I've said some pretty controversial things on this blog, at least to the gaming population. I've bashed Super Smash Bros Brawl and, much to my delight, was spared the same fate as more famous internet personalities as Yahtzee Croshaw. Perhaps I'm testing my luck by doing this, but I'd like to take this opportunity to add another popularly praised game to my list of garbage games. That game is A Link to the Past. I appreciate that a good Zelda game will challenge the player's mind, but there's a difference between presenting genuinely challenging puzzles and just confusing the player with an amalgam of bad conveyance, sticky combat (yeah, I said it), and completely unmotivating narrative.
Fragmentia fixes all three of those problems. Granted, the latter two are fixed by simply eliminating combat and narrative from the game entirely, but at least the conveyance is decent. And before you ask, no, Fragmentia and A Link to the Past have nothing to do with one another. I was just playing the latter recently and I needed to vent my frustrations.
Right, then. I talk about conveyance quite a lot and I will probably continue to do so. Yes, it's well known that I watched that one Egoraptor video, but no, that's not why I value conveyance so much. Anyway, let's slow down for a minute and explain exactly what conveyance is. Simply put, it's the way you teach the player about the mechanics of your game. The "mechanics," of course, can refer to controls and basic functions of the game. Sometimes it's necessary to tell the player straightaway, but usually the best option is to design the game so intuitively that the player can figure it out on their own. The reason I got so peeved at A Link to the Past earlier is because the game is trying to convey more than one detail at a time. This must be against the scientific method or something. I have this magic mirror that can shift me between dimensions, and the world just involuntarily shifted into one of these dimensions, so naturally I figured I have to use the mirror to get to my next objective. Turns out, nope: I just have to go into some shrubbery where there are microscopic holes at the top that I might have noticed if I wasn't so focused on the mirror that was apparently so important.
*pant pant* ok, I'm done now. The point of all that was that Fragmentia doesn't make the same mistake. It reveals one thing at a time, like a game should. More on that later.
I've always held to the belief that if you're playing with a controller (and thus, a limited amount of buttons), then there is no need to ever have button tutorials, because if the player get stuck, he or she can just mash buttons until the thing that they want to happen happens. PC gaming is a bit different in that there are too many keys that do nothing in the game for this strategy to work. Fragmentia gave me an interesting idea on how to remedy this problem. On the "controls" screen, a little graphic of a keyboard is shown with all the buttons that actually perform functions in the game lit up. Underneath this graphic was an explanation of what each button does, but riddle me this: what if those explanations were not there? Would this not be the perfect method of conveying controls to the player? Tell them which buttons are in use and then say, "good luck, junior." This will make the player feel rewarded for figuring stuff out on their own. The reason I hold this particular design quality above so many others is that I truly feel it encapsulates everything that's wonderful and unique to the gaming medium. Yes, you can feel rewarded for figuring out the twist ending to a movie or book, but what other kinds of media can reward you with the intrinsic elements of the medium? Ok, fine, knowing an esoteric vocab word in a book can be rewarding, as can figuring it out from context, but I still think there's something unique to interactive media (ergo, video games) that all falls apart when a game has bad conveyance.
Oh me oh my, I haven't even started reviewing Fragmentia yet. Alright, let's get to that.
Fragmentia is a very simple game. As I mentioned before, there is no story and the mechanics are limited. All the game really has to be reviewed are the art style and the mechanics, both of which I think were delivered terrifically. The art style has a kind of "felt cut-out" feel to it. Whether you love it or hate it, it's certainly unique and can definitely be appreciated.
Then there are the mechanics. Fragmentia really only has one puzzle: stop time at the appropriate place. I won't explain it more than that for fear of spoiling the answer to the only riddle in the game. Honestly, this is a little disappointing, but the one puzzle is conveyed so well and the game itself is so short and sweet that I can't get too mad.
And that's it! There you have it, 90% blog, 10% review. The take-away from today's little rant session is that when it comes to conveyance, less truly is more. As long as the player isn't completely clueless, let them figure stuff out on their own. I know it may be tempting to clue your little lab rat into every aspect of the game that you've toiled over so very laboriously, but trust me, missing one or two aspects of the game is worth it if it means good conveyance. Besides, it might even give the player a reason to replay your game. And for God's sake, please only convey one element of the game at a time.
That's all for now. Until next time, stay intuitive
Links
Key+Door=Profit: https://www.digipen.edu/?id=1170&proj=18540
