While I was finishing my latest game, which is of the RTS genre, I would often compare it to Starcraft (as Starcraft is one of the genre leaders) and I wanted to understand the differences and similarities between the games. The majority of my comparisons were based around what the player would get out of each game and it lead me to understand a dichotomy that all games fall into. Games are based on either incrementally improving skills and strategies or on providing an overall experience that is usually a one-shot deal. The point of this looking at this dichotomy is to separate intent from implementation. A game can have replay value because it was intended to, or as a side effect of its implementation.

To easily refer to these diametric elements, I’ve labeled the first "progressive" and the second "experience". To be clear on how I see those terms applying, let’s look at the definitions:

Progressive - Moving forward; advancing.

Progressive style games are based on elements that are general in nature and can be played repeatedly as the player learns different skills and strategies. Environments are normally generalized so that the player does not get saturated with unique imagery and can focus on the gameplay.

When I say "progressive", I don't mean to imply how the player will play the game in a manner that they progress through the game. I mean that the intent of the game is to give the player a varity of tools that they will progressively learn to use and play with under the game rules.

Experience - An event or a series of events participated in or lived through.

Experience style games are based on problem solving and unique situations. Whether in a detailed story or "wow factor" graphics and environments, the player is saturated with interesting places and is enticed to continue with hopes of new "wows" to be had. Experience games often don’t have a lot of replay value because they are made to give one in-depth gaming experience and a lot of the challenges have been solved afterwards.

When I say "expereince", I don't mean to imply something that is short and repeatable. I mean to compare it on the intent again in the same way that viewing a movie is an experience. The topic of these labels is focusing on the intent of the design and what the player will get out of them. While this may seem similar to "being replayable vs. not being replayable" it is actually different from that as those are implementation issues, rather than the intent of the product. A game that is meant to be replayable but it implemented poorly may have no replay value, and this can't be put in the same category as a game that is intented to be played through once and is crafted to give the player a great experience while doing so.

Lets look at a few examples of both types:

Progressive

Experience

   

Quake

Kingpin

Tetris

Grim Fandango

Starcraft

Fallout

Pac-Man

Myst

 

 

Progressive

Progressive style games are often based on elements that need to be used as part of the player’s experience and strategy. The environments are often set up to be visually themed or repetitive, which allows the player to abstract what they are looking at. To give an example: if you are inside a maze and all the walls look the same, then you stop caring which particular walls you are looking at and deal with the maze as a maze. Conversely, the more unique elements in a maze, the more the player will be concentrated on the elements instead of the maze itself.

By keeping the environments more abstract, the player doesn’t focus on the individual areas of the game and instead focuses on the game elements they are presented with. This creates an environment such as in Quake where the player thinks of the environment as a map or maze to be used to fight the other player, instead of something to be looked at for its own sake.

Another aspect of progressive games is that they keep elements balanced so that their values are not strictly linear. In Quake the player has a number of weapons available and most of them are useful at different times due to different conditions. In contrast, the RPG Fallout has a linear progression of weapons. The later and more advanced weapons are clearly better than the earlier weapons, so the player has no reason to use the early weapons later in the game. Quake’s rocket launcher may have the most damage potential, but in close corridors it’s too dangerous to fire forcing the player to turn to other options. Therefore Quake encourages the players to make use of all the weapons by using a strategy based on when those weapons are most appropriate.

 

Experience

Experience style games focus on giving the player a powerful and unique experience as they play through the game. Experience games are often based on playing through a story or event as opposed to being in a short, repeated event. They use elements such as unique environments, stories, characters and items to interest and entertain the player. In addition to enjoying the gameplay, players are enticed to continue to see more of the environment, or to discover the conclusion of the story.

Where users who play Quake initially are very impressed with the graphics, they soon start breaking down the images into only the elements they need to play the game. After seeing a corridor several times, no matter how interesting the image looks, the player will eventually see it as part of the map layout, ignoring it as an individual element.

In Myst, the game is essentially a series of puzzles connected with audio and visual "wow factor" elements. After experiencing the content for the first time, it becomes mundane quickly and the player’s interest lies with getting to the next area, with its new sights and sounds to explore.

An interesting example of an experience game that is directly based on a progressive game is Kingpin, which is a first person shooter using the Quake 2 engine. Kingpin has the same gameplay as Quake, where you have to fight opponents with a variety of weapons, but due to the detailed environment the players are more interested in exploring and seeing the next environment than playing the current level over and over. It’s an interesting case that points out how two games that are almost identical can give the player totally different gaming experiences.

 

Genres

Some genres seem to naturally fall into progressive or experience styles, so let’s take a look at them and see where they land:

Action

Often progressive based, but sometimes the implementation of "wow factor", realism or extended play time turns it into an experience style. Examples are Quake and Pac-Man.

Strategy

Usually progressive style as it requires the player to master strategies using the general elements provided. Examples are Starcraft, Command & Conquer and Civilization.

Puzzle

Almost always experience based, as after the puzzles have been solved the challenge is gone. Examples are crosswords and mazes. An example of a puzzle game that is progressive would be Tetris, as its random creation of pieces and the dynamic nature of the places to put them require the player to develop a skill instead of gaining learned knowledge in how to solve the problem.

Adventure

Almost always static puzzle based, these games rely on heavily unique and usually visually interesting scenery and events that make replay unlikely for most people. There are normally no repeatable skills developed. Examples would be Myst or Grim Fandango.

Role Playing Games (RPGs)

Role playing games are in many ways similar to adventure games, but often deal with an incremental system of health, strength and power instead of gathering items to unlock puzzles. This makes these games tend toward being progressive in style. Examples would be Fallout or Baldur’s Gate.

 

Conclusion

None of these styles of games are inherently better than the others for all audiences. They have their advantages and disadvantages for different people as they provide the players with different gaming experiences.

Since the creation of computer based games, there have always been both styles available. Adventure provided an experience style of play where the players would find their way through a interesting world, and Pong gave people the opportunity to hone skills of quick hand-eye coordination against their opponents. As game developers you must strive to understand who you are making the game for and what their needs are, and allow that knowledge lead to you into what style of game to make.