Being able to look at the details of the various different weapons in the game also make the world feel more real and lived-in. The details of how the weapon is constructed, where the ammunition is carried, and how the firing mechanism works, how the weapon is held, and so on all emphasize that these are weapons that behave as one would expect real weapons to work within the scope of the world. It makes the world more believable to have this kind of consistent detail presented in it.

For the second major reason, I should point out that one important principle of game design is that acknowledging the choices a player makes within the game helps make those choices feel more real to the player. If a player makes a choice, having the game react to that player's choice makes it feel like that choice held some meaning. This includes the various ways the player may express themselves through their decisions on things like equipment and visuals.

Most modern FPS games have options to customize your gun and gun experience through a variety of options - attachments, upgrades, skins, and so on. It's also pretty obvious that players spend a lot of time with their chosen weapons - they try a variety of guns, attachments, upgrades, and so on in gameplay until they find a recipe they like. They may tweak the formula and set it up just so. The visuals of the chosen gun, including cosmetics like decals and skins, are important for the player's self-expression.

This is one reason why we add the "inspect" animation - it's the in-game means of acknowledging the player's choices with regards to the weapon. Each gun feels different, shoots different, and looks different. The animation helps drive home how the player's choice of weapon makes a difference, both from a gameplay and a visual perspective. The player gets a chance to look over their own handiwork and choices, admiring the details of the weapon and this makes the game world and their choices feel more "real" to them. This is my rifle. There are many like it, but this one is mine.

[Join us on Discord] and/or [Support us on Patreon]

Got a burning question you want answered?

Game Feature Breakdown: The Special Vision Toggle

Yesterday I answered a question about the special vision toggle that shows up in games like the Batman Arkham series, Horizon Zero Dawn, Assassin’s Creed, etc. I mentioned that I didn’t like it, and enough of you seemed interested in why, so I thought I’d expound on it.

Once upon a time, early in my career, I was working on an action adventure brawler game. I remember seeing the term “ESOM” while reading old design documents, but the feature had been cut. Curious, I asked about it. The lead designer explained that it was “Extra Sensory Operating Mode” - a special visual toggle that the player could activate for us to show the player certain things about the area the character was in. It sounded a lot like Detective Vision but during the PS2 era, many years before the first Arkham game. 

“So why cut it?” I asked. “It sounds good.”

“Because it became a crutch. It wasn’t really a compelling choice for the player - we just kept finding more and more things to include into it when activated, and it became obvious that the best way to play was with it on all the time,” he said. “We’d be better off just incorporating all of the things specific to ESOM into the game without a toggle.”

And that’s the problem. There isn’t ever a reason to turn it off, because we’re asking the player to remain ignorant of content we purposely place to make them want. If we add an artificial constraint (e.g. the player can’t move while it’s active, or it has a certain maximum duration), it will just infuriate the players more - they will just sit and wait out the cooldown or walk a few steps and reactivate. The vision toggled on is the optimal way to play, and there’s no reason not to have it on all the time except for one thing - it makes the game uglier if it is. That’s a big problem - it puts elements of the gameplay at odds with the visuals. In many cases, the need for better gameplay will trump the visuals, and players will not see much of the hard work the artists put into the game. Even Rocksteady’s art director David Hego said that he regretted the power of detective vision after the first Arkham game. 

“It’s a choice!” you might say, but it really isn’t much of one. The choice is either some ugly visuals and critical information, or prettier visuals and frustration. Neither of these is particularly good when you can have the information and the visuals. It’s like asking whether you want $10 in ugly bills or $5 in fresh, crisp bills. It really isn’t much of a choice. It’s not a choice where both answers are right. It’s a choice where both answers are wrong.

ESOM was eventually cut. All of the “special” visual stuff from ESOM was incorporated into the base game because it was information every player should know. If it wasn’t important information, there’s significantly less reason to spend resources working on a visualization mode that isn’t particularly useful. In Horizon Zero Dawn, there are already UI markers pickups, objectives, and the like - there really isn’t a reason to hold back the specific benefits of Focus mode until toggled on aside from it looking kind of ugly. I believe that visualization mode toggles are usually a mistake, and that the resources spent in making them would be better spent figuring out how to convey that information without needing a toggle. It involves some iteration and visual design from the artists and designers, but it is possible. Just look at all of the other great games that succeeded in presenting complex gameplay information to the player without needing a vision toggle.

Got a burning question you want answered?

