I think we can all agree that it sucks to be losing. In most games, it’s inevitable that someone will be losing. However, good games will try to convince every player that he has a chance of winning up to the very end (while still rewarding those who did well throughout the course of the game.) In addition to the psychological aspect, it also helps to minimize Kingmaker. Many games accomplish this by adding luck, which can bridge the gap between skilled players and less skilled players.
In fact, the style of game that does this most directly is the push-your-luck game (like Incan Gold.) In a typical PYL game, a losing player can just keep taking risks to try to catch up until the very end.
However, there are other games that take another, but still direct, tact. Some games contain a “catch-up” mechanic by which players are specifically hindered for being in the lead and/or specifically helped by trailing. The two most direct examples of this I’ve seen are Power Grid and Mario Kart– however, each of these have some issues in how they handle the implementation.
For those who are unfamiliar, Power Grid structures its turn order around what players it says are losing and winning. A later turn order is generally bad: you buy your resources later and thus more expensive (and allow the other players to drive up the costs to attack you) and you buy your houses later, and so the good spots will often be taken by the time it rolls around to you.
There is only a small amount of luck in the game in the order in which power plants come out, which leads to a game that’s entirely open (or hidden trackable.) Thus, skilled players will navigate themselves into situations where they are purposely losing to gain the advantages at the right time. Indeed, this is part of the expected strategy. It’s a very good game with tons of decisions that come out from that, but does not satisfy the usual criteria.
Now, in Mario Kart Wii, there’s some very direct methods by which winning players are hindered, and some by which losing players are helped. The most infamous example is the blue shell: only given out to players near the back of the pack, it seeks out the player in first place and destroys him, no save. However, this tends to have a very direct Kingmaker effect. Generally, the player in twelve place doesn’t care about whose in first place. The blue shell, in a close race, just punishes whoever happens to be in first and lets second place take the lead. Really, it would be much better if the shell just sought out whoever was in front of the person firing it, though that also has the effect of punishing players who are already pretty far behind.
The item that has the best effect in helping the loser is Bullet Bill. As long as you’re not hideously far behind (as what happens to me every time on the haunted house level), you are pushed ahead several places without needing to do anything. At least this is fully helpful and not punitive to other players, but it does mean it’s the item you really want to get when behind.
Mario Kart has always tried to balance the skill of driving with some chaos associated with items and power ups. Like many of Nintendo’s offerings, younger kids are the primary audience which tend to need more help catching up and enjoy chaos more. Of course, Nintendo also wants adults to play the game, and judging by some of the reactions online, it’s clear that being constantly bombarded with blue shells when doing well can be frustrating. So in your own designs, be careful of the line to walk between “anybody can win” and “winner gets blowed up.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Dave: I’d say the subject of this article is a way to fail fixing the rich getting richer and poor poorer.
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.)
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.
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.
“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.
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…