Introduction
Looking back, the 1980’s was a time of great innovation for arcade gaming. To view and play some of these games today, amidst the sophistication of modern gaming advancements, some might believe them to be lacking in thrill and imagination. However, without that golden age of video arcade gaming of the 1980’s, with its emerging technical and design creativity, the popularity, innovation and lucrative earnings would not be possible today.
Take Frogger, for example: a simple enough concept of having to move a frog across a road, over a river and into a safe haven while avoiding various obstacles. The success of this game, first introduced by Sega in 1981, had to rely on simple and fun game play. Taken in context, this game would have initially been targeted at a very young market, happy to disregard television in order to play repetitiously and alone. The added appeal of its innocent, amphibian theme, coupled with a growing acceptance that such games developed good hand-eye co-ordination and thinking skills made this a game welcomed by adults also. In time, this arcade game was seen in pubs and social clubs, appealing increasingly to an older generation.
To support the review of this game and analyse why it became so successful, the opinions of Greg Costikyan, Chris Crawford and Doug Church will be applied.
Goals
Frogger has one clear and simple goal; to maneuver a frog through lines of traffic and hungry crocodiles in order to reach a lily pad home. Although this is a basic goal, its appeal is in allowing the player to pick and choose the route in which to achieve this. According to Greg Costikyan, some of the more sophisticated games, such as Sim Earth, can become boring due to its lack of explicit goals. While this type of game will appeal to some players, it will alienate others and leave them frustrated and unfulfilled. Frogger requires a high degree of attention from the player in order to achieve its end goal. This in itself provides the necessary appeal to make it enjoyable and successful.
Structure
‘Game structure has to do with the means by which a game shapes playerbehaviour’ (1)
In order to understand the effectiveness of the structure in Frogger it is important to briefly explain the game.
Beginning at the bottom of the screen, the player first moves a frog over a road, avoiding an array of various road vehicles. Upon successfully completing this, the next challenge is to direct the frog across a river by hopping onto various logs and lily pads which scroll from left and right across the screen. However, crocodiles infest the water and must be avoided for the player to eventually reach their end goal in the form of various homes at the top of the screen.
Frogger is wells-supported by its game structure which allows the player to use different strategies and take alternate paths through the game.
Although a simple structure, Frogger allows itself to be played by players of different game styles. Take a tactical player for example: in no rush to complete their goal, they are still rewarded for doing so, simply by getting a larger number of frogs home. The game does call for quick reactions and decisions, but a player can take time to look ahead and plan a strategic route through the obstacles in the way. Frogger also appeals to those with a rushing style of play. With a high risk/reward incentive, players who want to earn points quickly can reach their goal with as much time on the clock as possible, and so earn more points.
Starting with five lives, there are a number of ways in which a player can be defeated. If, when trying to navigate a way through the plethora of obstacles that lie in their path, the player allows their frog to be struck by a car, drowned in the river or eaten by a crocodile, they lose a life. These elements reinforce the idea that the structure influences player behaviour which then leads into ‘perceivable consequences.
Perceivable Consequences
A perceivable consequence as defined by Doug Church in Gamasutra - Features - Formal Abstract Design Tools is
“A clear reaction from the game world to the action of the player.” (2)
In Frogger, when a frog ‘dies’, the game reacts with the player by doing two main things. Firstly, a small, skull and crossbones animation is displayed, allowing the player to see where they went wrong and what to avoid at their next attempt. The second game interaction is for the player to return to the bottom of the screen and restart with a new frog. The advantage of including perceivable consequences in this way provides the player with experiences to overcome during the continued playing of this game.
Rewards
Scoring in Frogger is dependant upon the amount of frogs successfully kept alive and how quickly they reach home. Avoiding a line of obstacles earns the player ten points, with extra points awarded for speed and completion of the task. As more frogs are saved, the more difficult the game becomes. Obstacles scroll across the screen more frequently and quickly, forcing the player to make quicker decisions when maneuvering their frog.
Frogger is designed to reward the skilful player but its appeal is also in allowing the novice to enjoy this gaming experience. With the scoring system set the way it is, advanced players have their efforts rewarded with a higher points score whilst novice players may be less concerned about time constraints, but continue to score points consistently by moving their frog through the various obstacles. This creates a challenging and rewarding game experience for players of all abilities.
Herein lies the success of Frogger. It is a game with a very clear and strict set of rules supported by a flexible scoring system to allow each and every player to find something rewarding. Although the rules remain constant through the levels, the challenge increases, benefiting increasingly skilful players with the reward of reaching the later stages of the game. Similarly, players with limited skill, earn points quickly and easily to maintain both entertainment and involvement in the game.
