Level variation - how important

[Phil Steinmeyer]

So I'm playing with a different concept now. This one doesn't lend itself real well to level variation - think Tetris or Collapse (though it's not ALL that similar to those). I can make it faster. I can mix in more colors to make it harder (it's got a match-3 mechanic). I can add more varied power-ups. But I can't [easily] have a different level design mechanic.

On a personal level, I have a strong preference for games with varied level designs (i.e. JewelQuest instead of Bejewelled, etc). But there have been a number of successful casual games without level variation (Bejewelled, Bookworm, Chuzzle, Collapse).

Is that because the latter games were mostly released a year or two ago, and now the market is more sophisticate and demands level variation, or can a game without level variation still succeed?

(BTW - I could vary the levels, but depending on how I did it, it might be a bit contrived - as if Chuzzle sometimes switched from 6 x 6 levels to 5 x 7 , to 7 x 7 with a hole in the middle, etc).

Thoughts?

[Bmc]

magic match is a new one, where the level doesn't change

I say if it doesn't fit your concept, don't worry about, just find other ways to vary the gameplay.

if anything I say different shaped levels is a "trend", people are using them but they don't really know why, they are only using them because <insert game title here> did and was successfull

next up... maybe levels with moving pieces. :)

[Matthew]

If the pacing feels too methodical and redundant I would say aim for some variation. One possibility is a discrete mini-game. Although Pizza Frenzy wasn't a mega-hit in sales, AFAIK, it's a good example: every few stages there was a pizza topping minigame. Even the perfect blimp at the end of every level was a good change of pace--I loved clicking on those damn bags of money it would drop.

Phil: How involved are you with PopCap during the prototyping phase you're in now? I would love to hear their thoughts on these issues (this thread the powerup thread, etc).

[Phil Steinmeyer]

For now, I'm not really interacting with PopCap re: prototyping I'm doing. I've had a couple of brief conversations running some ideas by them - for that matter I've done the same with a couple of other guys in the industry (not PopCap) who I'm friends with.

Nothing against PopCap, but since I'm still working with very raw ideas, there's not a whole lot that of feedback that others can give me, and I hardly want to be in the position where PopCap, or anybody else, basically gives me the key idea for my next game - that would be an awkward position.

[Mark Sheeky]

A plot/story between levels with some interesting characters, and new graphics sets and music can add variety to an otherwise simplistic design.

Mark

[svero]

Level variation is not so important to me IF the game has other progress indicators and things I can collect. I do like variation in general though, but in certain games Im happy to just play the same level over and over again so long as it's fun and there's some ultimate goal to be had.

[Phil Steinmeyer]

I'm still thinking about this issue.

Specifically, there are two broad categories of block manipulation/match-3 style games.

1) Progressive Fill - The board starts (nearly) empty. Pieces are slowly added. Usually the player's goal is to remove pieces and prevent the board from filling. Examples include Tetris, Lumines, Meteos, many bubble poppers

2) Always Full - The board starts completely full. As the player removes pieces (usually through color matching), those pieces are immediately replaced. Examples include Bejewelled, Jewel Quest, Chuzzle, Magic Match.

There are of course some outliers that don't quite fit either of the above, but most matching/manipulation games fall into one of these two categories.

The problem is that while the 'Always Full' camp lends itself well to unusual, varied level shapes, and also to the JewelQuest mechanic of having to change the color of every square on a level.

But the Progressive Fill doesn't really go well with either of those. Boards usually have to be square/rectangular (so pieces can fall/fill/slide correctly), and requiring every square to be played once doesn't work because the player will lose if he lets the board fill to the top to try to flip the top squares.

So, are there any games out there in the Progressive Fill camp that have come up with clever solutions/variants to the issue of repetitive levels?

[Bmc]

5 things off the bat that I can think off

1) make the areas different widths, like in Zulu Gems
2) add raised areas at the bottom on the screen and/or obstacles in the middle of the "play area" sort of like TriJinx does
3) force the player to make a certain amount of matches of certain types to pass the level like in Zoo Keeper
4)require to player to make matches that connect to certain special pieces (making the match would destroy the special piece). spread them throughout the level
5) have different shaped areas, instead of square, have an octagon etc (sort ties into number 2)

[Sirrus]

Off topic, but now that we are in February, any insight into how well Bonnie's Bookstore is doing?

