GTA San Andreas, PC, 2005

This very successful game can be appreciated by casual gamers who’ll always find something interesting to do in San Andreas, or by compulsive hard-core gamers who will try to complete every sub-mission.

In the late 90s, the industry invented the notion of the casual gamers. Yet, it’s been difficult to integrate that into gaming conception. The immediate reaction was to make games for a casual audience (shallow and nice) on one side, and games for a hardcore audience (rough and complex) on the other side.

Looking back over the last ten years, it’s fair to admit that truly great games have appealed to both casual and hardcore players. Their experience may not have been identical, but the same game allows both usages. A novice or a seasoned player can enjoy a similar, somewhat different game on the same support, and can have something to share.

This is not trivial. In fact, it goes against conventional wisdom: logically, since there are different market segments, they should be approached differently, and logically there should be different products. Accordingly, over the last ten years, some titles, some genres even have been completely developed for either the casual or hardcore segment, and had some limited success. But stellar games clearly played on both sides. How did they do that? How could those two populations, with what appear to be opposite needs, enjoy the same game?

To be honest and accurate, they don’t. Yes, they have bought the same game from a product point of view - same CD, same graphics, same technique, same story, same characters. But what they do with it is completely different - they don’t play the same game. The tour de force of the game designers of truly successful games is that everything they have been developing can be used at several levels by audiences who have several different levels of expectations. This is what I call multi-level gaming. Games that allow multi-level gaming have the potential to appeal to various populations (it’s a requirement, not a guarantee!).

The various levels of gaming

Onimusha, PS2, 2001

Onimusha is one of the first mainstream games that could be completed in around 6 hours. As an aside, it was also the first PS2 game to sell over a million copies.

Saying it - is easy. But how does it work really? In a nutshell: the basis of this is the core game. The core game is a relatively simple, easy, accessible, and short game. If you tell me that casual players can enjoy the core game and easily beat it, you’re on: that’s exactly this. A player can beat the core game, see the credits, and be proud of themselves.

On top of the core game, there’s another layer of challenge for which the game offers a reward. This can affect the whole game (another difficulty mode, the possibility to replay the game with another character, unlocking various game modes) or smaller aspects of the game (optional mini-games, secrets). This is what I call super-gaming, playing the game to its fullest. Typically, this is what kids brag about in forums. Being a super-gamer yields an in-game reward: beating a hidden game mode unlocks another hidden game mode, a bonus to be used in the main game, etc.

On top of that there is a final layer - a more extreme way of playing, for which the game offers no reward, but which it allows to measure. This is playing beyond the limits of what the game designers thought would be an enjoyable experience, what I call hyper-gaming. Hyper gamers impose themselves inhuman challenges, like finishing a game that was meant to be played in 15 hours in just one ("speed runs"), complete a game that lets the characters power up nicely through the adventure with the least powerful characters possible ("low-level runs") or impose themselves various similar constraints.

Managing the game assets

The core game, which all of the players will see, should showcase virtually all the assets of the game (animations, levels, backgrounds, 3D models, music, interface screens and so on.). After all, someone’s worked hard to create them, they might as well be seen by as many eyes as possible.

Resident Evil 3, PC, 2001

One reward in the game is this alternative costume: Jill, the heroin, poses as Regina, of Dino Crisis fame. This makes fans happy, and only costs a texture.

The super-gaming elements could possibly require special assets. One could think that providing a few completely new levels is a fair reward for someone who has, say, completed the game in "hard" mode. But in fact, it is a waste of resources. If there are some levels which haven’t been used in the main (core) game, then you are depriving the majority of the players of some content they can appreciate. As a result, those new levels can be as good as everything else in the game, but they will be much less played. And that is a problem. The same reasoning goes, of course, for all of the other assets.

