So time and time again I'm told by my play-testers that the random enemies are too powerful. And they're right, the enemy difficulty in the game is absurd. I had one play-tester seriously pitch a fit about being killed by a super fire wizard when he was only one level below the current floor level and he had three potions.
Well first of all, the fire wizards are pretty broken over all. Each fire particle in their spell deals as much damage as a single ice spell.
Also, my game has a horrible fault that no one has brought up (or noticed). When you use a potion there is no window of invulnerability. This really sucks. It is why that play-tester died so quickly.
What I'm saying is this play-tester is not wrong. Given more time I would have decreased general enemy difficulty, added more floors to the cave, added more furniture, put in a window of invulnerability.
But at this point I was testing the sounds in my game, because that is last major change I was going to make. One week until gold and I was firmly against feature creeping. Turns out the play-tester really liked the music, especially the track played in the stores.
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Saturday, April 23, 2011
3 Sessions, 3 Changes
Session #1
After I had the major components of the game (combat and furniture) I sat the game in front of some random folks and asked them what kind of furniture they wanted. I got a lot of answers, the tops ones being:
I don't know,
Something cool looking,
A chair or something.
Okay, so the people don't know what they want. Over the course of the next week I made a piece of furniture everyday. When I sat down with play-testers again they liked every single piece (the piggy bank especially). It didn't seem to matter to them what the furniture was, or what it did, just that it was there.
Change #1
Added Lots of furniture, stopped play-testing for content, resumed play-testing for combat feel and bug issues.
Session #2
This time I sat down with Xen with a later version of the game to see how he felt it was going. Turns out he hated the combat, still. He still wanted to have mouse controls and he also wanted a grappling hook, and environmental additions to combat, and lots of other stuff.
Change #2
I imagined I would do all this for about half an hour, then I realized I was feature creeping. The one change I did make was the mouse controls. It did significantly increase the fun-factor for combat, but made the arrows look weird. Later I changed them to shurikens.
Session #3
For my last play-testing session before The Career Fair I wasn't expecting a whole lot (I was super focused on the job hunt) but Moxie and BadTV pointed out one very important aspect of my game I had neglected: My game had no sound or music. Well crap.
Change #3
Obviously something had to be done! After much adventure (which I might go into later) I found the right music for my game, as well as some sound effects.
After I had the major components of the game (combat and furniture) I sat the game in front of some random folks and asked them what kind of furniture they wanted. I got a lot of answers, the tops ones being:
I don't know,
Something cool looking,
A chair or something.
Okay, so the people don't know what they want. Over the course of the next week I made a piece of furniture everyday. When I sat down with play-testers again they liked every single piece (the piggy bank especially). It didn't seem to matter to them what the furniture was, or what it did, just that it was there.
Change #1
Added Lots of furniture, stopped play-testing for content, resumed play-testing for combat feel and bug issues.
Session #2
This time I sat down with Xen with a later version of the game to see how he felt it was going. Turns out he hated the combat, still. He still wanted to have mouse controls and he also wanted a grappling hook, and environmental additions to combat, and lots of other stuff.
Change #2
I imagined I would do all this for about half an hour, then I realized I was feature creeping. The one change I did make was the mouse controls. It did significantly increase the fun-factor for combat, but made the arrows look weird. Later I changed them to shurikens.
Session #3
For my last play-testing session before The Career Fair I wasn't expecting a whole lot (I was super focused on the job hunt) but Moxie and BadTV pointed out one very important aspect of my game I had neglected: My game had no sound or music. Well crap.
Change #3
Obviously something had to be done! After much adventure (which I might go into later) I found the right music for my game, as well as some sound effects.
Friday, April 8, 2011
Exploration vs. Achievement
Being a single-player game Wizards Love Caves have two major player types: Exploration types and Achievement types.
Unfortunately my primary testing audience (Xen, BadTV, Bubbles, and Moxie) are all Achievement types, so my game has been more geared towards this. You can tell based on the type of game WLC is. You try to get as deep in the cave as possible, and collect all of the furniture.
