Inspiration

"Design a game with a couple of simple gamerules that form a engaging competitive multiplayer game that's easy to learn but hard to master."

This new direction didn't just come out of thin air. I've always had an interest in multiplayer games as a child and always appreciated the way nintendo designed there games to be as accesible as possible though offered a lot of freedom.

Since 2003 I've been involved in the dutch Super Smash Brothers competitive community. That means I've been involved in competitive gaming for about 9 years now. Before I got involved in competitive gaming I attended fencing tournaments. Surprisingly both games share a lot in common.

The main inspirations for this new direction comes from the following games:

SuperSmashBrothers, Go, Pong, Tic Tac Toe and Rock Paper Scissors 

I'll cover what interests me about each game below starting with my favorite competitive game.

Super Smash Brothers Melee

Developed by Nintendo and mainly designed by Masahiro Sakurai, Super Smash Bros Melee(from now on mentioned as SSBM) is the sequel to Super Smash Brothers on the Nintendo 64. Super Smash Brothers is a platform fighting game in which the players try to knock other player of the stage using one of the 25 characters of the rich nintendo universe.

Europe's best vs America's best
One of the most iconic matches in SSBM in  recent years

While the rich nintendo universe got me interested in it what kept me playing it for so long is the astounding depth the games simple ruleset allows.

Game system
Traditional fighting games like streetfighter have the following structure.

Each player has a lifebar and the object of the game is to deplete the others lifebar before their own depletes by hitting each other with the moveset unique to their characters.

The characters attack move has a the set angle, knockback and the stun time. Ideally the players try to trap the other player in a string of moves(known as comboes) or hit using the most damaging ones.

So the main goal in traditional fighting games is to KO their opponent.

In smash the player's don't have a lifebar. Instead they have a percentage meter that starts at 0% and each hit they land increases the percentage meter. Each hit knocks the opponent back based on the characters weight and %. 

The goal is still to KO the other but a KO is result of a ring out. Players knock the other of stage using for example strong moves (the most famous moves are smash attacks). When the players distance to the stage is to far they lose a life.

The winning conditions for a round can vary based on the game mode but the competitive community focusses on one mode: survival (players have a set of lives and the last one standing wins).

The changes to the damage system result in a very different style of gameplay and has changed the effects of the area on the fighting system ( for example the edge of a level). Stages allow for 'edge guarding' which simply means preventing the other from making it back on the stage. This essentially adds a king of the hill moment to the fight that can pretty drastically alter the outcome of it.

Inspiration
While I can talk for hours about the impacts of these ruleset changes the main thing I take away from this is the philosophy behind the gamedesign. Smash was designed to be fun and 'easy to learn, hard to master'. The games was to be played as a party game on a couch with friends. Therefore it had to be easy to pick up and not require hours of practise to enjoy. While this approach was chosen to improve the party game experience it surprisingly and probably unintended ended up benefitting the competitive game system as well.

'Easy to learn, hard to master' forms the basis for the design of my own game and while smash uses a complex phyiscs system that drives the game the player need no knowledge of it to play the game.

There are some more design reasons why I look at smash as a inspiration (counter system, momentum shifts, covering options etc) but I'll probably cover them in the weeks to come. For now let's move back in time to one of the first games in existence.

GO

In GO the object is to surround more territory then your opponent. Players do this by placing their own colored stone at the intersections. A stone can stay on the board if it has liberty (one intersection next to it that is free). If a stone is surrounded by 4 of the opposite color it dies.

Inspiration
What I like about go is that it has some really simple rules yet those contain a lot of depth of strategy within them. Also the design is strictly functional.
GO was originally played on rocks using different colored pebbles or rocks. Because of the simple requirements the game could be set up and played nearly anywhere.

GO originated somewhere in Ancient China. At the time not many were able to read or write. Therefor the rules of GO had to be simple to explain because they had to travel through word of mouth.

That simplicity in design and instruction is something I strive to achieve with my game aswell.

TicTacToe

TicTacToe is a two player game in which players pick a side (either the Cross or the Circle) and then in turns draw their symbol on the board. The first player to get 3 of their own symbol in a row wins.

The game can result in a draw if the players pay the right attention.

Inspiration
TicTacToe is kind of a silly game and quite boring. The game is all about seeing and covering options of yourself and of the opponent. Because the gameboard is only 9 squares this is quite easy to cover.

It's design is even simpler then go and I really like the pick up and play aspect of it.

What interests me the most is the lessons you can learn from playing it though. And this has to do with the intention of the players moves during the game.

The first player(starting player) that starts is on the offensive. The second player can either defend or advance. If both players chose to advance constantly the first player wil win. This means player two has to defend and counter at some point. 

If player one picks the right positions player two can never really win. The only way the second player can win is by capitalizing on player one's mistakes. This is unbalanced sure but it highlights a key requirement for combat in my opinion which is that a player must know who they are in the fight and can't just focus on their own strategy. They must adapt to the other player and know what role they are pushed in. And they must be patient. Once one player advances the other enters a unbalanced situation in which they are forced to react instead of taking the initiative itself.

It also highlights that in combat players can never be both at the same time. They are either advancing, or retreating or defending and it's key that they know what role there are in and what mode to change to. Combat is all about getting the advantage over the other player and therefor putting them at a disadvantage.

What I like about TicTacToe is that it makes these fundamental aspect of combat very explicit due to it's simple design and while you can grow bored of it rather quickly it's only once you realize and accept this yourself.

Rock Paper Scissors

Rock Paper Scissors is a handgame that's all about countering the other players choice.
Player's yell "rock paper scissors" and on scissors they show either scissors, rock or paper. Drawing the same results in a tie. Drawing Rock vs Paper results in paper winning. Drawing Paper vs Scissors results in scissors winning etc.

Simplified the system is A > B B>C C>A. One round of rock paper scissors one could say is based a lot of luck. Multiple rounds require more pattern recognition to win.

Inspiration
Rock Paper Scissors is an inspiration cause it's the most basic form of a counter system I can think of. Counter Systems form the basis for any kind of power struggle. In a way all modern fighting games (or any kind of combat system in games) really is a more complex system of rock paper scissors.
This game is all about predicting your opponent and thinking ahead. Thinking to far ahead can backfire.
Since I intend to design a simple multiplayer game it's probably very hard for me to avoid some kind of counter system.

Pong

Pong is really a simplified system of tennis. It was one of the first real videogames and because it's made for 2 players it's on of the first competitive multiplayer games as well.

In Pong 2 players try to get one ball across their opponents line to score a point. The one with the most points wins. By bouncing the ball back and forth players try to keep the ball from crossing their line.

Based on the point of impact of the ball they can influence the ball's direction. This allows for a lot more strategy then simple bouncing would do because it gives the player options to chose from.

Inspiration
Like the games mentioned above I really like pongs simplistic minimalist design. Like TicTacToe pong features a lot of the fundemental aspects of a good power struggle. Also Pong's main fun comes from it's gameplay and nothing else.

What I like about pong is that it's really about managing 1 resource and thats space. Based on the position you influence you space the other needs to cover. Give to much space away and it get's harder to reach the ball once it speeds up.

If I end up going somewhat of the digital route then pong's design is one that I'll keep referencing quite a bit.

That's all
So these are my current main inspirations. Ideally I hope my game ends up combining the best of both worlds.

Next up I'll introduce and motivate my research question that I will use to look into these and similar games like this more closely and look for literature.