Re: An Engineer's View of Game Design

Aleks,
Thanks for the clarifications.  The main point I was trying to make is that
I didn't see how your model helps designers to make good games.  Most of
what you described seems so basic and common sense to the point that its
applicable to not just games, but life in general.  The reason we all don't
go jump off a cliff is because what tomorrow holds is unknown (stuff to
learn), there are always goals to be achieved, rewards to be had, and we're
always hopeful of the future.  Suffice it to say, when we escape into a
computer game, we don't shed our humanity.  To me, your model is so generic
that it not only describes the psychology of gamers, but also describes the
inherent behavior of all games.  Its almost as if to say, to be aware of the
model is irrelevant since the game will have these properties anyway.  Which
wouldn't be surprising considering we are humans creating fantasy realms
which are still ultimately based on our hopes and dreams as people.  And if
that's true, how does it help people design better games?

That is why I went on about creativity and becoming a historian of games.
If you want to create good games, play games, become a student of game
history and spend more time trying to provide users with innovative
gameplay.  Consider your audience and their expectations by knowing the
games they've likely played before yours.  People's expectations are always
rising, more of the same is not usually enough.

Anyways, tell me more about how you feel your  model relates to PC
simulations like NASCAR, MS Flight Sim and hardcore combat sims like Falcon
4.0 and the like.  Do consumer level, entertainment simulations  fit under
your model as well?  Also, what about non computer games like board games
and sports?

-PizaZ
p.s. If "tediousness" is punishing the player, then does that imply that
removal of all "anti-learning" aspects of a game's design results in a great
game?  Ive created this paradox in my head and i keep getting lost in it.


"Aleks Jakulin" <jakulin@@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> PizaZ,
>
> I try to understand what's going on around me and summarize it in a
> compact mental model that will help me act, decide and create. If the
> model is compact, I will be able to pass it to people that have not
> been playing games for 10 years, so that they will have an
> understanding of this stuff. These are mine, but there are many other
> motivations. My motivation is not to "mechanize" game design, and
> nobody sane has this goal. The crucial idea of my model is the cycle,
> not the obvious phases of it.
>
> Creativity and gameplay experience are implict in my model. I didn't
> point them out because I thought that it's obvious. Novelty in the
> cycle, which contributes to rewards, makes challenges attractive, and
> gives the opportunity to learning while acting, is achieved by
> creative engineering. Gameplay experience is just another word for
> "reward".
>
> My model is based around the psychology of decision-action-reward
> cycle in gamers. Game designers are decision-action-reward engineers
> (some of them are creative), but this sounds too unromantic so they
> prefer to say that what they do is art.
>
> You are right in stressing the general study of the history of games.
> I liked your examples. On the other hand, both games and films that
> require a thorough knowledge of the history, are not particularly
> appealing for the mass public. Such sophisticated films are shown at
> festivals to selected high-brow audiences who have spent a lot of time
> reading books and watching films. As much as I enjoy a twisty article
> that's going to activate my whole brain in pursuit of comprehension, I
> respect and support a solid simple little article that's going to tell
> the same substance to a school child without that prior knowledge.
>
> As for learning and tediousness, I disagree with you. Tediousness is a
> way of punishing the player (you got killed, play again for 30
> minutes), it's a way of letting him get rid of the endorphines from
> his bloodflow so that they can burst to new heights during the next
> cut scene (delayed reward), and it's a chancey way of increasing the
> perception of game value (I spent ?50 on a game that I finished in one
> evening! Yuk!). Tediousness that doesn't perform one of these roles is
> a mistake. Not all games provide the full range of learning and
> reward, but this doesn't invalidate the model.
>
> Your ideas for threads are good. I'm looking forward to reading your
> notes on the subjects.
>
> Aleks
>
>
>
>
>