Puzzle/Match3 Gameplay question

[Ricardo Vladimiro]

Howdie

Yesterday I was discussing with a friend the gameplay implementation of the game I'm coding. We came to an halt regarding the opinions on the gameplay.

The biggest diference is the gameboard, although any clone-gameplay-ripoff would be possible with it. But appart from that and related to gameplay, the diferences are:

Checking functions: on a typical match3, the whole board is checked, rebuilt and rechecked until there's nothing more to do. In my game, only the pieces played are checked. This is highly dependant on one of the gameplay types I designed.

Gameplay: Usually a match3 game has one mechanic and gameplays around that mechanic. The game I'm writing has 3 diferent mechanics. Each one is unique and allows a certain gameplay when compared to the others and offers a diferent level of dificulty. Without these mechanics, the checking function would make no sense.

Adventure and Story: The 4th gameplay is a story mode that involves all the other mechanics/gameplays. There's no plan in using a "world" where a dot roams, but more of a cute story that unfolds while you play.

I admit the biggest work was to achieve functions that worked for all diferent mechanics, but that's worth nothing if the game is not well-accepted by the players, so, better to think about it now, than to regret no doing anything about it.

What do you think? Keeping the usual match3 "one-mechanic/one-world/similar-gameplay" or "several-mechanics/story-approach/diferent-gameplays"?

Your opinions are highly appreciated.

V

[Speckled Jim]

Seems like the best idea is to try it. Make the thing functional enough that you can actually play the thing. What sounds good on paper may not be fun, or it might be great. Only one way to be sure.

A possible downside to incorporating multiple game mechanics into what is traditionally a very simple genre, is that you may alienate those people that normally like the match 3 games. Presumably the simplicity is part of the appeal, if the endless clones are anything to go by.

Again, only way to really know is to let some typical players try your prototype.

[Pallav Nawani]

Seems like the best idea is to try it. Make the thing functional enough that you can actually play the thing. What sounds good on paper may not be fun, or it might be great. Only one way to be sure.

I second that. Impossible to say anything until we have played it.

[Ricardo Vladimiro]

I understand what you mean, just thought that you might have faced this question before. This is my first puzzle, both design and code, getting started with the design itself was pretty rough since I had never worked on anything similar.

The input I'm getting is from the puzzle adict that shares the house (my wife) but in this early stage she's looks somewhat puzzled and without enough data to make an opinion on gameplay.

Thank you for your answers. As soon as I get something worth looking, I'll announce it.

V

[Bmc]

without playing the game, but going on what you describe.... it seems like you are trying to jam too much into, especially for a more-casual (portal-friendly) audience.

go and look at any of the top games, most of them rely on a one simple core mechanic

Zuma
core mechanic: shooting a ball
-shoot the ball at the chain to make match 3
-shoot through a gap for bonus points
-shoot the coin for bonus points(if i remember correctly)

Bejewelled - Swap, everything uses the swap mechanic

Feeding Frenzy - it's all about eating, eating fish, eating powerups, eating, eating, eating

other games add more, but they are secondary, you don't need to bother with it to play

ex:
Luxor - catching gems/power-ups etc

KISS (keep it simple stupid)

PS. if you want a matching game idea, here is one that hasn't been done

different shape boards (like BKR, Jewel Quest), Slide full rows/columns(like Chuzzle) , and break only certain cells on the grid (like BKR and BKW)

[Teq]

for puzzle games, where possible, I do a paper cut out version using various grid sizes and "rules" to play the game, does require someone prepared to look silly while they are playing your game though :)

[Bmc]

The input I'm getting is from the puzzle adict that shares the house (my wife) but in this early stage she's looks somewhat puzzled and without enough data to make an opinion on gameplay.

missed this first time I replied. It pretty much validates what I already thought.

one suggestion.

ask which of the mechanics she finds the most enjoyable then just use that one, re-designing accordingly.

[Sharpfish]

On this topic - if the extra style of play is a compliment to (expansion) rather than a tangent from then is it not just expanding the casual game genre?

Instead of always doing JUST the match 3 and perpetuating the ever increasing intolerance of it, won't adding more variety and gameplay offer more value and also ween casual gamers into doing more than one task per game?

I am not advocating it I am just wondering. I certainly can see why the best sellers have stuck to one mechanic.

However, what I am talking about is not just "take 4 types of gamplay and stick them into one game" but a progressive "do this task - well done - now do this one - repeat". Is the casual gamer really that "dumb" that they can not be challenged even a little?

On the flipside, maybe by adding more into a casual game (while keeping it really simple in control and instruction) may attract the more non-casual players to play the game also? At the very least it stands more chance at distancing itself from the crowd. Though of course if it reflects badly on sales then it may not be worth the risk - if sales are your driving force.

[Ricardo Vladimiro]

Thanks!

Yes, I'm getting her to look at it more, but my guess is that it's not enough game for her to take full advantage of it.

The board has a new (hopefully new, never saw it until now) concept, actually, all started from there. It did stay simple though, so I pushed up on the mechanics.

Hopefully the art will pull the rest together. More people that tried it said they didn't know what to do, the piece I check needs to show up, etc... It's not the idea I'm after, I'm doubting the design itself. I do think I have an original winner here, but I play less casual games, so I may be wrong.

On the other hand there's nothing bad in pushing the standards a bit.

edit: cross-post with Sharpfish

@Shapfish

That's exactly what I was thinking when I wrote it. Since I didn't want to go on a "feature-freak" problem, I wrote a lot about the objectives of the game. I want to push the limits just a tidy bit without loosing the gameplay simplicity, thus 3 mechanics and 4 gameplay modes. Each one of the mechanics is simple, very simple.

We'll see, your answers helped me sticking with the original idea, since I feel the simplicity is still there. I understand what you mean and that without testing, you don't have enough data to take it further, so finishing the game and let it be evaluated is the best task for now.

V

[Bmc]

@sharpfish: I think something like Alawar does with Legend of Aladdin (adding the slide mechanic as a bonus/helper) is actually great (I believe that is what you were referring to in your post)

that type of added mechanic isn't needed to play, and the player doesn't even need to know about at all

but if he is trying to use 3 different mechanics for matching, and treating them all as a core mechanic he is only heading for problems.

the best games are always simple at their core.

[Sharpfish]

Well, what I am alluding to is intentionally vague because it's under wraps. But it is not a tile based swap/match 3 game.

To put it into other understandable terms imaging a game where you :

1.shoot spaceships to get a score
2.when you get the score you enter a mother ship, but instead of shooting you now use reaction based gameplay - this is just a bonus round and may be skipable if you don't care for it.

that is extremely simple and far removed from what I'm actually doing. But it hilights going from moving left/righ and hitting fire - to just hitting fire based on reaction times or anyotherexample here (Something DIFFERENT from the main core mechanic but still SIMPLISTIC - in fact moreso to avoid confusion).

Coming back out of that (and back to the topic) in a match 3 game it wouldn't be an extra mechanic within the same area of play but a seperate area after the main level where you do something a bit wacky to have a bit of relief from the main game - this only lasts a short time.

so: Match tiles, fill the meter. Then play for example a memory game (turning over the tiles to match them) for a bonus round.

would that confuse the player or give them more "fun"????

edit > bonus-round implies an infrequent every X levels thing, I meant EVERY LEVEL is followed by this sub-gameplay device.

[Grey Alien]

that bonus round thing was done in Bistro Stars. It was OK actually.

[Bmc]

bonus round is really seperate from the gameplay. I'd say it falls under "it's there but you don't need to know about it to play the game"