Interface
The user interface for Frogger is simple yet effective. With a single, non-scrolling screen the player is able to see their goal at all times which allows for a strategic style of game play as well as a speedy one. During the game, the player is also able to view their time and number of remaining lives. Cars and other objects are not graphically spectacular but their basic designs are colourful and engaging to the user.
Struggle
A game needs the correct level of struggle to make it enjoyable. If the challenges and struggle are too difficult, players will find the game frustrating. Similarly, if the game has little struggle it becomes too easy and the player will become bored. Creating the correct balance of difficulty is key to creating an enjoyable and rewarding game.
Frogger, like many other games from its time, relies on game mechanics rather than game interface to make it engaging for the player. Greg Costikyan claims that:
‘A game is an interactive structure… that requires players to struggle towards a goal’ (3)
The increasing difficulty of Frogger adds struggle, with the time aspect adding higher risk and a higher reward. Players are constantly required to make choices; choices which will eventually have a high impact on how well they do at the end. Forcing players to choose the direction they need to move in and which objects to land on allows them to interact with the game continuously. This maintains the player’s involvement at all times, as a slight loss of concentration could lead to failure.
Interaction
Interaction gives players various choices which allow them to shape the game state. Puzzles are an integral part to any game and those puzzles need a purpose or end goal for a player to successfully interact with the game. I agree with Chris Crawford when he distinguishes between a puzzle and a game:
‘A puzzle is static. A game is interactive’ (4)
To be interactive, decision making in a game is key and Frogger requires the player to make plenty of them. By forcing the user to continuously assess where they are moving and what lies ahead makes for an engrossing game. The decisions needed in Frogger are certainly meaningful. Each decision the player makes has an immediate impact on how well they progress through the game. Making the wrong decision can lead to a loss of life or a slower completion time, both of which impact on the overall score. One of the biggest decisions in Frogger comes when the frog reaches its lily pad. With a number of homes to choose from and fill, the player is forced into deciding upon a strategy to place each frog in a separate home. Such a decision has inevitable consequences for the rest of the game. Strategic players may feel that occupying the trickier homes first will allow for an easier task when it comes to facing the tougher levels. Rushing players may have the attitude that ‘any home will do’ so as to get a quick completion time and a higher score.
Endogenous Meaning
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, one definition of ‘endogenous’ means to be ‘confined within a group or society.’ Put simply and in the context of gaming,
‘A game’s structure creates its own meaning. The meaning grows out of the structure’
Elements of endogenous objects in a game are those which are created for value to the player alone whilst playing. Without the game, the same objects have no value or meaning to them whatsoever.
The lily pads in Frogger are a good example of this. They are of vital importance to the player and as such have an endogenous meaning. Without them, the game cannot be completed and so they become a compulsory and meaningful item within the context of the game. Taken out of the game state, the Frogger lily pads have next to no value. Being a necessary item, the lily pads become an integral part of how the player views and plays the game, while in reality, there would be no use for the item outside of its game state.
Summary
Costikyan’s functional definition of “game” is
‘an interactive structure of endogenous meaning that requires players to struggle
towards a goal’ (6)
Even in its most basic form, Frogger fulfills this definition with its clear structure and simple goals. Providing an element of struggle which, when overcome, rewards the player effectively is all part of this game’s appeal. Frogger was a classic 1980’s game, from whose simple but successful format other similar arcade games were launched.
It is, therefore, hardly surprising that Frogger still has a devoted following today amongst classic game restorers with their websites full of tips and advice and various versions of Frogger is readily available to download and play.
Bibliography
1 Costikyan Greg. (2002) “I Have No Words & I Must Design: Towards a Critical Vocabularly for Games”. Proceedings of Computer Games & Design Cultures Conference. pp20. Tampere, USA: Tampere University Press.
2. Church, Doug. (1999) Formal Abstract Design Tools Gamasutra – http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3357/formal abstract design to ols,php pp7.
3. Costikyan Greg. (2002) “I Have No Words & I Must Design: Towards a Critical Vocabularly for Games”. Proceedings of Computer Games & Design Cultures Conference. pp25. Tampere, USA: Tampere University Press.
4. Chris Crawford 1982 The Art of Computer Game Design, referenced by Costikyan Greg. (2002) “I Have No Words & I Must Design: Towards a Critical Vocabularly for Games”. Proceedings of Computer Games & Design Cultures Conference. pp24. Tampere, USA: Tampere University Press.
5. Costikyan Greg. (2002) “I Have No Words & I Must Design: Towards a Critical Vocabularly for Games”. Proceedings of Computer Games & Design Cultures Conference. pp22. Tampere, USA: Tampere University Press.
6. Costikyan Greg. (2002) “I Have No Words & I Must Design: Towards a Critical Vocabularly for Games”. Proceedings of Computer Games & Design Cultures Conference. pp24. Tampere, USA: Tampere University Press.
Word Count: 1838 excluding bibliography.
No comments:
Post a Comment