Saving, Reloading and Player Failure

When the subject of free versus restricted saving comes up, people often end up conflating the issues of players being free to save their progress at any time and games requiring players to replay certain segments upon failure. The assumption is that the proper response to player failure is for the game to reload the latest save state, thus leading to a framing of the issue of loss of player progress in terms of free versus restricted saving.

Unrestricted saving mechanisms are essential in modern games in that they allow players to quit the game at any time without losing progress. This does not, however, mean that loss of progress upon failure is an illegitimate mechanic. Countless commercially successful game designs that purposely incorporate just such a mechanic show quite clearly that loss of progress upon failure is a perfectly legitimate mechanic. Ultimately, the answer to the "free save" dilemma is not to design a game such that progress can never be lost, but to design a game such that its response to player failure isn't coupled to the game's save system.

Therefore:

Principle: Uncouple a game's save/reload mechanism from the game's response to player failure.

Rationale: A game's response to player failure should be designed into the game rather than be defined by something as arbitrary as when was the last time the player saved the game. Instead of reloading the latest save game whenever the player fails at a particular task, restore the game to a state that is known at design time given the player's progress so far. This makes it possible to divide player progress into milestones without subjecting players to a crippled save system.

Emotions in Games

Authors and filmmakers who wish to evoke particular emotions in their audience often rely on the audience's ability to empathize with the characters portrayed in the narrative, and especially with the protagonist. The author sets up situations in which characters experience particular emotions in the hope that the audience will themselves have similar feelings, or at least understand why the characters feel the way they do. The author is in control of the characters' emotions, while the audience's emotions derive from sharing in those characters' feelings and experiences.

Game designers who wish to evoke particular emotions have it somewhat more difficult. Unlike books and movies, where the author is in full control of the protagonist, it is the audience itself that is largely in control of a game's principal character or characters. Although designers can script particular emotions into a game's protagonist by taking control away from the player or reducing the number of available choices, this can feel like cheating to a player who feels his or her character should be feeling something different; An author like Shakespeare can write Romeo such that he wishes to die upon seeing an apparently dead Juliet lying in front of him, but a game designer cannot force the player to wish the same for his character.

How, then, does a game designer create emotions? Several options present themselves:

• Atmosphere - Designers may encourage particular feelings in players by presenting them with emotionally suggestive images, sounds and music. This is all about transporting the player to an emotionally suggestive imaginary environment.
  
  
• Subject matter - Audiences can respond emotionally to particular subjects. Games can touch upon the human condition or deal with controversial subjects to evoke strong emotions. If done incorrectly it may earn a game more critics than fans, but done correctly it may perhaps be the most crucial element in crafting mature, dramatic game experiences.
  
  
• Gameplay challenges - The mechanics of games and competition encourage certain emotions in players. At the simplest level, these emotions concern the player directly rather than the player's character. In games that contain a narrative, these basic emotions can be modulated through narrative significance, in that overcoming or failing at particular challenges has specific narrative consequences designed to promote particular feelings in both characters and player.
  
  
• Other characters' emotions - Just like authors can evoke particular emotions by getting the audience to empathize with the characters he creates, so can game designers evoke particular feelings by getting the player to engage emotionally with the characters in the game. Unlike in books and movies, however, it is a mistake for designers to rely on the protagonists emotions, which are perhaps best left unstated.
  

Moving Around in 2 and 3 Dimensions

Here are some differences between ground-level 3D and top-down 2D environments, and their implications for ease of navigation:

1. The way the shapes of objects change as the player moves around the game environment. In 2D environments, rigid objects retain their projected shape as they change position and orientation due to player motion, while in 3D environments their apparent shape can change significantly.
2. The way the angles between objects change as the player orbits around a particular point or travels along a path¹, as measured from the camera's perspective. In 3D environments the apparent angles between objects are significantly affected as the player moves around, but remain fixed in 2D views.

For these reasons, a 2D view is generally more stable than a 3D view, as it doesn't change quite as radically as the 3D view when the player moves around the game world. Furthermore, since the view in top-down 2D games doesn't usually rotate as it does in 3D, a typical 2D view is remarkably stable compared to a 3D perspective. A stable view provides a more recognizable context than a more dynamic view, which makes it easier to tell where you are and which way to go.

---

1. If the player is moving along a straight line, angles between objects will change only if parallax is present.

[Offtopic] Software Activation and IP Ownership

Softimage XSI has recently been acquired by Autodesk, the company that owns competing packages 3ds Max and Maya. Users who've purchased XSI through its former owner will now have to deal with Autodesk for any licensing and support issues.

Since XSI requires the software to be activated online before it can be used, existing users will be at Autodesk's mercy when reinstalling XSI onto their computers following catastrophic data loss or when transferring their license onto a new computer. These users, who purchased XSI with Softimage's particular activation policies in mind, will now be subject to Autodesk's activation policies and may even be required -- if Autodesk should so desire -- to agree to Autodesk's more restrictive licensing terms before Autodesk will agree to activate any copies of XSI purchased before the change of ownership.

Perhaps things will turn out okay for current XSI users, but there's no guarantee that will be the case. Whenever you use software that requires activation, you remain at the mercy of the software's copyright holder, which may change without warning and without any remedy to you, the user.

Failure by Random Numbers

Failure by random numbers can occur whenever the random processes that determine failure aren't significantly influenced by the player's choices, giving players little or no meaningful control over the outcome of their actions. For the most part, games should be designed such that players may improve their chances of success according to the choices they make in the game, giving them meaningful control over their future.

Cause and Effect

Principle: Avoid responding to the player's actions with behavior that is contrary to reasonable player expectations, as it breaks the implied "contract" between the player and the game designer.

Players cannot form a useful mental model of the game world when things happen unexpectedly or without an apparent cause. Players should be able to understand the laws at work in your game's environment, and to make appropriate deductions based on their understanding of those laws.

If unexpected or incongruent behavior is desired, players should ultimately be able, by virtue of the game's design, to reconcile such behavior with their operative mental model of the game world -- which by its nature is allowed to change as the game progresses.

Meaningful Mistakes

Principle: Sometimes a player's mistakes aren't really mistakes. If a player has no good reason to believe a particular action might lead to failure, then failure should not be blamed on the player.

Failure by surprise occurs when the player's actions do not appear as if they should lead to failure, because the relationship between action and outcome is either obscure or counterintuitive, or because the element that makes a particular action lead to failure is presented too late for the player to react to it. King's Quest and Dragon's Lair are known for this kind of failure mechanism, where the wrong move can easily result in unexpected death or failure¹.

A game should generally provide enough clues for players to anticipate danger, and should otherwise give players a fair chance to react to any surprises.

---

Footnotes

1. See Ways to Die/Lose in King's Quest and Let's Fail Dragon's Lair v2.0 (not safe for work).