![\"\"](\"http:\/\/dinomage.com\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2011\/10\/mmorpg-overload.png\" "\\"mmorpg-overload\\"")
<\/a>World of Warcraft – Did someone say content? (image from http:\/\/roleplayhaven.com)<\/p><\/div>\n
The two choices above have an obvious struggle. \u00a0One seems to be much more work than the other! \u00a0Well, the truth is that most games employ a mixture of the above two approaches for each different type of content. \u00a0A game might have minimal music which covers the mood of each level, but it has hundreds of different enemies that you might face.<\/p>\n
It seems, then, that it is a matter of focus. \u00a0Games will have more content in the areas in which the designers are focused. \u00a0If the designer wants to focus on enemies or weapons, then there will be lots of different kinds. \u00a0However, this is not quite so. \u00a0For more concrete examples, take Diablo 2’s equipment system and Braid’s level design.<\/p>\n
<\/a>Diablo 2 – Deep part system, oh yes. (image from http:\/\/www.localgamingnetwork.com)<\/p><\/div>\n
<\/a>Braid – You must play this game. (image from http:\/\/bestindiegame.com)<\/p><\/div>\n
Equipment in Diablo 2 is an example of the “tons” approach. \u00a0In Diablo 2, you find many, many randomly generated pieces of equipment. \u00a0It is totally up to chance whether you find items better than what you already hold. \u00a0As you progress, you tend to find more powerful items, but you can always find (relative) junk.<\/p>\n
Level design in Braid is an example of a good way to do the “enough” approach. \u00a0The deeper difference that I alluded to earlier in evident in Braid. \u00a0The amount<\/em> of content does not necessarily dictate the play experience. \u00a0In Braid, each puzzle has a specific purpose for introducing a novel way to use the time-manipulation abilities you have in the current level. \u00a0Braid’s design tries hard to minimize repetition so that you are always trying new things. \u00a0Because of this, there are only just enough levels and puzzles to explore the abilities. \u00a0The game has a goal in this and does not force players to slog through countless hours of repetition to get the full experience of the game (like Diablo 2 does). \u00a0Which way is better, then? \u00a0Well, one can hardly make such a judgment here, but what can be told is that there’s much to learn from such examples.<\/p>\n The “enough” approach surely makes the player’s experience easier to shape to fit a clear plan, but replay is limited. \u00a0 Every player is expected to fully use and experience each piece of content at least once. \u00a0From there, the exploration of the system is finished and the rest of the game must pick up the slack or else disappoint the player. \u00a0Replay often suffers.<\/p>\n In general, the “tons” approach lends more to a wider feeling of unknown. \u00a0You can’t predict what your experience will be like or what content you’ll discover, even once you’ve witnessed all the extant “types” of parts. \u00a0This is good. \u00a0However, a single play has the chance to be entirely lackluster. \u00a0In some games, the entire experience of a single player will be incomplete. \u00a0Often, we say that no player will experience all of the content, but each piece of content will be experienced by someone. \u00a0Plus, some content may never be fully used (like a lame weapon). \u00a0This, to me, is an issue.<\/p>\n In my parts system in particular, I want possibilities and exploration with fewer boundaries. \u00a0Therefore, GigaSun Jet uses the “tons” approach for that system. \u00a0Let’s see what we can do about going beyond the usual.<\/p>\n Diablo 2 – Shop fodder. (image from http:\/\/diablo.incgamers.com\/forums)<\/p><\/div>\n Each potential piece of equipment represents a different way to enjoy or appreciate a game. \u00a0Where’s the love for the rusty dagger when you have a store full of magical swords and axes? \u00a0The idealist within me is sure that you could do interesting things in a game with just a rusty dagger. \u00a0You could even have fun in a game like Diablo 2 with a simple, weak weapon. \u00a0Am I wrong? \u00a0To make this happen, there has to be something beyond getting the “best part \/ piece of equipment”. \u00a0When it’s obvious which part you should (or should not) buy because there’s a clear “best part”, then you’re just making the same choices that a good computer would. \u00a0That’s no good at all. \u00a0It’s not even about wasting my time making the items. \u00a0It’s about wasting the possible experience.<\/p>\n Diablo 2 – This is actually reasonable, since belts don’t typically offer much coverage… \u00a0it still stinks. (image from http:\/\/diablo.incgamers.com\/forums)<\/p><\/div>\n I probably cannot fix this issue completely, but I want to give the player more freedom by making the concept of “best part” subjective or even fail to apply. \u00a0That’s the idea and there are a lot of ways to get there. \u00a0They are just so underemployed that it’s like brand new territory.<\/p>\n This is perhaps the greatest reason I have for creating GigaSun Jet. \u00a0There is a lot of fun to be had in the experience of parts that I’ve never seen before, so\u00a0I’ve designed GigaSun Jet to explore a few methods for ruining this “best part” idea…<\/p>\n Part combos<\/strong><\/p>\n This is done in a lot of games, but is still a good idea. \u00a0Some parts working together might be better than single parts alone. \u00a0This is usually something that the player has to think about carefully, which is how part combos add to the fun of the parts system. \u00a0The player might choose a plan for his ship design and pick parts that work together toward that design goal. \u00a0Each part has several stats that make the comparison process less black and white. \u00a0You might choose one weapon because of its projectile speed, but given the same options, someone else would choose another for the higher projectile damage. \u00a0You might even find parts which have certain stats which are too high and would work better with your current equipment if the stat were lower. \u00a0GigaSun Jet adds stats that have a chosen<\/em>value instead of a “more is better” value. \u00a0These stats are adjustable to fit your plan.<\/p>\n Weak parts can be better than strong parts<\/strong><\/p>\n If it’s possible for weaker parts to be better than the stronger part that you already have, which do you choose? \u00a0GigaSun Jet approaches this in one way with upgrade ranges. \u00a0Every part can be upgraded, but each part also has a limit to its upgradability. \u00a0You might have a strong part, yet you want the weak part you see in the store because it can be upgraded further in some stats.<\/p>\n There are alternate ways to do this that GigaSun Jet does not do. \u00a0One is to make the currently strong parts become weak or\u00a0undesirable\u00a0over time. \u00a0This can be done, for example, with a ‘durability’ stat that is tied to the power of the item or causes it to break and become useless. \u00a0Another is to create situations where strong items are temporarily worse than weak items. \u00a0This would be similar to how some Magic: The Gathering cards (such as\u00a0Meekstone<\/a>) only affect\u00a0powerful cards.<\/p>\n Encourage Experimentation<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/strong>This is big. \u00a0This is really big. \u00a0Maybe this is the only way one needs to break the “best part” pathology. \u00a0Hidden and unexpected things will make the player want to try different strategies and parts. \u00a0GigaSun Jet has a hidden system within the weapons system that is revealed a little while into the game. \u00a0The act of revealing this system causes the player to realize that there’s more to the weapons than he previously thought. \u00a0It’s not just that, though. \u00a0This particular system explicitly emphasizes a kind of scientific experimentation that will keep the player working at it on repeated occasions, trying to discover new things. \u00a0Exploration is a key to deep enjoyment in games.<\/em><\/p>\nCan the wasting of content be avoided and the parts system still be fun?<\/h2>\n
<\/a><\/a>