Comments on: Catch-Up Mechanics and that Damn Blue Shell

By: Precariously Balancing on the Edge of Game Design : Critical Hits

Precariously Balancing on the Edge of Game Design : Critical Hits — Fri, 23 May 2008 21:11:06 +0000

[...] as soon as it begins by getting stuck with a weaker position. (All players should feel like they have a chance to win throughout the whole [...]

By: The Chatty DM

The Chatty DM — Mon, 12 May 2008 12:48:20 +0000

Yes it does indeed blow up quite spectacularly.

Another catchup mechanic I initially missed is that the game as a Slipstream effect (blue wind lines) when you follow another Karter closely, giving you a boost in speed…

This along with Drift-Boosting and Acrobatics-Boosting gives a skilled players quite an advantage that makes the catch up mechanics a necessary evil…

By: Bartoneus

Bartoneus — Mon, 12 May 2008 12:03:55 +0000

“I’d say the subject of this article is a way to fail fixing the rich getting richer and poor poorer.”

I’m not sure I understand that statement in relation to this post. The Mario Kart blue shell is the opposite of ‘Rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer’, instead it is the people in the lead being frustrated that they are the target.

Does the blue shell still explode? I loved the fact that it would often hit the top 2 or 3 people in the lead if they were too close.

By: ScottM

ScottM — Fri, 09 May 2008 20:12:21 +0000

I like good catchup mechanisms– and you’re right, they’re often hard to craft. Ursuppe has a good one, where people who are behind get to skip occupied spaces (giving them a small bump to their points each turn). It has a lot of other behaviors that are less good, but I do like the “rounding up” method of drawing closer.

By: TheMainEvent

TheMainEvent — Fri, 09 May 2008 19:13:41 +0000

Does the new Mario Kart also continue the trend of high placed people getting shitty items (green shells, banana peels)? If so, I feel like the LACK of good items for high placed people is a good an appropriate mechanism.

By: The Game

The Game — Fri, 09 May 2008 18:36:32 +0000

Well, sort of. For example, Mario Kart isn’t particularly rich get richer- the fact that you’re in first place doesn’t grant you any kind of inherent advantage (maybe very slightly if you count dropping banana peels and such.)

By: Tommi

Tommi — Fri, 09 May 2008 18:26:16 +0000

Dave: I’d say the subject of this article is a way to fail fixing the rich getting richer and poor poorer.

By: The Game

The Game — Fri, 09 May 2008 17:09:31 +0000

Tommi: That factors in to the psychological aspect, certainly. Though what it sounds like you’re describing is rich get richer/poor gets poorer problem, which I’ll have to remember to write up for a future column.

Sultan: Trading is a great way to solve a lot of kingmaker problems, whereas more direct “bash the leader” doesn’t tend to work as well.

By: Original Sultan

Original Sultan — Fri, 09 May 2008 16:36:25 +0000

NFL Blitz was notorious for the ‘catch-up’ mechanic. When ahead, you were much more likely to fumble and throw interceptions then when losing.

Another game that has a more indirect ‘catch-up’ mechanic that I think works pretty well is Settlers of Katan. It has a bash-the-leader type mechanic, but only serves to slow the leader down rather than have him ‘blown up’. It gives the other players a chance to catch up but the leader can still win if things go his way.

By: Tommi

Tommi — Fri, 09 May 2008 16:34:23 +0000

There’s similar problem with roleplaying games and character advancement in games where it and mechanical character power are relevant.

Witness, for example, games where there are hero points that can be used either to improve one’s character or to make a reroll. Player with powerful characters can become even more powerful, while those with weak characters need the rerolls, and hence the gap will grow even wider. This will eventually make the weak characters quite irrelevant, rules-wise.

By: The Game

The Game — Fri, 09 May 2008 16:31:55 +0000

You know, I played tons of NBA Jam, but I had no idea about the computer assistance. Maybe I just assumed it was my “getting in the zone” when the chips were down.

By: Original Sultan

Original Sultan — Fri, 09 May 2008 16:31:14 +0000

I find that the balancing act (as you allude to at the end) between
1. allowing all the players a chance to win even up until the end, and
2. making the good decisions / skilled play of the leaders matter by giving them a greater chance of winning on the other,
is the most difficult aspect of designing a game.

I think you mentioned on a previous post how the end of a game is often the most difficult part, and I feel that striking this balance plays directly into how the end-game works. Now I realize that there is more to the end-game than just this little balancing act (does it end arbitrarily, can players choose to end it, etc.), but I think that this balance plays a big part.

By: TheMainEvent

TheMainEvent — Fri, 09 May 2008 16:27:58 +0000

Other famous video game effects was the old NBA Jam’s ‘computer assistance’ where the chances of you hitting shots went up as your margin of loss increased. Moreover, the infamous “On Fire” effect occurred when you made three straight shots. I can recall jacking up three pointers with Issiah Thomas while down, catching on fire, and then using that bonus to catapult light years ahead of frustrated friends.