Jungle Beat Game Design

I've been playing alot of Donkey Kong: Jungle Beat as of late. Jungle Beat is a title for the Gamecube developed by Nintendo EAD, the very same studio behind Super Mario Galaxy, as a matter of fact. Jungle Beat is an amazing game. Besides the fact that its just plain fun, the design behind the whole thing is nothing short of genius. Playing as Donkey Kong, players employ a bongo peripheral to roam through a series of side-scrolling levels. The game is divided into seventeen kingdoms, each represented by a different fruit. Each kingdom is divied into three levels that must be played in consecutive order to complete the kingdom as a whole. The first two levels of each kingdom are side-scrolling, platforming stages, where DK must reach the fruit at the finish of each stage to move forward. The final level of each kindgom is a boss fight.

This is an outdated screen. The bar along the top is actually in the bottom-right corner, in a much more aesthetic form.

The goal of the platforming stages is to earn "beats," which itself is achieved by collecting bananas. Bananas come in single form or in bundles; however, the quantity of beats players earn from bananas is determined via a combo system. And the combo system is entirely skill-based, and robust. For example, bananas net greater beats from being clapped than being touched. Also, players can string together combo points by chaining together aerial tricks; the bigger the combo chain, the greater number of beats will be awarded players per banana collected while the combo is in effect. After each stage is complete, players play a minigame to collect as many bananas as possible in a short time limit before the next stage begins.The final level of each kingdom is a boss fight. Here is where the game changes, and becomes so fascinating: no bananas and no beats can be earned from boss fights. Instead, the beat count from the previous two stages coalesce into a health bar for DK. The entire goal of the boss fight is to win without getting heart. Because each time DK is damaged during a boss fight he loses health, and therefore beats.When the boss is defeated and the kingdom complete the final beat count is tallyed. This final tally awards players a rank for that kingdom, given in the form of crests, of which there are either bronze, silver, gold, or platinum. Simply finishing the kingdom, one beat, awards players a bronze crest. 400 earns a silver crest, 800 a gold, and 1200 a platinum.

The crests serve to unlock new kingdoms. Kingdoms come in sets, four kingdoms to a set. Completing a set unlocks a new set. But crests unlock kingdoms within the sets. It may take 16 total crests, earned by completing multiple kingdoms, to unlock a higher kingdom.

The moral of the story is this is genius game design. The gameplay has a progression, which can be seen as follows.

1. Player Skill
   
2. Beats Earned
3. DK Health Bar
4. Boss Battle Skill
   
5. Final Beat Count/Player's Score
   
6. Crests Earned
   
7. Kingdom Unlocked/Award for Player Skill
   

Thus, we can see that the player's skill in the core game feeds into everything else. Players who use the game's combo system and fight bosses effectively are awarded with a high final beat count, which doubles as a representation of their gameplay skills. Players are awarded with crests for playing well, and subsequently awarded with new kingdoms to play in. And the cycle begins again. See? Genius.

And this is what makes Jungle Beat so awesome. It focuses on what video games do best: gameplay. It utilizes a system both relient upon and rewarding of player skill. Therefore, players feel compelled to play well, for reward and for the satisfaction of that ever-elusive high score count. You can always play better.

Which brings me back to the beginning. All of this would be moot if Jungle Beat didn't have a robust combo system in place. The whole reason this progression system works is because the gameplay is so deep. The combo system is highly functional. Beats are reflective of player skill, and "skill" only exists because the gameplay was specifically designed to be dynamic, to allow for variance in play and play style.

Oh! And for the record this creates amazing replay-value, which people seem to value so highly these days. For some reason.

p.s. Sorry about the image-quality. All Jungle Beat images online are of this terrible quality; its the best I could do.

p.s.s. For more information on specifics of Jungle Beat please see Jorik Mandemaker's FAQ. Or just buy the game.

p.ssssssss....Can you believe the L-Block won!

Puzzles, Learning, Shifting Gameplay Dynamics, and Design Limitations

Do you like Half-Life 2: Portal? Of course you do; you'd be crazy not to. The team at Armor Games loved it so much they created a flash version, for all of you who don't have computers good enough to run the real deal. Obviously the flash game was created as a port of sorts of the first-person-shooter. Even so, Portal: The Flash Version stands on its own as a fantastic game. You should definitely play it.

