One of the most difficult problems my students face in designing a game project based on a historical event is figuring out how to balance "realism" and "fun". In commercial, entertainment-oriented products this is a real challenge because gamers expect a realistic experience that is not overly frustrating or "real".
It is a given that "realism" and "fun" are subjective terms and everyone has an opinion on what constitutes each. However, there are a few practical guidelines a designer can use to assist in dealing with "realism" versus"fun" issue. Considering these guidelines prior to coding or putting pen to paper should help focus your design.
Ask yourself....
a) Who Is My Target Consumer?: Know and understand who you are designing the game for. Are you designing for a casual gamer who is o.k. with a less detailed, more abstract style of product that is more entertainment than simulation? Or are you designing a product to target a hard-core simmer who expects a very high level of accuracy and technical detail that is more interested in a experience than entertainment?
An example of this would be Destineer's Indianapolis 500 Legends for the Wii. A topic geared for older gamers and racing sim enthusiast on the Wii makes little sense- the Nintendo demographic is primarily younger and more casual in general. The controller, while cool, cannot replace a top of the line wheel-pedal setup most racing simmers use. So this product does not make a good fit for the average Nintendo consumer or the racing sim crowd.
b) Using The Best Format/Platform?: Tabletop, interactive, console, PC, miniatures.... what format is best suited for your product and can give the consumer the desired experience. All formats are not equal- does a flight simulation on the PC offer the desired experience for a hard-core flight enthusiast than, say, a card game if your desired experience is the visceral "feel" of air combat in three dimensions?
An example would be Bold Games/Third Wire's Wings over Vietnam, a PC flight simulator that allows interaction within a three dimensional environment- thus offering an illusion of flying an F-4 Phantom over Hanoi as opposed to One Small Step's Fox One, a air combat card game that offers two dimensional game play using cards to simulate air combat. Which offers a more "realistic" experience or feel?
c) Does "Complexity" Equate "Realism"?: This is the #1 trap student fall into. Making the processes or sequence of play so complex, detailed and tedious doesn't equate to a more "realistic" product. Complexity for complexity sake is death- especially in a commercial product! If gamers cannot understand how to play the game or completing even the most mundane task takes 2hrs, expect the game to go on the shelf.
An example of this from my experience was the SPI board game, Air War. Air War was touted as being the most realistic tabletop air combat game ever- but even pilots who flew the very aircraft found in Air War had issues playing the game! Air War was literally complexity for the sake of complexity and ended up collecting dust on my shelf for 20+ years (or used as a door stop).
Gamers today are generally conditioned to fast game play. My rule was if someone could not start a game and get playing within a few minutes there was a problem. Designers should make sure that they keep this in mind when composing documentation and mechanics. Coming across as a technical "wonk" doesn't impress anyone- elegant, straightforward and accurate design work does!
-IF IT DOES NOT NEED TO BE COMPLEX- DON'T MAKE IT COMPLEX!-
An example of this would be Dan Verrsen's Hornet Leader, a solitaire card-driven game that simulates air combat missions with an excellent level of realism using a simple, straightforward design.
d) Advocating for the "Newbie"?: Even if you are designing a simulation, make it accessible for novice or "newbie" gamers. Avoid steep learning curves that will turn off beginners- use plenty of examples in multiple forms (i.e. text explanation, example of play, visual example/diagram), offer tutorial levels/scenarios, reference charts, walkthroughs, etc.. Advanced gamers will just pass these by for the most part, but the newbies will really appreciate the initial "hand-holding" and have a better overall experience.
An example of "helping the noob" would be Acdamy Game's Conflict of Heroes: Awaking the Bear- a East Front tactical war game. The rules are color coded to indicate rules, examples and hints/tips and uses plenty of diagrams and graphic gameplay examples. Mark Walker, developer/designer of the Lock N Load series of war games, offers a Flash demo on his web site- visually walking players through a couple turns of his game, Band of Heroes.
With interactive, balanced difficulty levels are another valuable way to assist a "noob".
