Re: An Engineer's View of Game Design

The information provided by a model is not just what the model
includes and is relevant, but also what the model excludes and is
irrelevant. Yes, I have tried to keep the model wide enough to
encompass more than just games: my favorite field of application of
this model is education. It helps create better games by directing the
focus on the quality of the challenge-action/learning-reward cycle.
I'd recommend that the challenges are relevant, the rewards are
pleasant, that the learning-acting is appropriately difficult, and
that a trip around the cycle isn't too long or too short. I'd argue
that the rest doesn't matter: be it 3d or 2d, gnomes or Martians,
mouse or joystick, as long as those requirements are met for a group
of people, that group will enjoy it.

Life in general is a single trip around the cycle: so it's not a game.
But during this trip, we may practice on smaller sub-trips, which is
the essence of what learning=playing=entertaining is about.

Although game historians create sophisticated games, this
sophistication prevents younger players from enjoying them. So
although it's good to have some game historians for the sophisticated
players, but also game designers ignorant of history to serve the
needs of less sophisticated players. Innovation doesn't need history,
although knowledge of history prevents repetition.

About the relevance of my model to simulations: simulations are
primarily relevant challenges. People who play with simulations gain
knowledge of the real world. That's an important source of reward.
Board games carry many social rewards, and one of the challenges is to
learn human psychology - a very relevant challenge. Sports provide
many kinesthetic and social rewards if you're the player or dramatic
rewards if you're the spectator, in addition to a few good spins
around the cycle. I find the challenges in sports trivial and
irrelevant, though.

> 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?

If it has good challenges and good rewards, and doesn't cause
adrenaline overflow, ceteris paribus, yes, that would make it a better
game. But such a game may be expensive to make, or may not last enough
not to induce displeasure with cycle shortness. Look at Doug's model,
aspect B: economics.

Aleks