Arbitrary rules used to create a challenge

[Mephs]

Hey all,

I've been wondering about the use of arbitrary rules in games. Specifically in relation to a game called "Ricochet Robots". Click to see an online version (http://www.ricochetrobots.com/RR.html).

Basically, in the game you are allowed to move your robot up, down, left or right each turn. When you pick your direction, you move in that direction until you hit an obstacle, at which point your turn ends. The idea being to get one or more robots to a target point in the least number of turns possible.

Now, the idea of the robot moving until it hits an obstacle seems a little abstract to me.... why does the robot have to continue moving until it hits an obstacle? Is it so hard to move forward one square and turn without having to hit a wall?

I'm being pedantic of course, the point is to provide a challenging puzzle to solve, but the somewhat arbitrary rule feels like it needs an explanation to me... like perhaps the robots are malfunctioning or they are simply too primitively programmed.

This brings me to my question. Do you feel that it is enough to impose such arbitrary restrictions and have the player accept them? Do you think some feasible explanation should be concocted, or perhaps you feel that such rules should just not exist in the first place? I guess my problem with it is that the idea does not quite sit well with usual logical game rules, it feels like the rule has been imposed for the sake of creating a challenge and therefore makes the game concept feel a little contrived.

Would you agree or do you have a different viewpoint?

Many thanks,

Steve

[ZeHa]

It depends on how abstract the gaming world is. The more abstract, the more acceptable. A game like Pacman is very abstract, and no one will be asking "why is Pacman some yellow circle" or "why can't the ghosts go through walls" ;)

The gameplay you describe reminds me of Chips Challenge - there is a similar situation, but it's on ice then, and so it makes perfectly sense. But I agree, for robots it seems kinda weird - especially if it's supposed to be very realistic. Though, the game you posted is as abstract as a game could be ;) and so I think it's not a problem.

Once I also opened a thread about this, about power-ups that are scattered all over the place. That's perfect in a simple game environment, but if it's supposed to have a realistic feel, it seems misplaced. I tried Return to Castle Wolfenstein yesterday, and I liked how the power-ups were placed in a sensible manner (e.g. in special resting rooms or as meals on a table). That surely fits better than if they would be lying around just everywhere (like in Tomb Raider, where medipacks can be found in the weirdest places).

[electronicStar]

Videogames are all about arbitrary rules, don't worry about that.
And there's no better justification for a dumb behaviour than a robot anyway.

[Pyabo]

Although I've certainly had the thought, "it's weird that all these health and armor packs would just be sitting around in Hell" while playing Doom, it didn't stop me from enjoying the game.

I think maybe you're overanalyzing things. Don't confuse the theme with the game

[ZeHa]

Okay but then again, Doom doesn't try to be over-realistic. It indeed looked realistic back then, but the story and everything was pretty funny. Just think about those ending texts at the end of every episode ;)

When something is funny enough, it's similar to being abstract. But Tomb Raider for example isn't funny. So it's a difference if medipacks are lying around in some caves where no human has been before, or if they are lying around in hell when the whole story and setting is already pretty twisted ;) and same goes for those "arbitrary rules" in my opinion. In a game like Super Mario it's not a problem that the main character can change his direction while jumping. In some realistic kung-fu game this would indeed be strange. In a game like Pitfall it doesn't matter if some holes in the ground keep appearing and disappearing all the time. But it couldn't be imagined in a game like Battlefield ;)

[Mephs]

The reason I ask actually is that I wondered about adapting the Ricochet Robots idea and making it somewhat like Bomberman without the bombs.

Assuming the same movement rules and having players perhaps armed with weapons or collecting some kind of token (read: powerup) that unleashes a blast wave... the idea of navigating to a particular spot then takes on some potentially fun meaning. If you manage to move to the token in realtime following these movement rules before it dissappears then you can damage an opponent. Alternatively with weapons, if you manage to outmaneuver our opponent and get him in your sights then you can blast him/her. The limitation on movement creates the challenge, but being the central game mechanic, does it just feel wrong? Maybe I am overanalyzing it, I do have a tendancy to do that :)

In this way it is giving the somewhat dry objective of ricochet robots a bit more of an interesting point... instead of trying to reach a fixed target for some unknown reason you are now competing against an opposing robot and so now have a dynamic element, making the game less puzzle oriented and a bit more action oriented.

My worry though is that all of this is possibly a bit too abstract (not to mention somewhat nerdy :P).

Mentioning the less than realistic elements of Doom is fine, but powerups littering levels randomly is kind of a given nowadays (maybe less so than it used to be though) and players accept it because it is ingrained in us as gamers from a past when games had to be more abstract due to technical limitations. A somewhat new spin like my idea though is not necessarily consistent with what players already know about games, so I worry that it might be too alienating and lack an audience.

[bvanevery]

Define your target audience, then you'll have an easier time answering your questions. Are you after gaming nerds you know? Are you after my Mom? She really likes Gold Miner and the various hidden object games.

[Mephs]

That's an interesting question I'm not sure I have an answer for. I would obviously like to have a very wide target audience if possible as more audience is more potential sales, but I know it's somewhat unrealistic and a focused audience is generally easier to please.

