Weak vs. Strong Mechanics

[Jesse Aldridge]

I've been thinking about where to go with Swordfight, the game I've been working on lately. The main mechanic is pretty fun, but I'm concerned that the player will grow bored with at after awhile. Maybe I should add things like a detailed story, or add character growth or some such meta-game goodness. Or maybe I should build on the central mechanic, adding new rules, tweaking old rules, until the mechanic is strong enough for the player to just play with that one mechanic over and over, like an arcade mode. This got me to thinking, should all games have an arcade mode? If an arcade mode for a particular game wouldn't be fun, does that mean the game shouldn't be made?

Let's define a strong mechanic as a mechanic which the player could play with for hours on end without getting bored. 2D platformers and shooting games are examples of this. They have only one mechanic that you do over and over, with some variety in the parameters (enemy types, platform types, etc). Games with one strong mechanic have depth, you can explore subtle nuances and get better at them over time.

Now let's define a weak mechanic... A typical console RPG combat system is an example of a weak mechanic. People get bored of it easily. You need other things like a story and mini-games to help pad it out. Take Legend of Zelda, for example. Both the 3d and 2d combat mechanics are pretty weak. You probably wouldn't enjoy the games if all you did was fight enemies. So you get puzzle solving and item collecting, and a story thrown in.

Yet the Zelda series is one of the best ever created... Do weak mechanics somehow work better with stories? I suppose a difficulty comes when integrating a mechanic into a larger story. It's very rare that a story would make sense when the protagonist just solved his progressively more difficult problems by doing the same thing over and over again. In order to construct a rich story, you need the protagonist to have a variety of ways of solving problems. So for story based games, you need multiple mechanics to reflect the multiple ways of solving various problems. By themselves, none of these mechanics are very interesting, but together, they create an immersive game world.

These are just some of the thoughts I've been having. I'm not entirely certain of any of the points I've made. I'm interested in hearing everybody's opinion.

[Christian]

Yes, you are right i think. But have in mind something, if the appeal of a game is not the play, then you need to make great content to compensate it (i mean, someone will buy it to see the story, not to play the game), and you can only achieve that with a huge team unless you are concentrating on making a story-concentrated-video-game like monkey island and such... with a strong mechanic you dont have to make huge amounts of great content, since the appeal of the video-game would the the play itself, the players would like to play it, they would not play it to finish it or to see the story.

Zelda series might be good game (at their time of release), but there are lots of other good games too like tetris who has strong mechanics, civilization with strong mechanics too, the total war series, and so on...

[jankoM]

These are just some of the thoughts I've been having. I'm not entirely certain of any of the points I've made. I'm interested in hearing everybody's opinion.

Very interesting read for me. I must admit I never played any RPG games and from little peaks into them (Empires & Dungeons, undercroft?...) I didn't know if I don't understand something at battles or they are pretty much simple and un-interactive (luck + stats + ..) in terms of gameplay compared to arcade or puzzle games... Your post helped me get the picture... and I think you are right.

((that doesn't mean I didn't really enjoy E&D... but I could not get any point from undercroft if I remember)

[Anthony Flack]

I guess it depends what you consider the central mechanic to be. I imagine you could make a pretty decent Zelda-style game without any of the combat bits at all.

[Rainer Deyke]

Basically you're talking about broad vs deep mechanics. Do a bunch of different things vs doing the same thing in a bunch of different ways vs doing the same thing in the same way with a bunch of subtle nuances. Both approaches package the same amount of gameplay, but I think the broad approach is generally easier to swallow than the deep approach. I can appreciate the depth of go (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_(board_game)), but I'm already bored with it without even scratching the surface of the real game.

You could say that deep mechanics are for hardcore niches while broad mechanics target the mass market.

[dishmoth]

I've been thinking about where to go with Swordfight, the game I've been working on lately. The main mechanic is pretty fun, but I'm concerned that the player will grow bored with at after awhile. Maybe I should add things like a detailed story, or add character growth or some such meta-game goodness.
I confess, I'm a sucker for any sort of "story mode" in a game. But it doesn't need to be a story in the traditional sense (dialogue, characters, etc.) just as long as the game changes in some respect as you progress (new levels, different enemies, unlockable weapons, etc.).

As an example, I've never much liked racing games, but I'm quite fond of Diddy Kong Racing on the N64. It's basically a Mario Kart clone, but with a lot of unlockable content. You can find new tracks by exploring an overworld, win races to open up new challenges, take part in occasional "boss" races to continue, and so on. That's a lot more fun to me than simply trying to complete a race slightly faster than before.