I'm trying to keep it general, practical and straightforward without getting into "geekspeak" or theory. I believe if you apply these guidelines it will help you design a better, more enjoyable product for your consumers.
It is a given that "realism" and "fun" are subjective terms and everyone has an opinion on what constitutes each. However, there are a few practical guidelines a designer can use to assist in dealing with "realism" versus"fun" issue. Considering these guidelines prior to coding or putting pen to paper should help focus your design.
Ask yourself....
a) Who Is My Target Consumer?: Know and understand who you are designing the game for. Are you designing for a casual gamer who is o.k. with a less detailed, more abstract style of product that is more entertainment than simulation? Or are you designing a product to target a hard-core simmer who expects a very high level of accuracy and technical detail that is more interested in a experience than entertainment?
An example of this would be Destineer's Indianapolis 500 Legends for the Wii. A topic geared for older gamers and racing sim enthusiast on the Wii makes little sense- the Nintendo demographic is primarily younger and more casual in general. The controller, while cool, cannot replace a top of the line wheel-pedal setup most racing simmers use. So this product does not make a good fit for the average Nintendo consumer or the racing sim crowd.
b) Using The Best Format/Platform?: Tabletop, interactive, console, PC, miniatures.... what format is best suited for your product and can give the consumer the desired experience. All formats are not equal- does a flight simulation on the PC offer the desired experience for a hard-core flight enthusiast than, say, a card game if your desired experience is the visceral "feel" of air combat in three dimensions?
An example would be Bold Games/Third Wire's Wings over Vietnam, a PC flight simulator that allows interaction within a three dimensional environment- thus offering an illusion of flying an F-4 Phantom over Hanoi as opposed to One Small Step's Fox One, a air combat card game that offers two dimensional game play using cards to simulate air combat. Which offers a more "realistic" experience or feel?
c) Does "Complexity" Equate "Realism"?: This is the #1 trap student fall into. Making the processes or sequence of play so complex, detailed and tedious doesn't equate to a more "realistic" product. Complexity for complexity sake is death- especially in a commercial product! If gamers cannot understand how to play the game or completing even the most mundane task takes 2hrs, expect the game to go on the shelf.
An example of this from my experience was the SPI board game, Air War. Air War was touted as being the most realistic tabletop air combat game ever- but even pilots who flew the very aircraft found in Air War had issues playing the game! Air War was literally complexity for the sake of complexity and ended up collecting dust on my shelf for 20+ years (or used as a door stop).
Gamers today are generally conditioned to fast game play. My rule was if someone could not start a game and get playing within a few minutes there was a problem. Designers should make sure that they keep this in mind when composing documentation and mechanics. Coming across as a technical "wonk" doesn't impress anyone- elegant, straightforward and accurate design work does!
-IF IT DOES NOT NEED TO BE COMPLEX- DON'T MAKE IT COMPLEX!-
An example of this would be Dan Verrsen's Hornet Leader, a solitaire card-driven game that simulates air combat missions with an excellent level of realism using a simple, straightforward design.
d) Advocating for the "Newbie"?: Even if you are designing a simulation, make it accessible for novice or "newbie" gamers. Avoid steep learning curves that will turn off beginners- use plenty of examples in multiple forms (i.e. text explanation, example of play, visual example/diagram), offer tutorial levels/scenarios, reference charts, walkthroughs, etc.. Advanced gamers will just pass these by for the most part, but the newbies will really appreciate the initial "hand-holding" and have a better overall experience.
An example of "helping the noob" would be Acdamy Game's Conflict of Heroes: Awaking the Bear- a East Front tactical war game. The rules are color coded to indicate rules, examples and hints/tips and uses plenty of diagrams and graphic gameplay examples. Mark Walker, developer/designer of the Lock N Load series of war games, offers a Flash demo on his web site- visually walking players through a couple turns of his game, Band of Heroes.
With interactive, balanced difficulty levels are another valuable way to assist a "noob".
I'm trying to keep it general, practical and straightforward without getting into "geekspeak" or theory. I believe if you apply these guidelines it will help you design a better, more enjoyable product for your consumers.
