Book/Article Readings - PopCap Games

Week 5 Reading

This weeks reading is "Space of Possibility and Pacing in Casual Game Design - A PopCap Case Study" by 'Marcos Venturelli'. My source for this information was pulled from LearnUCS on Blackboard learn.

The Topic:

Investigation into design principles that relate to casual game development. Concentrating on aspects relevant to Pacing and using PopCap Games (2000) as the study point due to their market relevance and critical acclaim.

Introduction:

Nintendo is one of the main catalysts for the rebirth of expressions such as 'accessibility' and 'family friendly', however these sort of games can now be found in online networks for both Xbox 360, PS3 and PC. However, there is still a black hole in terms of how 'casual games' are designed and the fundamentals of building a casual game.

Games such as Tetris and Pacman are being remade, played and reassessed. Even though these games are much more simple than those which are usually developed this era, we realise that casual game design does in fact use several elements of games past.

Casual Games:

Casual Games "generally involve less complicated controls and overall complexity in terms of gameplay or investment required to get through a game" - (IGDA's Wiki website Casual Games 2009). However, further to this general definition, there are disagreements with concepts of this statement.

These said casual games are not necessarily of lesser complexity in terms of the mechanics or in the production. An example game released by PopCap Games to support this is 'Plants Vs. Zombies' which becomes considerably complex at times. 'Rayman Raving Rabbids' developed by Ubisoft has huge production values.

Marcus states that for the purpose of the work covered in the article, 'Casual Games' would be considered as games that offer the possibility of 'pick up and play', and experiences that can be enjoyed in small bursts but can be interrupted by the player without any form of penalty. The key element would not be the complexity of the system and its mechanics, but how the complexity is presented to the player.

Pacing:

Pacing within a game is a concept related to the overall rhythm of the game, the speed at which the different moving parts of the system are put in motion. By using the MDA (Mechanics, Dynamics and Aesthetics), designers create relaxation, tension, repetition through which they control the pace.

Threat - Generated on a level of game mechanics existing as the power struggle leans in favour of the system or the players opponent(s). The actual power of the opposing forces against the player.

Tension - The perceived danger that the player might become the weakest side of the conflict. Graphics and sound/music can increase this tension.

Movement Impetus - The will or desire of a player to move forward through a level, however not limited to level design, it determines how willing the player is to make 'advancement decisions' which represents his/her interest to keep playing the game.

Tempo - The 'intensity' of play. The time between each significant decision made by the player. Higher tempo creates slower decision making and lower tempo creates more frantic decision making.

Space of Possibility:

'A game is designing place of possibility, the creation of structure that can play out in complex and unpredictable ways, a space of possible actions a player explores while playing a game. It is the collection of all possible actions and outcomes inside the designed space of the game, (all artificial outcomes made possible by the system).' 

The space of possibility can be linked directly to the complexity of the game which then in turn is related to tempo. If you limit the space of possibility for potential outcomes before making moves, this creates more 'fun' and 'challenge' in a game (especially timed games) due to not having to over think situations. Doing so could slow down a game's progress to the point where it becomes boring or frustrating especially if a player is forced to make a decision without feeling that they have assessed all the possible outcomes.

From this we can see that a 'pick up and play' type of casual game is one that has little or no tutorial or extra instructions, therefore the learning happens as the game progresses so that the player is not required to invest too much time learning the patterns.

The most commonly used solution to balancing the player tempo is via layering within a game, mechanics used to raise the difficulty of the game for the player as they progress.

Instead of constantly adding new features to a game, an alternative solution is to 'replace' a current feature with another (improved) one. However balancing these (both adding and replacing) features would lead to great design of a game, an example of which is PopCap's 'Plants Vs Zombies' which is highly addictive and successful game. This game's design principles and main focus is to keep constantly high 'Player Impetus' through the whole experience - referred to as 'Upper Arch' of pacing.

By including and balancing Threat, Tension, Movement Impetus and Tempo a game can reach a constant state of 'Flow' which makes the player feel like they can't stop playing. (Dropping Tension and Threat considerably when the mechanics of a game change, helps balance the game accordingly to the changes - allowing the player time to adapt to the changes).

Conclusion:

After going through the article as I posted this blog, I realised just how important it is to balance Threat, Tension, Movement Impetus and Tempo to make great game titles such as Plants Vs Zombies. This is a game I have personally played and found really addictive, so I can say first hand that the game is easy to 'pick up and play' and then hard to put down again.

Now having a deeper understanding of each of the pace mechanics (above), I will now be able to more easily include and iterate games using these concepts in the hopes of creating a game with re-playability.