Nejuf - Software Development
Game Projects > Chains of Fate
Chains of Fate is an experimental Flash game. Like some of my other projects, it also uses the Flixel library. Using unique storytelling, I attempt to create a system of rewards vs penalties that is based off of the player's emotional attachment and moral feelings.
I feel that Chains of Fate was very much a success. By studying the behavior of players, I was able to answer a number of personal questions about how to reward and penalize players of a game, and how that system of penalties ties in with gameplay and motivation. Please read my overview of the results below the game.
I entered Chains of Fate into a game contest hosted by IndiePub, and then released it virally. You may play the game here (below), or on one of the hosting portals like Kongregate.
I feel that Chains of Fate was very much a success. By studying the behavior of players, I was able to answer a number of personal questions about how to reward and penalize players of a game, and how that system of penalties ties in with gameplay and motivation. Please read my overview of the results below the game.
I entered Chains of Fate into a game contest hosted by IndiePub, and then released it virally. You may play the game here (below), or on one of the hosting portals like Kongregate.
Chains of Fate Post-Release Overview
For five weeks early in 2011, I made
a solo endeavor to develop an experimental Flash game about player rewards and
penalties, titled “Chains of Fate.” In
the game, the player is tasked with solving a series of puzzles. Failure to complete the puzzles successfully,
results in the apparent death of virtual friends and allies. I entered Chains of Fate into the
Independent Propeller Awards 2011 game contest and afterwards released it
virally.
Initial Concept and Motivation (From a document prior to development)
“As of late, there has been a lot of discussion in the game industry about rewarding the player. People like to be rewarded and hate to be punished, so when making a game for people to enjoy, it makes sense to never punish the player for a mistake and always reward a player for any accomplishment. I think that while this system may work for a while, it tends to fall apart in the long run when the player becomes aware that failure is impossible. At that point, there is no longer the thrill of a challenge, and without a challenge, any accomplishment will feel meaningless. So the question is, “How can we find a balance in the positive and negative consequences to create an enjoyable experience?” Also, we may want to ask, “How could we present information about the consequences to the player so that they are aware and cannot become disillusioned?” It is harder for a person to find the motivation to persevere in a challenge when one does not know what it is one is fighting for or is unaware of the penalty for failure.
This game [Chains of Fate] seeks to explore the realm of consequences in games and find the answers to our questions. It uses emotional and moral ties to control both rewards and penalties. In this case, success in overcoming a challenge means saving lives, and failure results in the loss of lives. But this isn’t some counter with “1-ups,” it’s the lives of characters who tell the story of a man who befell an ill fate.”
The Set Up
The game cycles through a series of scenes three times. The series start out with the player walking the protagonist, Turin, through a castle, while an authority character or judge calls out to the subdued protagonist. The things the judge says deal with the reason why the protagonist is a prisoner and why he is doing puzzles.
The approach scene ends when the protagonist reaches the top of the castle where four friends are trapped in cages hanging from a height. The scene that ensues is all about telling the game’s story. The friends each get a chance to say something to Turin, possibly being their last words. In a round-about way, tell the story of Turin. The speeches from the friends serve an additional purpose in that they are meant to make connections on a social level with the player. The idea is to get the player to think of the character as more than just pixels, and have a greater “value.”
After the speeches are done, the game transitions to a puzzle. In the puzzle, there are four connections at the top of the screen and four at the bottom. Between these connections is a 7x5 grid of puzzle “pieces.” Each piece is composed of one or two pieces of chain that enter from one end of the piece, and exit from another end. My moving the pieces around, the player attempts to make a viable path from each of the top connectors to a connector at the bottom. Each top connector is associated with a chain supporting a caged friend. The player has until time runs out to secure a path. Not all paths have to be secured, but failure to do so results in a penalty in the following scene.
In the scene following the puzzle, the caged friends are visible. After a moment, a clank sound is heard and cages of any unsecured paths, plummet and crash at the bottom of the castle. As a last good-bye and to emphasize what has happened, there is a moment of “slow-motion” as the cages fall out of sight. After a moment, the scene fades out to the next scene.
