Adding New Feature vs Leveraging Existing Ones

Hey all,
I'm working on a fast-paced action game that combines beat 'em ups with shooters. I've largely finished the core systems and am now ready to work on content (art, levels, enemies, weapons, scenarios, etc) but I've noticed something in both my play throughs and while watching others - player are very defensive. You can see this in a short video here:

I think this defensiveness comes from a variety of factors including, limited plane of motion for player attacks, the need for more time to react to enemy actions, and a lack of varied and complimentary AI for enemies. All of these factors scream at me that I simply need more 'content' - in other words I need to build scenarios and AIs that allow the player to utilize more aggressive playstyles. However, that sounds rather wishy-washy and I'm not sure how it will pan out until I've actually designed, built, and tested something.

On the other hand, I'm starting to consider adding a whole new mechanic that simply allows players to perform close range melee attacks that will stun and knockdown enemies. I can envision this giving player more choice over what they prioritize without forcing it at them.

At this point I'm stuck on the fence. The game feels really great right now and it just seems like it lacks in variety. I'm not experienced enough to know if this is a sign of missing gameplay elements or simply due to the lack of variety in content. Does anyone have experience with such situations? Should I add the additional feature and see if it helps? Should I start making more content and see if it matters? I am worrying too much about phantom problems? Am I completely missing another alternative?

 

Well, I was hoping that someone with a bit more experience than I would comment on this, but no one has so I'll speak up.

Keep in mind that I have very limited actual design experience. However, creating specific situations where the player will be compelled to play differently seems like a bad idea to me. I'm reminded of Assassin's Creed missions where the player has to tail someone without being spotted or it's a game over. Or of moments in Splinter Cell where you're forced into a combat situation. And thinking back to it, the last few hours of Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines where you're forced into combat scenarios. It doesn't jive with the experience.

Changing the actual mechanics to support defensive and aggressive playstyles, however, allows both types of players to enjoy pretty much all the content in your game, playing the way they want to play.

 

If your game is hard or has permadeath, expect people to play defensively. You can add all the aggressive features you want, but so long as they risk losing they'll continue to play it safe.

But not all of them. Some will play aggressively even if you make it worse for them.

I don't think you should try to force anyone's playstyle. You'll only upset them. But if you can make the game *better* by giving them another option, you should strongly consider it.

 

It looked to me like the player was making more time to dodge bullets. Maybe add a little distance based variation to the bullet speeds, so if player backs up, they get shot at with faster bullets keeping the needed reaction time similar no matter the distance.

 

Read this post yesterday and i didn't really have any ideas.
But what comes to mind now, is that the defensiveness may also come from the angle that enemy fire comes from.
If you back off, you increase the area you have to avoid getting hit.
Perhaps you can experiment with different weapons?
Or spread out the enemies before they start shooting?

 

@EternalAmbiguity I generally agree with your idea that mechanics should allow a variety of playstyles. I'm just not sure if that is or even should be the case in every game.

@wccrawford Good points all around. I'll keep them in mind.

@DominoM That's a very interesting solution and super-easy to implement. That'll probably be one of the first things I try.

@sylon You're right about the shallow angle of attack for the player. And it demands a certain kind of maneuvering. These ideas you have definitely fall under the 'needs more content' category. I've already gone and started implemented some new AIs, scenarios, and weapons to try out.

I've taken a couple days to take a very critical look at some classic beat em ups - Streets of Rage, Turtles in Time and Golden Axe specifically. They've taken similar approaches to scenarios. Usually players don't get attacked by more than two or three enemies at a time and they tend to come from different angles. This keeps the player aware of what happens in both directions but I also think it helps keep the action balanced across the play field somewhat. When other enemies get involved at the same time, those enemies tend to have ranged attacks or charge attacks. This gives the player more obstacles to think about without actually having to engage new enemies. I'm going to try to implement some things like that but it'll be tricky since the AI is largely autonomous right now.

Overall I'm starting to get the impression that it really is a 'content' issue. I feel that if I can tailor the encounters to take the strengths and weaknesses given to the player character's abilities that might make the need for a new mechanic go away. Of course, I guess you could argue that some of these ideas are in fact new mechanics - just for mobs instead of players.

 

You might be mistaking symptoms for the cause. Look at this from the other perspective and ask if there is any reason not to play defensively. What value is there in playing aggressively when all it will do is get you killed faster?

