The Rules of Game Design

Rule 8: FMVs are always a bad idea

I can’t think of a single game ever which managed to use full motion videos in a helpful, correct way. I can think of games which use FMVs to advance the plot successfully and have decent enough actors and writers on hand to make the videos worth watching, such as Realms of the Haunting, but even then , the FMVs have drawbacks. Realms spanned a massive six CDs in order to accommodate the lengthy cutscenes.

The main problem seems to be that in order to create a workable FMV, designers need to work with actors who understand their medium and the players need to be able to see a relationship between the actor and the in-game character. Such things are incredibly hard to do. Most Hollywood actors won't touch game FMVs and most players draw a distinction between the personality developers give a character, the way the actor plays it and the way the player views it.

The only games that even come close to creating a workable FMV format is the Command and Conquer series, especially the latest entry which has a number of decent actors on board. Even then though the experience is tainted by our experience of past FMV-laden games and the use of a silent protagonist makes the whole thing feel vaguely suspect and annoying.


Rule Obeyers: Pretty much any game which doesn’t feature FMV, which nowadays is the majority, thankfully.

Rule Breakers: Any of the FMV-filled games that became fads in the early nineties. Phantasmorgia and Gabriel Knight 2: The Beast Within stand out especially, but for all the wrong reasons. Trying to build an adventure game completely out of FMV segments really doesn't work, especially when you've got awful actors and a low budget.

Rule 9: Saving should not be a chore

There are some exceptions to this rule, but unless the saving system can be feasibly put into the game in a way that is immersive and reasonable – like the type writers in the Resident Evil series, then we’d prefer it if most games just had the usual setup. Save at any time, load at any time and use quicksaving to make it all easier.

There’s nothing especially wrong with checkpoints and the like, but too often we see them placed stupidly – autosaves in the middle of a massive battle, bringing the framerate to a crawl for several precious seconds and ensuring you’ll always autoload to a point exactly two seconds before you die.


This rule also ties in with Rule #1 in regards to saving before an unskippable cutscene. Having parts of the game which can't be skipped is one thing. Having a game that saves in the wrong place is another thing too. Having a game with sequences and cutscenes which can't be bypassed and also forcing players to save at specific points, i.e. right before the cutscene, is a recipe for unprecedented disaster. It could be the best game in the world, but if we have to watch the intro to a boss battle twenty times in a row then even we start to get annoyed.

Rule Obeyer: Postal 2 for all its awfulness and controversy for controversies sake, did one thing well – the save system. It was simple. The game saved whenever you moved to a new area and, on top of that, you could save and quicksave as much as you want. Nothing special in that alone perhaps, but having the (very) vocal main character insult you for constant quicksaving gave it a nicely humorous touch.

Rule Breaker: Halo 3 had an awful save system and, no matter how much you liked the game, you have to admit that in this regard it was bad even by console standards. There’s no option to quicksave or load – no chance to save at all. Instead, if you want to avoid repeat performances, you’ll have to ensure you Save and Quit every time. If that’s not a pain in the backside of hellish proportions, I don’t know what is.