I was very fond of FF7's mini games. There was the normal game screen that allowed for exploration of the local area, moving between rooms, and talking to people. The overworld could be considered a kind of mini game, as could combat. But the game was most unique in its obvious mini games: snowboarding, chocobo racing, underwater submarine battle, and others. Even the use of 3D sequences broke up the gameplay in a way that supported the storytelling well. I'll never forget the first time I saw someone playing FF7, as the diversity of views and gameplay really touched me.
Possibly my all-time favorite game, Quest for Glory, had mini games, too! Erasmus' Mage's Maze was an obvious one, and combat another more subtle one. However, the largest portion of the game was played in the same "screen," which included gameplay elements such as exploring, training, dialog, and even puzzles. There were certain "areas" that might have felt like mini games (exploring caves, overhearing the brigands, dealing with the meeps), but they were actually treated the same way as the rest of the main gameplay. In fact, I remember feeling very surprised and yet very satisfied the first time I defeated a brigand entirely outside of the combat screen using ranged attacks! It always made my day when I could damage or kill monsters with rocks or flame darts before engaging. I think this counts as an example where NOT automatically moving the player to a combat mini game added to the depth of the game!
In Pirates!, mini games ARE the game. Sailing is similar to combat, and
actions in port are similar. Yet the rest of the game really involves
many smaller games that are totally disjoint. You can dance, sword fight,
fight land battles to capture ports, sneak through town, and hunt for buried
treasure. I think Pirates!' use of mini games is the best example in
support of their use. I think that a great many games could take
advantage of this approach, as not every part of a game looks best or work best
with the same "view" or "screen." For my game, I
really want to have 2 different "views" for playing, one that is more
strategic (overhead view that shows the ground in proportion), and one that is
more artistic (side view that shows the horizon in the distance). If I
can provide meaningful gameplay that fits both approaches, it could be a major
selling point for the game. I really like strategy games, but the
aesthetic elements of games are what really get me connected to them.
It's one thing to avoid guards through an urban maze, but an entirely different
thing to be playing, and then wander into lovely artwork depicting a view of a
mountain-and-forested-hills landscape (or some other beautiful sight) during a
meaningful game sequence. (One could argue that 3D games improve this,
since any view is possible.)
If one looks
at RPGs and Adventure games from the perspective of mini games, many game could
be said to have them. If there is a combat interface that is separate
from the travel/story part of the game, then that combat can be considered a
mini game. If there are any puzzles in a game that take the player to
another "screen," then that is another mini game. Baldur's Gate, for
example, tries to keep as many gameplay elements in the main view, but I would
say that things like the inventory are really small mini games.
|
While mini games are not ideal for all RPGs or Adventure games, I think they provide an interesting way to mix things up. Adding mini-game elements to certain tedious parts might backfire, but fixing an awkward plot sequence might best be accomplished by thinking of a mini-game-like distraction that could make the overall game more memorable.