Another awesome flash puzzle game is Launchball. Launchball almost has an edutainment feel, it teaches players about physics and power sources and all sorts of cool stuff. The goal is to get a ball from its launch point to the goal in a series of levels. Players must use a specifc palette of blocks to achieve this goal. The blocks come in the form of springs, wind turbines, batteries, and any number of other forms. Whats cool is that all the blocks interact in realistic ways, some having to due with force, others with power. The game is seriously fun.

Both of these games are fun, worthwhile investments of one's time. What makes them so fun, like all good puzzle games, is that genuine, powerful feeling of accomplishment you receive as a player as you work your way through the levels. Good puzzle games are, at their core, about learning. And learning is fun. Portal gives you a basic explanation of the portal gun's functions. Launchball gives you basic explanations of each block type. Its up to the player to figure out everything else. I will always argue that experimental learning is the best type of learning. From experimental learning is derived the greatest sense of satisfaction. In Portal players learn the properties of momentum and how concepts like right and up have to be percieved in a completely new way. In Launchball players learn how all the block types are interconnected, how they effect one another; then they must apply this knowledge to judge the placement of each block.

This is the beauty of these games. The process of learning. The games are fun for those "aha!" moments, when you figure out exactly how to use your knoweldge, and you think, "I'm a Friggen' Genius!" And you are. Good puzzle games make geniuses out of all of us. And thats an amazing feeling.

Before I let you while the hours away playing awesomeness, there one more thing I want to say about each game. Critiques, if you will.

Keep in mind I am discussing the flash version of Portal throughout this article, not Half-Life 2: Portal. As the levels progress in Portal (I'm on level 28, currently), a new gameplay dimension is introduced, requiring another set of skills on part of the player aside from critical thinking and problem solving. Later levels of Portal require timing and dexterity. This gameplay addition is interesting for a couple reasons. One, by the time you get to these speed required levels, you have mastered everything else the game has to offer. If mapped out, the game difficulty would look something like a snake curve: there are peaks of difficulty, then dips of simplicity. These valleys in difficulty result from players having already learned the concepts needed applying to the levels. Eventually, the game has taught players, or rather, players have taught themselves, everything they need to know about velocity and gravity and portal jumping. When the levels requiring problem solving alone reach their peak in difficulty, Portal introduces another dimension of gameplay, dexterity.

This design decision makes sense. The game has nothing new to offer, nothing new with wich to challenge the player. So, when critical thinking has already been mastered, the next obvious design choice is dexterity and timing. Players must now time their portal jumps to coincide with the flow of electrical fields and react quickly enough to avoid spiked walls. These physical challenges become more nad more difficult as the levels progress. My issue with this gameplay addition is that, once it hits, we're playing a completely different game. The challenge now is not to figure out how to solve the level's puzzles, you've already got that down; the new challenge is to portal jump quickly enough and at the right time, and to make sure you land on platforms correctly. What was once a game of learning mechanics and using them to solve each puzzle, is now a game that requires players to pass through the hole at the right time, and to jump and run the right distance quickly enough. You no longer have fun figuring out how to solve a puzzle. Now, you may or may not have fun trying to time a jump correctly. Regardless, the game really isn't the same anymore. I feel like this change completely alters the gameplay so much, that its really not even the same game anymore. Is this a good thing? A bad thing? Or is it neither? The game could have potentially thrown more criticial thinking problems at the player and then finished. But what the game did instead is to offer the palyer a new challenge. Weather or not you like this new face of Portal is, perhaps, a personal thing.

Launchball's gameplay does not change throughout the game, like Portal does. But Launchball has its own entirely different issues. The problem is that each block has a specific function, a very specific function, and usually a single function. Not only that, but the function is explicitly explained to players. Furthermore, the level layout sometimes lends itself to fairly obvious solutions. If there's a gap inbetween blocks you pretty much know where to put your spare blocks. Though the blocks are all interconnected, each only functions in a specific way, so if you have a wind generator you know you need to blow a wind turbine on it to work. Essentially,what makes the game so unique and fun, also limits its challenge. I think the game is awesome for its educational elements, and for its experimental learning. But sometimes the learning is hampered by the blocks functioning in such obvious ways. These games are awesome, but as a blog about game design, we want to look at how the games function, why certain things work, and why others don't. And then we need to learn from playing these games, learn what makes them successful, or otherwise, and apply them to our games.