I would probably say if pushed that my target audience was the "casual ex-gamer" so to speak, someone who probably previously played hardcore games, but now has less time to do so and prefers somewhat hardcore style games in short "casual" doses. This is probably how I would describe myself and is therefore probably the target audience I could best identify with. When I refer to hardcore games in this sense, I am happy to personally play more simplistic games, with a somewhat hardcore theme, or hardcore style games (like RTS games or RPGs) with a more simplistic theme.

Of course I do play non-hardcore games too, I'm not a complete one-trick pony, but the previous description would simply sum me up best I think.

Do you think this alters the perception of my question in any substantial manner then?

Cheers,

Steve

[bvanevery]

I would probably say if pushed that my target audience was the "casual ex-gamer" so to speak, someone who probably previously played hardcore games, but now has less time to do so and prefers somewhat hardcore style games in short "casual" doses. This is probably how I would describe myself and is therefore probably the target audience I could best identify with.

The best examples I've seen of trying to reach that market are Oasis (http://www.oasisgame.com/) and Strange Adventures In Infinite Space (http://www.digital-eel.com/sais/). I don't know how well they've done commercially. They've certainly gotten critical acclaim in IGF circles.

Do you think this alters the perception of my question in any substantial manner then?

Yep. Another question you gotta answer is who you're writing for. You, or some other target demographic? Some people are capable of being quite mercenary about that. Ernest Adams makes a big todo about being so customer oriented for instance, that that's his precious mission in life to serve them. In his caricatures of game designer stereotypes I would have been the snobby Artist; "You don't understand my art!" I'm rather concerned with writing what pleases me. I'm rather pragmatic about recognizing the difference between what I like and what the world likes. I see lotsa tradeoffs for pleasing myself and/or various crowds.

But what I don't do, is make the mistake of thinking it's all about me, what I like, what I want. Beginning writers make that mistake all the time. They pretty much have to write a self-obsessed novel or screenplay, to get it out of their system. Most can't help it, it's a stage. If they get past that stage, then they start to realize what an audience is, how it can differ from themselves, and how to deal with those differences.

What do you care about? And how much do you want to deal with what you care about, vs. what other people care about? How much overlap do you need?

[Artinum]

Although I've certainly had the thought, "it's weird that all these health and armor packs would just be sitting around in Hell" while playing Doom, it didn't stop me from enjoying the game.


Ah, that's Hell being especially wicked. It would be too easy to have a horde of flesh-eating demons descend upon the last remaining soldier with his lonely pistol. Much more fun to let him struggle in pain and fear to the shotgun before you open all those hidden doors and the flesh-eating demons appear. Ever noticed how those health packs and bonuses (especially the bigger ones) seem to be inside traps...?

A game like Pacman is very abstract, and no one will be asking "why is Pacman some yellow circle" or "why can't the ghosts go through walls"

Actually, I've known more than one person to ask why the ghosts can't go through walls...! That's what ghosts do!

[Sammgus]

Do you feel that it is enough to impose such arbitrary restrictions and have the player accept them? Do you think some feasible explanation should be concocted, or perhaps you feel that such rules should just not exist in the first place?
With games, it doesn't matter so much that their rules are arbitrary, as long as they are consistent. Games don't have to model the real world - that is just a convenient reference point from which to convey the rules of the game.

In some card games, an Ace beats every other card, in others it gets beaten by every other card. I don't even know what an Ace is, other than what it looks like, and what various games' rulesets say about it. But that's not a problem for me, or millions of other card players.

The more 'arbitrary' the rules of the game, the more work one has to do to inform the player of the rules. Complex games typically model many aspects of reality because otherwise players would have a hard time understanding it. But rules which have no connection to reality are fairly common in games with simple interfaces and rulesets.

[Ryan Clark]

I believe that it doesn't really matter if your rules are arbitrary, but it helps if they are not. An arbitrary puzzle game is still a puzzle game, and can still be enjoyed, but it may not convert as well as a non-arbitrary puzzle game.

Our Professor Fizzwizzle games have some semi-arbitrary rules, but they make a bit of intuitive sense: It's harder to push things on sand than it is on grass. Things slide on ice. Trampolines are bouncy. Barrels roll, crates do not, etc, etc.

I think that because our rules are semi-intuitive it makes it easier for the player to get into the game. If you can try some trial-and-error, and the results make sense to you, you're less likely to get frustrated and quit, I believe.

If you re-skinned Fizzwizzle such that it's easier to push things on Msdfg than it is on Kaoqe. Things slide on Qogw. Abzeigs are bouncy. Pojafs roll, billmzs do not, etc, I think the game would be far less fun, and far harder to get into.

[bvanevery]

Our Professor Fizzwizzle games have some semi-arbitrary rules, but they make a bit of intuitive sense: It's harder to push things on sand than it is on grass. Things slide on ice. Trampolines are bouncy. Barrels roll, crates do not, etc, etc.

Perhaps what's needed in general is an organizational framework or metaphor for the rules. For your games, it's physics. For Chess, it's a 8x8 grid of squares. If you want to move around on a grid of squares, there aren't that many different ways to do it, and Chess has 'em all.

[ZeHa]

Actually, I've known more than one person to ask why the ghosts can't go through walls...! That's what ghosts do!

Really?! That's interesting :)
I don't think I ever encountered somebody who questioned this... but okay, then it seems like Pacman is still not abstract enough ;)

[bvanevery]

Chinese ghosts have to walk in straight lines. That's why a lot of Chinese houses have funny zigs at the entrance, to stop ghosts from getting in. I guess they can't go through walls either?