Opponents
All games have opponents. A game without an opponent is a space, or a toy. A challenge to overcome defines a game, and is what makes it separate from a space or a toy.
There are two main “types” of opponents, symmetric and asymmetric.
Symmetric opponents
A symmetric opponent is simply one that has the same level of relative power as the player, usually by virtue of them just being another player themselves. The abilities of a symmetric opponent do not have to be the same, so long as the overall power is roughly equivalent (in other words, minor imbalances don’t impact this.)
Asymmetric opponents
An asymmetric opponent is an opponent that has a vastly different power level than the player. They are also, generally, designers or developers rather than other players. Most single player games are based on an asymmetric opponent.
Opponents and gameplay
This leads to a couple of different types of gameplay.
For a symmetric opponent, games should be 50/50. There’s always a significant chance of loss, and the game has to be developed with that concept in mind. If you play tennis, you know you’re going to lose a good amount of the time, depending on your opponent.
For an asymmetric opponent, there is no challenge for the opponent in beating the player. Since the power differential is so high (possibly infinite), there’s no point in “beating” the player. Instead, the role of the opponent is to provide a series of challenges to the player. This means that, in general, the player will have an expectation of eventual success against the opponent. People expect to be able to beat crossword puzzles and single player games.
Power symmetry and gameplay symmetry
Symmetry here is about power, not options or playstyle. As an example, in Dungeon Keeper, the single player game is asymmetric - the player is faced with a series of predetermined challenges. This is asymmetric, as the designer has the ability to develop the challenges however they want.
However, the multiplayer game in Dungeon Keeper involves one player acting as the “keeper”, and basically playing the same game as the single player game, while another player takes the role of the invading heroes.
The multiplayer game is power-symmetric, even though the “hero” player is playing almost an entirely different game (is gameplay-asymmetric).
Skill and symmetry
Skill of individual players does not make a game symmetric or asymmetric. If the Dodgers play a little league team, the game may not be fair, but it’s still symmetric. Both teams are playing by the same rules, and have the same options. That being said, in cases of extreme disparity (such as the one above), one team can decide to make the game asymmetric if they treat it that way. For instance, if the Dodgers were to place rules on themselves that were designed to be beatable by the little league team, they have changed the fundamental nature of the game.
Power symmetry by changing sides
Power symmetry can also be achieved given two sides of unequal power, by switching the roles. In a gameplay situation where one side has an advantage, symmetry can still be achieved. To do so, reverse the roles after the initial ’round,’ and play another round. Determine the winner based on some measure such as time taken to win, or some other sort of score.
This is frequently done in team-based FPS games, generally in scenarios where one team is an attacking position and has to achieve some goal, and the defending team is at some inherent disadvantage. This is a useful technique in these situations, as it allows designers greater freedom in scenario development without having to worry about giving one side or the other an advantage. By switching sides, the game evens out in the end.
Post a Comment