Fundamentals of console game design...

[Guden Oden]

Think about that. Game DESIGN.

It means - in part - making a game challenging without making it stupid.

In the past it meant instant death if you as much as grazed an enemy character with your little toe. We accepted that, in part because we didn't know any better - it had "always" been like that - and in part because technical limitations meant there really wasn't much room for anything else. We died and found ourselves back at the start of the level and had to do everything all over again.

But that was then, right?

So... Why is it that school of thought is still alive and well in the year 2004, some 20+ years later after the videogame era started?

Case in point, Jak 2...


This game has to be the rottenest piece of slick, shiny garbage I've ever seen. Hardly anything can be faulted the game on a technical level, but underneath there's hardly a thing right with it. Control scheme is fiddly and erratic, vehicle handling is sluggish and unresponsive and the missions are, well, quite frankly stupid. Right now I'd very much like to bash in the head of the person who thought up the "collect money bag mission" with a very large mallet.

There's a not particulary fine line that separates "fun" from "tedious", "difficult" from "annoying" and, yes, that's right, "challenging" from "frustrating".

Putting the camera in such a position as to make it almost impossible to judge the distance between a ledge and a hovering platform that after three seconds or so will flip over and tip off the rider into the bottomless abyss below is a cardinal sin in game design, but Jak 2 has stupid camera positions in oodles. It even uses that tactic deliberately, which is even worse. Had it been the product of bad programming it would have been one thing, but when it's done on purpose it should definitely be a capital offense.

If we hung the Naughty Dog crew by the neck until dead and displayed the bodies publically for a week as a warning example to the rest of the industry of what happens when you make stupid games, I'm pretty sure standards would drastically improve rather quickly......

No, I'm quite serious here. We should really do this, because current console titles are still stuck in the feckin' dark ages as far as game design goes. Had it not been for the graphics, Jak2 might just as well have been a SNES title, it really hasn't progressed beyond that level.

What's the point of making a game filled with lush graphics if the game itself is so annoying to play the player needs to take a break for a couple weeks to calm down? Most anyone can create missions in a computer game, but to create GOOD missions demands a bit more than that, and it does seem like Jak's mission designers were hired straight off the street, or maybe they were illegal immigrants working in sweat shops for less than minimum wage, considering the lack of logic and originality in them.

Unfortunately, much too few developers realize the potential for GAMEPLAY improvements today's hardware offers - and I'm not just talking about Naughty Dog here, Capcom did the exact same thing with P.N.03 for example.

A PS2 or a GC aren't glorified 16-bitters from the early 90s. Leaps of faith should have gone out of fashion more than ten years ago.

Ok. End of rant. (For now.)

 

[London Geezer]

Thank you, i don't agree in the slightest, but thank you.

 

[Sonic]

Thanks for the review of Jak2, but would you care to delve deeper into the fundamentals of game design? Really, I am very interested in what you have to say about the entire aspect of a game.

 

[ChryZ]

Disagree about the Jak2 example and it's not just me ... there are quite a few people disagreeing: GameRanking's Avg Ratio: 89%

 

[Phil]

heh, I was going to type up an essay about my thoughts of the game, but london-boy sums it up nicely, I must say:

Thank you, i don't agree in the slightest, but thank you. 8)

To me, the game was fun and varied, though I admit it had flaws and there were missions that were boring or truly challenging. Challenging in a way I had not come to expect from many other games in this genre - but it was fun to me and personally, I always felt there was enough to keep the player going til the end.

I also don't recall having any trouble with the camera - not on vehicles and definately not on foot. Still, I applaud Naugthy Dog for trying something new - though I probably do have to admit, that I found the first part to be more enjoyable thanks to the 'adventuring' - something that was less the case in Jak II. The city was a great idea, but a bit big - smaller and more outside levels would have been the way to go, IMO.

 

[London Geezer]

The camera could be a bit frustrating, but you never "lose missions" because of the camera, you lose missions because of the way you approach the mission itself, or because sometimes the game is just freaking hard.
In the end, a perfect camera will never really exist.

Still, again, Thank you for the read, i needed to read something to pass time here in the office, but i just do not agree, and saying a game in particular (whatever it might be) is the rottenest piece of slick, shiny garbage I've ever seen, is not going to be seen as entirely "mature" and "objective" if you know what i mean. And that's before getting to the If we hung the Naughty Dog crew by the neck until dead and displayed the bodies publically for a week as a warning example to the rest of the industry of what happens when you make stupid games comment... :? :|

 

[hey69]

Guden Oden : maybe you get to old for this shit 8)

 

[gurgi]

Anyone else think that control was better last gen? I think it has something to do with less game loops due to less powerful hardware.. it was more precise because design was important. Now that there are lots of game loops per second, controls feel flimsy to me. Maybe I'm on crack.

But I agree about game design in general. Thing is.. when you have a DVD player in 70 million peoples homes, odds are you can sell a decent amount of any game really.. might as well be a game that isn't expensive to make. Can't say that I blame publishers.. they are there to make money.