But don't let me get you down. I've had so much fun, so much fun playing these games the last few days. I have no doubts that you will also. Open up some tabs and tear away at Portal and Launchball.

Source: Kotaku

Indiegames.com Launched

The CMP Group has launched the official Indie Games Development website. These are the same peeople behind gamasutra.com, the Independant Games Festival, and Game Developer Magazine, so we know the site is in good hands. The site already has a good start so be sure to check it out.

Via Kotaku

Burnout Paradise+Remix=Awesome

Earlier today I was watching this trailer for Burnout Paradise and I immediately noticed something very familiar. The music playing is the same as the intro music from Burnout 2: Point of Impact.


Awesome, no?
The act in itself of booting up Burnout 2 is fun. Because as soon as the Criterian logo hits, BAM, the music starts up and your in the game. Besides the fact that Burnout 2 is amazing in most every respect, that opening music does more to get me hyped than any other game I've played. (Its also possible that this song is featured in Burnout 3 or 4 or one of the other versions, but if so I havent played them enough to hear it.) I get a similar sensation when playing Metroid Prime or Ocarina of Time, the respective music and video introductions set a fantastic mood before the games even begin. Pretty sweet. Are there any games that have a similar effect for you?

Echochrome: Principle-Based Design

Echochrome is about playing with perspective. The game is currently in development at SCEA Studios Japan for PSP and the PS3 Network. Echochrome isn't the first game to play with perspective, another recent title, Crush, featured a similar play style. But perspective as a play structure isn't really what we want to look at today anyway, instead we want to look at perspective as a function of game design. Echochrome features a simple but highly effective design schema: principle-based design. Many, and indeed, possibly all good video games use this very same design method. Alot times people want to make video games far more complicated than they need to be, which in the end just makes them convoluted piles of confusion.Principle-based game design, to eschew the non-descriptive title, can more easily be defined as a style of designing games around a set of guiding principles. The beauty of principle-based game design is its functionality in gameplay. Echochrome is a perfect example of principle-based game design because it really strips the term down to its most basic roots.

Watch this video:


Echochrome has one overarching principle: what you see is true. The gameplay is governed by five principles, all of which rely on the same method of control, which is perspective. The five principles are as follows:

• Subjective Translation
• Connect pathways to create new avenues.
  
• Subjective Landing
• The character will land on what appears to be below.
  
• Subjective Existence
• Cover over gaps to form a continuous pathway.
  
• Subjective Abscence
• Same as Subjective Existence. Cover up holes to make it as if they aren't there.
  
• Subjective Jump
• The character will land on what appears to be above.

The game is run by these laws, or principals. Once the players understands the laws, all that is required from them to solve the puzzles is critical thinking and the use of this knowledge. More broadly, designing a game with principles for gameplay allows designer's to build the game around those laws, kniwning that players understand the rules by which the game is governed. And really, this is how most games are played. You learn a game's mechanics, then you use them to overcome the game's challenges. Obviously there are plenty of other factors, like skill and chance, but truly, principle-based game design is an excellent foundation.

Here is another demonstration of Echochrome's principals taken from an earlier development state.

Shadow Monsters

Shadows are very, very near and dear to my heart. Thats why this concept is so cool. Its called Shadow Monsters. The hand shadows are actually being changed via the projector. The system was designed by Worthers' Original.

What is really interesting, is as I was watching it I began to look for consistency. Its quite possible you did so as well. You can actually see diagrams of the projectors functions in the background of the main website. I think its funny I looked for its inner workings so quickly. A big issue in video games as of late is the consistency of a players' input. In particular, this is mentioned for Wii and PS3 motion control quite frequently. When analyzing the video, I was looking for consistency. "Ok, how do I make an eye, how do I make teeth?" Why valid questions, I soon realized I was looking at the game the wrong way. It doesn't matter how specific images or sounds are generated. Thats not the purpose of the game. The purpose of the game is to have fun creating awesome-crazy looking monsters that bark and wail at each other. And laughing. I'm sure the projector does determine these effects somehow. But its besides the point. The game really just wants you to have fun playing around with shadow puppets and watching them morph and interacting with the changes. Its awesome.