After talking about this with BadTV and some self-proclaimed Exploration type players I came to realize the various aspects of the game I implemented to please my Achievement audience was actually also pleasing to an Exploration audience.
One of major aspects of the game discussed:
Clearing floors to get chests:
One of the more recent (and still slightly broken) mechanics of the game is that when you clear a floor of the cave the floor number turns gold and a chest appears. Every chest contains a different item that powers up the player and every chest can only be opened once. Achievement players want to open every chest. Exploration players want to find out what different items there are.
Unfortunately my primary testing audience (Xen, BadTV, Bubbles, and Moxie) are all Achievement types, so my game has been more geared towards this. You can tell based on the type of game WLC is. You try to get as deep in the cave as possible, and collect all of the furniture.
After talking about this with BadTV and some self-proclaimed Exploration type players I came to realize the various aspects of the game I implemented to please my Achievement audience was actually also pleasing to an Exploration audience.
One of major aspects of the game discussed:
Clearing floors to get chests:
One of the more recent (and still slightly broken) mechanics of the game is that when you clear a floor of the cave the floor number turns gold and a chest appears. Every chest contains a different item that powers up the player and every chest can only be opened once. Achievement players want to open every chest. Exploration players want to find out what different items there are.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
A Money Problem
So I had been showing my game to Xen and BadTV and Bubbles and Moxie and I had it to a pretty playable point. There was a town (which consisted of your room and a store) and cave (which had a couple of wizards). You could go into the cave and wizards would drop green orbs, which I decided would be the currency of the game.
The only things you could purchase with the orbs at the time were escape ropes and potions. Escape ropes were obviously very important. Once you had gone down a level in the cave you couldn't get out without one. Potions were less important. They behave like fairies in Zelda games. They are more useful now, but at the time the wizards in the cave had a hard time killing you.
So at this point everyone was pretty much telling me they didn't feel attached to their money. One of the money mechanics is that if you die in the cave you lose all your money. So since they didn't feel attached to their money, they didn't care if they died either. Severe problem.
It was then the second major mechanic was introduced to the game: A furniture shop. The idea came about when I was trying to figure out what your room should look like. It was empty at the time (save for a bed and piggy bank) which reminded me of Harvest Moon 64. So I decided instead of pre-populating the room the player should do it manually. It was then I took a look at a few games:
Animal Crossing
Azure Dream
Dark Cloud
All pretty awesome games in my opinion. So I had a money problem and a furniture idea. Animal Crossing is an excellent example of a game where players are attached and rewarded by money. The two major reasons for this I think are you can choose what to buy, and what you buy has a physical presence.
My game at this point could easily incorporate a furniture store where you buy different furniture that could appear in your room, but I felt the idea wasn't complete. The idea of the game was to crawl through a dungeon, and try to get farther and farther in while eradicating wizards. The furniture store would "fix" the money issue, but as is wouldn't fold into the direction of the game.
That is where Azure Dream and Dark Cloud came in. Both games involve the player trekking in and out of a dungeon, and managing a town on the outside. These two mechanics meshed really well because they were interlinked. In Dark Cloud, while in a dungeon you would find buildings that could be placed in town and you wanted to exit the dungeon to do so. When you got in town and placed the building you might find a new weapon in that building that made you want to dive back into the dungeon. So I wanted to fold the furniture store and dungeon together, and I decided in the end on the simple idea of having each piece of furniture do something that would help in the dungeon or in the game in general. ( A bed that lets you recover faster, a piggy bank that accrues interest). The furniture quirkiness has also added a bit more charm to the game as well.
The only things you could purchase with the orbs at the time were escape ropes and potions. Escape ropes were obviously very important. Once you had gone down a level in the cave you couldn't get out without one. Potions were less important. They behave like fairies in Zelda games. They are more useful now, but at the time the wizards in the cave had a hard time killing you.
