Progression Theory
Posted: Sat Jul 16, 2011 5:38 pm
The following is an article I've been working on for the CK Newsletter, however, due to its highly abstract and theoretical nature, I thought I'd post it here for feedback, suggestions, etc., for improving or rejecting it.
In my observation there are three, interrelated concepts of progression in Commander Keen and related games: experiential progression, macro progression, and micro progression. In this article I'll define the meaning of each and suggest ways in which level designers can best approach them.
To begin with, lets introduce terms.
Experiential progression is the rate at which the player encounters new material in a game. This can be anything from new graphics, new enemies, new puzzles, new gameplay features, new story elements, and new 'scenes' (this last item doesn't necessarily feature new graphics, but features a unique, picturesque display of graphics which sticks out to the player). This kind of progression can take place and be measured in a single level (for example, a level that starts on a mountain and goes underground), over the course of several levels (level 1 taking place on a mountain and level 2 taking place underground), or develop over the course of the game (levels 1-6 are on a mountain, levels 7-12 are underground). Experiential progression is directly related to time: how long a player must undergo macro and/or micro progression before encountering something new and how long that something new will sustain the player before something else must be added to it.
Macro progression is the rate at which the player moves across the world map or from one level to another. It is not limited in scope to any one level; it takes any number of levels into account, up to the total number of levels (hence the 'macro'). If a player is stuck on a level, macro progression has stopped. Macro progression is a time oriented concept, affected by how long it takes to beat individual levels. What characterizes macro progression as good or bad, however, is not level time but quality of micro progression.
Micro progression is the movement of the player toward the exit in a specific level. It has to do both with the player's ability to locate the path to the exit and to actually complete the level. The quality of micro progression is affected by complexity, difficulty, and the degree of experiential progression within the level. If the player cannot find the exit to a level or cannot overcome some obstacle between them and the exit, there is a failure in micro progression.
Real progression is quantitative progression which has hard, measurable evidence. Examples: real experiential progression could be the introduction of a new enemy when it was notably absent before; real macro progression is the rate at which the player completes levels compared to the total number of levels; real micro progression is a measurable closing of distance between the player and the exit of a level.
Apparent progression is qualitative progression and deals with the player's feelings. Examples: apparent macro progression is the player's feelings of victory over completing levels even though they have no idea how many levels are in the game; apparent micro progression is the player's feelings that they are getting near the exit or figuring out a puzzle even though they may not be. Apparent progression usually coincides with real progression, but not always. For example, in the case of macro progression: if player A has completed one, twenty minute level in a ten level Keen game, he feels less macro progression than player B who completes three levels in the same amount of time in a thirty level Keen game. Apparent progression is useful for creating twists and surprises for the player, but it can also create situations where the player feels cheated when they realize what they thought was progression is miniscule or no progression at all.
Now that we have some understanding of the progression concepts, how can we these types of progression good?
Experiential progression is all about feeding the player new things and keeping them from getting bored. The level designer chooses when the player takes each new spoonful of experience. Different elements of experience will exercise different degrees of power on the player: the introduction of a new background may only impress the player for a moment in comparison to a new enemy. A new backdrop may impress the player for a whole level but a new story element may affect the player the rest of the game. Good experiential progression is characterized by giving the player something new to think about and interact with before the player can get bored with what they've already been given. As the level designer you'll be injecting the player into a world and slowly add to their experience of that world. Throw too much at the player and they may be overwhelmed, but give the player too little and they will become bored. When working with experiential progression, you'll be addressing both the player's conscious and unconscious thoughts and reactions to your level. Everything counts, although some things are very mundane and only affect the player for the briefest moment: a new platform, a different looking tree, an arena featuring a certain enemy, something that needs to be jumped over, a hole to fall into, etc. It's up to the level designer to keep the simple and small experiences progressing and to pace the bigger ones and just the right moments to grab the player's attention and inspire them to continue playing.
