Realism vs. Fun |
Many game designers refer to what is called "immersion" as a way to add enjoyment to games. Immersion often involves realistic physics, photorealistic 3d graphics, and other "realisms" which are intended to make the player feel like he or she's in another reality. That's good! The problem comes along when a designer's overriding lust for realism blinds the eye to the game as a whole, as something fun. And no matter what, if the game isn't fun, nobody will play it. This is one of those issues which requires the designer to sit and weigh each realistic addition to the game with what it adds to the experience, and possibly what it takes away. Realism is good, but games are about fantasy, and designers can use that license to break the rules of reality in order to make a game more fun. Abstraction is one common way this is done, hopefully more often because it's not feasible to simulate the gravitational variations that a jar will have on the character's rotation when he turns. That's pretty realistic, but it's not necessarily fun. Inventory handling is another way abstraction comes in handy, insofar as nobody could really carry 30 objects, but a game design might require that slight fudge in reality in order to reduce the frustrating boredom the player would experience hauling a few items at a time into a room and making a new pile every time he or she wanted to go to a new area. And although realism is good, let's not forget that games should not be models of reality in all cases. Sometimes it's more fun to be able to leap from an 100-foot presipice and live. Maybe it is more fun to lift 2 ton rocks and throw them. |
Wow-ness vs. Fun |
Publishers (and customers) love incredible special effects. But they don't always serve the game design in a positive way. Basing a game around a "hot new technology" is not the best approach to design, and will likely weaken the design on the basis that it's been created for the technology and not the other way around. This doesn't always happen, but it's a tempting mistake to make. There are a lot of ways to look at how to decide whether a neato features stays or gets cut, and the first examination should focus on what it adds in terms of fun. Does that really cool but distracting explosion really need to be so extravagant? What if multiple explosions obscure the screen? Maybe that's realistic, but recall that realism isn't always the best form of entertainment. Do you really want that cool panel to drop onto the screen with a grinding whir everytime the player needs access to a menu? If the player rarely needs the menu, maybe so. If it's a common mechanic in the game, the player wlil get tired of seeing, waiting, and hearing the effect. Some really cool features that have little fun-value are prefectly acceptable. The key is to strike a balance between excessive and boring. A lot of great effects as a finale-- not overused and not hindering to gameplay-- could be an awesome experience, but every feature added has to pull it's weight in terms of fun because every one of them costs money to implement, debug, and create art for. In the long run, we're all better off using those resources on the special effects that add the most. |
Anything vs. Fun |
These examples are meant to illustrate the larger art of knowning when something is not worth including in a game design, and this rationality of judgement should be extended to other areas of designing as a greater part of balance. However, the conditions and criteria are completely subjective and depend on more than just budgets, but the factor above all others is fun. |