As the cliché goes, there is no such thing as perfect. In fact, this couldn’t be more true of an RTS game, as it’s often the complex of things in life who’s perception of quality varies the most. Different people want different things out of RTS games, as evident in the wide variety of RTS designs and their associated fan bases. If we were to speak of perfection in the most sensible and relevant context we could, then a game’s popularity over time would be the measure of how close it is to perfection. While obvious necessities are good graphics and a good storyline as these are always necessary to satiate a large population of gamers, it’s always a matter of gameplay that draws the most debate, and thus is the central issue of this article.
A game with no graphics, a good storyline, but no gameplay is what you would call a book. A game with good graphics and a good storyline, but no gameplay is what you would call a movie. Good gameplay is what gives a video or computer game the interactive experience that distinguishes it from other forms of recreational entertainment. Put simply: without gameplay, you don’t have a game. The irony here is that despite the fact that gameplay is the central facet to any game, it’s often the most under-developed and least polished part of it. Getting a game to play right is significantly harder than getting a plot to make sense, or graphics to look good, and this is the primary reason why most RTS games fall short of the mark. Rarely does a game feature gameplay which is both simple enough for newer players to get into, and deep enough for seasoned players to stick with.
Deep k.i.s.s. If you haven’t heard of “keep it simple, stupid” (k.i.s.s.), now you have. It’s the first step towards developing perfect gameplay, and is ultimately the holy grail for any studio and publisher. The idea is to make a game whose gameplay is appealing to both casual players and veterans. Unfortunately there are often grievous mistakes made in the design process that confuse complexity with depth, and simplicity with shallowness. A game does not need to be complicated to have depth, nor does simplicity mean it will be shallow. In fact, simplicity and depth compliment each other quite well. A simple game will be more inviting to newer and casual players. They can pick it up and start having fun with it. However if the game is too shallow, then the more adept or experienced players will simply grow bored with the game and stop playing. This is why depth is necessary. What is depth? Depth is what gives a game “skill contrast”, the clarity of the differences in skill and aptitude between a new player and a seasoned expert. Depth allows more experienced players to play at significantly higher levels than newer players do, thus rewarding the experienced player for knowing more and applying what he knows with precision and purpose. If a game is shallow, there’s little to no reward for trying harder and only serves to handicap naturally adept players. Meanwhile, it does nothing to benefit newer players as newer players should not be playing against veterans anyway.
Simple gameplay is the gateway to getting into the game. Complexities are often frustrating and downright tedious to get used to, and sometimes don’t even add depth to the game. They just add unnecessary decision making to what are otherwise very trivial tasks that should take a back seat to the more engaging and riveting aspects of gameplay. Newer players can often feel overwhelmed with stuff to do, and at the end of the day if there are too many formalities preventing them from getting into the “meat and potatoes” aspects of the gameplay, they’re going to stop playing. Complexity is not a matter of whether someone has the skill to learn the complexities or not, it’s a matter of whether it’s fun. If a game isn’t fun, it isn’t going to be popular. Hardly the mark of a game aiming at perfection.
It’s all in the wrist The most rewarding part of playing a well designed RTS game is the finesse and skill it takes to properly micromanaging your units. The argument that micromanagement isn’t fun for some people and therefore shouldn’t be a big part of RTS games holds no water because if they don’t want to micromanage, no one’s forcing them to. Trying to minimize the effects of micromanagement automatically reduces depth, reduces skill contrast, and ultimately makes the gameplay boring to those who play the game the most. While top level players might account for the minority percentage of gamers, they account for the majority percentage of total games played, or at the very least, the majority percentage of most games played per player.
Micromanagement is probably the most misunderstood of all gameplay aspects. New players criticize it as being nothing more than mindless fast clicking, developers frown upon it as making gameplay too complicated for beginners, and even seasoned experts can often place too much importance on how impacting micromanagement should be. From a gameplay standpoint micromanagement is a supplement to tactics, and a factor in strategy; a means to an end, not the end itself. From a design standpoint, micromanagement is the difference between a shallow and linear counter system, and something rich and entertaining that changes dynamically the better you get at the game. A game can’t have perfect gameplay unless it significantly rewards players who are good at micromanagement.