What it comes down to I think is that I like games that keep throwing new content at you. Of course, the downside from the development point of view is that creating lots of content takes a long, long time.


This got me to thinking, should all games have an arcade mode? If an arcade mode for a particular game wouldn't be fun, does that mean the game shouldn't be made?
I think a lot of "survival horror" games would fail this test. In Silent Hill and Resident Evil games (prior to RE4 at least) the player's character is awkward to control, slow to move, and bad at fighting (deliberately, I'd suggest, to make the player feel vulnerable). An arcade mode in which you just fight monters would be very painful in these cases. But they're good games despite this.


Let's define a strong mechanic as a mechanic which the player could play with for hours on end without getting bored. 2D platformers and shooting games are examples of this.
I have to disagree with this. I can't think of any 2D platformers made in the last 25 years that don't focus on having lots of levels with lots of variety. If Super Mario Bros only comprised one short level that you're expected to play over and over again to increase your score, I don't think that many people would stick with it for long.

Similarly for shooting games, I think that the level and enemy variety is a very significant part of the game. (I'm thinking of shooting games like Doom, Quake, Halo here, rather than Space Invaders.)

However, if your examples are racing games and fighting games, then I'm in agreement with you.


Yet the Zelda series is one of the best ever created... Do weak mechanics somehow work better with stories?
I think there's some truth to this (although I feel that you're doing Zelda a bit of a disservice in describing its mechanics as weak!). As an example, God of War on the PS2 is a mix of a story-driven adventure (puzzles, exploration, cut-scenes, etc.) and fighting (lots of button presses and move combinations). From my point of view, the game ended up being a decent adventure that often got bogged down by an excess of repetitive fighting. But I suspect a lot of people felt it was a decent fighting game interrupted by some boring adventure bits. So, yes, a strong story can conflict with strong mechanics.


These are just some of the thoughts I've been having. I'm not entirely certain of any of the points I've made. I'm interested in hearing everybody's opinion.
An interesting discussion!

Cheers,
Simon

[Vaipen]

Boredom is one of the most seen negative points reviewers put in their articles. Boredom kills games even if they have some good points.

If something has a chance to be boring, ï'd say you have to remember what game you are programming. What is the point? Some games do not need a story like Tetris. I am not sure what your game does.

I play Morrowind. Sworfighting and defense are rather boring really. To me anything like sowrdfighting must include skills to master, not just swing a sword and hope ofr a chance to hit. It mist be more than stats and chances and to hit calculations.

Perhaps you cans how me your WIP?

[Jesse Aldridge]

Perhaps you cans how me your WIP?
Here it is. (http://crookedgames.com/game.php?name=swordfight_1_7)

[Nexic]

I like the game and think could do well if the polish and presentation was more solid. Little things like having characters walk rather than glide across the ground etc.

On it's own I can see how the core mechanic could get boring. I say add some basic stories and quests etc, but also try and make the system a little more interesting and envolved. Would be cool to fight different kinds of enemy that do more than just hurl knifes at you. How about enemies circle around you while fighting. Perhaps even have wolves which run around fast (hard to hit) then suddenly pounce at you and you must block etc.

[esrix]

I like the game and think could do well if the polish and presentation was more solid. Little things like having characters walk rather than glide across the ground etc.

On it's own I can see how the core mechanic could get boring. I say add some basic stories and quests etc, but also try and make the system a little more interesting and envolved. Would be cool to fight different kinds of enemy that do more than just hurl knifes at you. How about enemies circle around you while fighting. Perhaps even have wolves which run around fast (hard to hit) then suddenly pounce at you and you must block etc.

I agree :D Partner with a good pixel artist and push the combat system a bit further and this could go from being a cool game to an excellent game.

[Christian]

I played your game and i belive its a game that was designed with a level based and story driven game play in mind, you have dialogs, and map advancement... and very weak mechanics. I belive you have 2 paths, add story, more maps, weapons and special moves and youll get a standard game with weak mechanics, the other path is get rid of the story and hand made maps, and start thinking on a new more insteresting mechanic that allows more play, there was an old game called "samurai" or something made by Sid Meyer, maybe you could do something like that, or look for it for inspiration (i did a search, you can download it here http://www.abandonia.com/genre.php?search=samurai ).
Anyway, i think the graphics are funny, maybe you just need some animations and more sounds and you are done, keep it up, the fighting mechanics are interesting :)

[Vaipen]

Here it is. (http://crookedgames.com/game.php?name=swordfight_1_7)

Ah yes I played a bit. I was immmdiately bored. It looks I was throwing daggers, not fightin with swords.

