• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Hi! Welcome to the David Jaffe school of game design.

In designing the perfect action game, there are several principles to keep in mind.

1) Enemies = damage sponges.
This is far and away the most important principle to keep in mind when designing an action game. Some game designers waste time endowing enemies with attributes like "defense" or "evasion." You can avoid these pitfalls by having your enemies make no attempt to avoid or block any hits, but by giving them approximately five times as many hit points. As an added bonus, the player will have become a master of the square, square, triangle or triangle, triangle, triangle button combos by the end of your game, having used them so many times. Remember that the Halo 2 Brute is the most perfect example of a videogame enemy ever created; in all things, this is what we should strive to emulate.

2) Remember the Medusa-head.
Not the special attack from our game, God of War, but the Castlevania foe. The guiding principle here is simple. When presenting the player with any sort of obstacle, it is always best to throw some wild card into the mix to annoy the player to no end. This makes overcoming said obstacle all the more satisfying! For example, at some point the player might be required to push a stone block the wrong way down a conveyor belt. The best thing to do here would obviously be to send in waves of respawning enemies at pre-set points. Why simply solve a puzzle when you can solve a puzzle with enemies?

One might also require the player to use magic to freeze an enemy in place atop a switch that opens a faraway door. The key here would be to throw in a full second's delay on the freezing spell together with making said switch impossibly small. To top it all off, the enemy should become unfrozen at the exact moment that the player is about to pass through the previously open door. If you aren't annoying the player, you aren't doing your job.

3) When in doubt, throw in another wave of respawns.
Similar to point #1, this point will save you from heaps of trouble later on. Rather than setting up intricate formations of enemies, or designing well-paced, well-thought-out encounters, one can simply set up several waves of enemies that respawn immediately after the previous wave has been defeated. This also saves you on puzzles. You don't need to make creative, mind-bending puzzles when you can just make mediocre ones, but with an infinite supply of foes to contend with while attempting to solve said puzzle. If you really want to get creative, add several areas to your game where the enemy respawns are actually infinite. However, do nothing to indicate to the player that the respawns here are infinite; it will be far better for the player to waste half of his health figuring it out for himself.

4) See the Crash Bandicoot series for the greatest modern level design
Branching paths and big open 3D areas do nothing but confuse and frustrate the player (but not in a good, Medusa's head kind of way). It is always better to make your levels completely linear to avoid confusion. The player should rarely, if ever, have to search for anything, and the way forward should always be just that: forward. Combine with respawning enemies to create levels that will make EAD weep.

5) Camera control? Fuck that.
There is absolutely no reason to allow the player to control the camera when you can do it for him. Our principles of enemy design are such that the environment should never come into play during a battle, ever. With this annoyance out of the way, the only real use for camera control would be during platforming sections, and to be honest, this has always been an overrated facet of game design. (Also, see principle #2).
 
We shouldn't have to control our cameras. One great thing about Mario is that there was very very little need to even think about moving the camera.
 
cheese.jpg
 
sp0rsk said:
We shouldn't have to control our cameras. One great thing about Mario is that there was very very little need to even think about moving the camera.

But englishman sp0rsk we should have the OPTION to control our cameras when we feel like it amirite rawr?
Indifferent2.gif
 
Is "Always mind the Non-conforming anti-authoritarian Teen demographic with testosterone defficiency" another principle?
 
Green Shinobi said:
In designing the perfect action game, there are several principles to keep in mind.

1) Enemies = damage sponges.
This is far and away the most important principle to keep in mind when designing an action game. Some game designers waste time endowing enemies with attributes like "defense" or "evasion." You can avoid these pitfalls by having your enemies make no attempt to avoid or block any hits, but give them approximately five times as many hit points. As an added bonus, the player will have become a master of the square, square, triangle or triangle, triangle, triangle button combos by the end of your game, having used them so many times. Remember that the Halo 2 Brute is the most perfect example of a videogame enemy every created; in all things, this is what we should strive to emulate.

