Would we benefit from considering a broader range of players and placing more importance in their roles throughout development? Some games do this, especially some online games. An example is the popular Battlefield games which allow players to equip themselves based on specialties. If you are not familiar with the games or the specialties, they are usually divided across these roles:
- Assault specialist - Equipped with an assault weapon and grenades for close quarter combat.
- Sniper - Carries a high power sniper rifle and a sight that can they can use to call in precision strikes.
- Engineer - Has a bazooka, mines and can repair vehicles.
- Special forces - Carries a light automatic weapon and C4 explosives for sneaking around behind enemy lines causing problems.
- Support - Totes a heavy automatic weapon and a radio to call in mortar strikes.
User stories provide a mechanism for identifying these roles and clearly communicating features related to each. The template for user stories I like is:
“As a <
"As a player, I would like to have a bazooka so I can blow up tanks"
the story becomes:
"As an engineer, I would like to have a bazooka so I can blow up tanks".
What's the difference? It's mainly one of value and priorities. For a generic player, the bazooka is one of a host of weapons, many of which are more important to the game. However for the engineer, the bazooka is probably the most valuable weapon. I wouldn't play the engineer without it. There's nothing more gratifying than taking out a tank with a well placed shot.
Even if your game isn't going to have specialties, like Battlefield, there is a lot of value in brainstorming the various roles of players early in development. Who is buying your game? Are you going after a largely casual market? If you are, it would benefit you to identify the "casual player" role in some of your stories. It will lead to many small decisions such as simplifying the controls or adding more checkpoints so the casual gamer doesn't become frustrated.