Macro progression has two purposes: creating apparent progression and providing new opportunities for experiential progression. The game as a whole can be thought of as a ladder with each rung as a level. The ladder can only be climbed with each step, the player experiences no apparent or real macro progression between rungs. Keeping the player in any single level for too long can be detrimental to the player's experience to an entire game, even if the player is making real progress in that single level (as opposed to being lost); they're taking too long to climb a single rung on the ladder. Players want to feel like they are accomplishing something, like the effort they put into the game is getting them somewhere. If it's taking too long, they're more likely to get frustrated and not feel like pushing on; it's just too much work with too little payoff on the macro side of things. This can be offset with experiential progression within levels; as long as the player is receiving new experiences (both quantitative and qualitative) in a single level and not getting bored, macro progression can be delayed. However, when a single level has run out of opportunities to provide experiential progression, it's time to progress on the macro so that experiential can resume in a new level (or even on the world map).
Micro progression is all about giving the player challenges to overcome, places to explore, and new opportunities for experiential progression. However, from the design standpoint, challenges and exploration should never be considered as ends in themselves. The player's number one goal in a level is to find the exit. Level designer's need to give the player signs of real progression or give the player signs for apparent progression toward that goal. Challenges and exploration can be done along the way and this is by no means a suggestion that the player should be able to follow a single path to the exit or know exactly where to find it. Players do need, however, to not wonder aimlessly in levels or die repeatedly in the same spot. Areas that are too difficult hinder real and apparent progression. Mazes and other complex situations hinder apparent progression. Too much progression can also be a bad thing. Long, flat hallways are an example of this; the player covers too much area, progressing too much while experiencing only the barest minimum of experiential progression (that being the player's feeling of "this is a long hallway"). Each new area and tile placed in a level grants the player a little bit of experiential progression. More unique experiences can be added to hold the player's interest in micro progression. Micro mixed with experiential can only last so long, however, before the player needs a new setting (another level) for micro progression.
Progression through a game is much more complex than "beat the levels to see the ending". It is a dynamic experience which the level designer is responsible for creating. Level designers need to pay attention to the rate of at which all of these progressions flow; doing so is crucial to a fun, exciting, challenging game. Some may excuse this as obvious, or that designing progression comes naturally to level designers, or that progression works itself out, but we've all seen more than enough Commander Keen mods to indicate the contrary.
Any thoughts or need for clarifications, etc., let me know :)
In my observation there are three, interrelated concepts of progression in Commander Keen and related games: experiential progression, macro progression, and micro progression. In this article I'll define the meaning of each and suggest ways in which level designers can best approach them.
To begin with, lets introduce terms.
Experiential progression is the rate at which the player encounters new material in a game. This can be anything from new graphics, new enemies, new puzzles, new gameplay features, new story elements, and new 'scenes' (this last item doesn't necessarily feature new graphics, but features a unique, picturesque display of graphics which sticks out to the player). This kind of progression can take place and be measured in a single level (for example, a level that starts on a mountain and goes underground), over the course of several levels (level 1 taking place on a mountain and level 2 taking place underground), or develop over the course of the game (levels 1-6 are on a mountain, levels 7-12 are underground). Experiential progression is directly related to time: how long a player must undergo macro and/or micro progression before encountering something new and how long that something new will sustain the player before something else must be added to it.
Macro progression is the rate at which the player moves across the world map or from one level to another. It is not limited in scope to any one level; it takes any number of levels into account, up to the total number of levels (hence the 'macro'). If a player is stuck on a level, macro progression has stopped. Macro progression is a time oriented concept, affected by how long it takes to beat individual levels. What characterizes macro progression as good or bad, however, is not level time but quality of micro progression.
Micro progression is the movement of the player toward the exit in a specific level. It has to do both with the player's ability to locate the path to the exit and to actually complete the level. The quality of micro progression is affected by complexity, difficulty, and the degree of experiential progression within the level. If the player cannot find the exit to a level or cannot overcome some obstacle between them and the exit, there is a failure in micro progression.
Real progression is quantitative progression which has hard, measurable evidence. Examples: real experiential progression could be the introduction of a new enemy when it was notably absent before; real macro progression is the rate at which the player completes levels compared to the total number of levels; real micro progression is a measurable closing of distance between the player and the exit of a level.
