This reading systematically introduces the history of game design to me. It resonates with me a lot with my own game experience. From the arcade era to the composite period, game design becomes more and more mature not only in the interactive perspective but also in a psychological way.
For an interactive perspective, arcade games provide one single operating mechanism. Players are easy to control. Sometimes the game pattern is intuitive since it is designed to be simple and understandable. However, players are easy to get bored because even though the challenges of the game keep varying, the fundamental structure or framework of the game is unchanged. I played Raiden when I was 3 years old. I really loved this game but I remembered that every time I played it, I would drop off at lever3 or level4. The reason is that I can get no more fun except just pressing arrow keys to avoid attacks.
The innovation of the composite games is the answer to the question “how to prevent players get bored before they are satisfied?”. As the author states, “a real composite game doesn’t switch from one genre to another halfway through the game. Rather, it bounces back and forth between genres throughout the game, but the aggregate effect is still the same.” By combining different genres of games and switching back and forth throughout the whole game process, players would always change tastes and so stay in good psychological status. Mega-man, my favorite game as an example, has two modes: platform and action game. Besides, Mega-man has its own armor collection system. The design of armor collection challenges permeates through each stage, which I would be attracted by during normal gameplay.
One thing I did not notice before is that the shift of the axis of ability. As I recalled my own experience, I found out that this design occurs in some certain platform game like Mario. Really interesting.
Leave a Reply