Donald Mustard, of Fortnite, Infinity Blade and Shadow Complex, once told me something very interesting about games that I’ve been turning over ever since. He was talking about the difference between designing something like Shadow Complex and designing something like Infinity Blade.
The difference, he made it sound – the main difference – was where the player sat. When they fire up Shadow Complex, they’re on the sofa in front of the big TV. They’ve maybe cleared a chunk of time, made themselves a drink. As a designer you can trust that you’ll have the player for quite a while. With Infinity Blade, though, well, where are they? On the bus? Waiting at the deli? Sitting at the dentist? You don’t have them as long – you can’t guarantee that you have as much of their attention and focus. And so you make the game differently. It works quicker. It rewards players in shorter loops. It dangles more threads to tempt them to stick around a little longer.
I often think about this. But last night I found myself thinking about it in a different way. I was playing Outer Wilds, which has just released on the Switch. I think maybe I was curious to see how the game held up. (And while I’m not Digital Foundry, I can say that it held up fine for me. Maybe a bit more loading, but everything else was exactly as I would want it to be.) But what I ended up exploring, I think, was how a single game can feel very different depending on the platform. It was a revelation.
And again, it’s down to where I sat. Outer Wilds is a game about exploring a bottle solar system, puzzling out the clues to uncover what’s happened and then work out how you can stop a supernova from destroying everything after twenty minutes or so, at which point things loop back to the start again. If I had to use art maths to describe this game, I’d say it was Pohl’s Gateway combined with Majora’s Mask. And I’d also add that, while that gets at a certain something about it, it’s really its own thing. It is, I reckon, one of the best games ever made. It dazzles.