Down on the castle ground, the protagonist is made to walk by the place where the cages fell. The destroyed fallen cages can be seen, and this is meant to firmly sink the notion of “consequence” into the player’s mind. The scene then fades to black, followed by a philosophical quote of relevancy to the story and the appearance of a moon and sun to signify a change of day.
Thus the cycle starts anew with Turin’s entry into the castle during a speech by the judge.
Effect On Gameplay
The puzzles in Chains of Fate are non-random, so the outcome is purely based on the player’s ability and performance. That being said, the gameplay was not the same for all players. The variety in gameplay came from emotional attachment and moral beliefs.
The first puzzle is explained with a mini-tutorial, but it was very much intentional that the player does a little bit more sinking than swimming on the first level. The puzzle is not excessively hard (it can even be completed in as little as three moves), but there is certainly no walk-through on how to complete the level. In designing, it was my intention that the player not complete the puzzle flawlessly. Information about how the paths were connected and supporting the cages was purposefully omitted, so that when one or more cages fall, the player is shocked or stunned, creating a moment of suspense. This event was very successful in that over 96 percent of players had at least one cage fall after the first puzzle.
Now that the surprise had set in, and the player became aware that failure meant losing a friend, it was likely that the desire to succeed became higher. The second cycle plays off of that and possible sense of panic from the first cycle, by including children and a dog among the caged friends. Whereas the adults of the first cycle could have been considered “guilty,” or “had their chance,” the children and dog on the other hand are undeniably innocent. After taking into account the “end factor” (the chains on the left and right ends are generally secured more often because they appear “easier” to the player), the crying girl was saved much more often then the dog, boy, or woman. This is because, as directly observed in testers, emotionally attached players make saving the helpless girl a priority, changing their strategy for solving the puzzle.
Emotional and moral attachment to virtual representations of people is normal and very common. However, there are some people who do not feel such connection, for whatever reason. Once such person even commented, “If you want to tell a story, make an animation . . . if you are going to make a game, make a game.” For this person, there was no connection at all between the puzzle and the game story and characters. What this means is that without this connection, the player will feel absolutely no sense of penalty or reward in doing the puzzle.
The Numbers
To keep track of various game events, I used the MochiMedia Analytics API. At the time of writing, the Chains of Fate has over 7000 plays, and is hosted on most open Flash portals. The average session time is about 7 minutes. Most people saved 4 out of 12 people. The game has been played most in China, followed by the United States. The portal from which, the game had the most plays is Kongregate. Something I found interesting is that Newgrounds players are much more willing to give non-standard games a chance, averaging a minute or more in session length than most other portals.
Initial Concept and Motivation (From a document prior to development)
“As of late, there has been a lot of discussion in the game industry about rewarding the player. People like to be rewarded and hate to be punished, so when making a game for people to enjoy, it makes sense to never punish the player for a mistake and always reward a player for any accomplishment. I think that while this system may work for a while, it tends to fall apart in the long run when the player becomes aware that failure is impossible. At that point, there is no longer the thrill of a challenge, and without a challenge, any accomplishment will feel meaningless. So the question is, “How can we find a balance in the positive and negative consequences to create an enjoyable experience?” Also, we may want to ask, “How could we present information about the consequences to the player so that they are aware and cannot become disillusioned?” It is harder for a person to find the motivation to persevere in a challenge when one does not know what it is one is fighting for or is unaware of the penalty for failure.
This game [Chains of Fate] seeks to explore the realm of consequences in games and find the answers to our questions. It uses emotional and moral ties to control both rewards and penalties. In this case, success in overcoming a challenge means saving lives, and failure results in the loss of lives. But this isn’t some counter with “1-ups,” it’s the lives of characters who tell the story of a man who befell an ill fate.”
The Set Up
The game cycles through a series of scenes three times. The series start out with the player walking the protagonist, Turin, through a castle, while an authority character or judge calls out to the subdued protagonist. The things the judge says deal with the reason why the protagonist is a prisoner and why he is doing puzzles.