Details, details Details matter. Actually, details matter a lot. When a game is first conceptualized, it’s necessary to start off with a general design document, but what makes or breaks that design document is how well the details are engineered to support the design intent. Faction diversity is of significant importance to a game. If you have multiple factions that are all fundamentally the same, then the game won’t have much longevity or long term depth to it. Details play a big role in how different factions are from one another. They reinforce the intended concept of each faction and create very different play styles. Everything from how each economy works, how each faction builds their base, and how each faction’s units behave depends on whether the details keep them distinct. If you were to assign each faction a shape, you would then need the details to define the edges of that shape, make sure the color of each shape is different, and make sure the textured pattern on each shape is unique. Otherwise, all of the factions in a game would be the same featureless gray blob. Details add variety, depth, and fun.
Moreover, from a designers standpoint, details are the means by which your creative muscle is flexed. You can really go over the top with how many ideas you put into the game and ways you can make each faction unique from one another. In the process of adding details, you also add polish to a game, which is a significantly important element in the overall quality of the product. Details are what bring a game to life and make or break the experience of playing it.
What are my options? Tying directly into details, are the results that such details produce. Ultimately the idea behind strategic decision making is that you must make a choice from an array of equally viable and unique options. Without options, there is no decision making involved, and thus no true strategic depth. However, options can often be a mixed blessing. Sometimes they can add depth, and sometimes all they do is add complexity. However, the bottom line is that a game should not have obvious pathways that are clearly laid out of you. Having options means being able to adapt to what your opponent is doing. Options allow you to plan ahead, surprise your opponent, and be prepared. Without the ability to choose different build orders, different unit mixtures, and even the manner in which certain units are used, gameplay will be about as dry as it can get. So if you play a game and ask yourself “what are my options”, and the answer isn’t immediately obvious to you, it means the game has been designed well and your hesitation implies validity to a variety of choices you can make, even if one choice happens to be the most efficient. If you struggle to think of different ways you can beat your opponent, you’re playing a game with a short life span.
Fit and finish Aside from gameplay are the finishing touches in the multiplayer experience. The unfortunate reality of online gaming is that people suck. You run into cheaters and disconnectors, you run into lobby spammers, you run into people who kick you from their games for no good reason, you run into people who can’t read the title of the game and refuse to stay kicked. What ruins the online experience is, ironically, the people you need to deal with. In fact, this can be so frustrating, it can turn the whole gaming experience upside down. To alleviate this, the perfect RTS game needs to include a set of tools that allows players to minimize these frustrations, and take actions into their own hands. A short list of useful finishing touches is as follows:
Assign a permanent player ID to every unique serial key that comes online. This can then be used for further features.
Allow players to construct their own lists of known cheaters, disconnectors, and poor sports. This list would be based on the player’s unique ID, rather than their nick name. It will allow you to automatically prevent these kinds of people from ever joining your game.
Allow a permanent kick feature that lets you permanently kick a player from the game you’re currently staging in such that he can’t keep rejoining.
There are many more ideas and features, but the general principle is that they should minimize the effects that stupid and otherwise clueless people have on the gaming experience.
Conclusion In order for a game to maximize its sales potential, it simply can’t be half assed. The quality of a well made product always speaks for itself. People don’t talk about average things, they talk about things that impress them. Details and polish, be it for the graphics, singleplayer, multiplayer, or gameplay, are essential to the popularity of a game. A perfectionist zeal applied to the quality of the game will go a long, long way. Thus, a game is only as perfect as the amount of perfectionism with which it was created.
1) Too hard for understanding for non-English readers like me 2) Agreed with "Ignore list" for multiplayer "freedom" 3) Sparky`s article better ( maybe because I didn`t understand some of sentences )
QUOTE
A game with no graphics, a good storyline, but no gameplay is what you would call a book. A game with good graphics and a good storyline, but no gameplay is what you would call a movie. Good gameplay is what gives a video or computer game the interactive experience that distinguishes it from other forms of recreational entertainment. Put simply: without gameplay, you don’t have a game
But gameplay without good multiplayer features isn`t game (for me)
This post has been edited by YKudzA: Jan 21 2007, 13:35 PM
I read the whole article and I'm quite impressed. It's a good read, good work AGM.