Still.. as a gamer, I'd like to see better design. The player needs some kind of goal, and more than just to finish a game. The hardest goal to design IMO, is simply the satisfaction a player gets for completing a section of your game (see PoP). The level design has to present a challenge.. but at the same time.. can't work against the player. You need mechanics that allow clever interaction with your challenge. Simpler kinds of rewards or goals can be accomplished in RPG's. Simply getting gear (aka a sword) that makes once difficult enemies easy. Raising levels or getting abilities.

Im getting kinda bored with all of it. I really liked PoP though.. too short.

 

[MrWibble]

I kinda-sorta agree... I didn't enjoy Jak2 nearly as much as the first one, and I really just couldn't be bothered collecting every last thing after I'd completed the main story-line part of the game.

I don't think I'd be nearly as harsh as the original poster though, it held my attention, it just wasn't really the game I was expecting.

If you want an overhyped, inexplicably well-selling game, look no further than the Getaway... even I couldn't bring myself to complete that, and I'll play just about any old crap.

Back to Jak-II though, and some actual words on the gameplay:

I feel it's main problem was trying to cram *too much* into the game. My #1 game-design crime of all time is when someone says "hey, I like this game, and I like that game, so the perfect game would be a combination of the two!". Ugh, no.

Nothing wrong with evolutionary game design, nothing wrong with borrowing the occasional idea here or there... but wholesale ripping off from a different genre and just shoe-horning it in where it don't belong, does not make your game better. Jak-II is a prime case-study for that.

GTA was great. Jak and Daxter was good. Presumably ND thought that they could elevate Jak-II to amazing by merging the two. Thus Jak-II was the GTA gameplay bodged into the Jak engine and crippled by a poor driving model. Throw in a dash of WipEout, a hint of Tony Hawks and a pinch of Ratchet and Clank, and you have a recipe for... well a rather mediocre also-ran title, in my opinion.

I hope Jak-III makes up its mind that it's going to be a platformer and just does that really well...

 

[London Geezer]

I hope Jak-III makes up its mind that it's going to be a platformer and just does that really well...

I have the feeling it will be "more of the same", but not of the first on, the second. Which is great for me, cause i loved the game. Oh well... I could never finish GTA3 for example and never even bothered buying/playing Vice City. However i just HAD to finish Jak2 and i did so in 2 or 3 weeks.... I also forced myself to finish The Getaway, and it wasnt half as painful as many people make it out to be... To each his own i guess...

 

[Guden Oden]

Thanks for the review of Jak2, but would you care to delve deeper into the fundamentals of game design? Really, I am very interested in what you have to say about the entire aspect of a game.

To hear everything I have to say on this subject, we'd be sitting here into some time next week, so I'll spare us both that experience. When just a short amount of time is available, it's easier to show what NOT to do instead, which is what I did some of in the original post.

For instance, just annoying the player by making him hop through an obstacle course where part of the challenge comes from oddball camera angles and the other part from about every other obstacle meaning instant death in the form of purple shiny water or bottomless pits or chopping knives or forcefields arcing with energy or such, and then making the player have to run through the ENTIRE obstacle course every time he dies, that's nothing but adding insult to injustice.

All that's missing from old-skool videogaming is giving the player only three lives with an extra life after 10.000 points and then another every 40.000...

If you put a hoverboard in the game, and then put a special move that gives the otherwise slow-moving hoverboard some extra speed if executed, don't make the special move point the player in the wrong direction and actually slow him DOWN if the move is executed incorrectly.

Also, don't make a HUGE ENORMOUS CITY crowded with people and testy guards that's really not used for anything other than transport stretches from A to B and the odd race against time, enemies or both. What's the point? Why isn't there a subway system or something so I don't have to waltz around in a hovercraft that handles about as well as a bathtub on shoppingcart wheels filled with water for fifteen minutes to go from one end of the map to the other, it's just a waste of my time and theirs. Considering there's not a single band-aid to be found and the grumpiness of the guards (poke one just a tiny little bit with a vehicle and you're toast more or less), makes getting around a fairly irritating endeavour.

If the game has a special mode where the hero transforms into a monster of sorts, the period of transformation should not be so short it's completely irrelevant and the period of recharge's so long it makes the transform even more so. Right now, the handful of seconds I get of dark jak is completely useless, and I've actually died during a battle because I accidentally pressed L2, gone over in dark mode and lost access to my ranged weapons only to be shot dead by enemies. When I went for the lens artifact, I again went dark accidentally, only to be bopped down a bottomless chasm one second later by one of those big rhino enemies, and when I came back to life again my dark meter was of course reset to zero...

