jim.shamlin.com

Game Mechanics Must Be in Balance

Many elements of game design involve balancing out the mechanics. If a game is not difficult enough, players will beat it easily and lose interest; if it is too difficult, players will feel it's hopeless ("unfair" is a common criticism) and lose interest. There are numerous aspects of a game where balance must be achieved.

1) Equality of "Power"

In head-to-head games, balance is achieved by giving equal resources to all the players at the onset - though inequities may arise in the course of the game, they are accepted because the players recognize that advantage si gained as a result of skill, or as a result of chance (and in the latter case, that all players have an equal chance of gaining the same advantage).

Computer games pit the player against the game mechanics, and the balance is understood to be asymmetrical:

Even when such inequities exist, the game should be geared so that each player has a "fair" chance of winning.

2) Challenge vs. Success

This was previously discussed in terms of the "flow" channel: to hold interest, the game must present a goal that is difficult to achieve, but is not insurmountable.

Largely unique to video games is the concept of "levels" - in which it is generally understood that a game with "levels" presents increasing levels of difficulty. Often, the game ends in failure - though the player accepts that this is the nature of the game, and expects that if he improves his skill, he will be able to progress to higher levels.

Some suggestions are:

3) Meaningful Choices

The number and nature of choices the player must make arise from the nature of the game. Simple games allow the player only a few basic choices (a FPS is basically to move and shoot), whereas a complex on heaps many choices on the player (many "simulation" games do this).

There is a balance to all things you can give the player the ability (and responsibility) or controlling a large number of choices on a very granular level, or only a few. There are some games where the player can choose their level of involvement (e.g., civilization, where a player can closely manage each city or allow an AI to take care of the nuts and bolts for them).

It's also important to make choices meaningful: if the user has a choice of 10 vehicles in a driving game, but they all perform the same, then it's not much of a choice (just aesthetics). Likewise, if 9 of them drive the same way but one of them has a distinct advantage, it's a "no brainer" - hence meaningless make-work to have to choose at all.

However, having choices is what enables a player to implement strategy at all. If not choice is "better" in any way than any other, it doesn't matter how they play. If certain choices provide an advantage, the player's skill at making the "right" choice leads to a successful strategy.

The author speaks of "tirangularity" as a way of addressing risk and reward. It's often interesting to present a player options in which the two are married - they can play it safe and make slow progress, or take a risk and make fast progress (at the risk of failure). The two must be balanced: a low risk with a high reward seems like a cheat, a high risk with a low reward is a not worth choosing.

4) Skills vs. Chance

The nature of skill (advantage due to player capability) and chance (totally random outcome) was discussed earlier. A game can be purely based on chance, or purely based on skill - though most games balance them.

There is no one blend that will please all players (some prefer one over the other), though certain genres of game have certain "blends" that players have come to expect.

In the end, I think this is a design choice to be made rather than a balance to be achieved.

5) Head vs. Hands

At the extremes of this balance are the arcade games that require a player to be nimble and strategy games that require a player to think through moves - the difference is often speed and time constraints.

Again, I think this is a design choice rather than a "balance" - but many games include a little of both.

6) Competition

In multiplayer games (or single-player games with certain kinds of opponent), there is a choice to be made between working cooperatively with other players or trying to dominate them in head-to-head competition. Traditional games are more competitive, but cooperative games are gaining favor, especially among certain demographics.

Sometimes, this is the nature of the game. Other times, players can choose at the onset whether they wish to compete or cooperate. And in other situations, a player's choice to compete or cooperate may be a strategic component, made on a turn-by-turn basis.

The important thing is that players understand this at the onset. A common milieu is fantasy gaming, where players can team up or duel with each other, and a common problem is that other players will violate the compact (going "PK" in a game others expected to be cooperative).

Again, I think this is a design choice rather than a "balance."

7) Game Length

The length of the game (amount of time in each turn, as well as the full game) varies greatly. Some games are completed quickly, others take a longer time. Notably, strategy games tend to require a longer time commitment than other games.

The main factor in determining game length are the win-or-lose conditions. There may be an explicit limit on the amount of time the player has to complete tasks.

