Tuesday, 20 October 2009
Gaming Patterns – the price of entrance to enjoy a game? - Part 2
I find this game to be very addictive and engrossing as the game has clear defined rules making the experience feel very coherent and you feel never cheated by the game system itself, when you fail its always your own fault and you can clearly see where you went wrong, learning from it making you willing to try again with a fresh different approach. The game is actually pretty difficult but when you successful complete a level, it feels rewarding mastering and forecasting the enemy patterns which continuously force you adapt to new situations coming up with new tactics/approaches to counteract these enemy waves, you feel pretty smart and good for it. The game also feels rewarding for its sense of rhythm and flow as you progress through the game you can start seeing a pattern in the enemy waves like the 1st wave of enemies are usually “pines” who are easily counteracted with cannon turrets then 2nd wave are usually “spiders” who are counteracted with cannons and arrows turrets and so forth but over wave 3, the enemy types/attack pattern become far less predictable becoming a game about unpredictability within a predictable box. Due to this you feel yourself growing as a player of the game being “in the zone” with carefully constructed enemy patterns which never betrays the flow and rules and logic of the game system and world itself. In other words, each level feels familiar but yet different which never alienates you but always feels fresh and challenging. For an example, here’s a song from one of favourite bands at the moment that has unique sound but yet very familiar song structure and rhythm (I realise that this type/style of music isn’t everyone’s cup of tea but please have a listen anyway to see what I mean):
What makes me wonder about a song like this, does the artist write the rhythm and beat first or do they write the lyrics first (context) and base the rhythm/sound around that? It doesn’t matter either way, but what I find interesting is how these two aspects fit together so seamlessly and looking at pixeljunk monsters, it’s done the same thing with it’s combined aspects of its game play of tower defence and the structure and flow of enemy waves introducing the player to a rhythm of patterns.
Its one of the few games which I play to directly engage with patterns for the achievement of mastering them like a shoot em’up I guess. As an industry I believe we are too hooked up on the contexts and themes which are our games explore rather exploring what patterns/lessons we can teach through our games. Sure the context/theme is what makes games initially appealing for audiences as we all judge things at first glance although we all know that we shouldn’t but we do. With the underlying design towards the flow of patterns, games can be enjoyed despite the context by broader audiences, for an example with old retro games like “Pacman” or “Tetris”; does anyone question where the blocks come from? Or feel alienated by it’s concept? Did people have to have prior gaming knowledge to enjoy these games? People would argue that I have a groundless argument due to the fact that we are in a different era of gaming which has never been so successful with mainstream before but I think that these principles are as important as today as back in the day as I firmly believe games can be used to teach us as well as entertain us.
Playing a game which puts me in the zone, feeling the flow and learning more and more as you keep exploring and experiencing the game is a wonderful feeling which in my eyes makes a rather beautiful game. Answering my question from previously what is my “price of entrance” to enjoy a game? A game which I can connect to that truly challenges and engages me for mastering and learning something, isn’t that what everyone wants from video games?
Jonesy
Monday, 12 October 2009
Gaming Patterns – the price of entrance to enjoy a game? - Part 1
Why is that? Am I getting old? Played too many games and I can see through the patterns presented to me making the experience unchallenging and boring? Well I certainly experienced this with certain titles I’ve played recently like “Resident Evil 5” which I thought was stuffed with predictable enemy patterns embracing typical counter tactics for your survival. You could argue that this game isn’t flawed in this area but just the simple fact that my knowledge/ pattern recognition for shooters is more developed than the game is actually designed for (casual gamers) and I require more advanced mechanics/patterns, etc to fulfil my needs as a gamer. Thinking about this got me thinking about the “price of entrance” for games. Is my knowledge/skills of gaming too high to enjoy “Wii Sports” (linear patterns and information) or too low to enjoy “Total War” on pc (complex patterns) due to my lack of experience playing historical Strategy games. As a gamer/observer I find myself within an odd position where I’m questioning myself what is my “price of entrance” to enjoy a game?
With modern games design approaches, there is a very obvious transparent line between Casual and Hardcore games where developers either add further complexity to established core mechanics towards genres like MMO’s or FPS’s appealing to the core fanbase/elite or developing relatable non-offensive subject matters with simple functionality emulating real like actions. I personally don’t think players should have to have previous knowledge or the desire to enjoy a game for its purpose and end goal result, (getting fit, learning French, building army whatever the subject matter/context is) I feel that a game should provide the knowledge and inspire the desire or an interest within the subject matter/themes that the game explores. The obvious target of such an example would be non-gamer/casual games market which (although debatable) do intend to undermine the primary purpose of why video games co-exist in the first place; to simply challenge and provide our brains with new info and patterns despite the fiction (theme/presentation). It’s easy to forget that us gamers have had years of training (playing games) to see through the fiction to master underlying mathematical patterns and objectives of the game system itself, It’s easy for us to criticize such an change of primary purpose for these games but then obviously the target demographic hasn’t had the gaming education/knowledge/background that we have obtained over the years.Looking into this perspective further; games are effectively teaching tools although I wonder how much prior knowledge would be required to fully interact/learn and master a game or more specifically mastering the game’s patterns, rewarding the player’s effect? For an example, if I asked you to do me a painting, this may be too demanding for you but if I ask you to draw me a stickman, what would you possibly learn and experience from that or isn’t that sort of boring? This could be one of the simple reasons why typically non-gamers feel that video games are time wasters compared to other alternative mediums such as TV/film which passively informs, engage and possibly challenging them on broad levels.
Jonesy
(P.S read part two as well - I have a lot more to say!)