store.yahoo.com/realityzone/creature2.html#review What I didn't understand from this review - did aliens reveal all those secrets to the author while he was abducted by an UFO - or are aliens really controlling us through that enslaving "money" system they made up? |
From: Mike W. <mi...@ge...> - 2004-03-30 09:39:39
|
obviously they're controlling us through it, like duh ;P heh mike w Ivan-Assen Ivanov wrote: >>speaking of economies ;} >> >>http://store.yahoo.com/realityzone/creature2.html#review > > > What I didn't understand from this review - > did aliens reveal all those secrets to the author while he > was abducted by an UFO - or are aliens really controlling us > through that enslaving "money" system they made up? > |
From: Brian H. <ho...@py...> - 2003-12-28 05:00:42
|
> What I'm not so sure about is the idea of just using a global time > slider, because I think there are more fundamental reasons why the > player's perception of of the game is affected by the game's speed > than the speed itself, and I wonder if there are ways to exploit > them to better effect. I'm not sure if I'll be able to articulate > what I mean by this, but I'll give it a go. ;) You could think of this as a balance of time vs. number of actions required to perform in that period of time. If you have a cost function that returns the amount of time a player needs to successfully hand a situation S, cost(S) then: if t < cost(S) player.overwhelmed =3D 1; So you can balance this by reducing the cost function, which usually means lowering the complexity. In the NFL, a rookie quarterback usually has the game plan simplified immensely so that he doesn't have to process as much information. Instead of trying to read 5 receivers, he's given two receivers. As he becomes more comfortable (and the game slows down) he adds more receivers to his responsibilities. > If you reduce the speed of the game enough, the novice's > timeslicing should become nearly as effective as an expert's > subconscious, simultaneous approach, making the gulf between the > two much smaller. Right, that's the central point of my thesis. > Of course, this assumes that the expert cannot > also take advantage of the drop in speed to exploit higher-level > tactics or whatever. Sure, but that's a tangential thing. > So, although reducing speed will help the novice greatly, so would > reducing the amount of stuff he has to timeslice through. Exactly, you're talking about reducing the cost function. This ties into something I call the Law of Incremental Complexity, which I stumbled upon while playing yet another game with an incredibly bad tutorial/learning system. When teaching people something, there is a set pattern that makes them comfortable. Language (human) researchers know this. Ironically enough, I stumbled upon this in the 20th Anniversary Mythical Man-Month: "We need research to appropriate for the software reuse problem the large body of knowledge as to how people acquire language. Some of the lessons are immediately obvious: * People learn in sentence contexts. * People do not memorize anything but spelling. They learn syntax and semantics incrementally, in context, by use * People group word composition rules by syntactic classes not by compatible subsets of objects" This also applies to learning software, math or anything else with a large vocabulary. Games have a vocabulary as well, in terms of the things that can be done (such as input) and the various interactions with subsystems in the game. Educating a user about this vocabulary is tricky, and nearly every single game today I've played gets it completely wrong. They start with an out-of-context tutorial, at which point they expect the player to know all the subtleties and nuances of the game before they've started their first real mission. The few games that have got this right are No One Lives Forever 2, Advance Wars (GBA) and Fire Emblem. Games that have got this aggressively wrong are any with an explicit tutorial THEN the game. Okay, come back from tangent, sorry =3D) > I think we have seen a very simple example of this in action in > racing games, where you can usually select an automatic gearbox, > removing one thing the player has to think about: changing gears at > the right time. Exactly. But this is managing complexity, not managing difficulty. I am all for incrementally increasing the complexity of a game to match the user's expected skill and experience. That's fine, that's great. I am fine with changing first-order features, such as the gearbox, to manage complexity and, by extension, difficulty. > You might argue at this point that this is no different to changing > the number of hits it takes to kill a monster or similar game rule > changes, but I think it is. I agree, it is rather different and completely acceptable. I agree it's a fine line, and quantifying the difference between an automatic gearbox and, say, more enemies is an interesting exercise. Brian |