The approach scene ends when the protagonist reaches the top of the castle where four friends are trapped in cages hanging from a height. The scene that ensues is all about telling the game’s story. The friends each get a chance to say something to Turin, possibly being their last words. In a round-about way, tell the story of Turin. The speeches from the friends serve an additional purpose in that they are meant to make connections on a social level with the player. The idea is to get the player to think of the character as more than just pixels, and have a greater “value.”
After the speeches are done, the game transitions to a puzzle. In the puzzle, there are four connections at the top of the screen and four at the bottom. Between these connections is a 7x5 grid of puzzle “pieces.” Each piece is composed of one or two pieces of chain that enter from one end of the piece, and exit from another end. My moving the pieces around, the player attempts to make a viable path from each of the top connectors to a connector at the bottom. Each top connector is associated with a chain supporting a caged friend. The player has until time runs out to secure a path. Not all paths have to be secured, but failure to do so results in a penalty in the following scene.
In the scene following the puzzle, the caged friends are visible. After a moment, a clank sound is heard and cages of any unsecured paths, plummet and crash at the bottom of the castle. As a last good-bye and to emphasize what has happened, there is a moment of “slow-motion” as the cages fall out of sight. After a moment, the scene fades out to the next scene.
Down on the castle ground, the protagonist is made to walk by the place where the cages fell. The destroyed fallen cages can be seen, and this is meant to firmly sink the notion of “consequence” into the player’s mind. The scene then fades to black, followed by a philosophical quote of relevancy to the story and the appearance of a moon and sun to signify a change of day.
Thus the cycle starts anew with Turin’s entry into the castle during a speech by the judge.
Effect On Gameplay
The puzzles in Chains of Fate are non-random, so the outcome is purely based on the player’s ability and performance. That being said, the gameplay was not the same for all players. The variety in gameplay came from emotional attachment and moral beliefs.
The first puzzle is explained with a mini-tutorial, but it was very much intentional that the player does a little bit more sinking than swimming on the first level. The puzzle is not excessively hard (it can even be completed in as little as three moves), but there is certainly no walk-through on how to complete the level. In designing, it was my intention that the player not complete the puzzle flawlessly. Information about how the paths were connected and supporting the cages was purposefully omitted, so that when one or more cages fall, the player is shocked or stunned, creating a moment of suspense. This event was very successful in that over 96 percent of players had at least one cage fall after the first puzzle.
Now that the surprise had set in, and the player became aware that failure meant losing a friend, it was likely that the desire to succeed became higher. The second cycle plays off of that and possible sense of panic from the first cycle, by including children and a dog among the caged friends. Whereas the adults of the first cycle could have been considered “guilty,” or “had their chance,” the children and dog on the other hand are undeniably innocent. After taking into account the “end factor” (the chains on the left and right ends are generally secured more often because they appear “easier” to the player), the crying girl was saved much more often then the dog, boy, or woman. This is because, as directly observed in testers, emotionally attached players make saving the helpless girl a priority, changing their strategy for solving the puzzle.
Emotional and moral attachment to virtual representations of people is normal and very common. However, there are some people who do not feel such connection, for whatever reason. Once such person even commented, “If you want to tell a story, make an animation . . . if you are going to make a game, make a game.” For this person, there was no connection at all between the puzzle and the game story and characters. What this means is that without this connection, the player will feel absolutely no sense of penalty or reward in doing the puzzle.
The Numbers
To keep track of various game events, I used the MochiMedia Analytics API. At the time of writing, the Chains of Fate has over 7000 plays, and is hosted on most open Flash portals. The average session time is about 7 minutes. Most people saved 4 out of 12 people. The game has been played most in China, followed by the United States. The portal from which, the game had the most plays is Kongregate. Something I found interesting is that Newgrounds players are much more willing to give non-standard games a chance, averaging a minute or more in session length than most other portals.
©2008-2022, Nejuf