Apparent progression is qualitative progression and deals with the player's feelings. Examples: apparent macro progression is the player's feelings of victory over completing levels even though they have no idea how many levels are in the game; apparent micro progression is the player's feelings that they are getting near the exit or figuring out a puzzle even though they may not be. Apparent progression usually coincides with real progression, but not always. For example, in the case of macro progression: if player A has completed one, twenty minute level in a ten level Keen game, he feels less macro progression than player B who completes three levels in the same amount of time in a thirty level Keen game. Apparent progression is useful for creating twists and surprises for the player, but it can also create situations where the player feels cheated when they realize what they thought was progression is miniscule or no progression at all.
Now that we have some understanding of the progression concepts, how can we these types of progression good?
Experiential progression is all about feeding the player new things and keeping them from getting bored. The level designer chooses when the player takes each new spoonful of experience. Different elements of experience will exercise different degrees of power on the player: the introduction of a new background may only impress the player for a moment in comparison to a new enemy. A new backdrop may impress the player for a whole level but a new story element may affect the player the rest of the game. Good experiential progression is characterized by giving the player something new to think about and interact with before the player can get bored with what they've already been given. As the level designer you'll be injecting the player into a world and slowly add to their experience of that world. Throw too much at the player and they may be overwhelmed, but give the player too little and they will become bored. When working with experiential progression, you'll be addressing both the player's conscious and unconscious thoughts and reactions to your level. Everything counts, although some things are very mundane and only affect the player for the briefest moment: a new platform, a different looking tree, an arena featuring a certain enemy, something that needs to be jumped over, a hole to fall into, etc. It's up to the level designer to keep the simple and small experiences progressing and to pace the bigger ones and just the right moments to grab the player's attention and inspire them to continue playing.
Macro progression has two purposes: creating apparent progression and providing new opportunities for experiential progression. The game as a whole can be thought of as a ladder with each rung as a level. The ladder can only be climbed with each step, the player experiences no apparent or real macro progression between rungs. Keeping the player in any single level for too long can be detrimental to the player's experience to an entire game, even if the player is making real progress in that single level (as opposed to being lost); they're taking too long to climb a single rung on the ladder. Players want to feel like they are accomplishing something, like the effort they put into the game is getting them somewhere. If it's taking too long, they're more likely to get frustrated and not feel like pushing on; it's just too much work with too little payoff on the macro side of things. This can be offset with experiential progression within levels; as long as the player is receiving new experiences (both quantitative and qualitative) in a single level and not getting bored, macro progression can be delayed. However, when a single level has run out of opportunities to provide experiential progression, it's time to progress on the macro so that experiential can resume in a new level (or even on the world map).
Micro progression is all about giving the player challenges to overcome, places to explore, and new opportunities for experiential progression. However, from the design standpoint, challenges and exploration should never be considered as ends in themselves. The player's number one goal in a level is to find the exit. Level designer's need to give the player signs of real progression or give the player signs for apparent progression toward that goal. Challenges and exploration can be done along the way and this is by no means a suggestion that the player should be able to follow a single path to the exit or know exactly where to find it. Players do need, however, to not wonder aimlessly in levels or die repeatedly in the same spot. Areas that are too difficult hinder real and apparent progression. Mazes and other complex situations hinder apparent progression. Too much progression can also be a bad thing. Long, flat hallways are an example of this; the player covers too much area, progressing too much while experiencing only the barest minimum of experiential progression (that being the player's feeling of "this is a long hallway"). Each new area and tile placed in a level grants the player a little bit of experiential progression. More unique experiences can be added to hold the player's interest in micro progression. Micro mixed with experiential can only last so long, however, before the player needs a new setting (another level) for micro progression.
Progression through a game is much more complex than "beat the levels to see the ending". It is a dynamic experience which the level designer is responsible for creating. Level designers need to pay attention to the rate of at which all of these progressions flow; doing so is crucial to a fun, exciting, challenging game. Some may excuse this as obvious, or that designing progression comes naturally to level designers, or that progression works itself out, but we've all seen more than enough Commander Keen mods to indicate the contrary.
Any thoughts or need for clarifications, etc., let me know :)