Game Design

I think, as a whole, that video games have improved considerably from the days of Pong, Space Invaders and Asteroids. However, it would be wrong of me to say that it is only because of graphics, sound or complexity.

It is easy to see that video games have improved considerably with the introduction of these elements. The games of the 80s with their colors and sounds made games like Pong seem infantile. However, in the earliest days, video game designers were extremely limited by what they could accomplish with the simple tools that they had available.

The first video game system that I played as a child was an Oddessy II system. You had very simple controls to move white dots on a black screen. In order to make the screen more interesting, you would use the static of the TV screen to hold a colorful plastic overlay (such as a picture of a haunted house). Intense gameplay was not in the cards.

Graphics improved and innovative joysticks, trackballs and similar tools became more prevalent. This cut loose, somewhat, the designers who had more room to work with and could get more innovative with their games.

There came a point, in my view, where the graphics, sound and complexity weren’t the most important aspects of the games. The graphics became more true-to-life. Rich sounds blared from the TV or computer. Controls started to have more buttons than a typewriter. However, it seemed that the games, while they looked cooler, didn’t become any more fun because of it. In fact, the games either seemed too distracting with the graphics and sound or so complex that you’d lose two rounds of the game before you even started to play.

It seemed like the best games started to come about by being simpler, more intuitive and making the player think and act together. Games like Tetris became a hit even though it really wasn’t that impressive technically. The puzzle-like concept of the game combined with the fast pace of a video game made it simple to play but challenging. Other games that featured “quests” or some sort of story focused more on drawing the player into their interactive world than complexity. (Admittedly, graphics and sounds were used strongly to make it easier for players to immerse themselves in the game. However, it tended to be the background story and setting that made those games so strong.)

The strongest games have not been the ones that were on the cutting edge technically with images, noises and lots of ways to confuse your fingers. The strongest games were those that focused on the innovation of the games concepts.

Consider for a moment what the most popular game console is at the moment. I speak, of course, of the Nintendo Wii. With the PS3s and XBoxes on the market, the Wii is definitely on the poorer end for graphic quality. While the sound is as good as the other devices, it makes no real strides in that. Though the technology behind the controllers are amazing, the real amazement come not from their complexity but on how easy and intuitive they are to use.

The games, though, are enjoyable to the point of being addictive.

While graphics, sound and more complex gameplay certainly made their mark in making better games, the part that counts most is the innovation and playability of the game itself. The graphics, sounds and complexity can help a good concept but without that core, the game itself is easy to put away. These elements are the packaging that can improve a good product but lead to disappointment on a game that has a poor concept behind it.