For the competitive analysis, I played Candy Crush by King on my iPhone (though it’s available on Android, Microsoft Windows, iOS, Web browser, Windows Phone, Tizen, Fire OS). With its simple and accessible gameplay, it can be played by anyone, regardless of age. Candy Crush successfully enables users of all ages, genders, and other backgrounds to play by implementing simple rules, intuitive design, and short, replayable levels. The simple and fun nature of Candy Crush allows users to take a break (or escape) from their day while challenging their brains with puzzles.
By establishing simple rules, Candy Crush has a very low barrier to entry. I haven’t played Candy Crush in a while, yet when I redownloaded the game, it was very easy for me to relearn the rules (mainly just solve the puzzle by swiping candies to form a row of the same type). Additionally, if there’s a unique mechanic for each level, they introduce it before you play it (Figure 1). The new/unique mechanic is similar enough to the main mechanic of the game (solve the puzzle) that there’s very little confusion playing the levels. This set of simple rules allows for the user to experience both the aesthetic of Challenge and Submission/Abnegation (escapism).
Figure 1: Level Introduction
The intuitive design of Candy Crush takes off the mental load, that would’ve been needed to figure out how to use the game, from the user to allow the user to solely focus on the puzzle gameplay. The main page, the “Map” tab, is used to navigate between levels by laying out a roadmap/path of levels to follow (Figure 2). It’s very intuitive and takes advantage of existing norms (how to follow a path) to guide the user to the next step (next level).
Figure 2: Levels Roadmap
Each level consists of one puzzle with a unique challenge, with similar and intuitive designs to eliminate level-to-level learning curves (Figure 3). As users level up, the puzzles get more complex while maintaining the same basic rules. Because the boards have the same basic design the user is kept in a familiar environment throughout all the levels. Additionally, the progress bar and goal reminder at the top allows for the user to play without having to memorize anything. Throughout the levels, Candy Crush reinforces the formal element of Objective, specifically solution, by designing any additional features and/or mechanics around the basic puzzle element.
Figure 3: Level to Level Comparison
Our team’s concept is a competitive pattern/puzzle game where players are tasked with filling a 3×3 board with ingredients to make their recipe the fastest. It’s similar to Candy Crush because of its food-themed aesthetic, pattern matching / puzzle nature, and accessible set of rules. I wanted to test Candy Crush to try to answer the question of: how simple is too simple? Or, can people still have fun with a simple set of rules? I think the level of simplicity that Candy Crush has is great for a short solo playthrough. However, our team’s game differs from Candy Crush because of its social nature and goal of cultivating the Fellowship aesthetic. Because of this added layer, or game can’t follow the escapism / turn-off-your-brain route that Candy Crush goes on. This means that our game should add a bit more complexity or interaction than Candy Crush does.
