Getting the Jumps Right [Testing]

In games, like any art, nothing is as it appears, not even something as straightforward as Mario’s jump. What initially seems to be the simplest action in all of gaming is actually fiendishly hard to bring to a finished state. Taking the time to get the basics right marks out a polished game from a typical one.

So the question for your game is, irrespective of budget, time or platform, have you got the jumps right?

It’s a feel thing. Does the joypad button respond quickly enough? Is the animation just so? Does the timing for a double jump feel natural?

The same is true of most great games. Their developers spend a lot of time on the apparently simple things like controller responses, shotgun sound effects and the right feel for skidding.  That kind of attention to the basics shines through, and helps bring a higher quality of engagement from players.

When an action feels right you know it, and the robustness that comes with that provides a strong foundation for how the rest of the game will play. It’s not the sum total of all design, but a great feel is one of the key ways through which games become less opaque and more thaumatic.

 

Three Questions

The right solution is usually not the correct one. The Master Chief can leap distances that defy biology and land without a scratch, while in many a racing game the car is able to take far more damage than any vehicle ever would. The correct solution, meaning accurate simulation, usually produces slow, unconvincing or overly punitive results.

The right solution is always the one that feels right, physical accuracy or no. Is there are a way to define right? Possibly. If all games need to be simpler, fairer and more empowering than real life (Hint: They do) then ask yourself three questions:

1. Is the action as simple as it could be? How long does it take to get to stop speed? Does it use one button, two or three to achieve?

2. Is the action fair? Does it feel as though the player is in control, so if he fails then he sees that it was his fault? Remember, fairness is a perception.

3. Is the action empowering? Does it let the player do something bigger or stranger than life? Is it fun to do every time he does it? Is it causing real change in the game world?

No? Then it needs more work.

 

The Worthy Trap

But one thing to note: Getting the jumps right is not enough.

It's one thing to spend time getting them right in the service of a sexy game, but it's quite another to get lost in simply making a game that's worthy. If all your game is is Mario but with even better jumps, you lose because nobody needs a better jump than Mario. What they need is a different game, but with the same quality execution.

(Today’s image is, who else, Mario from Super Mario Bros Wii.)

Comments

[Nilsmmoblog.blogspot.com]

I agree with most of what you say, but disagree with point three. Games don't need to be empowering. They can be, but they don't need to be.

A good example is Limbo.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-feglzyboY

[Tadhg]

Oh I disagree there.

I've touched on it a bit in some posts (but not directly yet) but when I use the term 'empowering' I mean more than weapons and powerups etc. It means the ability to affect real change in a game world in a way that you rarely get to experience in the real world.

Scrabble is empowering, Tetris is empowering and - yes - Limbo is empowering. That third point is referring to futile busywork, or actions that have no clear consequence.

Thanks for the comment!

[Tadhg]

I've added a small edit to make that clearer.

[Simon Strange]

I absolutely agree that aiming for a realistic simulation is usually the wrong way to approach a sub-system like movement. But I wouldn't say that "feeling right" is a better way to frame the goal, because people tend to correlate good "feel" with how closely a feature matches a similar feature in another game.

For example, some small number of people really like the tank-style movement controls of the old Resident Evil games. If they have that in mind they might get the feel just right - but most people would still hate it.

At the other end of the spectrum, relying on feel can make it very hard to innovate.

Many games - most even - would do well to focus more on feel. I wouldn't say it's not a valuable metric for creating systems within games. But I do think it's wrong to say that feel is _always_ the best way to evaluate things.

I nitpick because I care.

[Gary Penn]

Feel is EVERYTHING (well, almost). Feel is broad and nebulous, encompassing sensory and emotional stimulus; a need for everything to feel direct, tangible, reactive, plausible; to make you feel moved, involved, empowered, like you make the difference - like you are just enough in control that success and failure always feel like your doing.

Feel almost feels so vague as to feel meaningless. But feel inescapably encompasses and reflects so much beneath the surface.

Red hat reactions are the best form of feedback for designers. As much as it can hurt, you can't argue with feel. If something feels unresponsive or unfair to players or clearly doesn't move players - that's how they feel (but shouldn't be confused with black hat reactions).

The tricky bit is trying to get those players to express as honestly as possible so you can more accurately identify the issues; the trickier bit is trying to figure out how best to fix the issues (but, again, feel can provide a target - an end).

Most versions of Tetris have bad feel. The latest incarnation on Facebook is fantastic - the best yet. (I was so wrong that it'd had its day.)

Scrabble is extremely variable in feel. Some of the undirected play and random letter selections can feel VERY unfair - as can inadvertently playing against someone significantly better than you online :<

Limbo is a mixed bag that's sometimes more successful than not. The visual style occasionally contributes more to the quality of the feel than the unremarkable controls. That said, the feeling of playing with an incapable character clearly out of his depth does have its moments (even though it usually left me swearing).

[Tadhg]

Awesome Gary!

[Miaou Meow]

Do you mean to say that all actions should be 'as simple as they could be'? While I agree that a lot of actions benefit from being simple and immediate, like Mario's jump, there are some things where adding a step enhances the feel - the example that springs to mind is the boost feature in 'Star Wars Episode 1: Racer', where you had to push the control stick forward until it was ready, then let go of the accelerator button and press down on it again (and this feels really powerful, I've experienced few things in better games that have the same effect). By my reckoning that's 2 or 3 steps when it could have followed 'F-Zero's lead and had boost on its own button - but that would have lost some of the feel of the thing.