For those of you who missed part 1 – http://www.create-games.com/article.asp?id=1720
For those of you who missed part 2 – http://www.create-games.com/article.asp?id=1721
For those of you who missed part 3 – http://www.create-games.com/article.asp?id=1722
For those of you who missed part 4 – http://www.create-games.com/article.asp?id=1724

(Yes I know they are on the same article list page but some people may find this page alone in a search engine)

The purpose of this article is to discuss simple things that make video games fun that are often forgotten by video game designers.

Do not be put off by any ‘bad game’ I have listed. I am using them to illustrate a point only. This is my opinion only and you should always make your own mind up when buying games.

Also remember that not all concepts apply to all game types. This is just a general guide to different concepts – with examples of where (in my opinion) some games get the concept right, and some get it wrong.

So in no particular order – here are another 4 things you need to consider when making a great video game!

1/ Always know what to do

There should always be a means of finding out what to do next.

What goes wrong:
I hate wondering around like an idiot in a game and not knowing what to do or where to go. In Resident Evil 4 (gamecube), the person communicating to you says they will send a chopper and you can take a path in the village to get to the rendezvous point. I honestly had no idea where to go. There were 4 or 5 paths in the village and each led to a different area. How was I to know which one would eventually lead to the chopper?

OK so you can look at the map and it has a giant circle marked destination but she could have said ‘Take the path in the village – I have marked the rendezvous point on your map’. At the time it just seemed like vague instructions.

So this isn’t a bad example of a game because I was the one at fault. This is just to illustrate that in some games the instructions of where to go next aren’t always clear.

Another annoyance is when they only tell you where to go once. To make the game seem more believable they don’t have the character saying the same thing over and over again. So when you ask them again they say ‘Why haven’t you done what I told you yet!?’

This just makes it impossible to find out what your next mission is and where to go. Sometimes you are not reading properly or you are skimming through the text excitedly as you can’t wait to dive into your next mission and then you have basically messed the game up because you have lost what to do next.

Also, as covered before when I was discussing play guides, sometimes you wonder around aimlessly searching every corner of the game trying to find out what to do next because there is nothing clear or obvious telling you what to do next.

What is the right way:
There should always be something to read or somebody to talk to that will tell you (or hint at) what to do next.

As mentioned – Resident Evil 4 has a big red spot on the map that is clearly marked destination so you know exactly where you have to go. Although some will argue that this makes the game a little easy because players don’t have to work it out for themselves.

Resident Evil 4 also has a log book of all past conversations so if you want to play without the map you will still have an idea of where to go (apart from that ‘path in the village’ hint).

In Zelda games there are locals walking around the village and each one tells you a bit of advice or even tells you what your next mission will be. So if you ever get lost you can usually ask the locals and they will remind you or advise you of what to do next.

The same also goes for puzzles in games. Although the puzzle is hard, there still needs to be a way of finding out how to do it – logic, in game story, talking to everybody. Your beta testers will let you know how logical it is. As I said before – if they can work it out without asking questions then chances are other people can.

Sometimes not knowing what to do can come from frustration or eagerness to get through the game quickly. So when players wonder around aimlessly it is usually their fault for not paying enough attention. But as a video game designer you still need to do your part and make sure there is enough in the game to let the player know what to do next.

Good methods of letting player know what to do next: Resident Evil 4 (gamecube)

2/ Enemy AI

We all have our own ideas on computer AI so don’t think I’m telling you how AI should work. This is just a general guide.

What goes wrong:
I just finished playing a bout of Mario Smash Football (gamecube) before writing this. It is a highly entertaining game. The problem (for my brother) is that I have worked out a few sure-fire cheap goals.

Its always the case that the more coding your game has – the more bugs, glitches and loop holes the game will have. It is important to ensure that there isn’t a sure pattern to beating your game – unless of course you intend it to be that way because in a lot of games the designers code a way for beating the boss so that can be classed as a sure pattern too.

You need to make sure that if players do work out a pattern that it isn’t against the spirit of the game, or that they aren’t capitalising on a loophole in your coding.

At this point I will mention about one of my earlier attempts to make a block pushing game. I had it all worked out. A tough puzzle with a difficult challenge if the player was to push all the blocks and escape without trapping themselves and having to restart. My brother sat down at the computer – pushed one block up, one block right, and he was free.

So maybe block pushing games isn’t my forte!

The other thing is that if you are creating computer players to play against human players you need to make sure they can use strategies (etc…) that human players can use. In Mario Party games (various Nintendo) I find that even computers on the hardest difficulty setting will do stupid things and put themselves at a disadvantage. Not buying items when they should, using items at the wrong time (etc…).

If you are going to give your computer player a variety of things to do, then you also need to give them a variety of strategies to tackle it. I find that computer players in Super Smash Football hang onto items for too long or use them at the wrong time.

What is really annoying is when you have to charge for 2 seconds to do a sonic boom in Street Fighter (various) yet the computer can reel them off one after the other. This gives the computer character an unfair advantage and lessons the illusion that you are playing against an equally equipped character. A control handicap should be simulated in the enemy AI.

Another thing annoying is dumb enemies. You are charging up the corridor at full pace with a loud weapon and wasting everything and everyone that comes in your way – and the guard at the door is just standing there.

