Re: An Engineer's View of Game Design

"Aleks Jakulin" <jakulin@@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> DOUG CHURCH'S MODEL:
>
> ===
> * A: game as a model of the world:
>
> 1. Immersion is the aim.
> 2. Immersion requires involvement (the player must care).
> 3. Involvement requires:
>       - Power of expression: an orthogonal, consistent, simple,
> reasonable way of interacting with the environment

Sounds good to me so far.

>       - Control over destiny: the player is solely responsible for his
> destiny, he cannot blame others, he can only blame himself, therefore
> replaying the game, the player must feel he can achieve the goal

This is too restrictive.  It is not necessary for a player to be "soley"
responsible for his destiny to play a game.  This would eliminate, for
instance, games of Chance.  Gambling games are clearly viable reward systems
for many people, even if they bore other people.  Some personality types
have a more vested interest in personal control than others, i.e.
micromanagers.  The perception of control is also more important than the
absolute nature of the control.  Some people, like myself, are comfortable
viewing the board game Axis & Allies as a series of risk management
propositions.  Other people are not comfortable with "attempting to control
the odds" and scream that A&A is "all luck."  Those of us who can
consistently gain Heavy Bombers when we're ahead know otherwise: you simply
have to spend enough money to overcome probabilistic uncertainty.

>       - Facilitated planning: the player must be allowed to plan, the
> player must know what's the aim of the game

I don't understand why planning is important.  Few people plan a game of
Blackjack, although people do tend to have heuristics of why they think they
will do better.  Again, the perception of some control is more important
than actual control, and even then, I'm not convinced everyone feels a need
for control.  Game Designers are almost always people who like to control;
it is important to remember this, and not project one's *own* desire to
control on all possible audiences.

Most people also don't have much of a plan for Monopoly.  They make a
planning decision when they choose to buy or not buy a property, but a lot
of their planning is contingent upon luck.  Some people extend the
"plannability" of Monopoly through hardcore wheeling and dealing, but others
eschew that as anti-social non-family gaming behavior.  Thus, it may be more
important for some people to sit around a table and enjoy each other's
company, with the level of competition kept low, than to plan aggressively
and win the game.  The decision may not be conscious, a particular Monopoly
crowd may simply not have any powergamers in it, it doesn't even occur to
them to make deals about properties.  This is actually fairly likely and
expected gameplay, Monopoly has rather broad demographic appeal because it's
capable of functioning as a fairly mindless tabletop entity.  The highs and
lows of the game come from rolling dice, i.e. drama imposed over randomness.

Chutes and Ladders and Candyland are still games.  This has to be reconciled
with anyone's preconceived notion that games require planning.  Clearly they
don't.  I would say, however, that within these games' expected demographics
(i.e. very young children, and "alternative" 20..30 somethings waxing
nostalgic), the games do create immersion.  A child does not need planning;
a child is still learning that planning exists.

> * B: economics of game development:
>
> 1. An ideal game would take an infinite amount of time.

This statement makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever.  I can't imagine
why anyone would posit infinitely long games as being ideal.  Evidence from
other media is that human beings have limited attention spans and only want
so much time spent on an entertainment experience.

> 2. How to reduce the development time for the same gameplay effect:
>       - Reuse the world: keep the player interested when he has to
> re-explore the world for several times: different tasks, modifications
> to the environment, requires attention to different elements
>       - Weak task info: let the player fill in the details
>       - Nonlinearity: let the player choose the order in which
> problems are solved

I dunno; like, whatever.  These imperatives are not particularly compelling
to me as a Game Designer.  These are Strategies that a Game Designer *can*
take, but they are certainly not the be-all end-all of game design
Strategies.  As such, I wouldn't include them in a list of fundamental game
design imperatives.  They aren't "up there" with Immersion as a driving
principle of game design.

> ALEKS' MODEL EXTENSIONS
> ===
>
> * C: Adaptation cycle:
> ---
> There are three mechanical psychological sources of player's joy when
> playing the game, challenge->learning/acting->reward/punishment. The
> role of immersion (A.) is to free the player from all distractions
> while running in this circle.

You have not included socialization in this list, and that is an error.
Trivial Pursuit, for instance, is *not* basically about answering all the
trivia questions correctly.  It is usually about getting drunk together.

> A good game should let this cycle spin
> and spin and spin. It should be smoothly started (so that the player
> doesn't drop out), varied in speed (so that it is not boring), and
> stopped in one of the following ways: slowly (relaxing the player,
> comforting him), or abruptly (leaving the player confused, puzzled and
> (hopefully) hoping for a sequel).

Doesn't sound like a full gamut of plot / pace arcs to me.  Films typically
have a Beginning, a Middle, and an End.  The goal is often to create the
psychological satisfaction of closure.  Some films are cliffhangers, some
films are New Age fishtank relaxation devices.  Most films are BME closures.

I am not saying games must be like films.  I am saying your list of possible
game plots / paces is quite incomplete.

> LEARNING-ACTING:
>
> It's possible to reduce most of the satisfaction with the explorative
> elements of the game to *learning*. About learning:
>       - The player must be learning all the time, this is motivating
> the player to continue

You are discounting other possible motives, such as financial reward, or
peer pressure.

>       - Learning gives the player a sensation of progress, and a
> continuous inflow of satisfaction

Only if the task is within their ability to master, in the amount of time
they are willing to spend.  Consider how frustrating most adventure game
puzzles are for most people.

>       - If the player learns something useful in the domain outside of
> the game itself, the game is no more a "waste of time." This implies
> even more satisfaction.

I could care less about the moral valuation of time spent on entertainment.
It does not belong in a treatise on what's fundamental to Game Design.
Masturbation is also a "waste of time;" people do it to fulfil a need.

> What isn't learning:
>       - Tediousness (no goal, just routine, fighting against the
> enemies you have already mastered)

Yes, tediousness is not learning.  Something is tedious when:
1) the task has already been mastered, is being repeated, and the player
doesn't enjoy repeating it
2) the task is new, and the player doesn't find it enjoyable to wrap their
head around the new task

(2) is important to consider if you start formulating your game designs in
terms of Learning.  Who said people wanted to Learn stuff?  Maybe you think
learning all this stuff is kewl; maybe Average Joe thinks you're creating a
lot of boring futz factors that he doesn't want to deal with.

It's also important to realize that (1) works *if* the player enjoys the
repetition.  Some people enjoy plunking quarters into slot machines.  I
think it's a boring waste of time and money.  We are different demographics,
we have different perceptions of the available level of reward for spending
one's time and money.

> REWARD:
>
> - EMOTIONAL/DRAMATIC,
> - SOCIAL
> - COGNITIVE
> - KINESTHETIC
> - GLANDULAR

Ok fine, you've got a palette of paints in front of you.  The canvas is
still blank.

> Managing reward:
>
> The excitement should appear in a rhythm:  Continuous extreme
> excitement can cause the player to get killed, or not to notice the
> excitement any more.

So what?  Consequences schmonsequences.  What if there's a demographic that
actually *likes* a continuous high-stress game?  I don't like Speed Chess;
others do.

> Let there be several peaks of increased
> excitement, with plateaus between them, letting the adrenaline levels
> in blood to drop down, so that they can burst again later. The player
> enjoys to relax after moments of intense action. Anticipate this
> relaxation, and facilitate it.

Feel free to design your game experiences this way, but be aware that you
are making design choices, not enacting any fundamental laws of human
perception and experience.

-- 
Cheers,                     www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every           Seattle, WA

20% of the world is real.
80% is gobbledygook we make up inside our own heads.