Game Pitch Analysis

Through analysis of the Game Pitch feedback I came to a few conclusions, some highlight areas that stand-out and others that could be improved upon. In my feedback post I mostly covered the changes that occurred as a result of the feedback and how they impacted my design, in this post I want to focus mostly on areas that particularly stand out as being strong features or weak and frustrating.

Initially I chose to follow the EGA model, with the emotional experience of the event taking precedence over the game-play that happens as a result of manipulating the actions. I felt that a strong narrative and aesthetics would communicate the games theme to the player while making the game atmospheric and enjoyable. This subversion of expectations and communication of strong emotions such as (fear leading to survival, fight or flight etc.) was intended to be the USP (Unique Selling Point) of the game. After analysing the feedback given I came to the conclusion that while the aesthetics and atmosphere did communicate the theme (albeit aimed at an older audience to promote the IP) the gameplay and actions performed by the player are more impactful and engaging.

This convinced me to switch to the AGE model, where actions such as managing, jumping and chaining take priority over the experience of the journey. This allowed me to focus more on fine tuning my mechanics and player abilities (something I feel was a weak link) to allow for a more enjoyable experience. Movement was made easier by altering speed variables, a 'scroll to' was included to allow the player to move the view-port using the mouse(for a large view of the area leading to more discovery). Other additions include adding costume bonuses(some allow the user to double jump etc). This allows for further discovery as the player is able to reach new heights and areas, this also allowed me to integrate some discernible aspects and constantly reward the player for attempting new things with new data (also encourages re-playability).

A few areas of concern that became apparent at this point were: the difficulty, the brightness and the goal. The difficulty of the game was initially set to offer a challenge to the player, they should have (reasonable) difficulty in reaching the goal, essentially having inefficient means to reach the goal through facing conflict. The game should still offer fair chance throughout and ultimately reward the player for overcoming the conflict. Yet the enemy quantity, speed and damage resulted in a bullet storm, consistent enemies travelling towards the player with high speed. This made it difficult for the players to react and resulted in erratic decisions and eventually a quick game over. To improve this I balanced some variables and turned to the Risk/Reward system and the addition of new mechanics and player abilities. I wanted the player to have new options at their disposal (the torch regenerates health, defeats enemies, reveals collectibles etc.) and that if they choose to go a certain path with extra danger (more obstacles) they are rewarded at the end.

The brightness of the game was also a big concern, as the game started dark and only became darker. The improvements made were simple enough, I set the opacity levels lower(increasing the brightness) and altered the time it takes to darken the screen. This resulted in a less intimidating starting screen for the player.

This was my first focused analysis of a small section of my game, in later entries I will use other theories and models to frame the relevant elements with.