Gamasutra: The Art & Business of Making Gamesspacer
View All     RSS
July 29, 2014
arrowPress Releases
July 29, 2014
PR Newswire
View All
View All     Submit Event





If you enjoy reading this site, you might also want to check out these UBM Tech sites:


 
Don't Waste My Time
by Eric Schwarz on 02/16/13 11:33:00 am   Expert Blogs   Featured Blogs

The following blog post, unless otherwise noted, was written by a member of Gamasutra’s community.
The thoughts and opinions expressed are those of the writer and not Gamasutra or its parent company.

 

There's a particular pet peeve in games which I have.  It's one which, unfortunately, often seems to be at odds with a lot of more modern games, and often necessitated by the ever-climbing budgets required to achieve the presentation, polish and length of gameplay that gamers demand.  Even so, it can be found in titles from just about any period, and I consider it one of the hallmarks of bad game design.

I'm talking, of course, about time-wasting - the very particular manipulation of players by game designers, level designers and writers, wherein gameplay is artificially limited, bloated or expanded in some way well beyond the point where it is fun.  For this particular article, I'd like to explore a few facets of it, using Neverwinter Nights as a case study to explain how and why this particular breed of design isn't fun, and how it can lead to a very mediocre final product when "required number of hours" is too much a deciding factor in creating gameplay.

The Roundabout 

The "roundabout" can go by any number of names where appropriate - you can also call it "the maze", "the spiral", "the path" and so on.  All of these conceits of level design share one particular element: a given level or location has a relatively simple and straightforward layout, usually with a goal in fairly clear sight, but in order to maximize the use of space and the size of the level, the level designers go to the trouble of adding any number of diversions, dead-ends and other routes just to give the player a sense that the level is much bigger than it really is.

In more detail, the sub-types can be described as: 

  1. The roundabout.  Literally a location where the end goal is clearly visible, but to reach it requires the player to follow a huge diversion, usually spanning almost the entire level's breadth, just to reach it.  Bonus points if you aren't just using a big path that goes around in a redundant loop, but also winds and coils excessively to maximize use of floor space.
  2. The maze.  Lots of winding, twisting corridors, most of them dead ends, from where there is no clear vantage point to ascertain exactly where to go, or where any one location exists relative to any other location.  Usually mitigated by top-down games, as the camera has a better perspective, but if limited view distance is still a concern it can be just as effective.
  3. The path.  An overlong, straight and completely uninteresting level punctuated and given meaning by forced encounters and scenarios which cannot be avoided, bypassed, or even significantly delayed.  Usually extremely transparent because the only reason the path exists, and is as long as it is, is to delay the player from reaching the end point and completing an objective.
  4. The copy-paste.  This literally involves game designers using the same level portions or layout again, and again, and again, in order to create two or three times the amount of content for almost no effort whatsoever.  This can apply to sections in an individual level, or multiple levels that share the same layouts.
Neverwinter Nights, unfortunately, frequently uses all four of these, sometimes within the same gameplay span.  One of its most common level designs involves showing the player a locked door, or giving the player a particular room to reach, but then sending him/her off down extremely long hallways, which usually wrap around the extreme edges of the level space, only to then, at the farthest point possible, require the player to them move through a number of individual rooms, which are numerous enough to extend gameplay even more.  A characteristic of this game is to fill almost every single hallway or room with groups of trash enemies and containers to loot, which serve no purpose other than to add more game time (more on that later).

The Creator Ruins in NWN, also known as "how I lost most of my hair."

I am not exaggerating when I say almost every dungeon takes this design and runs with it, and let's also not forget those Creator Ruins, which exhibit all of the traits above, up to and including using the exact same "puzzle" on each and every floor, three times in a row.  There really is no good excuse for this style of level design, especially when it is so transparently an attempt to extend gameplay time longer than it should be.  A level which is extremely large for its own sake isn't fun, nor is forcing the player to perform the same repetitive task over and over, and in the end it can cause more far more harm to a game than good.  Which brings us to...

