Writing With Particles
By SteveAs a former writer-like person, I always found it more interesting to write shorter articles than longer ones. Any hack can pump out 1000-3000 words on any topic; for anyone not in eighth grade, quantity isn’t a problem. But trying to distill that 1000-3000 words worth of information into 100-300 words that convey the same information… that’s when you really start to work. And that’s also when the fun starts. 
It’s also more fun to think about designing smaller games than big ones. Working with limitations forces you to come up with interesting mechanics that are forced to carry the weight of your game. You can no longer fall back to, “OUR GAME HAS HD TRIPLE NIB NURBED BIFURCATED TEXTURED OPTILOGONS AND PARTITIONED PRO-ALIASED VIRTUAL WATER PARTICLE EFFECTS!”
Working in miniature also eliminates some of the paralysis that accompanies the idea of, “Holy shit, I can do anything!” Your core mechanic can get buried in thousands of other crazy systems, which can be cool and awesome… when it works. (Like Grand Theft Auto, which has a core mechanic of… something or other. Is it driving? Is it walking around? Is it beating up hookers? It’s all of those things, and none of them. Or something.)
Back to writing, when you have 1000-3000 words to cover something, you can also “do anything.” You often spend a lot of time making sure you cover everything, and can actually end up burying your core point. Reducing that same article to 100 words forces you to make difficult but possibly interesting choices about what to focus on.
This isn’t to say a 100-word article is inherently better than a longer one, or that you’ll end up spending less work creating it. It’s just that when you boil everything down to its simplest element, you’re left with something more pure, or at least clearer. You need to make your point with few words, and it needs to be good; you won’t have thousands of other words to either embellish or obscure it.
If there’s one positive to take from the industry’s move to Wii, DS, and smaller download content (XBLA, WiiWare, PC casual gaming, etc.), it’s that good design and simple and entertaining game mechanics are again coming to the forefront. Not that they went away, mind you. But it’s cool to break these things down to their smallest bits, and fine a simple mechanic that’s fun without whiz-bang graphics and 5.1 sound.
And when you get around to adding the chrome—including particle effects—-you end up with an even better game.
August 16th, 2007 at 1:11 am
A few of us made a similar point about the limited space of magazines versus Web sites over on Troy’s blog (which was in reference to his commentary on an article in which you were quoted, wheel in the sky keeps on turnin’). Namely that limited resources will always force you to be more focused and creative.
But your analogy frames it in a way that hadn’t occurred to me before. 100-word pieces are like sculpture: you have to leave out everything you can without losing what you want to say and how you want to say it. There’s a joy to the all-you-can-eat approach of a Space Rangers 2, but I’ve been spending more and more time lately with XBLA titles like Carcassonne and Alien Hominid. Both of those are remakes, of course, but that doesn’t take away from the designers’ skill at being able to cut to the heart of what makes those games enjoyable and then execute them an appealing and simple fashion.
Comics writer Warren Ellis has a concept called “pop comics:” short runs of self-contained stories that lack the sprawling continuity of superhero titles. Pop comics are meant to be “a cultural hand grenade, short, bright and inexpensive.” I get the same kind of feel from the best of the XBLA games: intelligent and complex (though not complicated) experiences that can be enjoyed in bite sized bursts. As the amount of my free time continues to dwindle, I hope that more developers explore the 100-word game.
August 16th, 2007 at 1:15 am
This kind of crystallized for me when playing a Flash prototype, or some student gameplay experiments. You see a core gameplay mechanic that’s really interesting and fun and compelling and whatever word you want to use to describe it. And it’s interesting despite the fact it uses programmer art and isn’t fancypants 3D.
With 3D and better art, that core mechanic will remain cool.
This seems like, “Well duh,” but we’ve all been so conditioned to love the pretty that it’s sometimes hard to go back and find that awesome core mechanic.
August 16th, 2007 at 3:53 am
I never realized until now, but this is undoubtedly the reason I like virtually all rhythm games (how many other genres can you say that of?). The devs have virtually nothing to distract them from the extremely simple and extremely fun mechanic of Hitting Things to Music.
August 16th, 2007 at 7:27 am
You can no longer fall back to, “OUR GAME HAS HD TRIPLE NIB NURBED BIFURCATED TEXTURED OPTILOGONS AND PARTITIONED PRO-ALIASED VIRTUAL WATER PARTICLE EFFECTS!”
That’s not a game anyway, though I think that was your point.