It's true that complexity can ruin a game because no one can get into it quick enough, so they get frustrated and just can't be patient enough to get into the game's design.
Like you said, designers think that complexity doesn't introduce beginners to the game. Others think that complexity creates more depth in gameplay. But both ways don't lead to an outstanding RTS game that will be remembered for a long time.
I just hope CnC 3's design won't be too much based on simplicity -> "Introducing Newer Players" Style.
Good read.
Edit: About the online player part. Only one username being assigned to one cd-key is a good idea. ES did that to AoE 3's system. But I don't know if this can work with CnC 3, it depends if the in-game clan system is well enough designed. So you don't have to create new names for a newly joined clan.
This post has been edited by DuRiN: Jan 21 2007, 15:36 PM
Using examples to illustrate a few of your points would make it better.
Totally agreed about the deep k.i.s.s bit. Striking a balance between simplicity and depth pretty much defines how good an RTS will be.
QUOTE
Edit: About the online player part. Only one username being assigned to one cd-key is a good idea. ES did that to AoE 3's system.
I think what he meant was unique player id's for each serial key rather than just one username. While the way aoe3 implements it is good in a way, I'd prefer it if you have one master account and under that separate nicknames.
Very good read AGM, think I agree with everything.
Though when I read Ithildur's contest post, I read that it was going to be presented on the portal. While this is a good article, I think many don't nearly understand what you're going on about, especially without examples and with tough english like that.
I like it a lot though.
This post has been edited by Sparky: Jan 21 2007, 16:54 PM
Yeah, I had the same problem. I had to leave out so much.
But the limit is a good thing though, it makes it easier for others to write articles as well and compete with the others without putting in a huge amount of effort.
Well, your bullet points are more or less implemented in Warcraft3, you can create your own ban-list and these people cannot join your game (it's been some time, WC3 players, correct me).
And still.. don't you contradict yourself if you say that a PopCap shouldn't be implemented and then write something like:
"Moreover, from a designers standpoint, details are the means by which your creative muscle is flexed.".
"However if the game is too shallow, then the more adept or experienced players will simply grow bored with the game and stop playing. This is why depth is necessary. What is depth? Depth is what gives a game “skill contrast”, the clarity of the differences in skill and aptitude between a new player and a seasoned expert."
For the record, you didn't mention a PopCap in this article, but in my opinion a PopCap is adding depth to the game.
I don't really see any sound reasoning that logically "proves" a popcap adds depth to a game. If you can give me a fucking good argument as to why a game would be WORSE without a popcap (or better with one), I'll start to believe popcaps can be a good thing.
Until then, the fact is that they're an artificial restriction which downplays the importance of map control. My personal opinion is that they make gameplay frustrating. I find it irritating to have to build popcap increasing structures every 5th unit and then when I get to the max cap, have the game tell me I can't build anymore even though I have shitloads of spare cash. While this is not true of everyone, I personally feel that a military-based RTS game should have a strong, strong, focus on units and battles, and a minimal focus on anything that distracts you from the entertainment of micromanaging battles. I'm not saying pure tactics, I'm simply saying the bare minimum: which is a means to regulate unit production. That means an economy, a tech tree, and that's about it. Popcaps are just an annoyance more than anything else. You don't 100% need them to regulate unit production like you do some form of economy.
I simply find it annoying to have my game interupted by such a boring task. The way I play is to be building units as I'm fighting. So in the middle of a battle if it says "popcap reached" and I have to go back to my base to place a few popcap buildings, it's annoying interruption, and I always wondered what the hell the purpose of it was. It never seemed to add anything to the game. It just made you do extra stuff for no reason. And that extra stuff actually goes against the flow of the game. It fights against you and resists your attempts to dominate your opponent, rather than enhancing your attempts to dominate your opponent. Moreover, it's particularly boring 'extra stuff'. Weeee, let's build a big huge city of popcap buildings
It would be like having to build a power plant for every building you make, or having to build a silo in C&C for every 200 you want to store. It's like a mosquito buzzing around your face. You just want it to fuck off and die.