Kotaku
Shadow Monsters

BioShock, Choice, and Emotion

Kotaku the other day linked me to an article over at Sexy Videogame Land, a blog by Leigh Alexander. The article is entitled "The Mechanics of choice," and reads about the recently released BioShock from Irrational Games (now 2K Boston), emotion in videogames, as well as choice. I would entreat you to read the entire article, it isn't long, but I will quote for discussion purposes regardless. Alexander starts off her article with a fantastic statement:

I've heard a lot of discussion about how much choice there is (or isn't) in BioShock on the matter of the Little Sisters, and in gaming in general. People have been saying for years they want more choice in games, and they want to see the gameplay reflect their choices. We want consequences both foreseen and unforeseen; we want the opportunity to make a moral decision without knowing exactly what we'll get out of it. We don't want, as some gamers have called it, a mere "cost-benefit analysis." In other words, at the core of any gaming experience, no matter how intense, it's still a game; you are still an explorer, a combatant, and you have a protagonist with stats to manage. In the end, choice in games may simply come down, at least historically and at present, to what gains you want for your character and what you're willing to trade. It's not a moral issue at all, then, but the simple exchange of boost for penalty, choice being a factor only insofar as you can decide which bonuses you want and which you can do without, and perhaps which cutscene you'd rather see, which ending you'd rather get.

I think she's right. But before I go on, I implore you, read the entire article. Alexander says so many interesting things, and so very well, I couldn't possily replicate her argument if I tried. Plus it will get your minds working and put you in the right mindset to continue reading this post.
Finished? Fantastic. Let us contiue. We are offered choices in video games, particularly RPGs, but what do these choices amount to, and, what governs our decisions?

I have not played BioShock, everything I know about the game is from what I've read, watched or heard. Everything I'm going to say concerning BioShock is not based on personal experience. What Alexander is arguing, is that though BioShock touts actual choice based upon emotion, when confronted with little sisters and big daddys, the choices actually do little more then affect your character's stats. Therefore, when playing BioShock, what decisions or what frame of mind is governing players' choices? Do players' make decisions with their conscience? Are emotions the motivator by which players respond to the game and make their choices? Or, is the game guiding players' choices? Is the in-game effect or result of a player's choices the true hand that sculpts that player's decisions? At what point does a game's functional reward infringe upon players' emotions? From Alexander's article:

Add in the fact that we're trained to predict what the game "wants" us to do. In the RPG genre, choice often comes down to which answer you pick to a question. . . .Could it be though, that we as players have been conditioned to look at our gaming experience as a cost-benefit analysis? What is it, exactly, that we're hoping to "get" from a game that offers us choices?....do values and identity really mean nothing because it's only a game?

Let's say a little sister is at your whim. Do you save her? Do you let her live because you think it wrong to harvest her adam? Wrong to kill her for your own benefit? Or, do you kill her, take her precious adam? And if so, why? Do you kill the little sister because you don't think she deserves to live? Do you kill her because you want her adam, you want your character become more powerful? Or do you kill her because you need her adam? You feel that without it, you will not be able to survive much longer in the destroyed paradise that is BioShock?

The beauty is: Every answer is correct. You, the player, are always right? You can save the little sisters, you can kill them, and you can do so for whatever reasons please you. And you know what, thats awesome. The choices that players make aren't what we're trying to get at, but rather why players make these choices.

The choice is yours.

I think it entirely possible, even probable, that players make decisions of their own accord. Some players will kill the little sisters, other will let them live. The only thing infringing on the players' free-will is when necessity governs their choices. In other words, if players feel like they need to kill the little sisters to complete the game, then I can guarentee you that's what they'll do. Here is the problem: If indeed the game necessitates players to kill the little sisters and harverst their adam to complete the game, then all potential emotional input is lost, null. If we as designers truly want emotion to govern play, then we cannot allow, under any circumstances, in-game results such as character ability or otherwise control players' decisions with finality.

But there is a margin. When does the game choosing for you, based on necessity, diverge from the players' actual emotional decisions? Lets say it is not necessary to harvest every little sister, or even a single one, to play through the game. It may be, I don't know. However, as we know, when players do harvest the adam, they are rewarded, in-game, with a boost in character statistics, skill, and ability. Which in turn offers new ways to play the game and approach its various situations. In other words, more ways to have fun. Therefore, we are now presenting players with true options, true choice. And these choices are governed by two things, primarily: more ways to have fun/character ability, and personal emotional impact. Alexander finishes her article as such:

After a while, I started letting the Little Sisters squirm a sec after I'd felled their Daddy. . . .Now, I chase the Little Sisters down. I want 'em. It's like I can't wait; I deserve that Adam after what I went through to get it. Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?. . . .I made some choices. And now, much to my surprise, I'm becoming something I hate. And I love it. Cost-benefit regardless, the choices in this game are beyond the mechanics. The merit of choice in games may not be what we get from it, but when done this richly, how it feels.