[jefferytitan]

Yeah, I also was surprised that the game name didn't seem to match the gameplay. I think it would be good if you could use the landscape to your advantage, such as having narrow bits to force them to attack you one-on-one, or high ground which gives you an attack/defense bonus etc, so you can have some tactics in fighting apart from "throw a dagger, move away so they won't hit me". Also might be good to have well-guarded encampments etc so you have to move carefully while trying to achieve some goal. An amazing story isn't required, as long as they need to jump through some hoops to win.

[jankoM]

I played the early swordfight where there was just a circle and you would shield attacks and attack back (i hope i remember correctly)... it was like abstracted sword fight.

So when I play this I don't see daggers throwing.. but that same abstracted sword fight

"throw a dagger, move away so they won't hit me"
You don't move away when sword goes towards you you block it with a shield... so I is "making attacks with sword and blocking enemies attack at the same time"...

I like the basic concept quite a lot.... but it needs to get extended... I saw the reverse C move with sword and I think this is the right and interesting direction

[jefferytitan]

You don't move away when sword goes towards you you block it with a shield... so I is "making attacks with sword and blocking enemies attack at the same time"...

I like the basic concept quite a lot.... but it needs to get extended... I saw the reverse C move with sword and I think this is the right and interesting direction

Oh, how do you use the shield?

[Jesse Aldridge]

Thanks for all the feedback guys. Sorry for taking so long to reply.



How about enemies circle around you while fighting. Perhaps even have wolves which run around fast (hard to hit) then suddenly pounce at you and you must block etc.

That sounds like a good idea, I may look into that at some point.



Partner with a good pixel artist and push the combat system a bit further and this could go from being a cool game to an excellent game.

I've actually talked with a pixel artist. We decided to wait until the game was more or less done before he would do any work on it. Although, I'm also considering working on my own pixel art skills and spending more time on the sprites :)



I played your game and i belive its a game that was designed with a level based and story driven game play in mind, you have dialogs, and map advancement... and very weak mechanics. I belive you have 2 paths, add story, more maps, weapons and special moves and youll get a standard game with weak mechanics, the other path is get rid of the story and hand made maps, and start thinking on a new more insteresting mechanic that allows more play, there was an old game called "samurai" or something made by Sid Meyer, maybe you could do something like that, or look for it for inspiration (i did a search, you can download it here http://www.abandonia.com/genre.php?search=samurai ).
Anyway, i think the graphics are funny, maybe you just need some animations and more sounds and you are done, keep it up, the fighting mechanics are interesting


Yes, I think you've grasped the situation quite well. I think what I'm going to try to do is go down both paths at the same time :) Story and more interesting mechanics. The only thing I'm concerned about is ruining the simplicity of the game by making sword fighting too complicated.
I played "Sword of the Samurai." It was an interesting game, but overly complicated for my tastes. And the swordfighting part of it was pretty much crap imo :D Still, the game has some neat elements. It's a very good example of mixing multiple mechanics together. (Note for anyone who wants to try it - get DosBox and run it with that, the WinXP version just hung for me) (Also, as a side note, I checked the credits and Sid Meyer is only listed as programming the dueling system, which is just like one mini-game in the larger game).



Ah yes I played a bit. I was immmdiately bored. It looks I was throwing daggers, not fightin with swords.


Hmm, yes... I guess it's not for everyone. Maybe I can find some way of better conveying the "message of swordfighting" by tweaking the way it's displayed, without having to overhaul the mechanics, hmmmm...

[Jesse Aldridge]

Yeah, I also was surprised that the game name didn't seem to match the gameplay. I think it would be good if you could use the landscape to your advantage, such as having narrow bits to force them to attack you one-on-one, or high ground which gives you an attack/defense bonus etc, so you can have some tactics in fighting apart from "throw a dagger, move away so they won't hit me". Also might be good to have well-guarded encampments etc so you have to move carefully while trying to achieve some goal. An amazing story isn't required, as long as they need to jump through some hoops to win.


Yeah, the name was just something generic I pulled off the top of my head, I'll probably change it at some point. Being able to move away so they won't hit you is more of a bug than anything else. In fact, in the latest version (which I'll post on Friday), I eliminated the ability to move freely while in a battle. The idea is you're supposed to move the mouse over the player which causes it to act as a shield.
And yeah, I definitely need to add more hoops :)



I like the basic concept quite a lot.... but it needs to get extended... I saw the reverse C move with sword and I think this is the right and interesting direction


Cool, I'm glad you like it. I do think I'll add onto the mouse gesturing system. But I'm still trying to work out how exactly :D