Do players/designers prefer hard coded power ups or the flexibility of cash and shopping?

I had a quick play pimping the example tutorial shooter into a 3D version of my Zombie Gnomes shooter.

You can try it here - http://www.kongregate.com/games/Arowx/zombie-gnomes-attack-halloween-special

But what game or level design features would really make it fun?

Does the crate drop mechanic work or do modern gamers prefer money and shops to power-ups?

 

We do have a dedicated feedback topic, it's rebooted every week on Fridays.

 

So putting my feedback request on the dedicated thread would ensure it is removed tomorrow!?

I'm actually less interested in game specific feedback and more interested in the power-ups or money and shopping mechanics of game design?

Do players/designers prefer hard coded power ups or the flexibility of cash and shopping, or would a mix of the two provide more variety?

I suppose the hard coded power-ups go back to the original arcade games and the more flexible money and shops to early MUD's maybe.

But what are the best modern approaches to player empowerment?

 

I dunno, we're pretty particular around here about everything. If you want a thread about any of that stuff you'd have to start a thread about any of those things and then hopefully people will actually post there. Worst thing to do is fight the power with stuff like "So putting my feedback request on the dedicated thread would ensure it is removed tomorrow!?"

If you're lucky... though, just me saying this stuff might cause people to disagree with me and start posting here, then you'll have some feedback by next tuesday. Hahaha.

 

Change your thread title to this:
Do players/designers prefer hard coded power ups or the flexibility of cash and shopping?

 

Done, any thoughts on the topic from budding game designers?

 

Both are fine and it all depends on the purpose of the power ups. Is it to provide some extra oomph and adventure elements (finding the items) and light customization or is the purpose to add a deeper level of customization to the game play experience?

In my experience (from a player's perspective)...

Shops work best when the emphasis is on allowing customization and adding a bit more strategic thought to the game.

It doesn't matter really if the customization is being done on a character in a RPG, a space ship in a shootemup, a building game, etc. Being able to choose which upgrades to buy allows players the ability to customize their game experience which is generally a good thing. Often there is an upgrade path available for different types of upgrades. In a space shooter, for example, maybe there are 3 different weapon systems and 3 different defense systems. Each can be powered up by purchasing upgrades.

Power ups (aka items) bestow specific effects usually lasting only for a certain amount of time or even happening instantly. Collecting a heart or food may instantly give the player character more health. A shield item may give the player a bubble shield for 10 seconds absorbing all damage. Power up items can be used to support adventure elements. Hiding them in various locations.

The interesting thing is that even power up items can be used to "permanently" customize your character. The whip in Castlevania starts out very short and increases when collecting whip powerup items. A space shooter may increase weapon power each time the appropriate item is collected. It may also allow switching to a different weapon system.

The main difference, in my opinion, is do you want the game to be more strategic or more arcade action. If you want more of an element of strategy I'd go with the shops. If you want more of an emphasis on action I'd make the upgrades part of the normal game play.

At the same time do you want more of an element of adventure? Go with power ups which can be hidden around the stages encouraging the player to explore.

So... actually in the end, both systems can be used to accomplish the same thing as far as upgrading and customization. But a powerup item in the game play you may collect one you did not want. Perhaps switching from the laser you like the best to an ion pulse cannon in a space shooter for example. With a shop the player has time to look at the options, compare and then make a choice. That is why I see the shops approach as being more strategic in nature.

 

But has anyone done any studies on player retention, game type, tempo that kind of think written a game then done an A B test to see how players respond to the different types or even mixes of those types?

Actually how would I setup a game to A / B test the system, as this could be a great way to do an alpha.

 

Allow people the space and freedom to develop the Game Design forum - no need to control people excessively. If they want to discuss a matter of game design in a separate topic, they should.

Less control is needed and more people should be welcome to post in the Game Design forum without fear of putting a foot wrong, after all that is what moderation is for.

 

The A/B testing I have done was all marketing related. Testing headlines, ad copy etc for Internet. The principle would be the same. You'd implement shops in one version and collectibles in the other version. Then you give version A to 100 people and version B to another 100 people. With marketing it is easy. You go by response. You have your control version A and the one change version B. Look at click through and ultimately most desired action (usually sale but maybe generate a lead). Not sure how to track that in games. Never really thought about it. Maybe simply ask for and collect feedback. Maybe monitor how long each version is played.

 

I think all I'm doing is telling a new poster what to expect in my experience, it's sort of a critique of the way people have been acting lately. In the future I think people will be able to post whatever they want though, and if people want to talk about it they will. For now though, there is entirely too much focus on what belongs where. And I'm sorry to say that I started a lot of that

 

You're just old and set in your ways. This means newcomers will get a beating unless you're reminded how insufferable you are

 

I disagree.

 

You'd have to basically make two different games and convince a similar group of people to play both, and then you'd have to have the games send you play times. You'd either need a lot of money or to be pretty underhanded, or both.

Why not make the same basic game but with two different appearances, put them both out at the same time and see which one gets more downloads/plays?

 

Yes. It's called A B testing where you release an apparently single game or update to a game but the players will either be experiencing version A or B and the idea is to capture data on how the players react to each version, then adopt and adapt the game accordingly. They use it a lot in web design and in the casual game space e.g. Zynga fame or should that be infamy.

 

Sounds interesting. If you know how to do it, though...

 

This is hugely dependant on your style of game, platform and target audience.
Some times one of these options doesn't fit the project and it has nothing to do with the above, its mostly luck of the draw, and when you release, pricing will also have an effect.

For this game specifically I would focus mainly on power-ups and offer optional real-cash purchases to effect things the power-ups do not.

This option works for most fast-paced survival games based on score and other survival elements.

If your game is at all intended for computer platforms (PC, Mac or Linux) I would stay away from real-cash purchases, or even DLC, although this is an enticing option for the developer, it often angers the player and ultimately could devalue your project in the long run.

These options work well for mobile platforms however (Android, iOS, phone, tablet... Windows tablet even), if the project is intended for both the computer and mobile platform, I would try to split them up, so the computer version does not include optional real-cash purchases, and keep that aspect solely in the mobile versions, this will help you keep the best of both worlds and avoid players on certain platforms complaining about extra costs.

Hope it helps,

CEO,
Labyrith Studios

 

Seems you're really talking about three different mechanics in a game: 1) Temporary power-ups that kick in immediately, 2) Pickups that go into a player's inventory, and 3) Ways to spend in-game resources on items/upgrades/crafting/customization.

For fast-paced "twitch" action games, you may want to only have #1, since the pacing you're going for may not lend itself to slowing down and making choices. I'd say that approach alone is fairly rare in modern games. By itself, it's pretty limiting in terms of players making meaningful choices. It could be quite appropriate for an old school 2D twitch shooter though.

For other types of games with any strategic elements, you may want some combination of all three.

Like Diablo III has all three of these. Shrines for temporarily power-ups, pickups of items and resources, and all kinds of ways to spend resources.

I don't think one approach is inherently more fun than another. If only it was that easy! Ultimately you need to have a vision for the type of game you're making. The "fun" part of it comes from polishing and iterating on the specifics of your game via play-testing.