 

Oh, I'd definitely agree that it isn't necessary for every game. Depends on the game, depends on what you're wanting the player to experience with the game. However, I took the fact that you mentioned specific circumstances (specific scenarios) designed to address an aggressive playstyle as a sign that you didn't intend to stick with one or the other.

If you want to, sure. And if forcing an aggressive playstyle at a particular point provides some thematic poignancy or benefit (which you have not implied), then it makes total sense.

 

I think you might be right. I'm starting to think the issue isn't that there is something missing - at least not from a player-control point of view.
BTW: Good video link. I've already seen it and it's in fact what led me to belive I might be doing something wrong.

Maybe I just panicked a little due to the fact that even I wasn't playing the game the way I envisioned it would be played and I'm an aggressive player by nature.

I've fooled around with a few alternate AIs but so far they've been un-compelling. I'm going to rebuild the basic AI from scratch with more situational awareness and see if I can't make it dance a little better.

 

What you've got here is a disincentive to getting close to the enemies.

The projectile speed creates a literal wall of damage moving towards the player. You've created the perfect recipe for "pushing" the player in a direction. That's actually pretty cool. You could have the player traverse a room, Pop the baddies out, they make him traverse the same room backwards while shooting forwards- getting twice the mileage out of your level design, and making an interesting encounter to boot.

If you had a sustained laser like the guardians from Zelda BotW, you could place enemies so that their lasers create a maze, and the trick is directing their fire by moving around so that you can get through the room intact enough to kill them.

A dodge/teleport mechanic that can put you behind an enemy might be a nice incentive to get closer. Or you could take a page right from Doom and have a melee instant-kill ability. If that doesn't do it, maybe add a chain-lightning effect to melee kills that has a chance to hop to nearby baddies.

 

From what I saw, I thought the game looked fast paced, exciting, and had a nice rhythm to it. The way the player danced back and forth around the mobs looked like a well paced dance almost -- looks pretty fun and I wouldn't exactly call it defensive.

I mean, anytime it is 1 vs more than 1 you have to exercise certain crowd control type of movements. By aggressive do you mean you just want the player to be pressing forward more often? Maybe that would make them feel more powerful?

You might try making the enemies more defensive. Have them hold their positions more often, but perhaps up their rate of fire and speed of projectiles. This could make the player have to perform frogger type of movements to weasel their into the enemies area, then when they are close enough they can use short range grenades or something to quickly finish the enemies off.

The very cautious players might still hang back and play a game of angles to take down the enemies one by one, but the riskier players or more impatient players might try to get in close to get those big grenade kills.

Not sure what the lore of the game is, but if it's sci-fi instead of grenades the player can have like an EMP charge or something. When they get in close and detonate it, all the enemies will be stunned and you can melee kill them for extra points or ammo or something. Maybe keep ammo for the player somewhat tight so tactics like this will be necessary sometimes.


Just some thoughts from a long time game player, not experienced developer.

Lots of interesting discussion here, need to bookmark this thread.

 

That is exactly what I did in fact XD I also have some death-platforms and pits the players must constantly jump between while dodging and returning fire at enemies behind a barrier that can be shot through but not crossed. Overall I'm trying to incorporate platforming and movement directly into many of the firefights.

I decided to do away with ammo since it slows things down a bit. Instead it's more like Metal Slug or Contra where you can pick up weapons along the way. Players can also spend points between levels to bring a limited supply of backup items they can use in a pinch, kinda like the item box in Super Mario World.

That's an interesting idea. I think it falls under the 'new mechanics' category but it's worth investigating down the road.

That is a feature I've added to the AI. They have the ability to hold back and try to peg the player from a distance. I've also narrowed the angle of attack that enemies will try to fire from. That way they aren't firing straight down where the player can't return fire. Another feature I have yet to add - not sure if it'll work - is that some enemies might take cover behind an object and pop out to shoot around a bit. Trouble is getting it to work reliably without having to manually place these 'sniping points' in the level.

 

@Sluggy are you talking specifically about how the character is always backing up while shooting?