Do It Again, Stupid

I'm lifting this term from the honorable Shamus Young, although in this case I'd like to appropriate it for a slightly different purpose.  While Young uses the term to refer to games which force you to perform the same gameplay task over and over if you make a mistake, while often outright forcing those mistakes onto the player through no fault of their own (such as traps that require precognition to avoid), I think the term applies equally to another conceit of gameplay.

That is, of course, gameplay features which exist to be performed over... and over... and over again.  Now, we all know that games primarily revolve around repeated mechanics operations within larger systems in order to achieve win states.  If every game featured unique gameplay mechanics and systems for every scenario, that game would either be extremely short, or extremely non-existing.  But, there are also plenty of times where you can draw the line and say "does that really need to be that way?"

"Do it again, stupid" refers to a particularly nasty subset of these features which exists to do nothing but populate a game through extensive, repetitive tasks which are often time-limited in order to artificially extend game time spent.  Neverwinter Nights has two such examples, with a sub-category each:
  1. Opening containers.  Lockpicking is a standard RPG gameplay action and one that is pretty much critical.  To its credit, Neverwinter Nights also allows the player to use the Strength stat to bash containers open, as well.  However, almost every single location in the game is positively peppered with chests, barrels, bushes, and other lootables, half of which are regularly locked.  Almost all of these containers have randomly-generated loot of very little consequence, especially as money is so plentiful that the player can buy pretty much anything in the game without all that much effort.  That's not all, though.  First, many quest-related items are stored in containers, which means that it is basically a requirement to loot every single one in the game in order to not miss anything (or even simply to proceed).  Second, lockpicking takes about 6 seconds, per container.  Multiply this with an average of 3-5 containers per room and you are looking at artificially lengthening gameplay through an arbitrary timer, to the point of inducing psychosis on your players.
    1. Past the intro of the game, at least 50% of containers are trapped, and later in the game a good number of these traps will stun, paralyze or debilitate you in some way, often for 20 seconds.  This either forces you to play a class that can disable traps or to take a follower who can (there's only one or two out of all of them, and you can only have one at once), unless you want to suffer spending regularly half a minute doing absolutely nothing, for something basically completely unavoidable if you don't want to miss game content.  Thanks, BioWare!
  2. Combat.  While combat in D&D games is supposed to be tactical and exciting, in Neverwinter Nights it is anything but.  This is largely because the game is completely crammed full of hack-and-slash filler combat against filler enemies who are extremely easy to kill and do very little damage, but who also have inflated health bars.  This is literally just a level designer copy-pasting the same enemy 100 times throughout a level.  For bonus points, the level can also feature infinitely-respawning enemies too, which is always fun (not).  This all ensures that combat is very frequent, regular and always takes 30-60 seconds, yet also has utterly no challenge to it, so it's almost never interesting to actually play.  You can literally walk away from the computer and return to find your character has won a battle - I did this all the time just to endure my way to the end of the game.
    1. It's also worth noting that in the second half of the game, many enemies frequently encountered have spells which are capable of stunning you, or better yet, inflicting fear and sending your character running uncontrollably away, often into certain death.  These always last 10-20 seconds, further inflating the time battles take on average.  While they can be resisted through spells, potions, etc., most character classes that excel at combat (and are basically required to play the game comfortably) aren't going to have high enough saving throws to ever resist these effects, or enough means to do so through buffs.
All of this means that Neverwinter Nights is full of levels which take about 1-5 minutes to explore on foot, yet take regularly 20-60 minutes to play through.  Very little of the gameplay you perform in this time is interesting because it is easy, repetitive in the extreme, and thoroughly uninspiring.  I am pretty much certain this was all a contrived way for them to hit an "80 hours of gameplay!" mark, and unfortunately these game elements, deliberately engineered to waste time, are insultingly boring and un-fun.