Combining methods may help to pace the game. Two examples the author gives are Spy Hunter (for the first ninety seconds, you have unlimited lives - after that time, you have only three, which was done to prevent players from losing too quickly) and Minotaur (if players avoid combat with one another for ten minutes, they are "teleported" into an arena and made to fight it out, which kept the game from going too long)

Again, I think this is a design choice rather than a "balance."

8) Rewards

The rewards earned by a player are another balance that must be managed carefully: if they are too frequent or too easy to obtain, they lose their motivational value. If they are too infrequent or difficult, a player may not be receiving sufficient feedback.

The author lists several types of rewards:

Note that there is a tolerance for rewards: if you give them at regular intervals, players become accustomed to them. If they come in the same increments, ditto. Consider if it is appropriate to have some degree of variation in the time the reward is earned, and the value of the reward itself.

9) Punishment

Punishment in an arena of "fun" seems odd, but it's as important and valuable to be punished for doing something wrong as it is to be rewarded for doing something right.

In general, a punishment can be the reverse of any reward: the player can be shamed for failure rather than praised for success, points can be deducted, play can be shortened, the player can be handicapped, etc.

The one unique punishment appears to be 'setback" - the player is pushed back to a previous point in the game and must repeat behaviors (the "chutes" in chutes and ladders).

Psychological studies show that reward is generally a better motivator than punishment when it comes to encouraging a person to continue a desired behavior, but punishment is more effective at discouraging the repeating of an undesired one.

Also, be careful as using "punishment avoidance" as a method of motivation. Examples given are a game that requires a player to gather food or else they become weak, rest or else they pass out, or gather oxygen to avoid dying underwater - in both instances, players found it a nuisance, and there were very few positive comments, even though this is "realistic" At the same time, there are instances where punishment is acceptable (a player loses health when they fail to avoid an attack).

10) Freedom

Balancing the aspects of the game over which the player has control versus the parts of the game that are constrained or "on rails" The author gives a few examples, but not a clear explanation of the concept.

My take: the rules and mechanics of a game bring a certain constraint - too much constraint, and the game is boring (think the "dungeon quest" interactive cartoon game, where a player made one choice every few minutes and otherwise watched the cartoon), but too little constraint, and the player may end up wandering around in the woods rather than engaging in activities that progress toward the goals.

11) Simplicity

The author gets nebulous on this point: there are some simple games that enjoy widespread popularity and longevity, yet others that are so simple they bore players. It's difficult to advice where a balance can be set.

The author differentiates innate complexity (the rules of the game, at the onset) versus emergent complexity (the situations that arise in the game create complexity). Games with low innate and high emergent complexity tend to be very popular (think chess - you can explain how the pieces move very easily, but the game play is very complex as a result of the interaction of players, hence its persistence over centuries).

In video games, emergent complexity is often a matter of speed (the same actions are performed, but the enemies move faster at higher levels)

12) Detail

Imagination is part of the game experience - which begs the question of how much detail should be provided explicitly in the game versus left to the imagination of the player.

The author gives some examples (using voice narrative rather than on-screen text, giving characters "names" in a game, providing details on the peripheral of the game).

In the end, the discussion seems to have more to do with practical concernts than balance of game play. The advice given is:

Balancing Methodologies

There's a random sampling of advice here for adjusting a lopsided gage:

Balancing Economies

Separate from the factors that affect the game play are the "economies" within games that involve money (or a similar token, such as resources) to "buy" other things.

the author goes on about this, but it seems like balancing any other mathematical factor (scoring, character attributes) - in that it has to be challenging but possible to get what you need to achieve a goal, and that the buying of "things" doesn't have an undue influence on the game.

He mentions that econo

Dynamic Balancing

The desire to "adjust on the fly" is an interesting theory, but has yet to be put into practice in an effective way. Some of the noted failures "on the fly" adjustment have been:

The author doesn't feel it's a dead-end, only that it's not very easily done, and the results thus far have been commercially disastrous.

Contents

JIM.SHAMLIN.COM
DISCLAIMERS · CONTACT