Tactical Imbalance in Single Player Gameplay (An Essay)

[Blitz]

Background
If you have not already done so, you may enjoy reading my essay on Balance vs. Imbalance which summarizes my ideas about balancing tactics with strategy in a multiplayer environment.

As requested, this essay was written to clarify how these principals can be applied to a single-player game.

The Single Player Experience
Single player games have a two-fold obligation: gameplay and storytelling. Storytelling is the break in the action that adds immersion and interest to the playing experience. This essay will focus on gameplay because this is where the strategic and tactical elements exist. Storytelling generally connects itself to the gameplay sections with reveals. For example, the player may overhear a conversation that reveals the location or nature of a future objective. Or the connection may be to the past. The player may learn why he has spent the last three hours trudging through sewers fighting mutant rickshaw drivers from outer space.

In addition to revealing objectives, the storytelling could also be used to reveal tactics or even strategy. The player might learn of an enemy vulnerability that could lead to a strategy of attack, or the player might learn of a weapon cache that might lead to a tactical advantage. These types of reveals force the player to pay attention to the story, increasing the immersion and interest.

As a rule, the game should not rely on the player paying attention, but should most definitely reward such attention.

Tactical Imbalance
As described in my previous essay, tactical imbalance is key to creating an exciting gameplay experience. In particular, a variety of tactical imbalances increases the replay value of a game.

Consider whether you've ever had this single-player experience. You're trying to solve or clear a level and you keep failing. Finally, you hit on the correct solution (maybe even a step at a time) and realize the author has carefully crafted the level to be completed by solving or deducing a specific series of steps. You congratulate yourself and move on. Such levels, however clever, do have a limitation. Once solved, there is no mystery and no challenge. Let's call this the straight or guided method.

Now consider a level that makes use of several tactical imbalances. Perhaps there are multiple routes through the level; a stealthy route and a direct route. Perhaps there's a key weapon pickup, but taking it early exposes the player to attack. Maybe there's a small, defendable area where the player can make noise and then hole up and blast away the enemies as they turn the corner. All of these may be available in the guided method, but what if they were available at the same time? The player could choose the strategy that best fits his style, or perhaps one that would conserve a particular type of ammunition for later. Once solved, the possibility still exists of going back and trying to solve the level another way.

Bringing in Strategy
In order for the player to be able to develop a strategy, he needs an opportunity to assess or reconnoiter. Otherwise, the player is merely reacting to immediate threats, and this leads to a purely tactical response. It is important to note that many games overcome lack of balance by respawning the player at the beginning of a difficult section so that after a number of failed attempts, the player can form a strategy that has a decent chance of success. This is the less preferred method of including strategy.

By giving the player a quick peek at a challenge before he tackles it, you give him the ability to combine his tactical ability with strategic thought. As I've said before, this is the key combination that makes a game fun. But don't take this to an extreme. You should still surprise the player with unforeseeable obstacles, or you risk making the game too easy. Players expect to die periodically before they "master" a section. So when giving them a quick peek, don't reveal everything all the time. But be sure to reveal enough that the player's use of strategy is rewarded.

As with all gameplay design decisions, it is up to you the author to balance these elements to achieve the experience you're trying to create.

[Lord_Simeon]

Yeah, there's a fine line for sure.

Too much health, not enough health, wep pickups etc.
I've been playing a few SP games (Rogue Trooper, HL-EP1, Metroid Echoes) and have been in mapping mode, taking ideas, seeing how they do things.
Extremely handy for this purpose.

[MortalPlague]

Excellent read, Blitz.

I've been taking similar mapping cues from the commentary mode in Half-Life 2: Episode One. They talk about different level design challenges which are quite interesting.

[outpt.co.uk]

You should add this to your site Blitz, both of your essays make good readings. Either that, or I'd love to stick em on my site

MP: is that commentry mode availible with the actual game? I'm going to be buying it after my exams, it'll be a nice watch also.

[SuperApe]

Very well said, with good examples to keep the reader thinking about situations they've experienced in one way or another.

So, the balance or "imbalance" part as related to SP adventures might have to do with the choices or variants the Player has available while solving the situations? Perhaps a straight ahead method shows this clearly, if for example the brute force (guns a'blazing) tactic results in overwhelming opposition and Player death, while finding the "solution" the mapper has designed into this situation tends to be an easier tactic to use. So that these two tactics display an imbalance. Am I using the term as you define it correctly there?

EDIT:
I just did a quick review of how I defined Balance a while back in the Map Design document on the wiki. I think our definitions are very close, if not technically the same. I obviously didn't go into the descriptive detail that you did, but it sounds similar. At least, I believe so.

The balance of a map refers to the predictable climate the player will find themself in.

[Blitz]

Originally Posted by SuperApe

...Perhaps a straight ahead method shows this clearly, if for example the brute force (guns a'blazing) tactic results in overwhelming opposition and Player death, while finding the "solution" the mapper has designed into this situation tends to be an easier tactic to use. So that these two tactics display an imbalance. Am I using the term as you define it correctly there?

According to my system, both methods of attacking the problem should be "possible", but each would confer different advantages/disadvantages. To use a real example, there was a level of Half-life where I could clear the entire area easily using grenades, but when I finished I didn't have enough grenades left for the next level where they seemed to be needed even more. So, going back, I was forced to find a strategy that minimized my use of grenades in order to conserve them for later. So, both solutions (heavy explosives vs. running firefight) were possible, but only one supported my strategy of conserving my grenades.

What I'm suggesting, is to take this concept and make it even more varied. Additional tactical possibilities can be created through weapon placement, layout, and other features of the level. Explosive crates can be fired upon at a strategic moment, or a collapsable structure can be used to create cover, or a diversion, or to smash a tough enemy at the right moment. The more features there are, the more the player can use strategy in exploiting each of these tactical possibilities.

