|
|
By
Hal Barwood
Gamasutra
April 1997
|
|
 Features
CGDC
'97 Roundtable Report:
Puzzles in Story Games
I did three
sessions on puzzle design, an esoteric topic, but one that is central
to the construction of all story games. My plan was to start with an examination
of why puzzling is so important, as follows:
*In classical storytelling genres, there is a reader or an audience, the
fundamental unit of a story is the scene, and conflict between characters
is experienced as drama. In interactive storytelling on the other hand,
a player replaces the reader/audience, assuming the role of one (or possibly
more) of the characters; and since moving through a scene is generally
the player's responsibility, he experiences dramatic conflict as a puzzle.
Puzzles pose many difficulties, as all who have designed or played story
games know. Here are three of the most important:
*First, puzzles generally require a specific insight. Without it, progress
seems impossible. This is frustrating.
*Second, it's hard to forget insights, so the experience is generally
not repeatable, and hence, puzzle games are generally not replayable.
*Third, puzzles are unpredictably difficult, and solving one doesn't offer
any guarantee of solving others, so unlike many kinds of computers games,
adventure game players don't gradually acquire a sense of mastery that
keeps them involved in the challenge.
Operation
of the Roundtable
The purpose of the roundtable was to raise awareness of the problem, and
discuss possible solutions. My tactical practice, in all sessions, was
to speak provocatively for about one minute, outlining the above, and
then turn things over to the group, with occasional nudges forward. Discussion
was spirited in all sessions, although the 10 o'clock time slot on Monday
morning barely filled the seats.
Results
Some of the ways to handle puzzles that we considered were:
*make many small puzzles; smaller hurdles reduce frustration.
*make puzzles germane to the story to reinforce player involvement; in
other words, keep the incentive to endure higher than the frustration
level.
*incorporate powerup inventory items; give players the comfort of a progress
meter.
*use assembly puzzles; collecting the parts is a progress meter.
*maintain an overt scoring system; yet another progress meter.
Since
many people believe there are (or ought to be) alternatives to puzzles,
we considered some:
*exploration (mazes).
*combat (think of fighting as a portable puzzle).
*physical puzzles; tests of physical perception and skill.
*random alterations of the game world.
*easy solutions, unfathomable methods (slider puzzles, tough mazes).
*social transactions with complex characters (think of psychology as an
unfathomable AI method).
*economies: use up & replenish inventory items in a coherent way.
Finally
we tackled the problem of mastery:
*Bob Bates suggested what he calls ÒgestaltÓ puzzles, where
finding the solution leads to a deeper understanding of the organizational
principles of the game, thus promoting player self-confidence.
My
Impressions
I hoped that focusing on an exacting aspect of game design would help
people think more clearly about the construction of adventure games and
develop their appreciation of game design in general. On the whole, I
think the sessions worked well to this effect. But next time I would choose
a less demanding topic. A big conference is the place for big ideas. Even
though many attendees tell us they want the fine details in our sessions,
I believe that spending their working lives with those very details instills
a strong prefence for headlines instead.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
