Re: An Engineer's View of Game Design

If I may ask, what is the goal of these types of threads?  Are we saying
that we have a ~30 year old industry and we still don't know why people play
games or what makes a good game?  Is the goal one day to reduce the process
of game design to a set of discreet algorithms and formulas?  One day will I
be able to write a specification for a "fun game," stick to the rules, run
it through the formula mill and presto chango, a fun game comes out the
other end?

So Aleks presents us with a psychological profile of people who play games.
But so much of it to me seems extremely basic and obvious... not the least
bit profound (with the exception of the part about "learning" to which I
disagree).  Maybe that's just because i'm a long time computer gamer?
Gamers know what they like right?  Hrm, I'm reminded of some of these
ludicrous studies that organizations sometimes do which describe what common
sense already tells us.  e.g "Study conducted by the University of Illinois
has found that men like looking at naked chicks."  Wow! Who woulda thunk it?
(I made that example up by the way, but there are absurd studies out there
like that which don't really tell us anything new.)

Don't get me wrong, I can appreciate these types of discussions which
attempt to define or put into more exacting words those ideas we already
know in our gut, but don't necessarily know how to express in consise
terminology.  I believe that is where we can find value in these types of
posts.  However, these threads (like the last one dealing with "immersion")
always seem to ignore or gloss over  what I believe to be the two most
important aspects of game design:  1) Creativity and 2) Game play experience
or historical familiarization (particularly) in the genre of the game you
are designing/developing.  Without creativity, you get clones of games that
don't advance the genre.  Without experience and historical perspective, you
don't know how various genres started, progressed and you're even less able
to predict where they might go.

Creativity and innovation are perhaps two sides of the same coin.  The
gaming audience for the most part, tends to reject new titles that are no
better than their predecessors, but they can greatly reward new types of
gameplay.  The Sims have made a killing over the years by giving us
something we haven't seen before (not unless you count playing with
Barbies).  And look at the GTA series (particularly the latest Vice City)
for instance... its got elements of so many different games in it (car
racing, 3rd person shooter, adventure, puzzles) but its very innovative and
fun in the way all of it is tied together.  That's not to say that it can't
get tedious and repetitive (indeed it can get extremely so at times) but on
balance, the variety of play keeps the players' "immersed."   When I was a
kid, I had a blast playing games like Pitfall and Adventure on the Atari
2600.  These games were quite repetitve, but at the same time, they were so
novel and innovative (at least to me) I was always immersed.  When people
talk about "gameplay" they often neglect to talk about the impact that the
current state of the genre has on designs. People become jaded quickly.
Luckily for us all, the technology of this medium is still growing and the
possibilities are still expanding.  We need to have more discussions on this
phenomenon which has a greater impact on the this particular entertainment
medium than any other.

With regards to gameplay experience, I believe it does make a difference if
for instance, you're making a first person shooter and the only games in
that genre you've played before are Half Life, Quake 3 and Unreal
Tournament.  If you goto film school, you're going to learn the history of
film through viewing allot of the classics including silent movies.  As you
branch out on your own to create films of a particular style or genre,
you're going to want to learn the styles of the old masters by reviewing
their works.  The best (INSERT PROFESSION HERE)'s are also historians of
that profession.

"Challenges" and "Rewards" seem like pretty basic concepts for any game
computer or otherwise.  But with regards to Aleks' view on the importance of
"learning" on gamer satisfaction with "tediousness" and "repetitive"
gameplay as being the enemy of "learning" well...  I just don't know if it's
so important or even true.  For starters, there are plenty of great games
that have "tediousness" and "repetition" and often in great measure.  Super
Mario Brothers, Legend of Zelda, Half Life, Doom2 and lots and lots of
really cool games all are guilty of those things to varying degrees.  That
doesn't make it all bad though.  Even a marathon 72 hour sex orgy would
start to get tedious, boring and repetitive at some point.

And is it learning just to see how a particular storyline unfolds?  Is it
learning to figure out that in order to kill this monster you have to shoot
it inside its mouth 5 times with the rocket launcher?  That seems like a
recipe for "tediousness, repetition and boredom" to me.   If i've got
several weapons in my inventory and suddenly come upon an Ice Golem and i
switch to my flame thrower and he dies instantly, what did I learn?
Nothing, except that the game played as I expected it too... that i didnt
have to learn any tricks on how to destroy this monster.  Rather than
learning, i'd put more weight on toying with the player's emotions.  That is
the key to design in my opinion anyway... designing an experience for the
player.  Let the player experience fear, relief, revenge, achievement,

I'd like to see more threads on the historical evolution of games and
gamers.  Do gamers really get jaded by advancements in graphics technology?
If a game like Pitfall were created today with the exact same gameplay, but
with a 2003 graphical facelift, would it have any appeal?  Has the gameplay
in the genre passed it by?  Then again there are kids coming of computer
game playing age everyday who'd probably still get a kick out of such games.
Would be interesting to hear discussions on the relationship between a
gamer's age and their ability to stay immersed in any computer game.