This is an interesting point of view and agreeable mostly because of the obvious nature of players wanting to be cautious if permadeath is always looming. To counter this natural player tendency providing the player with offensive/aggressive buffs and bonuses towards something better, for instance if a player is using a shield spell and is getting more kills while the shield spell is active and moving forward - the player receives more points towards a stronger more aggressive/devastating attack. (spinning blades attack or detonation attack)

If you are able consider checking out Xmen Legends - imo a great game that provides several different successful scenarios that allows players to play different ways, aggressive, passive, etc.

Aside - In Risk of Rain the game has permadeath but carries over the players bonuses, buffs and unlocks. The buffs are permanently unlocked allowing the player to (rng) use them in the next round, the scores and challenges are permanently unlocked, giving the player options and abilities for the next play through.
The next play through starts off the same with the player weak and having the basic abilities they always have, but they have the option/ability to gain new buffs that were unlocked in the previous play through.
Might be something to consider checking out if your game does have permadeath.

 

Yep. For the most part, the game is meant to be played through in a single sitting - think Double Dragon with guns. Permadeath is not really even on the table since you either a) finish the game or b) run out of lives and continues and end up with gameover.

I had to take some time off to deal with life issues plus I was frantically searching for a Unity platform that wasn't so borked I could actually continue development (thankfully, 2017.3 is looking good so far!). In that time I considered a few idea and recently had a chance to try them.

1) Provide a deflection move - This seemed like the most logical choice since it would allow the player to move forward while attacking. I tired two variations where the player used the same button for attacking and deflecting and relied on precise timing. I also tired using separate buttons. Both ways turned out to be dead-ends. The game seemed to crawl to a stop as players would try to get the timing just right and more often than not they would miss. After that they tended to give up and ignore the feature entirely.

2) Provide a full-body shield that surrounded the player for a short time - This was similar to the deflection but didn't have the strict timing issues. It still turned out to flop as it was either too overpowered or next to useless depending on how long it lasted and how often it could be used. I might consider making this a short-term powerup that grants temporary invincibility but as a core game mechanic it just didn't work.

3) Take Away Features - I ended up removing weapon swapping and strafing . This was a tough call and players that had played before didn't like the fact that they could no longer strafe but new players didn't complain at all. Overall it seemed to increase frantic maneuvering and forced players to attack head on before circling around and taking cover. As for the weapon swapping, I got rid of it because it didn't seem to offer any real value towards gameplay and just served to slow things down and gave players this illusion of important decision making when there really wasn't any.

Option three is currently the one I am sticking with and so far I can say I'm mostly happy with it. While it does force me to remove some gameplay ideas (like running backwards from giant bosses while shooting like mad) I feel that it makes the game faster and allows for interesting challenges in other scenarios where the player must choose between facing their targets or running away and loosing the opportunity to attack.

I also considering the advice of adding more incentives to play aggressively by providing rewards for the risks. Perhaps the points that are racked up during a level will be able to be spent between levels on purchasing items that can be used in a way similar to the item box in Super Mario World. A simple timer could be used to provide bonus points at the end of each level which might make players consider taking more risks if they know that good items and extra lives will be the reward.

 

I like the deflection idea a lot, especially with it being the same button as attack. It allows you to re-use a mechanic in an interesting way. Maybe try loosening the timing on it so the player can pretty much always deflect, but then reward them for hitting it perfectly by having the deflected projectile hit the bad guy. A different way may be to have them hold the attack to deflect, or press it perfectly on time to make it an attack (or ditch the attack part entirely). You could make this hold-to-deflect mechanic have a duration that slowly recharges (check out D.Va's shield in Overwatch for a reference).

Also, on the back-pedaling for the bosses. You could consider making the level turn a corner and continue, or giving some sort of story reason why the player has to return to the start. Then, they'll be actually backpedaling, but navigating the level from a different perspective (or an entirely new part of the level), so they'll feel like they are making forward progress.

 

@Habitablaba I really like the deflection idea too. In my head it sounded absolutely perfect but the reality was very different. I think I've just about run out of time for developing core mechanics since I really need to just hammer out content now. Maybe if this game proves popular enough to warrant a sequel or something I'll take another look.

As for the back-peddling it's not that it was a bad idea conceptually - but mechanically it's impossible right now. I've removed the ability to run backwards while shooting which, as I said, removed some concepts from the table while allowing for others. I'm just hoping that players overall won't notice the lack of this feature.

 

That is not a defensive playstyle. It looks pretty aggressive and rush-forward-kill-all-of-them.