A game player, but non-designer writes...
Jun. 26th, 2012 10:20 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
daibhidcI’ve noticed a trend recently for Flash puzzle-platformers in which jumping around and avoiding spikes and bottomless pits is a metaphor for Life Itself or something. Which is cool, but sometimes there are aspects of these games that annoy me a bit. So here’s my opinionated and inexpert view of what makes a good philosophy puzzle platformer.
1) If you’ve got a gimmick, does it have anything to do with your metaphor?
Most Flash puzzle platformers these days have some clever game mechanic that sets them apart. If you’re trying to set up the game as having a Meaning, then the mechanic should really be something that reflects what you’re trying to say.
Actually, most of them are pretty good about this. I’m thinking of stuff like “One Step Back”, where the metaphor is the character trying to escape his memories, and the gameplay is that duplicates of the character follow him, and you lose if they touch. Simple. Or “The Company of Myself” which uses the ability to create duplicates as a metaphor for self-sufficiency.
On the other hand, there’s “The Conjurer’s Dream”, which is about bereavement, and where the main character ... turns into animals. Which is so random and irrelevant that it gets abandoned two levels before the end.
2) Is the platforming actually happening?
In most of these games it’s pretty clear that the character isn’t really jumping several times their height around a highly dangerous environment; this is just a representation of what’s going on in their head. In a few, it’s clear that this is happening, and they really do live in a depressing version of Mario World.
And then there’s ones like “Fixation”, which zig-zag it a bit. "Fixation" is a brilliant game, but I found that a bit disconcerting. It's possible I'm the only one who worries about this, though. (“Fixation”, incidentally, is a prequel to “The Company of Myself” and also states that the main character of that game really can create duplicates of himself. It’s all a metaphor and it’s all real! You need to be very good to get away with this.)
3) Don’t get so caught up in the philosophy you forget the game.
Remember what I said about “The Conjurer’s Dream” dropping its mechanic? On the one hand the problem is that the mechanic doesn’t fit the metaphor. On the other hand, it deals with this by pretty much abandoning the actual gameplay. The game has to work as a game first. Otherwise, why have you made a platformer instead of an interactive art peice?
4)If you have the philosophy written on the walls, don’t make it complicated at the same time as you make the platforming complicated.
Arguably a subsection of 3), because nobody thinking about a game as a game would expect you to read at the same time as you have to jump over a pit while avoiding a baddie and getting spikes fired at you (not an actual example).
The most annoying thing about this is that you then have to play the level again. By the fifth time, you’re thoroughly sick of whatever’s written on the walls.
Of course, sometimes dying in the later levels really is unavoidable...
5) Not having an ending isn’t that clever.
Seriously. “This game is a mediation on Life, and Life ends when you die”? Sod off. At the very least tell us what’s going on. If it’s a metaphor, wouldn’t it be nice if we knew what the ending’s a metaphor for? “This game is a mediation on Life, and Life doesn’t have easy answers”. Whatever.
Yes, ambiguous endings can work. Endings where there’s no way to avoid being killed can also work (although putting them at the end of a difficult final level is a great way for the game designer to do research by being thrown in a spiked pit for real). But they’re starting to seem a tad overused. at least in the ones I’ve actually managed to finish. Or think I’ve finished.
1) If you’ve got a gimmick, does it have anything to do with your metaphor?
Most Flash puzzle platformers these days have some clever game mechanic that sets them apart. If you’re trying to set up the game as having a Meaning, then the mechanic should really be something that reflects what you’re trying to say.
Actually, most of them are pretty good about this. I’m thinking of stuff like “One Step Back”, where the metaphor is the character trying to escape his memories, and the gameplay is that duplicates of the character follow him, and you lose if they touch. Simple. Or “The Company of Myself” which uses the ability to create duplicates as a metaphor for self-sufficiency.
On the other hand, there’s “The Conjurer’s Dream”, which is about bereavement, and where the main character ... turns into animals. Which is so random and irrelevant that it gets abandoned two levels before the end.
2) Is the platforming actually happening?
In most of these games it’s pretty clear that the character isn’t really jumping several times their height around a highly dangerous environment; this is just a representation of what’s going on in their head. In a few, it’s clear that this is happening, and they really do live in a depressing version of Mario World.
And then there’s ones like “Fixation”, which zig-zag it a bit. "Fixation" is a brilliant game, but I found that a bit disconcerting. It's possible I'm the only one who worries about this, though. (“Fixation”, incidentally, is a prequel to “The Company of Myself” and also states that the main character of that game really can create duplicates of himself. It’s all a metaphor and it’s all real! You need to be very good to get away with this.)
3) Don’t get so caught up in the philosophy you forget the game.
Remember what I said about “The Conjurer’s Dream” dropping its mechanic? On the one hand the problem is that the mechanic doesn’t fit the metaphor. On the other hand, it deals with this by pretty much abandoning the actual gameplay. The game has to work as a game first. Otherwise, why have you made a platformer instead of an interactive art peice?
4)If you have the philosophy written on the walls, don’t make it complicated at the same time as you make the platforming complicated.
Arguably a subsection of 3), because nobody thinking about a game as a game would expect you to read at the same time as you have to jump over a pit while avoiding a baddie and getting spikes fired at you (not an actual example).
The most annoying thing about this is that you then have to play the level again. By the fifth time, you’re thoroughly sick of whatever’s written on the walls.
Of course, sometimes dying in the later levels really is unavoidable...
5) Not having an ending isn’t that clever.
Seriously. “This game is a mediation on Life, and Life ends when you die”? Sod off. At the very least tell us what’s going on. If it’s a metaphor, wouldn’t it be nice if we knew what the ending’s a metaphor for? “This game is a mediation on Life, and Life doesn’t have easy answers”. Whatever.
Yes, ambiguous endings can work. Endings where there’s no way to avoid being killed can also work (although putting them at the end of a difficult final level is a great way for the game designer to do research by being thrown in a spiked pit for real). But they’re starting to seem a tad overused. at least in the ones I’ve actually managed to finish. Or think I’ve finished.
