Our game has, if not a perfect measure of fairness, it at least attempts to work in that direction. Because this game is single-player, fairness seems like it becomes a balance between challenging the player enough that it doesn't seem uselessly easy (and therefore unfairly weighted to the player), but also doesn't challenge the player so much that the opposing forces seem to be cheating or using unreasonable advantages. Given that, I think our game is fair in the way that Tetris is fair. The game starts out going slowly, an easy pace with low expectations. Someone who has never played before and is uncomfortable with the controls might lose on the first level, but typically the first level is a relaxed one. Then, as successive levels pass, speed and demand on the player increase until the same simple tasks become trying. In its current incarnation, our game will rely on a timer that becomes more demanding as levels pass, making the same sorts of tasks more challenging as the player progresses.
2. Difficulty
Our game is designed to become increasingly harder as levels progress. Time and/or challenge will increase after each stage completion, meaning less time to complete tasks or longer challenges to complete in that time. It may also be a function, so as to make new players feel unintimidated and old players feel challenged, that we allow players to select a starting difficulty that can determine the challenge levels they face from start to finish.
3. Meaningful Choices
There doesn't seem to be a great deal of weight given to the choices a player can make in this game. It's primarily shaping up to be a straight-forward progression that's possibly speckled with bonuses and nice but unnecessary rewards for players who stray from the linear path.
4. Skill vs Chance
Our game is weighted heavily towards the player's personal skill. Between point-and-click weapon-shooting and typing challenges, there isn't a great deal left to chance. A player's progression relies almost completely on his speed and/or accuracy at completing these two tasks. An overt lack of chance seems okay, though, because it's really not something that pairs well with FPS-type games to begin with.
5. Heads vs HandsOur game leans clearly towards "hands" and reflexes. The puzzles aren't really puzzles so much as challenges for speed and accuracy meant to facilitate keyboard fluency, and the combat is also a straightforward out-shoot-the-enemy scenario. Really, I think my team intends for the emphasis of the game to be on pacing and motor development, and not so much intellectual simulation. I guess I'm saying, we're not trying to make sudoku here.
3. Meaningful Choices
There doesn't seem to be a great deal of weight given to the choices a player can make in this game. It's primarily shaping up to be a straight-forward progression that's possibly speckled with bonuses and nice but unnecessary rewards for players who stray from the linear path.
4. Skill vs Chance
Our game is weighted heavily towards the player's personal skill. Between point-and-click weapon-shooting and typing challenges, there isn't a great deal left to chance. A player's progression relies almost completely on his speed and/or accuracy at completing these two tasks. An overt lack of chance seems okay, though, because it's really not something that pairs well with FPS-type games to begin with.
5. Heads vs HandsOur game leans clearly towards "hands" and reflexes. The puzzles aren't really puzzles so much as challenges for speed and accuracy meant to facilitate keyboard fluency, and the combat is also a straightforward out-shoot-the-enemy scenario. Really, I think my team intends for the emphasis of the game to be on pacing and motor development, and not so much intellectual simulation. I guess I'm saying, we're not trying to make sudoku here.
6. Competition vs CooperationBecause our game is one-player, the closest our game comes to cooperation is the instructions the player gets from his commanding figure.
7. Short vs LongI believe that our game, in its current design, is really better fit for short- or medium-length play time. Maybe at best 30 minutes or so for someone who was really feeling it, but nothing remotely Final Fantasy, if you understand my meaning. I'll bring back the Tetris analogy; playing for the first several levels (ten usually in Tetris) is challenging enough that the player may have to practice a little to get that far, but gratifying enough that he doesn't just give up. A normal consumer playing Tetris up into the 20's or 30's would probably get frustrated and annoyed with the obscene difficulty of the game, so the experience is best when cut short while it's challenging but not absurd. The same should be true for our game.
8. Rewards
This isn't something that my team has discussed, but I imagine that the player will be rewarded primarily after completing a level. Whether it be a message from his boss telling him how priceless an operative he is (maybe what a worthless screw-up) or a more clinical form of praise like a percentage score for speed and accuracy shown to the player, between levels is the ideal reward point. Additionally, there has been talk of rewarding players for taking an extra step and exploring the space by planting bonus items and easter eggs around for the finding and taking.
9. PunishmentI think the closest our game might come to having a punishment system is an angry message from the player's boss scolding a failure. Presumably, player death in the game will cause a minor set-back like a reset on the level/floor, but not end the game. Beyond this, the player should be able to endure as many failures and re-plays as he has the patience for.
10. Freedom vs Controlled ExperienceI hope that - that is, the ideal outcome of our current plan is - our maps will give the player the illusion of freedom while quite clearly restraining them to a linear path. There will be a start and end point of each level that the player is required to hit in the limited time that the player is required to hit to progress, and possibly also several points along that route that the player must also navigate. However, in addition to those points, there will also be excess spaces that have nothing to do with the critical path. In his allotted time frame, the player will be allowed to freely investigate these spaces even though he will have to eventually end up at the predetermined exit point.
11. Simple vs Complex
Our game hypothetically balances simplicity and complexity rather well. It's based around some pretty rudimentary controls: typing words on a keyboard, pointing and clicking a mouse. But then, it uses those simple tools to create greater and more complex challenges as difficulty progresses.
12. Detail vs Imagination
I'm uncertain about where our game lies on this spectrum. On one hand, we plan to make the characters, objects, and environment fairly paired-down, forfeiting high detail in favor of stylization and implication. On the other hand, though, the environment (etc) is also pretty literal, and won't require a great deal of extrapolation on the part of the player and his imagination. Similarly, while I expect the main character to be a Link-esque silent hero even if there is dialogue (probably won't be), and the user will be able to fill his shoes like any good Mary Sue, the storyline is also pretty clearly stated from the beginning of the game.