But that's my opinion, however it doesn't change the fact that it does put an artificial restriction on a player and artificially works against the natural tendancy to make more units as you expand your economy.
Timed attack in popcap-RTS can be deadly - having him lose his units to your superior positioning might not kill him, but dropping his main and killing supply depots (popcap increasing structures of Terran) will, as he won't be able to rebuild his forces on time.
That part of the game takes skill on both behalfs. Careful attack planning and timing and well-thought defence.
Overlords are very precious scouting devices, but are you willing to sacrifice your pop limit to corsairs just to get a better look at the map? You choose.
This allows for more game openings. Some of them are risky and others are not. Certain build orders may be devoted to popcap decreasing in early game allowing you to either expand or push your opponent furthermore.
There are more examples.
This post has been edited by EmperorFanboi: Jan 29 2007, 22:07 PM
( maybe because I didn`t understand some of sentences )
A game with no graphics, a good storyline, but no gameplay is what you would call a book. A game with good graphics and a good storyline, but no gameplay is what you would call a movie. Good gameplay is what gives a video or computer game the interactive experience that distinguishes it from other forms of recreational entertainment. Put simply: without gameplay, you don’t have a game. The irony here is that despite the fact that gameplay is the central facet to any game, it’s often the most under-developed and least polished part of it. Getting a game to play right is significantly harder than getting a plot to make sense, or graphics to look good, and this is the primary reason why most RTS games fall short of the mark. Rarely does a game feature gameplay which is both simple enough for newer players to get into, and deep enough for seasoned players to stick with.
Deep k.i.s.s.
If you haven’t heard of “keep it simple, stupid” (k.i.s.s.), now you have. It’s the first step towards developing perfect gameplay, and is ultimately the holy grail for any studio and publisher. The idea is to make a game whose gameplay is appealing to both casual players and veterans. Unfortunately there are often grievous mistakes made in the design process that confuse complexity with depth, and simplicity with shallowness. A game does not need to be complicated to have depth, nor does simplicity mean it will be shallow. In fact, simplicity and depth compliment each other quite well. A simple game will be more inviting to newer and casual players. They can pick it up and start having fun with it. However if the game is too shallow, then the more adept or experienced players will simply grow bored with the game and stop playing. This is why depth is necessary. What is depth? Depth is what gives a game “skill contrast”, the clarity of the differences in skill and aptitude between a new player and a seasoned expert. Depth allows more experienced players to play at significantly higher levels than newer players do, thus rewarding the experienced player for knowing more and applying what he knows with precision and purpose. If a game is shallow, there’s little to no reward for trying harder and only serves to handicap naturally adept players. Meanwhile, it does nothing to benefit newer players as newer players should not be playing against veterans anyway.
Simple gameplay is the gateway to getting into the game. Complexities are often frustrating and downright tedious to get used to, and sometimes don’t even add depth to the game. They just add unnecessary decision making to what are otherwise very trivial tasks that should take a back seat to the more engaging and riveting aspects of gameplay. Newer players can often feel overwhelmed with stuff to do, and at the end of the day if there are too many formalities preventing them from getting into the
“meat and potatoes” aspects of the gameplay, they’re going to stop playing. Complexity is not a matter of whether someone has the skill to learn the complexities or not, it’s a matter of whether it’s fun. If a game isn’t fun, it isn’t going to be popular. Hardly the mark of a game aiming at perfection.
It’s all in the wrist
The most rewarding part of playing a well designed RTS game is the finesse and skill it takes to properly micromanaging your units. The argument that micromanagement isn’t fun for some people and therefore shouldn’t be a big part of RTS games holds no water because if they don’t want to micromanage, no one’s forcing them to. Trying to minimize the effects of micromanagement automatically reduces depth, reduces skill contrast, and ultimately makes the gameplay boring to those who play the game the most. While top level players might account for the minority percentage of gamers, they account for the majority percentage of total games played, or at the very least, the majority percentage of most games played per player.
