I also noticed that many people who wish to design games for fun also want their games to be commercial hits. In fact, most treatises on game design assumes that game development implies game industry. If a game is not a commercial success, it is viewed as a failure. A game is too often referred to as `successful', rather than `good', `beautiful', or `interesting'.
This text is not about designing commercially viable games. It is probably not possible to make serious amounts of money writing real action games, as they are enjoyed by a small minority only. Nowadays, people seem to be more attracted by the new generation of `sightseeing' games rather than by pure action games. It even seems to me that the proper mindset for designing action games is in danger of disappearing. This text is an attempt to record my own ideas on the subject.
Some interesting reads to warm you up:
Something I found was that the ideas people have about action games have greatly changed since the 80s. For example, I've tried to find the `trance' idea described above. On the internet, I found very little, none of which is recent. At the same time, I've found literature from the 80s where this concept is very much present:
Most older games have no end: they just keep on going, only getting faster and more difficult. Even for a game with several long stages (like Ghosts 'n Goblins), it was normal to repeat the sequence of stages after it was finished, ad infinitum. The challenge of these games was to hold out just a little longer each game, improving your score. In contrast, new games usually have a finish, where the game just stops, similar to a book or movie. Many people do not play these games again after finishing them.
It is apparent that new games have a large `sightseeing' element, less present in older games. However, other elements, such as the challenge of holding your own without making any fatal mistakes in the more difficult levels (what I would call `action') seems to be less emphasised. The rule of thumb is: save often. This does not mean however, that the old notion of action game is completely lost. The concept of `digital nostalgia' is well-known. But, is it really nostalgia? Perhaps it's just a manifestation of the undying hard core of game players who like `real' action. I've also heard of little kids who do not like regular `doom' clones, and play Asteroids and Zoop instead.
As a first example, take a look at the Gamespot Frogger review. Note that this game is classified in the `puzzle' category. This is something that happens more often: classic games are put in the same category as puzzle games. Now, to the review itself. The in-house reviewer says: `[...] is there really anything special about "dozens of challenging new levels" or "9 unique worlds" in a remake of an old platform game?' Apparently, he does not realise that Doom, Quake, Half-life, etc. are, in the same vein, merely 3D Gauntlet remakes: remakes of the same old maze game. His actual evaluation of the game's task seems to imply the same thinking error: `You wind up covering the same ground over and over again because once you retrieve one of Frogger's offspring you find yourself at the starting line.' Apparently, he is not happy with the idea of doing something multiple times. In Frogger however, each time you cross the same road and river, the obstacles are arranged in a different way, and your route is different. If I compare this to Doom clones, I can observe that, in these games, people very often do exactly the same thing many times over. There's often a tricky spot, killing the player, then the player reloads, tries the spot again, etc. In some cases, this procedure is repeated up to 20 times. He continues: `And that feeling gets even stronger if there's an especially tricky spot to navigate past: After three or four failures at trying to do something you've already accomplished two or three times before, it's likely you'll just toss down the gamepad and walk away - especially if the controls are as glitchy and twitchy on your pad as they were on my Gravis GrIP.' Now, if players don't save at least twice a minute when playing Doom clones, thus spending about 10% of their time in the `load/save game' menu, the same fate often befalls them. Finally, note that he apparently blames the imperfections of the input device on the game. This hit me as even worse when I considered that this device is a game pad. Ten years ago, a game pad was something you could buy for three dollars. It was at the absolute bottom of input device quality. Back then, everyone agreed that it was a bad idea. The frogger arcade did not have a game pad, but a real joystick with microswitches, which is a type of input device that is very hard to obtain nowadays.
See also the Gamespot Bubble Bobble review. Not only is it classified in the `puzzle' category, it is even called a puzzle game. Bubble Bobble too is slagged off as a tired idea. His wording is all too clear: `I assume the word "classic," when used to describe Bubble Bobble, means that it's old, not that it's historically memorable.' He continues by commenting on the unpopularity of the game: `[...] you never had to stand in a long line to play it. Between rounds of waiting to pop more of my allowance into Dragon's Lair or Burger Time, I would occasionally wander over to the sad little Bubble Bobble machine in the corner and warm its lonely controls with my sweaty fingers.' Was Bubble Bobble really that unpopular? I happen to have some Zzap!64's, in which Bubble Bobble is mentioned. One of the Zzap! reviewers calls it `one of the best, if not, the best platform game of all times'. A look at the Zzap! charts reveals that Bubble Bobble was in the top five of most popular arcade and home computer games. And yes, I have also been at the arcades. Bubble Bobble was not a lonely machine, though I happen to remember that Dragon's Lair was. Dragon's Lair was a very realistic 3D game, unfortunately without any playability. Finally, note again that the imperfections of the input device, this time an analogue joystick, is blamed on the game: `the gameplay does not adapt to an analog joystick very well.' According to a friend, the decision of IBM to equip the PC with analogue, rather than digital, joystick ports, was because analogue joysticks are cheaper to make. The reviewer continues by saying that the alternative (keyboard) controls were unuseable: `player one must use an awkward combination of WAD keys and the spacebar, while player two's fingers are crunched around the arrow keys.' Yes, it is certainly a bad thing that the keys are not reconfigureable, but I have made top scores using the same key arrangements with similar games. After eight years of PC game playing, I have decided that they are the best choice for keyboard control. I have a suspicion that the reviewer simply isn't familiar with using keyboard controls.
