Having multiple type of gameplay in a game..

[yanuart]

Hi, I'm currently developing somekind of racing game and while at the design stage I had some thoughts about some variations other than racing.
A good example of this will be NFSU where it has 3 kind of gameplay (racing, drag and sliding) so that each level will be either one of those type and actually all those 3 gameplay weigh the same (none of them are considered as the "mini game" on the game).

This leads me to a question, is it a good idea to have 3 types of gameplay in your game ? Will it turn off gamers ?, especially if there's no way to skip it.
in NFSU's case, it works because .. it's NFSU !! and I play it because the graphics is a killer :D.
Personally I find the sliding game excruciating abit (i wanna race!) and if there's an option to skip it, I'll skip it always.

Anyway.. just trying to get some opinion (from gamers' pov i hope not developers).

[Air]

This is a good question, and like anything else of this nature there's no one right answer for everyone. I'll let someone else judge in detail the merits of multiple styles of gameplay from a customer standpoint and just speak on the part I have personal experience with: Implementation.

I think weighing the implementation difficulty is just as important as weighing customer satisfaction. While it might not seem like it on paper, even "mild" gameplay variations as the ones you describe can significantly increase the overall complexity of your game project. Not only will you have to implement and test each of these modes of gameplay, but you'll inevitably have to make new art and adjustments to your engine to accomidate them and ensure they don't come across as being half-ass in comparison with the racing part. I originally thought having multiple gameplay modes for our game would have been an easy way to add replayability until I actually tried to implement them.

So first you have to think, "do I have the time and dedication to give each mode of play the implementation effort and play-testing it deserves?" -- and then you have to think "will customers appreciate that time and effort?" .. or will they just skip it most of the time like you would? ;) Finally: Will the payoff not only equal but exceed my extra effort applied?

I can't answer that for you, but in my case the answer-after-the-fact ended up being a resounding "no".

- Air

[z3lda]

I think you have to do a really good job to pull it off right. For exapmle look at Ratchet & Clank. That game has a whole bunch of game play mechanics. They all work seamlessly. Also each individual mechanic could have been a whole new game by itself.

[cliffski]

I would say "YES DO IT!!!". I love it when games include different types of gameplay. The best example I've seen in years is sid Meiers Pirates! This had sea battles, trading, dancing! fencing and some political shenanigans. It also had a stealth bit and even an RTS in it.
Ok... the RTS bit SUCKED, the stealth bit was a bit lame, but the rest was great and added real variety. What I thought was interesting was any of the other 'parts' were good fun, but not worth buying. In many ways they were like indie games :D But throw them all together and you have a great package thats well worth the money. Also, 5 different gameplay types vastly increases the chances of at least part of your game being really great fun (law of averages)
I absolutely 100% intend my next game (whenever that happens...) to include widely varying gameplay.

[lakibuk]

Don't know. Look at games that are successful like Zuma or Bejeweled. They have one simple concept and get the max out of it.

[Anthony Flack]

Yes, but by doing that, you're being very selective about which successful games you're looking at.

As a counter-example, compare Pizza Frenzy. It regularly switches between the main game and the quite different bonus game, and for me that was absolutely crucial. Either game on its own wouldn't be enough to cut it... together they are greater than the sum of their parts. I don't know if Pizza Frenzy has been successful or not, but the point is, there's plenty of examples of either approach making for great games.

So I don't think you can say yes or no about this one - it's a totally case-by case thing. You're just going to have to decide if it will enhance or detract from the experience, I guess.

[yanuart]

hmm.. I know that actually there won't be any yes/no answer, game making is afterall an art :) that's why i just want for opinions and insights.

When I said about multiple gameplay in a game it's not about the main game and its minigame counterpart (bonus level for ex.) but instead each gameplay is an individual part of the game.
Imagine a game about basketball in which it has both the basketball manager gameplay and NBA2K1 gameplay.

My concern is that maybe by having multiple gameplay, there's no keyword for our game thus we won't have a strong entry point to get to our customer.
How can gamers recognize my game ? When they talk about my game to their friends, how they refer to my game (i hope it's not "sucks")

For me as a gamer, sometimes it sucks if I play a game that has too many cross gameplay. The idea of having "one gameplay and make the best of it" is very good, maybe I can find a way to this in my game.

Anyway.. feel free to continue this discussion :D

[Anthony Flack]

Are the different gameplay modes to be integrated into a single game, or is it an either/or (game A or game B) proposition?

My initial plan was to pack as much variation as I could into my game, however when I did that I found that some styles didn't really compliment each other very well. I decided I would pare down the main game to its core (a straightforward action/fighting sort of thing in my case), with the other elements being either completely seperate bonus games, or as optional "layers" of gameplay that you could freely ignore if it wasn't your thing.

But if your game is of the sport+management variety then... well, it's interesting because the two sides are both closely integrated, and very, very different. It would be nice to have the option to play either one or the other exclusively, or both together. Bit of extra work for you there, making a game like that I expect.

I guess you could always try developing one half of the game as a stand-alone and see how it goes, but design it so you can easily add the other half later. Maybe.

[yanuart]

in the case of sport+management variety.. hmm.. okay i'm going to spill my design here so you can make a better judgment.
It's basically a racing game, now in addition to the standard racing gameplay, i want to add stunts gameplay (like in burnout).
Both of these two gameplay will stand on their own as gamer can choose his path to become the #1 driver but he must finish all of them.

So what dyou guys think of the idea ?

[dima]

I think it's a great idea to mix different styles in the same game. You can have modes, and some can be unlocked by completing tasks. This adds to the variety of gameplay and definitely has better appeal. Most games try to offer different modes, but in most games they are same gameplay with a twist like a timer or some new element. Having truly different styles of play for different modes can only be benefitial, IMO.

[mahlzeit]

A lot of the really really old games did this. Every level was basically a different kind of game. Aztek's Challenge, for example. Level 1: dodge spears coming from the side, Level 2: dodge boulders falling from the top, Level 3: avoid traps by jumping over them, etc. All the levels had something to do with reflexes and reacting on time, but the mechanics were different. The old Summer/Winter/California Games did something similar: a variety of game types with one uniting theme.

[baegsi]

From the gamers perspective, I prefer games with one clear game idea. Having 3 games in one often feels like the developer had no clear vision for that game. I'd rather play three different games than one. But that's just my personal taste.

From the business and developer point of view: having three different games instead of one probably makes more money.

[yanuart]

From the gamers perspective, I prefer games with one clear game idea. Having 3 games in one often feels like the developer had no clear vision for that game. I'd rather play three different games than one. But that's just my personal taste.

From the business and developer point of view: having three different games instead of one probably makes more money.
@baegsi : that's the whole reason why I posted this discussion :D

[Jim Buck]

Imagine a game about basketball in which it has both the basketball manager gameplay and NBA2K1 gameplay.

It looks like console sports games are starting to go in the direction of multiple facets of gameplay:

http://www.gamespot.com/ps2/sports/blitzplaymakers/news_6118816.html

[Sillysoft]

You could always pick the strongest gameplay type and go with just that at first. Then come out with a later version 2 or something with expanded gameplay options.

[yanuart]

hmm if you have multiple gameplays in your game, will you let gamers choose what gameplay they want to play or do you force them to play all those gameplays (they must follow some predefined levels and no way to get around it )?