In fact, super-gamers will not appreciate such rewards. It can be much more efficient to treat them with something which is both more unique and less costly. Examples include a different image at the end of the game, the possibility to replay the game with a new costume for the hero, or with a different character. It can even go down to just giving a title to the player, or writing down something special in a "stats" section. Those are extremely cheap in terms of production and yet extremely valued by the player. Surprisingly, even the players who will not take those optional challenges will be happier about their game if they know that it offers some extra depth.

Adding game options at a global level

Doom 2, PC, 1994

The skill selection screen, including the infamous "nightmare" mode, not for the faint of heart

Conceptually, it is easy to imagine how to add more depth to a title generally. The idea is to give the player the impression that they can replay the whole game and still enjoy the experience. This is super-gaming at a macro level. Examples include:

 various difficulty modes. This is the most obvious. However, it may be tricky to determine what parameters really make the game more or less challenging. Ideally, the harder modes would seem impossible to the beginning player, but would be much more accessible once they have "learned" the game by going through it once.

Street Fighter II, SNES, 1992

The classic character selection screen of Street Fighter II (I would have rather chosen Chun-Li)

A good example is the "nightmare" difficulty in Doom or Quake.
 different playable characters, which behave differently in the game - if they just look different, forget it. The best example I can think of is the various characters in th e post-Street Fighter II fighing games. Beating the game with one character doesn’t lessen the interest of the game with other players (in fact, in can even unlock new characters).

Final Fantasy X-2, PS2, 2003

A scene from the "perfect" ending. In order to see it, you probably need to play the game at least twice.

 alternate endings. As for different characters, the endings should be significantly different. In FF X-2, in order to get the perfect ending, one must accumulate, bit by bit, a 100% completion scores. There are many occasions to increase the score which are extremely easy to overlook - but playing the game a second time lets you keep your previous game score, so you just have to focus on what you missed the first time.

These do not require a lot of extra assets, but they do require a lot of scripting.

Let’s see some other super-gaming options that are less global.

More specific game options

Resident Evil 3, PC, 2001

The mercenaries mode. Every asset comes from the main game: characters, locations, monsters...

 Different game modes (i.e. different game mechanics) but in the same environment than the main game. Examples include the Resident Evil 3 "mercenaries" mini-game, in which the player had to guide what were secondary characters through a level of the main game. Nothing has really been created for the occasion: characters, monsters, level - everything is directly taken from the main game. Castlevania series also include such game modes, for instance the "Julius mode" in Dawn of Sorrow, in which the player controls Julius Belmont through the levels of the main game. Julius plays very differently from the main hero, Soma, but again, few assets have been created specifically for this mode.

GTA San Andreas, PC, 2005

Spraying 100 graffitis in more or less secret locations of Los Santos is one of the various completely optional missions in San Andreas, and one that could keep a player busy for hours

 Secret levels/optional story elements. Within the main game, there can be some completely optional sections that the player can go through if they want added challenge. A good example for that is GTA San Andreas. In this game, maybe half of the formal missions are optional, and on top of that, there are many extra challenges that do not register as missions, and which are as optional as they are time-consuming. They all take place in the infinitely detailed world of San Andreas, with its many vehicles and colorful characters, none of which have been specifically added for the optional content. To be honest, all that additional content is not neutral from a graphical production point of view, the maps of the cities have to be complex so that secrets can be added here and there, all missions require script, game-engine animations and so on. But in general, the game is very good at utilizing the existing assets to the fullest.

Final Fantasy X, PS2, 2001

Levelling up in FFX. Whenever a character has gained enough experience, they can move a sphere on this grid, gaining various abilities as they go.

 Leveling up. RPGs typically allow the player to "level up" their characters, that is, train them for long enough so that they become stronger. Other types of games, too, have this possibility, whereby the player can engage in less exciting tasks that the "main" game in order to build up the power of the game hero. In the early days of RPGs, this was often a necessity: the level required to finish the game was close to the maximum possible level the characters could obtain. Over time, that became more and more optional and the difference between those two levels was greater and greater. It became possible, therefore, instead of finishing the game as soon as possible, to choose to develop the characters instead, even in not necessary. To make this option more appealing, there is often, in modern RPGs, a challenge greater than just beating the game (the Ruby and Emerald Weapons in Final Fantasy VII, or the Dark Aeons in Final Fantasy X, for instance).