2) Remember the Medusa-head.
Not the special attack from our game, God of War, but the Castlevania foe. The guiding principle here is simple. When presenting the player with any sort of obstacle, it is always best to throw some wild card into the mix to annoy the player to no end. This makes overcoming said obstacle all the more satisfying! For example, at some point the player might be required to push a stone block the wrong way down a conveyor belt. The best thing to do here would obviously be to send in waves of respawning enemies at pre-set points. Why simply solve a puzzle when you can solve a puzzle with enemies?

One might also require the player to use magic to freeze an enemy in place atop a switch that opens a faraway door. The key here would be to throw in a full second's delay on the freezing spell together with making said switch impossibly small. To top it all off, the enemy should become unfrozen at the exact moment that the player is about to pass through the previously open door. If you aren't annoying the player, you aren't doing your job.

3) When in doubt, throw in another wave of respawns.
Similar to point #1, this point will save you from heaps of trouble later on. Rather than setting up intricate formations of enemies, or designing well-paced, well-thought-out encounters, one can simply set up several waves of enemies that respawn immediately after the previous wave has been defeated. This also saves you on puzzles. You don't need to make creative, mind-bending puzzles when you can just make mediocre ones, but with an infinite supply of foes to contend with while attempting to solve said puzzle. If you really want to get creative, add several areas to your game where the enemy respawns are actually infinite. However, do nothing to indicate to the player that the respawns here are infinite; it will be far better for the player to waste half of his health figuring it out for himself.

4) See the Crash Bandicoot series for the greatest modern level design
Branching paths and big open 3D areas do nothing but confuse and frustrate the player (but not in a good, Medusa's head kind of way). It is always better to make your levels completely linear to avoid confusion. The player should rarely, if ever, have to search for anything, and the way forward should always be just that: forward. Combine with respawning enemies to create levels that will make EAD weep.

5) Camera control? Fuck that.
There is absolutely no reason to allow the player to control the camera when you can do it for him. Our principles of enemy design are such that the environment should never come into play during a battle, ever. With this annoyance out of the way, the only real use for camera control would be during platforming sections, and to be honest, this has always been an overrated facet of game design. (Also, see principle #2).

Jaffe likes his games easy, linear and effortless, that's his thing. He likes making his games that way and he likes that in the games he plays.
 
Safe Bet: Was that some Mad Dog McCree?

Also, I can't wait for the inevitable profanity-laced tirade from Jaffe in this very thread, and something tells me he's not just going to ask about your societal contributions.
 
In fifty years, you may look back on the time you typed this up and realise what an utter waste of time it was to spend it on typing about something you don't like.
 
Mash said:
In fifty years, you may look back on the time you typed this up and realise what an utter waste of time it was to spend it on typing about something you don't like.

Bu bu bu Jaffe just got 0wn3dddddhhhHURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
 
Mash said:
In fifty years, you may look back on the time you typed this up and realise what an utter waste of time it was to spend it on typing about something you don't like.
I like God of War enough. It may be filled with moments that make me think "fuck you, Jaffe," but I actually do like the game.
 
Green Shinobi said:
There is absolutely no reason to allow the player to control the camera when you can do it for him. Our principles of enemy design are such that the environment should never come into play during a battle, ever.

Just because you can't control the camera doesn't mean that the environment can't come into play. I'm not saying that's what Jaffe's games do, but it's not a 1:1 thing.

I liked Twisted Metal and Calling all Cars but I just can't get into God Of War... it's just too mash happy for me.
 
Kittonwy said:
I don't see why we can't take control of the camera to look around.
Indifferent2.gif


Because some developers would rather you play the game instead of going wow look at the vase in that corner over there!

You don't watch a movie and say "Wow, I wish they would do a flyby of this dining room, the decor is exquisite!"
 
Add "Tearing is an acceptable alternative when you're trying to get graphics out a game that the engine or platform isn't capable of."
 
sp0rsk said:
Because some developers would rather you play the game instead of going wow look at the vase in that corner over there!