Next is the the Games Domain Centipede review. Centipede is yet another 3D remake of the classic. This game has two modes: classic (same features as original, a fixed overhead 3D view showing everything) and `fancy' (first person 3D, with gimmicks like secret areas, powerups, and big bosses--have I seen this somewhere before?). Note first, how the actual `classic mode' of this game is evaluated: `Fun for a little while, but this was obviously gameplay best suited to the "have a go, move on to the next" nature of an eighties coin-op.' Oddly, this `nature' that he refers to rather reminds me of the nature of the nineties PC game (or, at least, how it is typically played): you play it until you've gone through all the levels, and you move on to the next game, never looking back. Yes, perhaps players of the classic only play it a couple of times each day. But, some of them keep coming back for years--not so with modern games. The `fancy' mode, of course, just had to be first-person 3D. At best, you can get a `hovering overhead' view, but you never get to see everything around you. However, the original was not made for first-person perspective. To remedy this situation, the designers have helpfully provided a radar: `Unlike the original, where nothing ever happened behind you, this game has you constantly watching your sides and back. The radar provided is invaluable, and color coded to let you know if a bug is approaching, there's a power-up nearby or a Wee person to save.' In other words, much of the information actually needed to play the game is featured on the radar. So, in reality, you had better not spend too much time looking at the fancy 3D graphics, but rather find yourself looking at some white pixels on a black background in a small corner of the screen. How's that for nostalgia?
Finally, take a look at the Games Domain Asteroids review. Asteroids is again a remake of the classic. For a change, this remake is not 3D, though, of course, it does have power-ups. As usual, the review starts with a comment on the limitedness of the original. `[...] as far as I know, I'd have thought that someone at either Activision (publisher) or Quickdraw (developers) would've been inspired enough by the quantum gaming advancements since the original Asteroids to improve the plainest game since Pong.' What quantum game advancements, I wonder? Fortunately, this is answered quite promptly: `On the contrary, Asteroids 1998 is nothing if not true to its "father" in game play if not in appearance. You have very similar controls (left, right, thrust, fire, shield and hyperspace, with the addition of a wildcard weapon); it's still two-dimensional; game play remains virtually unchanged; and the audio is still full of "tinny" sounds.' A-ha, so it's not 3D. Besides, what's wrong with unchanged gameplay? Is the gameplay really unchanged? `Sure, you still have your classic rocks, crystal asteroids, alien-egg asteroids, and ancient-energy asteroids!!! [...] To assist you in your mission, you will find power-ups and wildcard weapons floating nearby. [...] The wildcard weapons, of which there are 13, are the single greatest enhancement to game play. [...] Your foes, of which there are 13, vary in power and hostility. ' Excuse me--did you say 4 kinds of asteroids, and 13 kinds of enemies and power-ups? Surely, this does change the nature of the game somewhat? Another bad thing about the game, of course, is that there's no deathmatch. `You can compete against friend at the same time on the same screen, though you can't actually shoot him. You're just trying to score more points. [...]' Finally, some notes are made about the overall view of the game: For a game that doesn't appear to be extremely fast-paced' [...] Not fast-paced? Then this game doesn't look much like the original at all. Did the reviewer ever play the original? `However, if you want something different or have greater expectations, look elsewhere.' So, in comparison with today's limited variety, consisting mostly of Doom clones, race games, and beat 'em ups, Asteroids is not something different? And this is said by someone who has apparently never played the original?
We might conclude from this the following:
From what I've heard elsewhere, these reviewers were in fact not quite wrong: perhaps these games really aren't too good, at least in comparison to the originals. However, they certainly aren't bad because of the reasons given by the reviewers. For example, I've heard that finishing a level in Frogger-3D takes five minutes. In the original, you only had 30 seconds! It was also pretty normal to get your frog home in half the time. The original was fast-paced, and deliberately so. In contrast, crossing the road and river in the new game is about 10-20 times slower. I am not really surprised people get frustrated about having to cross them over and over again, because it has probably become a real labour. This `slight' design oversight alone already makes the new game totally different from the original, and probably ruins it; I've seen much smaller oversights of detail ruin gameplay. But, it appears that neither the developers nor the reviewer understands what is going on. Is action game design a lost art?