-PizaZ



"Aleks Jakulin" <jakulin@@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> I once attended a lecture by Doug Church at the Game Developers
> Conference in 1997. Doug influenced some of the best hard-core design
> (Thief, System Shock, Deus Ex, etc). He tried to put a rational
> perspective on the "art" of game design. I summarize his views (A.
> immersion and B. economy), which explain his games quite well. I
> suggested an additional point, based on the adaptation cycle. These
> ideas do not apply just to games, but to any kind of entertainment.
> Our discussion never got written down, but I'm appending my notes at
> the end of this e-mail.
>
> Anyway, if you look at the reward section, you will notice that
> different people prefer different kinds of reward. This explains why
> there are different genres of games. Some prefer cognitive rewards
> (puzzle solving), others prefer dramatic rewards (adventure games),
> yet others prefer kinesthetic rewards (arcade games), or glandular
> rewards (...). A good game is able to provide a set of rewards. Also,
> not all games do the full cycle of challenge-learning-reward.
> Non-interactive "games" only have challenge-reward, because you
> observe a character that does the learning for you. Some games have
> trivial challenges, meaning that it takes little planning, everything
> is focused on the cycle between learning/acting and reward/punishment.
> On the other hand, some games, especially turn-based strategy, are
> predominantly challenge-learning/acting, because the rewards and
> punishments are very far off.
>
> I know I'm reinventing the wheel, and that I'm outdated, but
> nonetheless this might incite some discussion.
>
> Best regards,
>     Aleks Jakulin
>
>
> 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
>       - 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
>       - Facilitated planning: the player must be allowed to plan, the
> player must know what's the aim of the game
>
> * B: economics of game development:
>
> 1. An ideal game would take an infinite amount of time.
> 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
>
>
> 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. 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).
>
> CHALLENGE:
>       - Goal
>       - Problem
>
> Examples of implicit challenges:
>       - learn more stuff
>       - finish the game
>       - get more power
>       - get to a new level
>       - see more graphics
>       - create a superman out of your character
>       - beat a friend
>       - exploring: new graphics, story, music, enemies
>
>
> 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
>       - Learning gives the player a sensation of progress, and a
> continuous inflow of satisfaction
>       - 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.
>       - Learning how to deal with the enemies
>       - Learn by experimentation
>
> What isn't learning:
>       - Tediousness (no goal, just routine, fighting against the
> enemies you have already mastered)
>       - Boring stuff blocking the player from continuing towards the
> goal
>       - Problems that were solved before
>       - Lack of new information
>       - Repetition
>       - Irrelevance (figuring out alien lettering, what's that useful
> for if you're not a puzzle junky?)
>       - Limitedness
>       - Anticipated predictability
>
> REWARD:
>
> There are many kinds of "reward":
> - EMOTIONAL/DRAMATIC, achieved through self-identification and
> catharsis. Read Aristotle's Poetics, especially his discussion of
> tragedy. That's how the story should be designed in order to get
> maximum impact on the beholder. Also, both punishment and reward is
> provided through association, once the self-identification has been
> achieved. Keywords: relevance, self-identification, catharsis.
>
> - SOCIAL, achieved through achieving status among other (human!)
> players. This explains why multiplayer games are popular, and why
> people discuss about their successes in playing single-player games.
> Keywords: success, prestige, ranking, score, level
>
> - COGNITIVE, achieved through player learning useful skills, seeing
> new stuff, learning the rules of the (real!) world and solve problems.
>
> - KINESTHETIC, achieving proficiency in controlling the avatar,
> pressing the keys, driving the car, etc.
>
> - GLANDULAR: induced excitement (achievement, beauty, fear, sex,
> taste) and the atmosphere.
>
>
> 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. 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.
>
> Read (not watch!) Macbeth, or watch a movie (thrillers are very
> appropriate) to see how to manage several peaks of excitement.
>
> References:
> http://www.theinspiracy.com/400_project.htm
> http://www.gamedev.net/reference/list.asp?categoryid=23
> http://gamestudies.cdis.org/~rocketship/ionstormterms.htm
> http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20011012/garneau_01.htm
> http://www.planetdeusex.com/witchboy/articles/thefuture.shtml
> http://www.gamasutra.com/features/19990716/design_tools_01.htm
>
>