Just got up from a night tending to my fidgety daughter who needed someone next to her in order for her sleep through the night.
Lying half-asleep whilst making sure she remained covered up but had not thrown the blankets over her head, I had a brief image of walking through the Strogg corridors of Quake 4, particularly past the computer conduits where a threshing decapitated and limbless human torso is grafted into the wiring system as some sort of information processing junction.
In my soporific state I got quite angry – this is quite a bugbear of mine. I thought Q4 did well to create a horrific scenario – human body implemented as junction box. The only thing that could have made it worse is if the human side was the one to do it, rather than the alien Strogg. My only issue is that as a marine, I would definitely find the torsos as good targets, putting a semi-sentient human out of their misery while hopefully doing some damage to the Strogg war machine. However, the player can fire their entire ammo pack at the torso implanted in the wall, without any effect. Like most games, Q4 is a ‘go to heavily-defended location X, find object Y and steal/destroy it’ (one you do that, usually the level ends, you don’t need to get yourself back out) single-target-to-accomplish-mission type of game.
This game system is great for linear play and allows the designer to craft some interesting situations along the way with an increasing amount of difficult challenges to overcome as the player nears their goal. However, it means that the (usually industrial-military) complex the player is traversing is just a conduit – a spatial funnel that propels the player and narrative along a single, limited-interaction, path.
Instead of this scenario, what about using a destructible environment in a way that allows the player to choose how to complete the given objective? For the sake of development issues and time and money, we are not talking total destructible environments, just a limited, contextualized set of assets. So, in the above example, Q4, the asset set would be the ‘fixtures and fittings’ that adorn the Strogg MIC (Miltitary-Industrial Complex) – wires, junction boxes, health pads, computer banks, doors even, etc.
Say for example the player’s mission is to destroy a Strogg satellite facility.
The single target objective would be to battle through to room X in middle of the satellite station to destroy some cooling rods in order to set off a chain reaction to destroy the facility.
A multiple paths design strategy would encompass the single ‘golden path’ method above as well as provide the player with many others. These other methods can also support new game mechanics therefore diversifying further the gaming experience.
Let’s look at our particular example mentioned above – the destruction of an enemy satellite facility.
Running throughout the facility are wires, control machines, computers and screens. As the player travels through the complex, they can destroy the structures within the complex. Different structures have different amounts of durability and therefore take different amounts of hit points before they are destroyed. Some may also be impervious to certain weapons, necessitating the use of higher caliber weapons in their destruction. Computer banks may take a hell of a lot of fire before they are destroyed, whilst wires can be easily destroyed with a light machine gun. Players may have to learn by example which structures can be destroyed by a certain armament. There may be certain critical structures spaced around the complex, although this approach has it’s own limits to play. If enough of the centre is destroyed/rendered inoperable, the facility is rendered useless and the mission deemed completed.
This means that the player is not lead through the nose in order to complete the level, but can skirt around and destroy structures wherever/whenever they feel is prudent.
Destroying the centre piecemeal however brings novel mechanics to bear. The aforementioned differing durability of structures means the player can cherry-pick targets according to their weapon stash. The player also has to manage their ammo effectively in order to beat back enemies and destroy structures.
If destroying structures sets off alarms or alerts guards, then this can radically change the game experience for the player. If computer banks can only be destroyed by rockets, for example, resulting in louder explosions, more guards will be alerted to the player’s position. On the other hand, prudent use of mines or grenades can cause the destruction of the computer banks and draw the guards away from the player’s next target. Players can use a strategy of stealth and distraction to achieve their aims, if so desired.
Creating multiple paths to overcome challenges can also help branch the narrative if this is required. In our example, stealing or destroying the cooling rods results in a catastrophic act that destroys the facility permanently. Destroying main structures can do the same or knock the centre out temporarily, with the Strogg diverting resources to rebuild a modified, possibly strengthened centre, creating a situation where the player has to adopt new attack strategies when revisiting the centre later in the game.
