Game Design: Battlefield Composure · 8:44am Sep 18th, 2012
I feel like talking about a design idea I've had for a while, and while this isn't a great place to do that, I can't think of any better.
Anyway, I forget when exactly this one formed. I remember looking over a military tactics guide-site-thing, I don't know in the context of what, and I also associate it with watching the first gameplay trailers of the new (real) XCOM. I'm pretty sure Frozen Synapse had an element of inspiration here, too. But essentially, I realized that the underlying tactics you'd use in games don't resemble the ones you'd use if there were actual people involved. Wait, wait, don't go! I know that's completely obvious, and that real people's lives have meaning, and I mean no disrespect to those who are on the battlefield, risking their lives to do what they believe is right. But there's another reason actual tactics don't work in games:
Games are incapable of accounting for fear.
Well, not incapable. They just don't.
Every soldier (and non-soldier) is an impossibly trained and disciplined machine who is always perfectly able to act exactly as the player orders, barring scripted cutscenes. Now, I completely understand this. Game Design Rule #N is "Don't take control away from the player." If you're playing a first or third person shooter / action game, you don't want to suddenly be incapable of doing anything because your character is fleeing behind cover. If you're playing a strategy game, you don't want your plan to be ruined because a unit refuses to act.
But, what if, rather than an annoying tacked on complication, this was the entire premise of the gameplay? What if, instead of worrying about how many more hits you can take, you worried about how much longer you could hide just out of the gunfire before you stop being able to act? What if, instead of an abstracted amount of HP, you had an abstracted amount of Composure?
Now, I know there's been sanity meters, (pretend I can list things that are functionally identical here), but I've never seen this able to be exploited by the player.(At least not in a mechanically enforced way, triggering AI routines isn't quite the same.) I mean, basically, in an actual combat situation, your objective isn't precisely "Kill every enemy". It's "Render the enemy incapable of fighting." Making them dead is definitely a way of doing this, but so is manipulating the battlefield conditions to consume them with enough stress and fear that they make mistakes, or give up. That's your basic premise of warfare. And that's something you can't do in games.
So, finally to the actual pitch I had in mind. Turn based tactics game, modern to futuristic. (The pure threatening capability of guns is pretty much the basis of this.) Each unit has it's own reactions to different stimuli, such as being fired at behind cover, seeing the enemy, the sound of explosions, an ally being injured/dying, injuring/killing an enemy, being wounded personally, an extended silence, etc. that would either reassure or inspire them, refilling their composure, or unnerve or terrify them, reducing it. When they reach their breaking point, dependent on their personality, they react in a certain way: entering a catatonic shock, making a reckless charge, firing indiscriminate of friend or foe, suicide, etc.
It's not especially fleshed out, but even just that opens a lot of avenues I find interesting. First off, it distinguishes units really clearly and obviously, beyond just their weapon loadout. It allows them to be balanced in weird ways: The Berserker who's ready to keep going whenever they score a kill, but can't stand a pause in the action; The Quiet Type who seems like he's always going to be fine, but once he snaps your whole team is in danger; The Rookie who gets a thrill out of hearing gunfire, until she suddenly realizes how serious things are when she sees an ally get hit; The Pacifist who's capable of amazing feats, except when they realize they just killed someone, and shut down.
Secondly, it opens a wide array of tactical possibilities and considerations beyond maneuvering to where you can hit the enemy or where they can't hit you. Virtually any action you can take will end up effecting your opponent's (and your own) composure somehow, in addition to it's traditional benefits. You may not necessarily have more options than an equivalent game, but you'd have more functional options.
Finally, it means that getting hit can be lethal and that's totally fair. Units don't need a ton of HP to whittle down to make sure the battle is actually moving, because you're whittling down something separate, but also important, while hoping for a chance at that real hit. That's not only more realistic, but it adds a layer of parallelism, of giving you options on how succeed, and letting you pick which path is more favorable.
Of course, I'm not advocating this because of the "realism". I'm not a fan of realism for realism's sake, and the fact that I'm posting this as a ponyfan should be proof enough of that. But neither does realistic mean bad. The only concern here is that I haven't seen this sort of thing before. And new things are always good, until you find out they're not. Then you have to settle with the consolation prize of learning. Likewise, it would be terrible if this suddenly replaced all traditional mechanics. Variety is a good thing. Regenerating Health and Cover are both really good mechanics, honestly. But the fact that they've become so ubiquitous is a bad thing, because alternatives are important. (I think I'm ranting on another topic at this point, I'll save it for later.)
Okay, I think that's it. I'm not sure what possessed me to write an essay as long as my fanfic here, but whatever. I've got a lot of half-opinions and half-ideas like this floating around, so if you liked this, it might end up being a regular feature. Or even if you didn't, because it's not like I imagine I have an audience when I write things.
No audience? You don't know me very well, do you?
Ah, gaming mechanics. Something that's been pretty standard as of late. I don't play many shooters myself, but I've seen enough reports to know that many of the top tier shooters are all very similar in some ways. Though, I'd be remiss to say that it's only a problem for shooters. One of my personal favorite franchises, The Legend of Zelda, hasn't seen much innovation since The Ocarina of Time. The biggest innovation in the last game in that series was that Link now had a stamina meter for when he did tiring activities, like running. Whoop.
In fact, that stamina meter is kinda close in what you're talking about with the constitution meter. It's something I have to keep track of, separate from Link's health, because if it empties, Link can barely move for a few seconds. Now, I'm sure that something like that implemented well can be used to great affect. It's just making sure that it doesn't interfere too much with the overall gameplay. A gimmick is fun only so long as it doesn't become annoying. Then the game becomes a chore to play.
Nice thoughts! It's good to get things out of your brain to make room for even weirder thoughts.
367243
Haha, I know you're going to read it it, but that's almost to omnipresent to consciously think about.
I don't actually play many shooters myself, really. It makes it kind of odd that this got stuck in my head.
I'd also totally disagree that the Zelda series needs more innovation. If anything, it needs less innovation, because it's already had three or four of the most perfect games ever made, and yet they're not trying to provide more of exactly the same. (Except when they do that too literally, and re-release Ocarina of Time every three years.) It's really too bad Flagship got absorbed back into Capcom and then Capcom turned into what it is now, because if they were releasing a new Link's Awakening/Oracle game every eighteen months or so my life would be perfect. (Random fact I noticed: Zelda game plots are decent, except when they don't involved Zelda herself. Then they're amazing. Odd, isn't it?)
There are a few games that do this (to some extent).
Of the top of my head, there is the Total War series and its morale system where any unit can rout from the field when placed under extreme pressure. Some of the mods, such as Roma Surrectum and SPQR, take this a few steps further and really flesh out the endurance of individual units. For example elephant units might terrify infantry, but certain missile units actively hunt for them. Similarly, light infantry cream their pants at being charged by a cavalry unit from any direction, but disciplined phalanx formations resist attacks even from behind. Once a unit routs, whether or not it returns to the players control depends on lots of factors (the influence and presence of a general unit is one of them). Fleeing units also weaken the morale of nearby units, and may trigger a mass panic.
However this system only deals with morale, and not with individual skill. The Theater of War series tackles this level of micromanagement. Experienced veterans carry out orders faster than raw recruits, and generally do what you tell them to do. Inexperienced units are slow, and never get anything right.
Your own ideas seem to apply more to a traditional FPS as opposed to a RTS. Would be very interesting directing a squad of living, breathing characters.