Game Mechanix

[P4: Gritty Reboot]

This has been bouncing around in my head for a while. Games are good or bad on two levels: a small-scale level, what I have been calling micro-mechanics, and a larger-scale level, what I dub macro-mechanics.

 

Micro-mechanics are essentially the feel of the game, the way the guns shoot, the way the cars drive, the weight the player has in the game world (I've heard the controversial Tim Rogers call this friction, but I don't know that I like that term.) The 3D GTA titles have terrible micro-mechanics most of the time, with the possible exception of the cars' handling: the shooting is bad, the mini-games are bad, the flying sections are bad. Even the running feels off. But these games are highly regarded, and I think that's because they have good abstract gameplay, or macro-mechanics.

 

The macro side is the larger scope of the game: just the idea of having a whole city to tool around with, your own personal sandbox, is enough to push some of the modern GTA titles to greatness, depending on how fully realized that vision was in each game.

 

I think a lot of criticism directed toward games ought to be identified better as fitting in one of these categories, or a different element completely (presentation, technicalities, interface, etc.) Obviously, a game's reliance on one side or the other and how much of the game the player spends pouring into each side are factors in how well it will be received.

 

Anyway, I'm sure students of game design already know this, maybe under more widely accepted labels, but it's still something to think about when evaluating games or thinking about your reasons for liking or disliking them.

[Hot Heart]

Oh, I totally agree on that. For example, it's not like Mario's been getting by on his story all these years.

 

I think it was David Sirlin who talked about the 'feel' of a game being of great importance (with regards to Street Fighter in particular) and one of the original God of War designers ran a little experiment on jump latency across a few games.

 

I have to say, while I agree with the rest, I felt GTA IV's shooting was at least alright. It worked in the context of the game and you could get into some wicked gunfights online. The running in GTA IV felt alright too, but I do fucking hate all Rockstar mini-games; even though they clearly have a serious hard-on for them.

 

I know about the Tim Rogers 'Types of Friction' thing but, while he makes some very good observations, a lot of his descriptions are very loose and I don't see it as a well thought-out authoritative approach.

 

Recently, I've been a little bugged by The Witcher 2's responsiveness. I'm starting to think the console version would really need some serious tweaks. It's not terrible by any means, but I can't see your average console gamer putting up with the latency issues it has.

[P4: Gritty Reboot]

I didn't spend a lot of time with IV because it ran like crap on my PC; I suppose I was referring more to III-San Andreas.

[Hot Heart]

Yeah, I kinda gathered. It sort of fixes some of the old problems at least. Although I know many people hated the driving (I loved it)

[excel_excel]

I just keep on thinking about Resident Evil 4 when thinking about these Micro-mechanics. That game just felt right. The weapons felt weighty, Leon felt just right to control, he felt like he weighed something.

 

When your talking about Macro-mechanics though surely that doesn't even come into the equation for linear, non-sandbox games? Or are you refering to the world your in, the overreaching gameplay and world?

[Yantelope]

Yeah, the Macromechanics only seem to count for games that are so large in scale that they can't give perfect attention to every detail. My friend and I were discussing the graphical disparity in LA Noire's models. Some things in that game look awesome and some things look like leftovers from last generation. Because the game is so huge though they can't bother to render the whole world in explicit detail so some stuff just looks better than other stuff. I suppose that gameplay suffers the same fate. If you've got 15 different types of things to do, like in Red Dead Redemption, you can't expect them all to play as tight as something like Halo where all you do is shoot but the shooting is wonderful.

 

I suppose there's a middle ground too. Mass Effect has decent shooting and a story around it. I feel the 2nd game was a real jump because the shooting felt almost as good as Gears of War or other dedicated 3rd person shooters but it still had the macro story and other RPG elements too it.