What Kind of Designer Should I Be? The Combat Designer (Part 5 of many)

Let me start out by saying this. I'm not gonna lie - combat designer is probably one of the coolest titles you can get in the game industry. It conjures all sorts of visceral and interesting ways to think about things. It's also something of a hybrid role for those interested in this sort of thing - it combines visualization and fluidity, a good eye for animation, and even some system design work to keep a sort of big picture view. You end up being more technical than a scripter, but more artsy than a system designer. You're also more systems-oriented than a level designer, but more environmentally-aware than a systems designer. And you get to fight the eternal battle that has raged for decades between artist and designer - the argument about fidelity.

So here's the first thing about being a combat designer - it's one of the most subjective disciplines out there. Working on combat is all about the feel. No matter how much number crunching you do, how balanced you make it, none of it matters unless the combat feels good. With something as visceral and fast-paced as combat, this means that you're looking very closely at the direct feedback loop. The game has to provide visual and auditory reactions to things the players do, and it has to do so in a way that the player grasps on a subconscious level. Thus, a good combat designer is a multitasker. She understands about animation, flow, and responsiveness, but also can crunch formulas and numbers with the best of them. The core of combat design, just like fine comedy, is all about timing.

I've once heard animation described as "sculpting time", and I like that as a description. You've got a certain amount of time, and you need to see a character move in that amount of time. A combat designer always needs to be aware of time. Short increments, medium increments, and even long increments.

Combat designers work hand in hand with animators to ensure that the animations they are using are built to have some anticipation to set the mood and feelings for the viewer. After a short anticipation period, there's the impact, which is usually a very short but very visible and loud sense of connection. But it doesn't end there. You need a longer follow-through period so that the viewer gets some time to grasp exactly what just happened. Make this period short, and the attacks feel weak. Show some devastating reaction, and the attack feels much stronger. Take a look at this sprite rip from Darkstalkers and see this principle at work. 

Imagine this attack without the windup. How would removing the wind up portion make it feel different?

Combat designers need to figure out how the battles are paced, and how long fights go. This is where math starts to come in. At the shortest increment, you need to consider how the combat flows from moment to moment. How much time passes between a button press and an attack? How about how the attacks come? How many different buttons will the player be using? How often do they press the buttons? Does it have a sense of rhythm, or is it just totally static? Are there multiple combos that have different rhythms? It's important to have variation in your combat rhythm, or people will get bored of the repetition. You need to consider which buttons, whether you have hard sequences or a more free-form system, whether you need to enforce timing or not, and things like that.

Then take it up to the medium increments. How long should it take to defeat an enemy? Too long and it becomes repetitive. Too short and it isn't memorable or very fun. This should inform the amount of damage that a player does, as well as the amount of damage a player takes. A good combat designer needs to be cognizant of taking damage as well as dealing it. Much of combat is about the dance, where the enemies try to look threatening without actually being threatening. AI opponents will never complain that they get stun-locked or about losing to a player, but players will get frustrated if they are. How do you make enemies appear to threaten without actually posing a huge danger? This brings back the anticipation, impact, and follow-through again. Players hate it when they feel like the control has been taken away from them. If they can see it coming and simply make the wrong choice, they can accept that it is their own fault and try to improve. But without enough anticipation time, they'll feel helpless, and that leads to immediate frustration. 

These sort of ideas and concepts apply to each type of attack, each type of defense, each type of enemy, and each type of how these interact in a combat situation. These apply to everything, from firearms to melee, from swords to tanks, from space to fantasy. This is what a combat designer has to figure out.

So how can you learn combat design?

Combat design is one of those things that's more difficult to study for, since there's nothing that's really quite analogous to it in real life. For students interested in combat design, I'd suggest taking classes in animation as well as user interface and user experience. The important thing here is that you're keeping the psychology of the user in mind while dealing with their physical input and trying to show them what they want to see. Film classes on composition can help too with visualization and how the viewer internalizes the presented imagery.

If you aren't a student and want to improve or practice combat design, play a lot of games with combat, and not just the ones with "good" combat. Play the bad ones too, and figure out why they are bad. How is combat in World of Warcraft different from a game like Uncharted? How is combat in Prince of Persia different from God of War? How does Street Fighter differ from Mortal Kombat? Catalogue these differences. Which ones "feel" good? Which feel bad? Why? Examine their specific attacks. Observe how their enemies behave. What happens when you're in a combat situation and don't do anything? What do the enemies do? How often do they attack? Start trying to break down what attacks feel good and which do not. Why? Analyze and break it down. Try to explain these differences to someone else. Can you do it clearly and in a quantitative (numerical) way? 

Combat design tends to require keeping many moving parts all balanced and working together properly. It's not easy, which is why there are so many games with wonky combat. It generally requires a more experienced designer who has had a lot of experience thinking about time as discrete chunks, and who has a solid grasp of how the math and the animation timing directly affects how the game feels. If finding solutions to these sorts of problems sounds like heaven, you might find success as a combat designer.