Micromanagement is probably the most misunderstood of all gameplay aspects. New players criticize it as being nothing more than mindless fast clicking, developers frown upon it as making gameplay too complicated for beginners, and even seasoned experts can often place too much importance on how impacting micromanagement should be. From a gameplay standpoint micromanagement is a supplement to tactics, and a factor in strategy; a means to an end, not the end itself. From a design standpoint, micromanagement is the difference between a shallow and linear counter system, and something rich and entertaining that changes dynamically the better you get at the game. A game can’t have perfect gameplay unless it significantly rewards players who are good at micromanagement.
Details, details
Details matter. Actually, details matter a lot. When a game is first conceptualized, it’s necessary to start off with a general design document, but what makes or breaks that design document is how well the details are engineered to support the design intent. Faction diversity is of significant importance to a game. If you have multiple factions that are all fundamentally the same, then the game won’t have much longevity or long term depth to it. Details play a big role in how different factions are from one another. They reinforce the intended concept of each faction and create very different play styles. Everything from how each economy works, how each faction builds their base, and how each faction’s units behave depends on whether the details keep them distinct. If you were to assign each faction a shape, you would then need the details to define the edges of that shape, make sure the color of each shape is different, and make sure the textured pattern on each shape is unique. Otherwise, all of the factions in a game would be the same featureless gray blob. Details add variety, depth, and fun.
Moreover, from a designers standpoint, details are the means by which your creative muscle is flexed. You can really go over the top with how many ideas you put into the game and ways you can make each faction unique from one another. In the process of adding details, you also add polish to a game, which is a significantly important element in the overall quality of the product. Details are what bring a game to life and make or break the experience of playing it.
What are my options?
Tying directly into details, are the results that such details produce. Ultimately the idea behind strategic decision making is that you must make a choice from an array of equally viable and unique options. Without options, there is no decision making involved, and thus no true strategic depth. However, options can often be a mixed blessing. Sometimes they can add depth, and sometimes all they do is add complexity. However, the bottom line is that a game should not have obvious pathways that are clearly laid out of you. Having options means being able to adapt to what your opponent is doing. Options allow you to plan ahead, surprise your opponent, and be prepared. Without the ability to choose different build orders, different unit mixtures, and even the manner in which certain units are used, gameplay will be about as dry as it can get. So if you play a game and ask yourself “what are my options”, and the answer isn’t immediately obvious to you, it means the game has been designed well and your hesitation implies validity to a variety of choices you can make, even if one choice happens to be the most efficient. If you struggle to think of different ways you can beat your opponent, you’re playing a game with a short life span.
Fit and finish
Aside from gameplay are the finishing touches in the multiplayer experience. The unfortunate reality of online gaming is that people suck. You run into cheaters and disconnectors, you run into lobby spammers, you run into people who kick you from their games for no good reason, you run into people who can’t read the title of the game and refuse to stay kicked. What ruins the online experience is, ironically, the people you need to deal with. In fact, this can be so frustrating, it can turn the whole gaming experience upside down. To alleviate this, the perfect RTS game needs to include a set of tools that allows players to minimize these frustrations, and take actions into their own hands. A short list of useful finishing touches is as follows:
- Assign a permanent player ID to every unique serial key that comes online. This can then be used for further features.
- Allow players to construct their own lists of known cheaters, disconnectors, and poor sports. This list would be based on the player’s unique ID, rather than their nick name. It will allow you to automatically prevent these kinds of people from ever joining your game.
- Allow a permanent kick feature that lets you permanently kick a player from the game you’re currently staging in such that he can’t keep rejoining.
There are many more ideas and features, but the general principle is that they should minimize the effects that stupid and otherwise clueless people have on the gaming experience.Conclusion
In order for a game to maximize its sales potential, it simply can’t be half assed. The quality of a well made product always speaks for itself. People don’t talk about average things, they talk about things that impress them. Details and polish, be it for the graphics, singleplayer, multiplayer, or gameplay, are essential to the popularity of a game. A perfectionist zeal applied to the quality of the game will go a long, long way. Thus, a game is only as perfect as the amount of perfectionism with which it was created.
Posts: 39,364
Clan: CrAzY
Game: