Level progression/restarts

[Phil Steinmeyer]

The meta-game discussion, especially the part on how 'upgrades' are handled, has me reconsidering how I might choose to handle level progression in my game.

For games with varied level designs, there are more or less 5 ways to go:

1) Player progresses through levels, challenge ramps up. Somewhere around level 5-15, depending on player skill, they probably lose. Next game, they can resume at the same level they last lost at, albeit with a fresh start (i.e. score back to zero).
examples: Bonnie's Bookstore, Water Bugs, lots of other casual games

2) Same as above, except that player always restarts at level 1.
example: Titan Attacks!

3) Player starts at level 1 every game, but levels are randomized, so that the player rarely sees the same levels in order. Difficulty ramping is handled in some other way (i.e. less time, etc).
example: Ocean Express

4) Player progresses and upon loss, can simply restart the level without restarting his game (i.e. their score, bonuses and so on are reset to what they were at the beginning of the level).
example: Gold Miner

5) (sort of in combination with any of the above) - Levels are so easy, and/or player gets so many restarts, that it's nearly impossible to ever 'lose' - player plays on through as many levels as he's interested in before he gets bored or maybe really unlucky and loses.
example: Jewel Quest, Big Kahuna Reef (I don't think I've ever really 'lost' either of these, permanently, in their main gameplay modes).

The problem is that upgrade systems tend to work better with 2,3 or 4, depending on what type of upgrade system you have. I had originally planned to use system 1, as I did on my last game. The plus side of that is that the player never has to replay levels they've already beaten. The down side is that it makes it harder to balance an upgrade/store system.

[Grey Alien]

I did 4 in Xmas Bonus, but swapped to 1 for Easter Bonus and added in a lives system so it's quite hard to loose totally.

[jefferytitan]

Hmm. What if when they fail, their points/upgrades are "left" in that level. They can skip the level, but they have to return to (and complete) it some time if they want to get their stuff back?

[Phil Steinmeyer]

I notice that some games (Chainz 2, and I think Luxor Amun Rising), only allow you to restart at the beginning of a 'chapter'. i.e. They put levels into groups of 4 or so - each one is a chapter. If you lose in the middle of level 7 (i.e. 3rd level within chapter 2), then you can only restart at the first level in that chapter (i.e. level 5).

This adds a bit more tension - there's pressure to finish chapters. But will it frustrate consumers. Thoughts?

[Hiro_Antagonist]

I could be mistaken, but didn't zuma do that too?

[Stu]

I notice that some games (Chainz 2, and I think Luxor Amun Rising), only allow you to restart at the beginning of a 'chapter'. i.e. They put levels into groups of 4 or so - each one is a chapter. If you lose in the middle of level 7 (i.e. 3rd level within chapter 2), then you can only restart at the first level in that chapter (i.e. level 5).

This adds a bit more tension - there's pressure to finish chapters. But will it frustrate consumers. Thoughts?

As a player I can't stand this approach. I have a post around here somewhere complaining about that very thing. I don't see any logic behind forcing a player to repeat gameplay that he has already covered. When a game plays that way I can only assume that the developer is trying to stretch the play time by making me repeat things. If anyone likes to repeat levels they have already cleared, just to continue on, I would love for them to tell me why. Just my two cents.

[Hiro_Antagonist]

As a player I can't stand this approach. ... If anyone likes to repeat levels they have already cleared, just to continue on, I would love for them to tell me why.

I don't think any player really thinks "I wish I could play the same thing I just played... again!" Yet, this has been around in many/most games to some capacity throughout the history of games. Why?

One obvious reason is to stretch content. A player may not like replaying the same level again, but if the sum total of that is to turn an 8-hour game into a 12-hour game, the player may still be happier in the end without consciously articulating why.

Another benefit is to give consequence to the player's actions. Having to replay a bit of what you just did is a mild 'punishment' for losing, which gives stronger incentive to not lose. This in turn creates an emotional response to either winning or losing, and even more of one when you're hanging on the edge between the two. Emotional responses (good and bad) in games are good. It's sort of like how movies make the protagonist go through loss and hardship, because it makes the victory more satisfying for the viewer in the end.

Yet another benefit is that if a player died, perhaps they got in a little over their head. Starting them at the same hard place that killed them is very likely to result in another immediate death, and thus compounded frustration in the player. If they are sent back a little, they can work through easier and/or more familiar content, feeling a sense of progress and accomplishment before they encounter the hard part again. This is more likely to keep the player playing longer and enjoying the game longer. If they feel 'stuck' at one hard part with no sense of success, they are more likely to walk away and not come back.

And so on.

I'm not saying this is a superior system or anything -- I'm just pointing out that it does have positive qualities. I think all of the systems Phil initially identified are all viable in their own right. It's just a matter of figuring out which goes best with the feel of the game, the game's audience, and the other design decisions made in each particular game.