AAA game = terrible minigames?
I am not one to mindlessly rail on games. I love games. I also make games and I know how the development process goes: things go wrong, problems appear at the last moment, etc. As my good friend Steve told me, "Games are never done, they are just released."
That being said, I have to call game design foul of the recent trend of amazing AAA games neglecting the design of their minigames.
Bioshock, one of the best games I have ever played, used Pipedream as a metaphor for hacking. Why would you use this old arcade game? It's not a good metaphor for hacking and its definitely not fun. OK, I get the water theme but when a nearly 20 year old arcade game is sitting in the middle of one the most amazing, immersive games ever, I have to raise the question, did they attempted to push the design of their hacking game? Did they ever try to push past "Pipedream was a game with water in it!"?
(On a side note, I love taking pictures. I don't even like taking pictures in real life but for some reason I freak over taking pictures in games).
You know how there are crimes so terrible that even other criminals will be sickened by them? These are crimes against the very fabric of humanity. Crimes like this exist in game design. The most horrific offender? Using Simon as a design solution.
Mass Effect, an unprecedented achievement of human emotion, conversation and story telling, actually falls a step BELOW using Simon with their "decryption" mechanic. Their gambling (much like Pazaak in KOTOR) is simplified Blackjack.
Player are going to HAVE to spend time playing these minigames. Put some effort into their design. Make them compliment the game, connect with the metaphor and make the game better. Right now they are only degrading some great game experiences.
I understand that minigames offer another gameplay scenario to break up the core game. I love a well done minigame. I think Triple Triad (in Final Fantasy 8) was not only a wonderful minigame but one of the smartest card game designs going.
I have to believe there are game designers on these 200 person team who WANT to make compelling minigames and not just throw a dart at a list of MAME or parlor games. They want to take on the challenge of designing a mechanic that really communicates hacking or decrypting. Give that person a couple of months and see what they can do.
That being said, I have to call game design foul of the recent trend of amazing AAA games neglecting the design of their minigames.
Bioshock, one of the best games I have ever played, used Pipedream as a metaphor for hacking. Why would you use this old arcade game? It's not a good metaphor for hacking and its definitely not fun. OK, I get the water theme but when a nearly 20 year old arcade game is sitting in the middle of one the most amazing, immersive games ever, I have to raise the question, did they attempted to push the design of their hacking game? Did they ever try to push past "Pipedream was a game with water in it!"?
(On a side note, I love taking pictures. I don't even like taking pictures in real life but for some reason I freak over taking pictures in games).
You know how there are crimes so terrible that even other criminals will be sickened by them? These are crimes against the very fabric of humanity. Crimes like this exist in game design. The most horrific offender? Using Simon as a design solution.
Mass Effect, an unprecedented achievement of human emotion, conversation and story telling, actually falls a step BELOW using Simon with their "decryption" mechanic. Their gambling (much like Pazaak in KOTOR) is simplified Blackjack.
Player are going to HAVE to spend time playing these minigames. Put some effort into their design. Make them compliment the game, connect with the metaphor and make the game better. Right now they are only degrading some great game experiences.
I understand that minigames offer another gameplay scenario to break up the core game. I love a well done minigame. I think Triple Triad (in Final Fantasy 8) was not only a wonderful minigame but one of the smartest card game designs going.
I have to believe there are game designers on these 200 person team who WANT to make compelling minigames and not just throw a dart at a list of MAME or parlor games. They want to take on the challenge of designing a mechanic that really communicates hacking or decrypting. Give that person a couple of months and see what they can do.
posted by Brad Merritt at 7:53 AM
2 Comments:
I read an article with Ken Levine where he lamented the Pipedream mechanic as something that went in very early when the game was much smaller, and never got around to getting better.
I agree on Mass Effect, the Simon thing made no sense, but neither did using an all-purpose gel to break into locks. (I actually disagree on it being a great achievement in conversation in games...it's just dialog trees. BioWare has been doing that forever. They cut some of the more interesting aspects of that system out, like interrupting.) I liked the game, but it didn't seem like BioWare's greatest effort.
To me, the conversations in Mass Effect are greater than the sum of their parts. The dialog trees are complimented by the lack on on-screen text, excellent voice acting and those small details like the eye movements of the characters when they talk.
When games have skills you can upgrade, I think a good solution would be, "If a player puts some points in hacking, they don't have to play the hacking minigame." This way players could buy their way out of playing a minigame if they don't want to play it.
I will have to look for this Ken Levine article.
Post a Comment
<< Home