I've been playing this game a lot lately, so I figure it's worth talking about. If you've been feeling like there's nothing new to see in platformer level design, here is your proof that there is still some creativity hiding at the bottom of that pesky Pringles can. I should point out that I'm talking mainly about the level design and artistry, and not exactly what you
do within those levels. Your actions, punching, shooting, jumping, should be familiar to you, but the settings in which these activities take place are truly varied and inspiring. We're a long way from your typical lava/ice/desert/etc world design here. No, levels in this game take place within the minds of the game's characters and each reflects said characters' psyches taken to comic extremes.
The more of these personality-induced levels one plays, the more grand the potential one sees in this brilliant setup. Consider the artist level for example - it is based on black velvet paintings (and quite stunning), but could have easily taken place in a watercolor world, or grayscale pencil drawings, or picasso-esque abstract, or...well, you get the point. It makes one want to toss pride aside and beg Tim Schafer for a sequel. Or two.
But I have my doubts that the game made enough money to justify another outing to a publisher. It seems to have been the very definition of a 'sleeper hit' - popular with critics and fans of good games, but largely unnoticed in the general public. Some encouraging news today, though, I saw that the game is doing very well in sales on Amazon.com, albeit at an undeservedly low $10 price tag. Could this boost the game's popularity as dvd rentals did so for the first Austin Powers movie? Time will tell. Personally, my greater fear is that poor sales could result in the closing of Double Fine, Schafer's development studio. Whether the next game they make is a sequel or all new IP, you can bet I'll be there to play it.
But back to marketing, for a second, since I know that's what everyone is interested in. I've been "analyzing" the game and its packaging, trying to figure out why it wasn't more popular. I can tell you from first hand experience that it wasn't the box art that got me interested, it was the reviews. I think the screenshots on the back of the box are bit confusing, and don't portray the fun level design very well. Honestly, I couldn't tell what was going on in some of them until I'd been there in the game myself. Not good. Unfortunately, trying to capture the essence of the level artistry is a difficult task - the visuals need to be seen not just at full size,
but in motion. 2 examples: the lungfish level in which you must traverse the terrain not to reach some endpoint, but to stay within the giant bubble of air he is pushing around. Try capturing that in a 1-inch screenshot on the back of a box. Then there's the conspiracy nut's level, which twists and turns so greatly that you can sometimes point the camera up and find yourself looking down on the top of a nearby house. It is a visual spectacle when in motion, the level dipping and arcing as you run through it, but virtually impossible to parlay in a small, static screenshot.
As much as I'd like to point my (sympathetic) finger squarely at the marketing folk, there is also a problem within the game's design that may have been it's financial fatal flaw: the wonder of the game does not begin to truly reveal itself until you are about 3 hours in.
3 hours. Note the use of italics, for I am making a point:
3 hours. The game is solid from the get-go, sure, and the dialogue/characterizations are great,
but it takes too long before the gameplay truly starts to become unique and fun. I have this stomach-churning vision of people - kids, teens, adults - renting the game and playing for about 2 hours and thinking, "this is nice, but it's not so great that I need to see all of it." They play a little bit more, get tired of collecting arrowheads, then take the game back to the rental store and basically forget about it. I speak from experience (or very nearly) here: I myself played about 2 1/2 hours into the game and then set it back on the shelf. It wasn't until some fellow idga members raved about the thing that I forced myself to play some more. Now I'm 15 hours in and can't stop thinking about it. I don't subscribe to some belief that you need to show all your cards immediately for fear of losing your audience, but you do, as a game designer, need to make sure your audience wants to keep playing.
At this point it would seem prudent to offer examples and suggestions for how you keep the game interesting. Frankly, though, I'm kind of tired of typing. So what I'll do is direct you to the latest issue of Game Developer magazine (August '06), which has an article on game pacing that does in fact offer examples and suggestions for how to keep your game interesting throughout its duration.