You don't watch a movie and say "Wow, I wish they would do a flyby of this dining room, the decor is exquisite!"

Is it ok if you are allowed to look around for clues? Like to solve a puzzle?
gladtomeetya.gif
 
pooteeweet said:
Add "Tearing is an acceptable alternative when you're trying to get graphics out a game that the engine or platform isn't capable of."

Tearing is an alternative to having your game go from 60fps to 30fps.
 
"You don't watch a movie and say "Wow, I wish they would do a flyby of this dining room, the decor is exquisite!""


Except you also don't watch a movie to interact with it.
 
polyh3dron said:
Safe Bet: Was that some Mad Dog McCree?
:lol

Edit:
Teknopathetic said:
"You don't watch a movie and say "Wow, I wish they would do a flyby of this dining room, the decor is exquisite!""


Except you also don't watch a movie to interact with it.
Insert Gunfight Pic #2
 
Teknopathetic said:
"You don't watch a movie and say "Wow, I wish they would do a flyby of this dining room, the decor is exquisite!""


Except you also don't watch a movie to interact with it.


I don't play god of war to interact with the background?
 
Grayman said:
harder difficulty = rip off a part of the players damage sponge and give it to the enemies


am i doing this right?
Absolutely. There's no need to improve the enemies' offensive or defensive capabilities when you can simply give them more HP and give the player less. It's the best way to increase difficulty when you think about it.
 
Make the last boss pick it's attacks completely at random, that way the player will be surprised

Introduce at least 2 new game mechanics of questionable quality at the end of the game, that way they won't affect initial impressions
 
Kittonwy said:
Tearing is an alternative to having your game go from 60fps to 30fps.

Because the engine or platform can't handle the graphics at 60 fps.


polyh3dron said:
I'd rather have it run at 60 with some tearing than 30 without.

Some tearing? Some tearing I can handle. The GOW series features the worst tearing I've ever seen.
 
The very - VERY - first line of design I wrote for Party Animals was "The player never controls the camera. Ever. The right Analog Stick will do nothing. We're asking the player to have fun, not be a game player and a cameraman at the same time"

95% of all the problems we had on Spyro were caused by being able to move the camera.
 
Kittonwy said:
But englishman sp0rsk we should have the OPTION to control our cameras when we feel like it amirite rawr?
Indifferent2.gif

Why? Too often that seems to be the excuse for a poor attempt at a camera system. 3D gaming has been plagued by poor camera angles, and Super Mario Galaxy appears to be showing us the light at the end of the tunnel.
 
Kobun Heat said:
This should be tattooed on the inside of every game developer's eyelids.

Not having control of the camera is like not being able to jump. It limits freedom like like a big brother government would.
 
and what about mentioning the absolute necessity of having a camera swivel 90 degrees while moving on a spinning pillar above a bottomless pit? how awesome is that?
 
Bebpo said:
Not having control of the camera is like not being able to jump. It limits freedom like like a big brother government would.

No.

The designer should be able to make their game however they want. If they want to give the player control over the camera, that's awesome, but great game design should mean that you almost never have to fiddle with the camera, which should mean that the game is not designed in such a way as you can't see what you're doing/where you're going (unless it's intentional, like Silent Hill).

It's kind of like Monster Hunter 2. If I had full control of the camera in that game at all times, it would take away a lot of the tension of not exactly knowing where your target is moving, and in effect, make the game too easy. Although it's annoying at first that you can't "lock on", if you could, it would be a simple mashing exercise of a game. Kind of like God of War!

DavidDayton said:
Why? Too often that seems to be the excuse for a poor attempt at a camera system. 3D gaming has been plagued by poor camera angles, and Super Mario Galaxy appears to be showing us the light at the end of the tunnel.

The camera in SMG is not perfect in any way shape or form, but it's better than most.
 
Top Bottom