Almost all games these days seem to follow similar structures. Example-
Shoot-em-up:
Level-boss-level-boss
FPS:
Pistol-machine gun-shotgun-rockets (etc)
RPG:
Town-journey-dungeon-boss-town-repeat
Walk-boat-airship
Platform game:
Level-mini boss-boss-level
Almost all games are shackled by these conventions. I would imagine that almost all game designers give little or no thought to deviation and structure, which has been to the detriment of game design. There are a few games that do make some effort to be different- For example, Halo. There are no bosses. There is no sequential progression of usefulness in terms of the weapons. All of the weapons are useful in one way or another all the way through the game. One game that might spring to mind in terms of creative structure is Ico. However, whilst it is certainly refreshing that there are no clear "levels", and the pacing of the game is consistent, it falls into the same traps as all the other games. Why should there be a boss at the end of the game? There are no bosses throughout the game, and this battle simply doesnt feel "right" after the game that has preceeded it. The combat throughout feels completely tacked on and sharply incongruous to the atmosphere of the rest of the game. I feel the overall atmosphere would have been more consistent and haunting if the castle had been empty. Perhaps the only reason this didnt happen was that it would have gone against traditional ideals of how a game should be structured. Heres a few issues to ponder-
1) What games (recently or otherwise) do you feel have completely gone against traditional ideas of STRUCTURE, and how have these games succeeded/ failed??
2) How could games/ genres be improved by using different methods of structuring the experience?? it is my opinion that whilst huge innovations have been made in terms of character design, plot, style etc, very few games seem prepared to deviate from the norm in terms of structure. This is to the detriment of gaming.
Shoot-em-up:
Level-boss-level-boss
FPS:
Pistol-machine gun-shotgun-rockets (etc)
RPG:
Town-journey-dungeon-boss-town-repeat
Walk-boat-airship
Platform game:
Level-mini boss-boss-level
Almost all games are shackled by these conventions. I would imagine that almost all game designers give little or no thought to deviation and structure, which has been to the detriment of game design. There are a few games that do make some effort to be different- For example, Halo. There are no bosses. There is no sequential progression of usefulness in terms of the weapons. All of the weapons are useful in one way or another all the way through the game. One game that might spring to mind in terms of creative structure is Ico. However, whilst it is certainly refreshing that there are no clear "levels", and the pacing of the game is consistent, it falls into the same traps as all the other games. Why should there be a boss at the end of the game? There are no bosses throughout the game, and this battle simply doesnt feel "right" after the game that has preceeded it. The combat throughout feels completely tacked on and sharply incongruous to the atmosphere of the rest of the game. I feel the overall atmosphere would have been more consistent and haunting if the castle had been empty. Perhaps the only reason this didnt happen was that it would have gone against traditional ideals of how a game should be structured. Heres a few issues to ponder-
1) What games (recently or otherwise) do you feel have completely gone against traditional ideas of STRUCTURE, and how have these games succeeded/ failed??
2) How could games/ genres be improved by using different methods of structuring the experience?? it is my opinion that whilst huge innovations have been made in terms of character design, plot, style etc, very few games seem prepared to deviate from the norm in terms of structure. This is to the detriment of gaming.
Comment