[Phil Steinmeyer]

I don't have a lot of definitive answers on Bonnie's performance yet. For the most part, the only solid data I've seen has been from how it's done on PopCap's own site - I haven't gotten a royalty report or details on portal performance. On PopCap's site, BB has had a lot of downloads, but a lower than expected conversion rate.

My guess is that, in the end, it'll have been profitable for all parties, but not the big hit that I hoped it would be. Ask me again in 3 months.

[soniCron]

It is possible to break the game by adding level layout changes with the filler games. Unless it makes the gameplay noticeably better, I wouldn't even consider it. If your goal is to provide additional percieved value to the game, then I'd suggest a much more powerful technique: Increase the player's options for manipulation of the board. (Consider checkers vs. chess.) With a richer choice of movement, an exponentially increasing variety of play can be achieved. And it's far less costly to produce.

My upcoming title is a drop-down game in a similar vein of Tetris, Lumines, etc., and I've found it most compelling to dramatically change the way the player is allowed to interact with the board. I tried adjusting the playfield size, adding obstructions and special tiles, and fragmenting the board, but none of these added any real value to the game. (Some even worsened gameplay.)

Then I gave the player more flexibility to manipulate the board. The player can now perform simple, basic operations with little reward, or risk wellbeing for much greater rewards. This has really changed the dynamic of play and added a lot of options for the player without costing as much in complexity. (Complexity in development and learning curve.) This was more valuable to both me and the player in the end, and I'm glad I chose to take this approach.

[Stom]

You mentioned Chuzzle, which I have recently been hooked on so I thought about some of the things that it does to continually engage me without changing layout or even introducing new gameplay elements (besides the locks.)

The main reason I keep going back to Chuzzle is because as you progress, instead of having to make the same decisions with more speed and accuracy, I am challenged to make the same decisions with more intelligence, not only attempting to clear a large amount of pieces but also setting up the next move. It has a Chess game mentality, free of the frenzied action that dictates most puzzle games.

You mentioned making it faster, so your new design might not be lending itself to something along this train of thought. In that case, I'd recommend occasionally adding a new gameplay element. Throwing players an extra item to juggle can be much more entertaining than trying to get them to juggle the same objects faster.

[zoombapup]

I dont expect that it matters much what the layout of the board looks like in comparison with the pattern matching problem that you solve while play.

Look at minesweeper, would that be any better if it had lots of different organisations of the play area? Nope, dont think so.

I guess the whole point of the pre-filled area games is that the pattern matching is taking place on only two dimensions, so it gets spatially simpler. If you add in topology of the tokens you start getting into greater-dimensions for matching the patterns.

As it is, matching two tokens at a time seems reasonable depending on the pacing of the game (imagine Diner dash as a two token matching game).

I guess this begs the question, as more tokens require matching (i.e. gems of same colour) how does this affect pacing requirements for both feedback but also frequency of matches.

Its an interesting design issue, but I'd suggest that topology doesnt play a significant part unless you make it so and especially for most casual game players.

Phil.

[StGabriel]

I've been thinking about the same sorts of things with a prototype game I just did (see my blog (http://stgabe.blogspot.com)) which is of the progressive fill variety. My initial prototype had a pleasing interface and was fun by several accounts but to me seemed to lack a real punch to be a solid game in and of itself. I wondered how much of that could be remedied just by level design and by adding specialty pieces such as wild cards, pieces that "blow up" destroying several pieces around them, etc.

Also, I played a game Soda Pipes (http://www.reflexive.net/index.php?PAGE=game_detail&AID=237) which has a progressive fill but also has varied level shapes (in this case they put out cones that block out squares which cannot be filled) and a lot of the challenge of the game seemed to be directly tied to the level design. In some cases that was due to different shapes of the board and in other cases that was due to different sets of pieces that would be handed out.

The hard thing for me is to determine from an initial prototype whether it is worth it to invest a lot of time trying out level variation to make your game more fun. In my case, a finished product isn't my immediate goal and so I decided to move on but I may come back to the game later and fiddle around with it some more.

[Anlino]

The first link (See my blog) is the same as the link to the game on reflexive.

[StGabriel]

Oops. Fixed. Thanks.