Or when you run to a small shelter and waste all the enemies from the safety of the window as they foolishly chase you one after the other. Perhaps the pile of 50 bodies of his colleagues at the door step wasn’t enough to let the 51st victim know that something was wrong with approaching the hut.

What is the right way:
In Perfect Dark (N64) the enemies would react to loud noises. They would also run off and call for back up if they did feel they were under fire. Some guards would even surrender if they lost their weapon and then shoot you in the back at the first chance they got.

In fact if Perfect Dark wasn’t too colourful (it was at times hard to see) and didn’t come at the end of the N64’s life span it may well have been one of the best games ever made.

The enemies in Yoshi’s Island also have good AI. They don’t wonder off the cliff like in some 2D platform games. Also since there is a variation in characters, there is also a variation in enemy patterns. As I mentioned before they also stopped to look if Yoshi was coming and interacted with their environment nicely. They may not be as smart as the characters in Perfect Dark but it is still a fun little game.

You may think that enemies killing enemies is stupid but I think it is actually good AI because it is realistic and fair. I thoroughly enjoy it in Resident Evil 4 when I can lure a few enemies toward an area where one of those flare throwing monsters are and save a bit of ammo.

Also just because they are all monsters it doesn’t mean they have to be friends. One thing I enjoyed about Turok II (N64) was seeing the monsters fight each other as I was in fits of laughter crouched behind a crate. I would finish off the winner. Speaking of Turok II, it was also good to see enemies crouch behind crates to avoid your fire.

Good use of enemy AI: Perfect Dark (N64)
Bad use of enemy AI: Mario Smash Football (gamecube)

3/ Health System

The health system determines how much health the player and enemies have.

What goes wrong:
I am going to say this right now – I hate bosses/enemies that refill their health. You may be a fan of the idea, you may see it as a good game strategy, but I despise it.

When the player is fronted with an enemy they are taking into account many things as they form strategies on the enemy, the environment, and their own character. There is often wisdom to sacrifice some of one’s own health in a final flurry to get the last meaningful hits.

If an enemy can seemingly increase their own health at will it just makes the game cheap. I find it will be better to give the enemy more health to begin with then to have the player fall short of their goal because there is a sudden cheap change in the game dynamics.

You may decide that if an enemy gets a herb then it can refill its health because it’s the player’s own fault if they don’t keep the enemy away from the herb. This is OK because that adds a different dimension to the battle. But I personally feel you are frustrating the player if they give their all to get that final hit just for the boss to refill their energy.

Another thing I find unfair is when a computer character takes off more health then you do using the exact same character. This usually happens in games like Super Street Fighter II (SNES) where you have to kick the enemy 10-15 times to beat them, where as they only have to kick you 5 or 6 times.

Obviously games are challenges so when playing tougher levels you need to experience tougher challenges. I just feel there are different ways to make a game tougher without playing around with the health system.

What is the right way:
Any health system that is fair and consistent. For instance in Super Mario Brothers (NES) the number of times you need to hit your enemy is the same for each enemy type (ie- It doesn’t matter whether you are on level 1 or level 8 – Goombas still take one hit to kill).

Mario’s health system is consistent too. If he is small he will die with one hit. If he is big or has a power up, it will take two hits (lava and water are exceptions).

You don’t need to make the player weaker as they progress to make the game harder. Nor do you need to change the dynamics of the game (ie- suddenly Goombas take three hits to kill). You can simply use a variety of enemies or introduce tougher enemies. That way the player doesn’t have to feel cheated because the rules of the game have suddenly changed just to make them lose.

Good use of health system: Super Mario Brothers (NES)
Bad use of health system: Super Street Fighter II – harder levels (SNES)

4/ Accessories minimal

Well the right way is opposite to the wrong way so let me write it all under the one heading.

When somebody purchases a game you have their money and loyalty. You do not need to constantly force them to buy add-ons, accessories or guides for your game.

In Mario Golf (N64) there are 4 hidden characters and the only way you can ever play them is if you buy a game boy and a copy of Mario Golf for the game boy. Now it hurts me to understand why Nintendo will force you to buy an inferior machine and an inferior golf game just to play all of the game which you paid good money for.

I have already mentioned Mortal Kombat III and forcing people to buy a play guide.

There are two Pokemon games on the gamecube. If you want to play multiplayer you can only do so if each extra player has a gameboy and a copy of the later Pokemon games. Again this is ludicrous. Its not like they couldn’t work out another way because both Pokemon Stadium games on the Nintendo 64 allowed for two players to battle with rental Pokemon.

When I buy a game I should be able to access everything within the game with: The controller(s), the console, the game, and the instruction booklet. That is it.

If it is designed for use with a controller gun, microphone, bongo drums (etc…) then they should be packaged with the game for minimal cost – or atleast provide a means of playing with a traditional controller.

I know making video games is a business but I don’t think people will say ‘hey what a great game! If I want to play level 7 I need to buy a robot turtle and a special x-brand carrot!’

Bad use of accessories: Mario Golf (N64)


Well one more article to go. It will probably be a shorter one because I am only going to cover three more points but hopefully somebody finds it worthwhile.

Stay tuned!