Introduction: All games have design flaws. Some are major, some are minor. Some can be fixed, others can't without changing the game greatly. This is just a reality we all get used to. I doubt any game could have perfect gameplay, pacing, balance, or interface - but all great game designers aim to limit their game's flaw's impact on gameplay as much as they can - so they are barely noticeable.
An example of this would be for example that in many modern games and sports that are objective driven and focus on simultaneous attacking and defending (such as Capture the Flag), once a team has the lead - in some games it may be more effective to defend said lead, rather than attacking and trying to get a larger lead.
This is a flaw, yes, as part of the main idea behind Capture the Flag is balancing your offense and defence - but most games will just allow it - why?
There are very limited ways to actually fix it.
You could separate the offensive and defensive elements so that each team takes turns trying to get each other's flags (kind of how Rugby-styled football games do, or how Counter Strike's CS maps play out), but that's not capture the flag. It would in fact completely remove the balance that we want to achieve.
Another alternative is maybe buffing the losing team slightly so they can break through defences easier - but then you could run into balance issues, and teams being wary to get the first point in fear of a strong counter attack - which, could lead to stalling until the clock is very low and then trying to win.
So, Capture the Flag is flawed - but we all live with it and enjoy it still, because there are few ways in which the game style could be slightly tweaked to fix the issues surrounding it, without completely changing the game type. The problem is also fairly minor, as most teams will continue to pursue the flag even if they have the lead.
Still, there's room for improvement.
Moving On:
The point of this article is to talk about the game "Plain Sight".
Plain Sight is an amazing game developed by Beatnik Games, and the reason I'm writing thisarticle is because Plain Sight takes many features that have very easy to recognise flaws, and actually mashes them together to make for a greatly fun, near-seamless game style.
Plain Sight uses the following flawed systems:
- "Big Head" mode from Goldeneye.
- Progression through death
- Exponential power growth
- Transparent player actions
"Big Head" Mechanics.
Explanation: In case you haven't played Big Head mode in any games such as Golden Eye, Unreal Tournament, etc. - it is a supplementary game style where, you still pick "Deathmatch", "Capture the Flag" or the like, but in Big Head mode, when you get a kill, your head gets larger so it's easier for people to headshot and kill you.
Pros for Gameplay: A fun silly mod for people to mess around in.
Cons: People can be reluctant to go for a large spree, and will sometimes commit suicide to make their head smaller.
In Plain Sight: Characters get larger and larger as they get kills, and as they do this, they can be targeted and tracked from a wider distance. Also, players who are larger yield more rewards for those that kill them, making them not only an easier kill, but a more sought after one.
Progression Through Death
Explanation: Progression through death is where a player feels that they gain more from relentlessly pursuing a goal and dying over and over, rather than trying to stay alive. Think of it like a player using a character with high area of effect damage running in a group of enemy players over and over to slow their progression, rather than taking them with skill and planning on as the game designers would intend.
Games can reward progression to death, they can punish it heavily, or any measure in between. It depends on the game.
Pros: The only time when death should be rewarded is where death is the objective - which is extremely rare. So, if "Death" is considered the failure condition, there are no pros to rewarding it.
Cons: Again, if death is the failure condition, it is bad to reward it.
In Plain Sight: Plain Sight is the first game I have played where death is the objective. In Plain Sight, you must gain energy by killing opponents (and getting bigger), which, then, when you commit suicide - gives you the fruits of your labour in your past life. Dying with a lot of energy (being a big fat robot), gives you far more points than dying with no energy.
Exponential Power Growth
Explanation: Exponential power growth is the term used to describe when players are rewarded for their achievements in the game, and so they are more effective, and are rewarded more. The cycle repeats until the game is unfair because one player (or team) is completely dominating with overwhelming power due to a couple of early achievements.
Pros: None. You never really want exponential power gain - though, in any game where you level up, it's a given. As a player gets stronger, they'll naturally be more capable when dealing with the same threats. Most games balance this out by making it so that over the scope of a 'round' or 'match', a player will never gain permanent advantages that an 'unlevelled' player cannot overcome with skill. For example, in Monday Night Combat, a non-upgraded player can still kill a completely upgraded one with skill.
Cons: An unbalanced game.
In Plain Sight: In Plain Sight, as a player gets kills and energy, and gets bigger, they also get stronger, they can jump higher, acquire targets at a larger range, their suicide detonation is bigger, etc. That said, they do not gain defence, so while they become a killing machine, it still only takes the regular dash attack to kill them. Also, as a player detonates with more energy, the points they gain is increased greatly. So, detonating after one kill yields next to nothing, while over 10 kills is a real game changer.
Transparent Player Actions:
Explanation: When a game makes player actions transparent, it means you can see and understand what the enemies are doing easily, and there is no real element of surprise.
Pros: Forces players to play in the open, without worrying about flanking, camping, stealth, etc. Depending on the style of the game, this can be good or bad.
Cons: In most games, removes strategic depth. Like it or not, camping, flanking, and sneaking are all valid strategies.
In Plain Sight: Players emit energy trails, that other players can follow to the player. Similarly, when players step on a part of the level, the ground lights up so that other players can see where the action is. The trails and ground light up more as you gain energy - so it's far easier to find more valuable targets.
How These Features All Come Together
So, Plain Sight implements all of these pretty flawed concepts, all in the one game - but it comes out great! Why?
They all cover each other's weaknesses.
The Big Head Mechanic and Exponential Power Gain mechanic work together to make for a very risky game style.
As you get more kills, you get more powerful, more deadly, but - you also get easier to kill.
Progression through Death allows the person to capitalize on the risks they have taken if they wish - or continue on, as the risk builds up higher and higher. As the risk builds, so does their reward if they are successful in committing suicide.
The Transparency of Player Actions is important as it increases the risk. An energy-filled player cannot hide and camp, they can only run and kill.
Conclusion:
The concepts above all work together perfectly to make a game style that is all about risk, greed, and chasing the most valuable players. And I love it.
It's great fun, it's an adrenaline rush whenever you have a long streak going and - I love how the game's gameplay almost seems to mirror its design. Beatnik Games took a gamble on mashing these features together, but it completely paid off.
I think this article is just saying that, well, first off, Plain Sight is designed masterfully - but also, that with enough thinking and creativity, you can find solutions to design problems anywhere, and even mash them together to fix each other.
Who knows? You could create a better Capture the Flag one day!