So at this point everyone was pretty much telling me they didn't feel attached to their money. One of the money mechanics is that if you die in the cave you lose all your money. So since they didn't feel attached to their money, they didn't care if they died either. Severe problem.
It was then the second major mechanic was introduced to the game: A furniture shop. The idea came about when I was trying to figure out what your room should look like. It was empty at the time (save for a bed and piggy bank) which reminded me of Harvest Moon 64. So I decided instead of pre-populating the room the player should do it manually. It was then I took a look at a few games:
Animal Crossing
Azure Dream
Dark Cloud
All pretty awesome games in my opinion. So I had a money problem and a furniture idea. Animal Crossing is an excellent example of a game where players are attached and rewarded by money. The two major reasons for this I think are you can choose what to buy, and what you buy has a physical presence.
My game at this point could easily incorporate a furniture store where you buy different furniture that could appear in your room, but I felt the idea wasn't complete. The idea of the game was to crawl through a dungeon, and try to get farther and farther in while eradicating wizards. The furniture store would "fix" the money issue, but as is wouldn't fold into the direction of the game.
That is where Azure Dream and Dark Cloud came in. Both games involve the player trekking in and out of a dungeon, and managing a town on the outside. These two mechanics meshed really well because they were interlinked. In Dark Cloud, while in a dungeon you would find buildings that could be placed in town and you wanted to exit the dungeon to do so. When you got in town and placed the building you might find a new weapon in that building that made you want to dive back into the dungeon. So I wanted to fold the furniture store and dungeon together, and I decided in the end on the simple idea of having each piece of furniture do something that would help in the dungeon or in the game in general. ( A bed that lets you recover faster, a piggy bank that accrues interest). The furniture quirkiness has also added a bit more charm to the game as well.
Monday, March 21, 2011
Basics of the Basics (Controls)
I'm a stickler for horrible controls. Wizards Love Caves is a pretty simple game so I needed stupid easy controls.
My initial control scheme was:
WASD/arrow keys for directional movement
Left-click/spacebar to fire an arrow
So as soon as a I had a wizard to defeat I sat this in front of Xen.
His feedback:
Why in the hell can the wizards shoot in all directions but I can only shoot in four directions?
I want to aim with mouse.
I hate your stupid game.
What I got from it:
Don't! have mouse controls, if they shoot with left-click they want to aim with the cursor.
Moxie:
The spacebar is too close WASD and the arrows. Use Z and X for changing spells (this was before the change to shooting arrows).
What I got from it:
Pretty much exactly what Moxie said. He pinned down the control issue I was having with my general (and unnamed, uncredited) playtesters. I switched the control scheme to arrow keys and Z. It has worked out swimmingly.
My initial control scheme was:
WASD/arrow keys for directional movement
Left-click/spacebar to fire an arrow
So as soon as a I had a wizard to defeat I sat this in front of Xen.
His feedback:
Why in the hell can the wizards shoot in all directions but I can only shoot in four directions?
I want to aim with mouse.
I hate your stupid game.
What I got from it:
Don't! have mouse controls, if they shoot with left-click they want to aim with the cursor.
Moxie:
The spacebar is too close WASD and the arrows. Use Z and X for changing spells (this was before the change to shooting arrows).
What I got from it:
Pretty much exactly what Moxie said. He pinned down the control issue I was having with my general (and unnamed, uncredited) playtesters. I switched the control scheme to arrow keys and Z. It has worked out swimmingly.
Scoping Down
So over the course of two weeks (the amount of time I have been developing this game) one of the major things that play-testing has forced me to do is scope down. Credit also has to be given to BadTV because after I had described to him all the mechanics in the game he looked me straight in the eye and asked me if I was gonna be able to implement all of that, and balance it, in the time-frame I was working in. The answer was a resounding "No".
So before I get into the nitty-gritty of how this game has developed, I want to go over where this game started.
It had some pretty humble beginnings. In fact, it was never meant to be a game at all. I was putting together some pixel art sprite animations for a different class when I realized 2D sprite animation was The Shit. One little animated dude walking around was way more fun than my current game, and that is pretty sad I guess. So I decided to roll with it.