I don’t have time to count (out the door in 5 minutes to POGOPALOOZA IV!!!!) but that article is going to be seen as distinctly ironic if it’s 301+ words.
August 16th, 2007 at 9:03 am
Steve sez:
“And it’s interesting despite the fact it uses programmer art and isn’t fancypants 3D.”
Many of the XBLA titles, including the two I mentioned, are visually striking *because* they lack 3D. I’m hoping more developers notice that the color and clarity of HD look just as magnificent with sprites as they do with polygons, so that we’ll see a resurgence in stylishly art-directed 2D games (or, at least, more hybrid “2.5D” titles.)
August 16th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
“I never realized until now, but this is undoubtedly the reason I like virtually all rhythm games (how many other genres can you say that of?). The devs have virtually nothing to distract them from the extremely simple and extremely fun mechanic of Hitting Things to Music.”
Exactly. The core mechanic is so interesting that the visuals and wrappers eventually become irrelevant.
It’s possible that someone could take that core mechanic and move it into some other type of game and still make it interesting. But it’s risky. Just because you like stomping on things to music in DDR doesn’t necessarily mean you’d like to do it in an RPG or an RTS or a platform game.
But the person that successfully does this might be able to carve out a good little niche in a crowded market.
“Many of the XBLA titles, including the two I mentioned, are visually striking *because* they lack 3D. I’m hoping more developers notice that the color and clarity of HD look just as magnificent with sprites as they do with polygons, so that we’ll see a resurgence in stylishly art-directed 2D games (or, at least, more hybrid “2.5D” titles.)”
“2.5D” is more realistic, mainly because you risk ending up with more, larger art assets in a 2D game than a 3D one. And 3D also gives you cheaper and easier animation, with more variance. (Someday, we’ll all realize that animation is more important than polygon counts and texture work.)
This may sound like “tech over gameplay,” but tech just makes that gameplay better. The tech in something like Half-Life 2 is undeniably great, but its core gameplay—run around shooting stuff—is fantastic. The feel is perfect, I like the movement, etc.
Lesser games fuck those two things up, so who cares about their tech? If it ain’t fun to shoot stuff in a shooter…
August 16th, 2007 at 9:08 pm
“This may sound like ‘tech over gameplay…’”
No, I get what you’re saying, and I know that many 3D games sport killer art direction (see: Half-Life 2, God of War, Okami). Developers have certainly come a long way since 3D was first becoming the dominant form, when any crappy looking pile of polygons spelled “HIT!”
My comment refers to those instances when 3D doesn’t add to the experience or, worse, detracts from it. Heroes of Might and Magic V is the first game that comes to mind. Essentially, Nival took the 2D action from the third game in the series, made a few key gameplay tweaks, made everything 3D, and pushed it out the door. But while I find the 3D world pretty, it makes navigation a chore, especially in the elven backdrops where you literally can’t see the forest for the trees. Add in a substantial performance hit to mid-level PCs, and you have to wonder why they couldn’t have left the series in 2D.
Of course, the answer is probably that it requires less assets, like you said, and that Nival had its Etherlords engine all ready to go. I still enjoy HOMM V, but I’d say they fucked up the feel and the movement, so who cares about their tech?
Guitar Hero II for the 360, on the other hand, is a good example of glitzing up solid gameplay for maximum effect. If it wasn’t for the original’s superior song list, I don’t think I’d ever leave the HD, widescreen beauty of the 360 release.
August 16th, 2007 at 11:18 pm
There’s nothing inherently wrong with Heroes V being 3D, other than its implementation sucked. As a download game, it might take fewer resources in 3D, though. (The solution in that game’s case was to go hybrid, 3D characters on a 2D background, perhaps.)
August 18th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
Completely off-topic here: just want to say it’s good to see Steve taking a break from writing about movies and music, etc., and popping up a few intersting pieces on the gaming industry.
(That’s not to say the other is unappreciated, not in the least. Just good to see your old spark back.)
August 18th, 2007 at 10:59 pm
If only he’d write about fashion. I mean, what does Steve think about wide-leg trousers for fall? And the new metallics? What about the purple/chrome yellow/charcoal gray colorway? Is it fresh, or just another 1980s Donna Karan retread?
August 27th, 2007 at 12:47 am
(Someday, we’ll all realize that animation is more important than polygon counts and texture work.)
And reload animations are the coolest part ever. It’s almost a fetish, if I can stretch that word’s use.