The Plot
 
Sometimes gameplay-lengthening isn't done directly through game design or level design. Sometimes it also comes down to the writers, and the way in which they construct the narrative.  Let's face it, most videogame plots are very simple - you've got a bad guy, a good guy, motivations for each, and then the rest of the game is filler that has to explain why the good guy can't just go after the bad guy directly, walk up to his/her house and throw a molotov cocktail at it, etc.

This is no more obvious than in Neverwinter Nights.  Not only are long stretches of the story almost completely irrelevant in the big picture, but every chapter of the game takes the exact same format of the player being forced to hunt down three MacGuffins - whether they're ingredients to cure a plague, journals to prove the involvement of individuals in a cult, or magic words that command dark and mysterious powers.  It's always three or four, and you can bet the game will send you to the farthest reaches and darkest depths to uncover each and every one of them.

The problem with this sort of structure to the plot is that while it creates ample gameplay, the repetitive nature also leads to, yes, repetitive gameplay as well as repetitive storytelling.  By centering the entire game's story around the acquisition of MacGuffins, there is very little room for drama, plot twists, and other things that keep the story and gameplay fresh.  The "hunt the MacGuffins" plot also forces the designers on auto-pilot because they're basically doing the exact same thing for every part of the game.  If the goals are the same, then variety in scenario design is also going to suffer greatly.

Aribeth's fall is one of the most baffling and illogical things I've ever seen in a game, and it passes for the "drama' in  NWN's story.  It's also almost compeltely irrelevant to the plot itself, as far as gameplay and structure go.

It doesn't help, of course, that the story has more plot holes than Swiss cheese, character motivations which make absolutely no sense whatsoever, and all sorts of other problems which are glossed and painted over in the thinnest of ways.  Videogame plots can get away with lots of plot holes, and still be excellent and enjoyable - but when the plot is so simple, repetitive and, frankly, boring, that all of those holes have attention drawn to them.  After all, if the only elements adding any depth and interest to a story make no sense, and the rest of it is structurally flawed or simply insipid, how is the player going to feel about what he or she is doing at any given time?  Probably not very enthusiastic.

Closing Thoughts

I admit, this article is a bit of a "bad game designer, no Twinkie for you!" of my own.  To their credit, BioWare have improved a lot when it comes to creating both stories and gameplay in their more recent titles, and some of the bits and pieces I've mentioned here tend to be a thing of the past.  Yet if one looks to modern titles like MMORPGs or even first-person shooters, it's often plain to see these same contrivances all adding up and contributing to boring gameplay - especially when one takes away all the explosions, scripted sequences and cutscenes from the mix. 

Related Jobs

The Digital Animation and Visual Effects School
The Digital Animation and Visual Effects School — Orlando, Florida, United States
[07.29.14]

Instructor - Video Game Asset Production
Big Fish Games
Big Fish Games — Seattle, Washington, United States
[07.29.14]

Game Engineer
Treyarch / Activision
Treyarch / Activision — Santa Monica, California, United States
[07.29.14]

Associate Cinematic Animator (temporary) - Treyarch
Treyarch / Activision
Treyarch / Activision — Santa Monica, California, United States
[07.29.14]

Senior Environment Concept Artist - Treyarch (temporary)






Comments


Roger Tober
profile image
I might disagree with using a level to it's fullest by forcing the player around, but mostly I agree. The games would be more memorable and fun if they skipped most of these things and just made it shorter.

Matt Robb
profile image
The thing that always gets me with the roundabouts is that in their efforts to make you walk through every piece of a structure, the layout is absolute nonsense. When is the last time you entered a ruined castle or some such in a game and it was shaped in any way similar to a castle?

Look at the map of the Creator Ruins in the article. Who would ever build anything with that layout?

I wasn't bothered by this as a kid playing NES games, but it causes immersion issues for me now.