Most of all it's about having a vision of what the game's to accomplish, having missions make sense in the big scheme of things. When I play Jak2, I just feel like an errand boy, there's no apparent link between the missions I carry out and a sense of progressing further into the game. I get a weapon here, an item there, but I don't actually feel as if I actually accomplish anything because the missions are all disjointed and basically irrelevant in the big scheme of things. It's just get it done so I can get on with the next.

And I don't really care what collective score this title has on the web, I think it's pretty common of reviewers to get blinded by the surface and miss the depth - or lack of it. I know there's many frustrated players of great, yet underappreciated titles (*cough* Total Annihilation vs. Starcraft f.ex *cough*) who share that opinion with me...

 

[cthellis42]

GTA was great. Jak and Daxter was good. Presumably ND thought that they could elevate Jak-II to amazing by merging the two.

The problem is we have a TON of "platformers that are platformers." They have different shticks and emphasize different skills over another of its kind (say, less on jumping and more on aiming or timing...), but ultimately there is room--and desire--to explore other directions. Plenty of genres merge toward different effects, so why not also platformers? We will--of course--get games that handle it poorly in general, and games that annoy certain people because it didn't go in the direction they wanted... But I approve of the attempts, for certain.

 

[MrWibble]

The problem is we have a TON of "platformers that are platformers." They have different shticks and emphasize different skills over another of its kind (say, less on jumping and more on aiming or timing...), but ultimately there is room--and desire--to explore other directions. Plenty of genres merge toward different effects, so why not also platformers? We will--of course--get games that handle it poorly in general, and games that annoy certain people because it didn't go in the direction they wanted... But I approve of the attempts, for certain.

As I said, I think making evolutionary advances is fine, but in this case they've just bolted on a whole bunch of gameplay from another genre of game entirely and it doesn't work (for me, at any rate).

If all they'd added was more vehicles and the ability to steal them, then it'd be different enough while still feeling like an extension of the first game.

They could've made any number of individual changes and differentiated their game from the rest. In fact I'd argue that Jak 1 was already pretty stand-out because of the massive streaming world, day/night cycle, and gameplay that, for the most part, didn't suck.

I think they went for the big pay-off rather than a small improvement, but it was never going to happen...

 

[Squeak]

I couldn't agree more with Guden Oden.
I think part of the reason why people are so forgiving on the game is that:

* It was hyped sky high, so reviewers (and players upon reading the reviews) felt obliged/compelled to try and like it (sans GameSpy), or in other words they suffered from the Black & White syndrome.

* It was good looking, so it had to be well playing too. After all who would put so many resources into the graphics and then forget about the actual game?

There is acceptable, or even approaching good moments in game, but they are to few and far between, to make it up for the rest (at least for me).

My biggest gripes are the city and the camera.

The city, because it's evident that far to much energy has been taken from the real game, and poured into creating what is essentially a glorified tunnel to hide loading. There is absolutely no secrets or otherwise fun interaction to be found on the city.

The camera, because it's far to slow for a game that relies on shooting and fast action. There is no center button and the zooming might as well not have been implemented at all.
Oh, and it gets stuck to often too.
Look at Zelda WW. Now that's a good camera!

 

[L_i_n_k]

Good thoughts guden, thought i think with it´s repeative nature, jak did many things right, but i see your point (more clearly later). With the collect aspect, i my self Like the metroid/zelda style, few items but they exchange the gameplay. Enjoyed Castlevania Sotn Too, but did`t bother to collect all the not so important items, Thought in some way it`s fun to have those exp levels to boost your confidence and to make that back and forth a worthwhile, plus it make`s it even for those who do not have the nessessary skill and for those who have too much of it. Collecting money must be fun... NOT!!! spending is ,except you are making something fun, meanwhile making money, the thing you are saving is something you really want to see. That is for enthustiasts(castlevania sotn was made for these kind of gamers in mind i think) .

"in my oppinnion" The fundamental idea of a "Realtime action game", different from a movie , is "CONTROL MECHANIC" embedded to level design" and how well that dynamic works.

Just an example, every quality fighting game goes by the logic, Press button -> activate the attac X animation ect. next gen fight game designer , in my oppinnion ,should ask from himself and the Gameplay/physic programmer ecetra (how can we change this) Example ,Take a "havoc physic" engine (lazy ass physicist)-> calculate the moves acording to the analog sticks/ trigger angles ,so that user could learn the fighting mechanic as easily as colin mcrae, or maybe the special move could be dynamic too , so that user could learn his own special move trics with the "dynamic fight engine" to this you could include all kinds of slow motions "Viewtiful Joe style". (i know its not easy task to pull nor am i technically advanced enoght to make it), from havoc example i would say ,its possible but would it be fun , In my imagination it is ),The level design should be taken account after this fight mechanic works on plain surface.

Yes there are lots of other things that make it great (music for the feel and mood, Ai To challenge the player after that triple jump , sound to weighten the feel when its mud and not sand below your feet ect), maybe we could use these to amlify the above dynamic. (as with metroid 3 does as a textbook example but only in 2d and pre calculated fighning example way).