But in order to maintain the attention of the player to its highest level, the game must also propose them to get more involved in very "tactical" aspects of playing. By making more efforts, by paying more attention when it matters, the game will offer a reward. If this relationship is functioning, the player will be inclined to keep involved in the game and get some specific satisfaction - not just passive, as a spectator who discovers a story, but active, like the pride of having accomplished something. Let’s examine what constitutes examples of super-gaming at a micro-level.

More game freedom at a detailed level

 the possibility to solve one problem in different ways - through an easy way and several harder, but better ways. The prime example for that are combat games, such as Tekken. In combat games, the player is endlessly put in position where they have to choose very quickly what is the best course of action in a given situation - can they attack? block? counter-attack? avoid an attack? If so, what’s the most efficient way to do so? Being good enough to beat the computer is one thing. But having enough skill to win tournaments versus human players is another. [1] For Tekken 3, there exist no less than 109 files in GameFAQs that cover nearly every aspect of this game’s techniques, for a total of 4.9Mb, or the equivalent of 1000 very dense pages of text. Another good example: Devil May Cry. Killing enemies with "style" requires skill and concentration, but you get more points in return, which you can use to be more powerful quicker in the game. In another Capcom game, Dino Crisis 2, several similar feats - such as completing an area without being hit, killing several dinosaurs in a row without missing, etc. - which also require a greater involvement from the player, are rewarded with points which can be exchanged against better weapons, ammo, etc. Many RPGs include such features. While it is usually possible to win all fights by just asking the various characters to perform basic attacks, the player can usually find better, faster ways to get rid of their opponents if they remain concentrated - as opposed to just mashing the ok button. For example, Squall, in FF VIII, can double the damage he delivers if the player pushes the R1 button at the very moment when Squall’s Gunblade hits an enemy.

This should not be confused with linearity vs. non-linearity. After all, all games cited are fairly linear. Non-linearity is the possibility to take decisions that affect the course of the game, generally, like choosing to perform tasks in an arbitrary order, or the possibility to skip optional parts. This gives a general impression of freedom. Linearity requires the player to go through a set order of tasks to complete the game. However, a game that has a strict story line but that allows the player to solve situations more or less well, and that rewards any extra effort, will feel much better to play than a game with a loose story line but less flexible game dynamics.
 secrets and easter eggs. It should be possible for persistent players to obtain things in the game that other players would get later, or never. This includes more resources, bonuses, special abilities, special equipment such as weapons, magic, etc.

Final Fantasy X, PS2, 2001

The Blitzball stadium. While the Blitzball mini-game is far simpler, technically and conceptually, than the main game, manu an hour can be spent there.

Easter eggs are a special sort of "secret" - it is found the same way, usually by noticing something that oddly stands out, or trying to do something that looks possible, but they don’t give any form of reward - they’re just something funny, that would go otherwise unnoticed.
 mini-games. Mini-games are alternative components which have completely different gameplay mechanisms that the core game, a usually much smaller scope, but which can still interact with the core game. Usually, there is a reward in mini-games that cannot be obtained elsewhere. Additionally, the player could find, during the core game, elements that could help them being more efficient in mini-games. Examples of this include the Blitzball component in Final Fantasy X.
 random and luck. Some special game rewards only happen ever so often - for instance, a defeated monster may have a 1% chance of dropping some special treasure, which only the lucky or patient adventurer will get. While relying on random for elements of the core game is unfair and should be avoided at all costs, for special bonuses which are not necessary to complete the game, it is perfectly ok to deliver them randomly. Examples of that include "souls" in Castlevania: Dawn of Sorrow, which may or may not be "dropped" by each killed monster, and which give a new ability to the hero, or light bulbs that randomly pop over the head of the heroes of the "SaGa ..." games during combat, indicating that they have learned a new special attack.

Hyper gaming

Game developers usually go to great length to design satisfying challenges for demanding players, who want to enjoy their game beyond the ending credits - hence the section on super-gaming. Super gaming seems a fair trade: gamers play more, and are rewarded with something really special, that only true fans can enjoy.

That’s not the case of "hyper-gaming". Hyper-gaming is not part of a fair trade, or anything remotely fair. And there are no reward associated with that, ever. Hyper-gaming could be described as abusing the game, using it in ways it hasn’t been designed for, just to get more challenge out of it.

An essential component of hyper-gaming is the internet. The inspiration for the challenges that hyper-gamers inflict upon themselves is often found there, and inversely, they need the internet to brag about their �ber-accomplishements, either in forums or in FAQs.

Hyper-gamers often see beyond the illusion of a game. They see the logical entities behind the computer art, just like Neo fame finally gets to see 0s and 1s instead of the illusion of the Matrix. Hypergamers can exploit games by acting counter-intuitively.

Let’s review some examples of hyper-gaming:

Metroid fusion, GBA, 2002

Only a complete maniac can complete the game so quickly, without picking up any items (a good player will beat the game in approximately 7 hours)

 constraint runs. It is possible to beat some games without using some power-ups or special capacities. Historically, the first example of this is Doom, in 1993. In Doom, there are many weapons available such as the shotgun or the notorious BFG9000. But it is theoretically possible to beat the game using just the pistol that the hero starts with. Those who could complete such a challenge could include "DM" (for Doom Master) in their usenet signatures (those were the days before the web!). As if this wasn’t hard enough, there were even harder challenges, such as using the gun only in the nightmare difficulty mode, or not using any ranged weapon. Since then, many different games have offered similar challenges, for instance "don’t use any magic" in a RPG, or "try to complete the game with the lowest possible level". See some of the Final Fantasy VII advanced FAQs for such examples of extreme challenges.
 speed runs. the idea, here, is to beat a game as quickly as possibly. Quite surprisingly, games that are designed to challenge a player for 20 solid hours can sometimes be finished in around an hour. See those guides for examples.
 low-equipment runs: a combination of the above. While games usually require the hero to acquire power-up after power-up to access different areas, it is sometimes possible to "hack" the game and manage to access a place that you shouldn’t be able to reach yet through some extremely tricky maneuver. The result: a faster, but incredibly harder game. The title that popularized that is the original "Metroid" and its GameCube sequel, Metroid Prime.
 exploits: Exploits is using the inner mechanics of a game to one’s advantage. It is not exactly cheating, as in entering a cheat code which was explicitly designed by the developers, or using a cheating device or malicious code. It is tricking the game, but using its own tools to do so. For instance, a player could find a way to get a monster stuck in the 3D environment, and kill it easily. Others could find a trick to get an infinite amount of money, legitimately. Or to level up their characters without human intervention and without risk. In MMORPGs, some people make a business by powergaming. They know how to level up their characters fast enough that they can sell them for a profit. Powergamers typically play a party of several characters at the same time, effectively playing on that many computers simultaneously. By acting like this, they break the gaming convention: they do not use the game for their pleasure, but they go beyond its limits.

Conclusions

In an ideal world, players would replay the game they like best over and over. Although we all know it’s not the case, many game designers make their games just as this fanatism was natural. The other extreme is just as bad: by providing no incentive to replay the game, not only would the chances that someone would want to play it again considerably slimmer, but this flatness in gameplay will show and it won’t be pretty. Supporting several levels of gameplay is no guarantee that the game will be replayed, or that it will be loved by all kinds of gamers. But considering that it has a very limited cost in terms of artwork and content, and that it adds a tremendous amount of value to a game, it would be a shame not to do it.