Originally Posted by SuperApe

I just did a quick review of how I defined Balance a while back in the Map Design document on the wiki. I think our definitions are very close, if not technically the same. I obviously didn't go into the descriptive detail that you did, but it sounds similar. At least, I believe so.

From my original essay:

Originally Posted by Blitz

Good balance is an approximately even potential between the strategic and tactical characteristics of a map.

Most often, balance is used to describe what I call "fairness". It is important to be reasonably fair in order for the tactical imbalances to become attractive features. In other words, if you have one feature that is so strong that all other tactics are worthless, you are completely unfair. If everything is perfectly even and you have no strong tactical features, then you risk a flat/uninteresting gameplay experience.

[SuperApe]

I agree with that. If a tactic or method of solving a situation or problem isn't actually possible, I would have to call that a red herring, and not a viable choice the Player can make.

I think the base concept we're describing is similar, although it appears we're elaborating on different elements and characteristics of it.

From my simplistic overview description (may or may not jive with your essays):

Balance is an important principle to be aware of in design. It should not always suggest perfect balance (which tends to be aesthetically boring), but instead should suggest an awareness of the balance between various elements. A map called, "King of the Hill", may indeed require a highly fortified central hill that would seem to throw the map's balance off, but it would be necessary. The balance of a map refers to the predictable climate the player will find themself in.

Here, I quickly suggest the idea that Balance may not describe either "even-ness" or "fairness", but rather an awareness of the obvious (or less obvious) options the Player may choose during gameplay. To sum up, I relate this concept to a broader idea I use often in art & story: Predictability. Predictability, as I use it, has more to do with knowing your audience enough to design your art effectively, through presenting ideas or situations that cause the audience to begin to Predict an outcome, so that your design can then exploit that expectation, for the purposes of "changing it up" for interest or fullfilling that expection to provide resolution. (I guess I go into only a little more detail about Predictability on another wiki doc.)

[Blitz]

Originally Posted by SuperApe

Predictability, as I use it, has more to do with knowing your audience enough to design your art effectively, through presenting ideas or situations that cause the audience to begin to Predict an outcome, so that your design can then exploit that expectation, for the purposes of "changing it up" for interest or fullfilling that expection to provide resolution.

To me, predictability is much more a storytelling element than a gameplay element. As an old storyteller, I would say that predictability is used in this way: Think of the "5 Ws" in journalism: who, what, where, when, and why. To generate interest, the player should be able to predict 4 of the 5 elements, and should wonder about the 5th until the climax. In an epic or slowly developing story, some of the remaining 4 may be held back initially and revealed along the way.

This of course applies to the main plotline. A story can contain numerous subplots so that the "5 Ws" are revealed over and over each time for a different plot element. Incidentally, there is also on "honorary W" that can be added to the list of five: "how".

[SuperApe]

(I hate to hijack the thread, but to continue while relating Predictability to Balance...)

That's very true. And the most obvious application of Predictability is story development. But I assert that, in thinking about any art form, compelling elements tend to take advantage of audience expectations, a form of Prediction.

A joke (which is essentially another form of story) is another easy example. A painting or drawing may be less obvious, but Dali's works definately take advantage of what the audience expects, as does Escher. The nuances of a work of art like a painting contain less obvious design elements that take advantage of it's audience's Predictions, but these elements are usually the ones that are pointed out by the enthusiasts of the art form. ("See how the artist has used the brushwork in this area to suggest a feeling of...") Music is another art form that displays elements of design to exploit audience Prediction. A steady rhythm is broken for emphasis, a jarring sound punctuates the ending, even the "break" in a song is a (albeit standardized) "change up" of the predicatable progression that establishes the main part of the song. Dance can expand your idea of how body movement looks. In acrobatics, what's possible with body movement. As long as art contains elements of surprise or resolution, they represent a contrast or confirmation of audience expectations of some kind.

In mapping, Multiplayer or SP, elements of Predicatability can be as obvious as the story elements or a major event, or as subtle as, "your walking down a green corridor that turns left, turns right, turns left, ...", and the Player begins to Predict, "turns Right". The mapper can then have a side passage, a trap, etc. to exploit this simple expectation, either to confirm it or "change it up". A less subtle example of Predictability in a map might be a CTF map with many symmetrical elements, but then include key elements that are purposely unique per side. Another may be a structural or timed element that suddenly breaks it's rhythm.

In terms of Balance, in the above overview description, I just briefly remind the reader to think of how the available choices you offer the Player relates to their perception of the map, which includes Predictions that they may have about the various elements. Obviously, if the Player is not aware or can't Predict a possible option the mapper has designed, just as if the option leads to certain death, it is not a viable option.

I think we're talking about similar things, just different aspects and different emphasis. Although I assert the above and put emphasis on those elements, I definately thought your description of Balance and essay was more qualified to help readers understand the concept as it relates to mapping. That's why I linked to your original essay from that page.

[Blitz]

Originally Posted by outpt.co.uk

You should add this to your site Blitz, both of your essays make good readings. Either that, or I'd love to stick em on my site

I've had this blog space for a while that I hadn't quite decided what to do with. I've posted both of the essays there. I started thinking about other things I've been wanting to write about and in less than five minutes had a list of more than a dozen different ideas for articles. So thanks for the suggestion.

[SargeDavid]

Remember, always have the play atlest know what to do or where to go.
and dont do much tough. like, go up that ladder and hit the switch then run before the ceiling collaps
when you say, the switch is somewhere up there, and then when you do it a little emitter/cutscene of dust falling and a scence of dread will make you want to run!