Game Development Reference
In-Depth Information
ferent outcome than jumping even an instant from now. Instants matter
in a real-time game, but only turns matter in a turn-based game.
Input Resolution
Each game that is designed has its own resolution of input . This is es-
sentially the size of the data chunk that can be fed into the game in a
particular moment (for real-time games) or turn (for turn-based games).
For instance, chess's input resolution is rather small: during each turn
you can only move one piece from one position to another (whether that
unit captures another unit is outside the scope of input; it's a part of
feedback). Real-time games tend to have vastly larger input resolutions
than turn-based games. In a single moment in Quake , you can start run-
ning, jump, turn 33 degrees to the left, go 12 degrees up, fire a weapon,
and start shifting your weight midair in a different direction.
Modern games tend to go in the direction of the real-time model,
with higher and higher input resolution, because it is erroneously be-
lieved that higher input resolution is better. This is completely untrue,
and leads to many design problems. There are major pitfalls with games
that have massive amounts of input resolution. First, they tend to be
much harder to balance since the range of input possibilities is so mas-
sive that it's almost impossible for the designer to predict how powerful
virtuosity could become in the hands of an extremely dedicated player.
Second, these games tend to downplay strategic decision making and let
execution take the lead. There are many examples of games—even games
termed strategy games—wherein you can make the correct strategic de-
cision to counter your opponent but lose because he or she simply passes
input in faster than you. Warcraft III is a good example of this type of
game, in which good players simply execute the same two or three strat-
egies over and over regardless of what their opponents do. The game
largely comes down to a match of “micro� execution.
To go back to the Quake example: most people automatically believe
that the addition of being able to look up and down was strictly a good
thing. Well, since FPS games had already started using different floor
heights in levels, it definitely makes sense to allow players to look up and
down. But I feel that few have considered that overall, gameplay may
have been stronger if turning and aiming was only on one axis. How
could this be? Because most of the interaction takes place on that axis
anyway, and so the game allows a whole range of possibly unnecessary
input information.
Video-game designers seem to forget that imposing restrictions on
players is not a bad thing; imposing restrictions is what game design is .
Search WWH ::




Custom Search