Eric Schwarz
profile image
You're definitely right that level design of this type just isn't plausible in any even remotely realistic world. Perhaps a reason it comes across as so shallow and manipulative is because there is no other way to justify it. Players are willing to forgive nonsensical level design, but only if the gameplay itself is good enough to not draw too much attention to it.

Michael Stevens
profile image
Maybe I haven't played enough western rpgs, but I feel like it's more common for a jrpg to use realistic floorplans. I'm thinking about the dorm in Persona 3, most towns and "dungeons" Metal Saga, the school in the Mana Khemia series. Specifically in low pressure/communal/passive gameplay areas. There's a lot of dead space in those designs, and in games that can balance the walking/seeing/doing it goes a long way towards making me feel like I'm in an actual place and not navigating a menu.

Chris OKeefe
profile image
Some more creative designers use obstacles to obstruct your path and keep you on a linear 'tour' of the entire level, while keeping the actual physical layout believable. A doorway has collapsed, someone has pushed a shelf in front of a door, etc.

I mind that less much less than the notion that some imbecile designed a castle that winds around like a chicken with its head cut off, but it's still rather obvious when you see it.

Michael Stevens
profile image
Borderlands is guilty of most of this as well. A lot of it's structure tells me that they just didn't know how long the game was going to be. The first two-thirds are mostly the same enemies and structures reshuffled over and over again, then the last third is finally different and doesn't have as much content attached to it.

I also found it baffling that the game had an indicator to tell the player if a quest was "trivial" and the ability to scale enemy levels, but didn't combine these to ensure that all new quests were at least worthwhile when they were issued. That it's possible to get ahead of the XP curve early in a first playthrough shows how poor a fit the quantity of game is for the character development system they paired it with. It's just bad math.

Eric Schwarz
profile image
I feel like Borderlands was a gigantic fluke. An okay game with a great art style, yes, but the actual gameplay itself really is not that interesting outside of the grind. I don't think they had much of a design doc for the game outside of "randomly generated guns are cool!" and it becomes clear they only started to pay much attention to level design and pacing later on. Of course, by then it was too late because most players likely didn't want to play through 60 hours of fetch quests to get that far.

Lewis Wakeford
profile image
Borderlands (haven't played the second one) was just a bad game in general. I think it only did well because it introduced the World of Warcraft style "addictive grind" to a group of gamers that hadn't experienced that yet (and hadn't burnt out on it), namely console and/or FPS gamers. I think most people that had already been through that process couldn't enjoy borderlands.

The level design followed an MMO as well: Just stick enough prefabs down to make this location look somewhat convincing then spawn loads of enemies everywhere. Don't worry about pacing or any of that shit because we already screwed that up by making the weapons randomly generated.

Great article by the way, this is one of my biggest pet peeves too.

Laura Stewart
profile image
Borderlands is a little dancing robot. If someone says otherwise, they just don't want to admit the truth.

Luis Guimaraes
profile image
Not the random loot. It's the "critical" popping up that's addicting.

Martin Zimmerman
profile image
Auto scaling is a bit of a pet peeve of mine when it comes to RPGs.. It seems like a poor substitute for proper pacing. If you don't want people to get ahead or fall behind you shouldn't have levels at all. They just become an overly elaborate method of changing the widgets the player uses.

Michael Joseph
profile image
This is an interesting topic in the sense that most story driven games suffer from contrived gameplay. The more the game is actually an interative story, the more contrived the play tends to get. The player must be corralled into playing through a designed thrill course. I think games that are more "game-ish" are not like this. But I'm not sure how a designer determines where to draw the line?

What you're saying i think is, do a better job and not making it FEEL contrived for these sorts of games even though it is of course. Hit me but don't leave any brusies? (rofl) I mean, are we not to conclude that story driven games are inherently full of contrived events?

wing nut response warning. im not sure i agree with myself :)

Eric Schwarz
profile image
My complaints are mostly about level design and gameplay design decisions, not really about how single-player story-heavy games feel contrived. NWN is extremely contrived in many ways, but that's more a result of poor design overall - it's a consequence, not the reason.

