DaveKoelle.com

DaveKoelle.com ->  Usability and Experience Design ->  Ideas for Simple, Addictive Video Games

Ideas for Simple, Addictive Video Games

"Simple" games, like Tetris or Pac-Man, can take the world by storm. I've been trying to come up with "the best thing since Tetris", but I haven't figured it out yet. However, I have devised the following points which should help anyone else creating a "simple" game experience.

Introduction

Computer games fall into a number of categories: Simulation, strategy, puzzle, arcade, action, and so on. Of course, games from all categories have become popular and enjoyed by millions. All of these categories are interesting, but I'm particularly interested in what I call "simple" games that take off like wildfire.

I classify a "simple" game as one in which there are a limited number of rules and environments. Examples include (but are not limited to) Pac-Man and Tetris. From level to level, there is not a drastic change in the gameplay, but these games managed to keep people's attention for countless hours. How do they do it?

About these ideas

I've been engaged, on and off, in my own quest for the Addictive Simple Game. I haven't found it yet, although I have some concepts I'm developing. During my quest, I've composed the following set of conditions that I believe are necessary for to create a successful simple game.

I offer these ideas to the public domain. If you happen to create an addictive simple game using these ideas before I do, then good for you! The only thing I might ask is for a free copy of your game :)

Aren't these games dying out?

Some people forecast that this style of game is on its way out, to be replaced by big-budget 3D-shooters and massive multi-player online games. I disagree.

Look at some recent successes in this genre: that game where you shoot bubbles, trying to get groups with three of the same color [ here's one | here's a variant | here's a similar variant | and another | and another - and that's just from Shockwave.com ]; that game where you match blocks of a similar color and remove them from the field [ here's one | here's a variant ]. These games, while simple, are amazingly popular, and are appreciated by a wider range of people than those who enjoy larger production games.

Plus, with upcoming surge of gaming via cellphone, I'll bet this genre isn't going away any time soon. Okay, so big-label companies may not be producing puzzle games anymore. But people still want them, people still enjoy them, people still pay for them, and people still get addicted to them -- if they're done well!

Ideas for Simple, Addictive Games

Concept

  1. Why do people play addictive games? From my perspective, they're looking for something light, fun, and captivating. Addictive game players are not looking to think hard, or blow up everything that moves. There are different genres of games because people enjoy different things at different times. Who plays Pac-Man? Who plays Tetris? Keep these questions (and, preferably, some form of an answer) in mind when you design your game.

  2. The concept should be simple. In Pac-Man, it's to eat the pellets and avoid the ghosts. In Tetris, it's to fill a well with solid rows of blocks. These simple concepts have been developed into games that have been played for many hours by people all over the world. A complicated concept runs the risk of being played by less people, because some people will give up on the basis of the complexity of the game -- some may even pass on the game before attempting to play it. "Flight Simulator", for example, does not fit in the Addictive Simple Game genre (although it may be addictive in its own right).

  3. The game should be something brand-new, never-before-seen. Don't create a "me too" game, like "Welltris" or "Ms. Pac-Man". Sequels are simply not compelling, as far as I'm concerned. Plus, the game concept wouldn't be your own.

  4. The game should transcend barriers of language and knowledge, to be more easily enjoyed by people all over the world. An obvious exception to this rule would be if your game requires language -- for example, a game that relies on building words from letter tiles strewn across the gamespace.

  5. Personally, I don't think violence belongs in an addictive simple game. There was once a game called SPISPOPD ("Smashing Pumpkins Into Small Pieces of Putrid Debris"), in which the player smashed pumpkins by swinging a sledgehammer. I think maybe this is as far as violence in an addictive game should go (actually, SPISPOPD wasn't very additive anyway).

Player Considerations

  1. The game should require very minimal, if any, memorization. Everything pertinent to the game at a given time should be apparent on the screen. Games that rely on memorization itself - something like Concentration, for example - are probably not candidates for addictive simple games. My rationale is that an addictive simple game should be fun, while not being too taxing. Sure, I love a great memory game (take a look at my game, HyperMemory), but what may make a great puzzle or memory tool may not make an additive game.

  2. There shouldn't be much thinking involved. Granted, Pac-Man and Tetris require a respectable amount of mind power, but certainly not as much as chess or Monopoly. The games involve some thinking, but also rely on action and performance. Don't make an utterly dumb game, but remember that an addictive game is more about tension-release and recreation than, say, a puzzle game, which is where intense thinking belongs.

  3. Addictive Simple Games are about catering to an audience that may not normally care to get deeply involved in other games. Someone who plays Tetris, for example, may not have the time or desire to learn the intricacies of other games like Flight Simulator or Mortal Kombat. Addictive games shouldn't be pitched to the game-playing elite. However, it should be possible for players of the game to develop a skill that puts them above other players. If players can't progress their skills, then there will be little reason to continue playing the game once the initial novelty wears off.

Game Style

  1. As the level of the game progresses, the pace of the game should increase. This gives a sense of urgency, and requires development of skill. At the same time, it does not introduce new components into the game, so the gameplay is still the same.

  2. There should be a limited number of actions possible, and a limited number of keypresses necessary to perform the actions. My personal vote would be to simply require the user to use the cursor keys, and maybe a few other keys ([SPACE], [ENTER], maybe one or two letter keys) to perform actions. Too many keys, or too many actions, and you begin to tax the human memory requirements - and possibly coordination requirements - for the game.

Philosophical Considerations

  1. There should be a way to back out of a bad situation. For example, in Pac-Man, if you miss a pellet, you can go back to get it later. In Tetris, if you accidentally (or purposefully) leave an empty spot beneath other squares, you have a chance to recover that empty spot. A game would become frustrating if, by making one stupid mistake, you blow the chance to have the level end on a positive note - unless, of course, the mistake is meant to have lethal consequences, like being hit by a ghost. Now if the player makes three or four stupid mistakes, that's a different story!

  2. The game should provide a sense of free will to the player; it shouldn't be something where the player simply reacts to changes in the environment. Whack-A-Mole is an example of this: a mole pops up, the player tries to hit it. There is no free will involved; the player does not get to decide what mole to hit next. Whack-A-Mole is a great game to test one's hand-eye coordination skills, but it is not material for an addictive video game. In games like Pac-Man or Defender, you still have to react to your environment, but at least you have more than one choice in doing it. However, your choices are limited in actuality: if a ghost is coming your way, you have to move. But at least the players can feel like they have a sense of free will.

Final thoughts