Week 7 - Paper Prototype Reflection 3 (With More Finger Guns)

Looking back at Super Paper Mario, I realize that I probably would not have liked playing it as much now as compared to when I played it as a kid. This partially explains why creating a fun paper prototype was so difficult. 

Most of the criticism against SPM has to do with the subpar gameplay. Cloud from the CloudConnection Youtube channel points out that most of the levels in SMP are designed horizontally, despite having the central game mechanic be flipping between 2D and 3D (15:11). After modeling this mechanic myself, it makes a lot of sense. The biggest issue people had with my prototype was understanding the actual level. The digital game’s solution to this was to have the majority of the levels take place in a horizontal 2D space. Playing the 2D version of the level is much simpler because you are not overwhelmed with all of the information in a 3D space. The limited movement players have in a 2D space also cuts down on confusion.

But, this runs contrary to the intended experience of the game. Cloud points out that the horizontal level design, reminiscent of classic Mario games, “goes against the explorative nature of the game and its puzzles”(14:36). This seems to be a conflict between design values and play experience. Macklin and Sharp note that, “Design values are the qualities and characteristics you want to embody in a game. This can reflect your own goals as a creator, but also the experience you want your audience to have” (ch. 6). In SPM, the intended experience of exploration through 3D and 2D platforming is lost in the over-reliance on horizontal 2D levels.

In my prototype, I wanted to emulate that experience and encourage players to explore all of the level, so I created design values to meet that goal. My first version had a single endpoint that most players went straight for, only picking up a few of the coins in the level. So for my second version, I made it mandatory to collect all of the coins and removed the goal point. I wanted to encourage players to explore the level, but it seemed to cause more confusion than entertainment. Players would get stuck on the puzzle and not advance through the level.

This is probably why SPM takes place mostly in 2D. The flat levels are simpler to understand, and players advance more quickly through the level. But, this comes at the cost of an effective play experience. The challenge and point-of-view design values of the game are underutilized in a 2D space and don’t encourage the player to explore (Macklin and Sharp, ch. 6). However, I think that there is a balance that needs to be struck between the 2D and 3D spaces. In my prototype, a majority of the game took place in 3D which poorly communicated level information to players, but, in SPM, the majority of levels take place in 2D which doesn’t encourage players to explore the game space. I think that there is a healthy balance between the two extremes that creates a satisfying play experience. Unfortunately, neither my prototype nor the actual game found that balance.

(More Finger Guns)