Brian Buchner
profile image
I consider fetch quests to facilitate other fetch quests to be of the time-wasting and just plain milking the game time sort.

Laura Stewart
profile image
I think fetch quests can be divided into 2 categories: where the game tries to kill you, and the ones where it does not. Skyrim was almost completely fetch quests, but it's really not uncommon to burn 1,000+. Why? The game tried to lure you into a false sense of security and then gut you.

Lewis Wakeford
profile image
I think it really depends on whether or not the game forces you to walk long distances back and forth. Fetch quests can really be anything once you get to the location of the MacGuffin, you might have to solve a puzzle or kill hundreds of enemies which are both pretty valid pieces of content. If the game makes you walk for 10 minutes each way between the quest giver and your location then yeah, it's wasting your time and providing filler.

In quests where you can just keep going (EG NPC A gives you a quest to get Object B and take it to NPC C in the next town, where you are heading anyway) or can teleport back to town instantly (Skyrim) then they aren't bad.

Eric Schwarz
profile image
Fetch quests are sometimes a good tool to get the player to explore the game world and introduce them to characters. I have done this before with my own quest design and it works well. Too much, though, and it gets boring really, really fast. If a quest doesn't have at least 1 interesting scenario, choice to make, puzzle, etc. then it's grade-F material in my mind.

Nate Paolasso
profile image
I think a series that does level design really well is God of War. The levels never have useless areas with nothing in them, and when you return to an area you've already been to, it's always because that area is connected to one that leads further into the game.

Nice post.

Eric Schwarz
profile image
Haven't played God of War, so I can't comment, but from what I have seen the games do not appear to have that much filler. On the other hand, though, they are very linear and set piece-driven, so there isn't a lot of room for extra fat.

Jason Falcone
profile image
The Saints Row 3 "activities" come to mind. While possibly fun the first time around (some weren't even that), they quickly become stale and repetitive. Unfortunately, that's precisely how the designers chose to use them - high frequency filler to create the illusion of rich content.

Ideally, you're hooked right away and discover even more richness as you go.

Eric Schwarz
profile image
Most open world games share this problem. Creating huge amounts of unique content (big world to explore, specific scenarios and challenges, etc.) is difficult and time consuming as it is. Recycling things like mission structures and criteria saves a lot of time in development but lets you shape the nature of each individual challenge by varying things like the space it takes place in or the individual bits and pieces the player encounters.

It's not all that different from any other game, really. In a shooter, you primarily perform the same gameplay functions and interactions over and over... it's doing them in unique spaces that keeps things fresh. The main difference with an open world game is that expectations for size of the game make it difficult to hand-polish each and every facet.

I wonder if framing open-world challenges more as "events" in a roster instead of naturally occurring phenomena within the game world is part of the problem... but to do otherwise loses out on that completionist side of things that is the lingering legacy of Grand Theft Auto.

Matthew Dorry
profile image
I remember conversations about various games being thirty hours long and others up to eighty, and the idea that players should get length for their buck. I remember thinking to myself, "You know, sometimes I gladly pay sixty dollars just so I can beat a game in that sweet spot of about twelve hours."

The paradox here is that a forty plus-hour game does not give you bang for your buck. In fact, the longer a game gets, often there's less worthwhile content you're getting for every dollar spent.

Eric Schwarz
profile image
Generally speaking I think most games are overpriced given how much content they offer. $60 for 12 hours? Not so great. $60 for 4 hours? Get out of here. I would be much, much more tolerant of shorter games if the gameplay in so many modern titles wasn't, pardon my French, watered-down, mechanically bankrupt, interactive-custcene crap, and if the price tag was more like $30 or $40 brand-new.


none
 
Comment: