bipolar SPECIAL

WHAT IS...
This is an exploration of ideas and changes I would like to have seen in the finished version of the game. It is not meant to discredit anything about the actual finished version of bipolar, it is merely a way to show my vision of what the game would be if I was in charge of all design aspects. As the original game concept of platforming involving magnetism is something I'm quite fond of, it is something I may return to explore at a later stage. Some of these elements may or may not be incorporated in such a case.

GAME SETTING
Firstly, as it stands, Bipolar has no definite setting. Whilst this isn't a problem and was designed as such in order to focus more on the functionalities of the gameplay, I feel careful incorporation of a setting could benefit the game design a lot.

The originally proposed space setting is one that could add much to the game. Having more featured environments set in space, incorporating things like black holes or other physics bending elements. It is however a largely overused setting and for this reason may be best avoided.

The circuitry concept that inspired the game's menu could be extended to include more elements of a computer system. Imagine the player as a data element, advancing through the inner workings of a computer, where bits and bytes rule, data is of the utmost importance, and polarity is your means of traversing the circuits. The computer concept holds a rich array of possibilities that could be married with the magnetism concept quite well. It is also something infrequently used as a game setting and thus could really bolster the originality.

In any case, it may be preferable to rework the title of the game, for although it fits well in considering the games functionality alone, it however does unavoidably hold connotations with the mental disability. This is not a necessarily bad thing, though it's foreseeable that negative reactions may result from it.

STAGE DESIGN
As it stands, the game's early stages hold a number of relatively uninspired short levels designed as tutorials to help the player understand the gameplay. I feel this is an unnecessary simplification of things and results in a number of "dead space" stages that the player is unlikely to ever return to. It is also condescending in a way, presupposing the player requires bite size pieces of information, afraid of complexity. After all, the game interactions are in no way complex, making use of only 4 buttons; instruction does not have to be so explicit.

As an alternative, early stages may still retain teaching elements, progressively introducing new elements and the controls, but done so in a much more interesting and challenging way. Some of this idea is detailed in the earlier post titled "Progressive Disclosure in Stage Design".

Presently the game displays at the beginning the complete array of controls that the player can utilise. Contrary to the team's intention, and despite my arguments against it, this is more overloading than anything else and is exactly what the team wanted to avoid. A better solution would be to remove the controls screen altogether, and instead have in specific stages, a new control interaction introduced via a simple graphic in the background or as part of the stage layout.

On the topic of tutorials: some game elements are just poorly introduced despite the inclusion of a specific tutorial level. For one, the "camera" objects, in every instance I've seen players encounter them, have proved to be nothing but confusing. While they are not a badly designed game element, they do require the most careful explanation of their function, something which their introduction stage has failed to do.

REPLAY CHALLENGE - PAR TIMES
Something I've been arguing for all year is the inclusion of "par times", which function as a set challenge time for each level for players to return to and attempt to beat. In my game playing experience I have seen this mechanic used countless times and it has always been very effective at extending the challenge and life of a game beyond the initial play through. The mechanic can even be employed in a multi-fold way; having several levels of challenge, e.g.: bronze time, silver time, gold time.

ADDITIONAL SHAPES
Included in the final design is the option for the player to change their player shape from a cube, to triangle, or octagon, etc. Whilst I acknowledge the freshness and fun this choice provides to the game, the issue is that none of the stages have been designed for anything but the square, and hence as an added feature it is unrefined and detracts from the overall presentation.

Removal of the extra shape options is preferable to what is in place at the moment. Alternatively, having stages designed for a specific shape, and having the player shape change per stage, would add variety to the game as a fully developed feature.

SOUND DESIGN
I've been truly amazed and impressed by the soundtrack the other members have put together, given that non of us have any background in sound composition. Despite this, there are still gaps in the sound design implementation.

Some interaction would benefit from sound cues. Interacting with magnetic fields could have a humming sound to indicate them having an effect on the player. The player object's collision with solid objects (walls, platforms, etc.) would benefit from a slight unobtrusive tap sound. Overall, just adding depth via sound to the environment and interactions would improve the game greatly.

ENVIRONMENTS
The vision I had of the gameplay in the early stage of development included large expansive stage designs, requiring a level of exploration and instilling a sense of discovery in the gameplay. The stage design we ended up having more of is tight confined rooms requiring more precise finessing of the controls more than anything else. This sort of challenge is perfectly fine, though I would have liked to include more variety in the stage design, taking the direction away from "puzzle" and more towards free form "adventure-platforming".