[P4: Gritty Reboot]

I think the "macro" thing can be on different scales too though; it's not necessarily limited to sandbox-type games. For instance, in Resident Evil 4, the overarching goal you're working towards within an area, or even the higher-level tactics in maneuvering away from the zombies might fall into that category. Take that first town you have to go into: you can approach it in a few ways, even though the story itself is linear. The way the zombies react to you, the house you decide to hole up in, the paths you run away from them on, is all tactics but different than an immediate sense of "shoot this guy in the head." In other words, it's engaging, but on a slightly more abstract level. The same could be said of the combat in Halo:CE, taking an objective in Battlefield 1942 (or 2 or 3 or whatever the kids are playing these days), or perhaps even the sensation of taking part in a larger story in something linear like Half-Life.

 

I'm making this up as I go, so it certainly will take some finagling to try to classify every element of every game out there.

[deanb]

So if I'm reading this right, let's use Portal as an example.

 

The micromechanics are for example the portal travel, weighted cubes, lasers, gels. The macromechanics are how the elements are built up over time or how different micromechanics interact to make a complete level?

 

If the micromechanics are off you'd generally struggle to get through a game, if they work well and mesh together well then you'll find that you'll end up sitting down to play and finding out it's the week after. The macromechanics don't mesh too well then it can struggle to notice until it's too late, what it would result in is an unsatisfying game, generally regardless of how well the micromechanics work you'd find the game forgetful. Good macromechanics don't have much of an effect unless the micromechanics are up to snuff too.

 

The micromechanics are the engine of the car. If they're bust up the engine won't run regardless. The machromechancis are the car itself. Sure with a working engine it'll get you from a to be, but not a very memorable ride. But a good game is an Aston Martin through Scotland. Most are a Ford Focus to the supermarket.

[RockyRan]

I think a reviewer failing to mention the importance of micro-mechanics in a game can be the difference between people saying it's a good review and them saying it's "too nitpicky". It can very well feel like someone is picking its if they mention micro mechanics most all the time, but in my opinion great games can be ruined just by one simple mistake.

 

Take Scurge: Hive for the Nintendo DS. I love the art style, I love the premise, I love the graphics, I love the basic gameplay, and I love the idea. Too bad I can't fucking play it because the game has a horrendous camera system that literally gives me nausea after 2 minutes of playing. It's unplayable for me, and if I were a reviewer on some major game review site I'd probably give it a low score because of that. And I'd probably be called out on it as being "nitpicky" if I don't stress how important something like that is.

 

A lack of good macro mechanics can also make a game feel hollow. I think the lack of engaging macro-mechanics is the reason why some people don't finish games that they actually think are good but they just "lost interest". That loss of interest, IMO, is probably a deficiency in macro-mechanics making the game engaging. It's the "yeah, so what?" factor. Yeah, so you have good micro-mechanics, so what? Where are you going with this? What's the purpose, the overall structure, the sense of progression? If reviews are anything to go by, something like Alice: Madness Returns is a prime example of a game with poor macro mechanics.

 

(unless P4's definition of macro mechanics is something else entirely )

[P4: Gritty Reboot]

Yeah, I think that's what I meant.

 

Games with good micro are games that you can't put down, that are so friggin' addictive that you find yourself saying "one more turn/level/mission" until the wee hours of the morning. If they have good macro--which comes in lots of different flavors, level design, a meta-game, structure, etc.-- then all the better.

 

But if a game has poor micro but great macro, it's one of those titles you push through to the end in spite of its flaws, whatever those are perceived to be.

 

If we can turn this into a fun exercise: come up with four examples of each combination of good/bad micro/macro design.

 

Good Micro/Good Macro: Counter-Strike. Solid shooting and movement mechanics, higher level of squad tactics, plus the economy/buying structure that forced you to plan out ahead.

 

Good Micro/Poor Macro: Brink, from the sound of it.

 

Poor Micro/Good Macro: The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind. Twitchy combat, awkward character movement and animation, but the open world exploration and character building was awesome.

 

Poor Micro/Poor Macro: Red Steel: flawed controls, uninteresting shooting and combat and swordplay, in addition to archaic level design and lack of any compelling macro to keep it interesting.

 

Of course there are varying degrees of good/bad design, but it's interesting nonetheless.

[deanb]

Dammit I was going to make a list like that but then I thought it might be a bit anal.