This is what games are all about. As Alexander says, regardless of in-game effects, she has made moral decisions and is reaping they're emotional effects. Games can impact people. We just need to make sure we allow players to choose and not force them to through in-game necessity. What BioShock can do is amazing. More importantly, BioShock represents how video games have the potential to effect people in real, tangible ways--and not just on the screen.BioShock teaches people that they can be manipulated. Some may argue, "but the little sisters aren't real, they're a collection of polygons animated to create the illusion of life." True, but in essence wrong. Its not the little sisters that matter, its is how they effect you emotionally that does.

If people can feel remorse for how they've interacted with a set of polygons, and learn something about themselves as a result, then video games really do have a power to effect people. When players decide, when they choose for themselves (hopefully without the game forcing them to do so), to kill a little sister, to steal her adam, then they are emotionally responsible for that decision.

We've been taught as human beings that killing is wrong. In choosing to kill a cluster of polygons for personal benefit, people are teaching themselves a real life lesson, and will therefore pay the consequences for their actions, in-game, and out. And thats a beautiful thing. It really is. This is part of what makes game design so amazing. Our ability to affect people. Designing a game around emotional choice, and pulling it off, is nothing short of extrordinary.

Remember that "What is Next-Gen" series of posts I made? The answer is emotion. Graphics, sound, multiplayer, all important in their own right, to be sure. But emotion coupled with interaction is the true hallmark of a next-generation game, andis whats going to take video games to the next level.

Artwork by Rahll
Screenshots from Official BioShock Website

Halo Wars: My Opinion

I've done some thinking about Halo Wars since my last post. The question I posed to both myself and you readers was whether Halo Wars should be designed for balance in the tradition of an RTS, or more so in the tradition of Halo itself. I was undecided on the matter. I thought it important for Halo Wars to have balanced play considering its importance in the RTS genre. However, as Halo Wars is also a Halo franchise product, and not just an RTS, it should stay true to the style and feel of Halo, considering its genetics, so to speak. I was deliberating which was more important when it hit me: The answer, A, is that both franchise and genre are equally important, and B, that neither should have to be compromised for the other's sake?Going back to the issue that started this question, the warthog. The warthog in Halo Wars is like an invincible giant compared to the warthog of Halo yore. It does move like a warthog, true, but by no means does it, or its riders, appear to take damage like one would expect. In fact it seems that Halo Wars is merely a superficial skin on what appears to be no more a standardized RTS template. Maybe thats harsh, addmittedly my knowledge of the game is limited and the game itself nowhere near completetion. Therefore everything I say should be understood with these concessions in mind.

The question I keep asking myself is: whay can't Halo Wars be both Halo and RTS? And you say, "Duh! It is. Thats the point." And I totally agree. But not with the game in its current state. I mean why can't Halo Wars really be "Halo" and "Wars?" Their is nothing wrong with the game being an RTS, indeed it makes sense considering the franchise's history. But who ever said Halo Wars has to be built on the same basic RTS blueprints as every other RTS ever made? Noone (except for maybe Microsoft, who knows). My point is, Halo Wars should play like an RTS but feel like Halo.
I love how the warthog moves, and I love that it can jump huge gaps; its an awesome feature. But the warthog should be just as susceptible defensively as it always has been. As things stand now, the warthog is more like a tank, which it isn't. Hypothetically, it could zoom around and shoot at the same time, perhaps automatically, like airplanes do in Supreme Commander. But, really, Ensemble could do absolutely anything, anything they want. But whatever they do I think its necessitous to retain the Halo feel.

My opinions are premature, to be sure, and probably sound a bit more severe in writing than how I actually feel. But who cares? My opinion is moot, really. Yours, however, is not. What do you think?

Also, I should note that the date system in my blog is working incorrectly. This post was actually made on Sunday, September 2nd. And the previous post on September 1st. I've looked through all the settings and there seems to be nothing wrong. There must be something wrong with the code. Bear with me while I figure out what the problem is, thanks.