It was at this point I decided it would be a simple dungeon crawler, and wizards would be involved (since I wanted to do a dragon warrior-esque wizard animation). I came up with this idea of a cave infested with wizards all-of-the-sudden, and you would have to kill them. Also there was a town. BadTV helped me come up with the name. He asked me why wizards would "infest" a cave and just chill there. I answered him and the rest is history.
If you've been following along, and have played the game (that seems like a non-intersecting Venn diagram to me) you might have realized I haven't developed the idea very much past this point. Well the reason I'm writing this post is because I had. In the original design the player can shoot spells like the wizards (in the current game he shoots arrows) and he had to upgrade his spells at the spell shop, and he could shoot three spells because there were three wizard types (now there are only two) and there would be a rock-paper-scissor system for how effective the spells were. Bah.
I had the spells partially implemented as well. The player was shooting ice spells just like the blue wizards. It was Xen and BadTV who punched me in the face with reality. Xen said he couldn't tell the difference between the player spells and the wizard spells, he pouted a bit (haha, Xen). He wanted to be different and cooler than the wizards. BadTV laughed in the face of the scope of my game.
So before I get into the nitty-gritty of how this game has developed, I want to go over where this game started.
It had some pretty humble beginnings. In fact, it was never meant to be a game at all. I was putting together some pixel art sprite animations for a different class when I realized 2D sprite animation was The Shit. One little animated dude walking around was way more fun than my current game, and that is pretty sad I guess. So I decided to roll with it.
It was at this point I decided it would be a simple dungeon crawler, and wizards would be involved (since I wanted to do a dragon warrior-esque wizard animation). I came up with this idea of a cave infested with wizards all-of-the-sudden, and you would have to kill them. Also there was a town. BadTV helped me come up with the name. He asked me why wizards would "infest" a cave and just chill there. I answered him and the rest is history.
If you've been following along, and have played the game (that seems like a non-intersecting Venn diagram to me) you might have realized I haven't developed the idea very much past this point. Well the reason I'm writing this post is because I had. In the original design the player can shoot spells like the wizards (in the current game he shoots arrows) and he had to upgrade his spells at the spell shop, and he could shoot three spells because there were three wizard types (now there are only two) and there would be a rock-paper-scissor system for how effective the spells were. Bah.
I had the spells partially implemented as well. The player was shooting ice spells just like the blue wizards. It was Xen and BadTV who punched me in the face with reality. Xen said he couldn't tell the difference between the player spells and the wizard spells, he pouted a bit (haha, Xen). He wanted to be different and cooler than the wizards. BadTV laughed in the face of the scope of my game.
Awesome Playtesters get Awesome Code-Names
So, I probably won't get around to asking all of my play-testers if they mind me using their name on this blog, so I'm going to come up with some code names for my best testers.
Here are some folks I will be talking about quite a bit:
Xen - doesn't generally like Super Nintendo style games in general, so is an awesome tester for general playability and he is totally willing to tell me how crappy my game is, an awesome quality in a tester.
BadTV - a self-proclaimed game designer, he will lay down why my game sucks and give me hard data to back it up.
Bubbles - won't give me the harshest review, but can tell me whether my game is fun overall and if it isn't can point out the biggest reasons why not.
Moxie - plays my game because I won't take no for an answer. Resentfully gives me (pretty good) feedback.
Here are some folks I will be talking about quite a bit:
Xen - doesn't generally like Super Nintendo style games in general, so is an awesome tester for general playability and he is totally willing to tell me how crappy my game is, an awesome quality in a tester.
BadTV - a self-proclaimed game designer, he will lay down why my game sucks and give me hard data to back it up.
Bubbles - won't give me the harshest review, but can tell me whether my game is fun overall and if it isn't can point out the biggest reasons why not.
Moxie - plays my game because I won't take no for an answer. Resentfully gives me (pretty good) feedback.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)