ED Bryne - Building a simple level - Week 14 (31/1/14)

basic elements of level
concept
environment to exist in
beginning
ending
goal
challenge to overcome
reward
way of handling failure

tetris
concept: find a place for the blocks or lose the level
environment: active play area to left of game data
beginning: player starts with empty screen and score 0
ending: over when either creates correct number of vertical lines or blocks pile up
goal: correct number of vertical lines
challenge: speed of descent, types of block, number of lines needed
reward: next level/brief animation
failure: the game ends and must restart

story?
not fundamental requirement to a level. enhances level with new info about expected to do, avoid, seek -
e.g. chess - can be played even with coloured stones

putting all together 
concept
making a game for phone - called Clownhunt, player controls Cripsy, a clown escaping maniacal ringmaster. puzzle game, each level = one screen. level = challenge to overcome for next level, each level harder.

controls: move left+right, jump. no fall dmg, simple game.

environment
set in circus: colourful backdrops, cartoony graphics. elephant house - background = dark cages, concrete wall, single light hanging.

beginning
player starts on left, needing to move to right where exit is.

ending
exit far enough away player must overcome challenge to reach it.

goal
reach the exit. this is made clear by having an enemy pursue the player to keep him moving. final level is showdown with the ringmaster (dante)

challenge
circus environment = see saw good challenge to get to exit placed top right.
seesaw good because: need player a way to reach exit, immediately recognisable, how it works is apparently - explanation unnecessary

determining the challenge mechanics
mechanic = functionality behind each puzzle or game element.
best gameplay mechanics are those that need no explanation, allowing player to work out from observation. makes player feel clever.

for this game - weight on one side of seesaw - weight can be suspended above seesaw and dropped via being shot at/cut

player jump onto seesaw to propel the weight, as it lands player gets propelled.

implement rules for ingame objects to follow to react to player, e.g. multiply the distance the weight goes up by the number of feet the player falls before landing on seesaw.

what will player jump from? low platform for player to jump from - low enough for player to jump to, high enough to impact the weight on seesaw

elephant snacks = relevant to level design

SIMPLE RULES TO FOLLOW
- the more players can complete a challenge in a level by simply interacting with it and observing the results, the better they will feel about overcoming it. if you need to resort to prompts or special mechanics to allow players to complete your puzzle, you risk removing them from immersion.

- sometimes simply finishing a level can be a reward - doesn't need to be fireworks or exit guardian to defeat to feel accomplishment.

- try not to let player be in a position to blame you for his failure. if you give players all tools they need and don't impede their abilities to learn from mistakes, they will be much less frustrated with failure. even better, eliminate the need for failure at all when you can.

notes on 3 launcher games - group project

Canoniac Launcher
http://www.kongregate.com/games/FunBunGames/canoniac-launcher

The first thing I hear is some obnoxiously loud jazzy/blues kinda music which I don't feel like it fits the style of the game at first glance. The worst thing about it is that it's on a constant loop (although you can disable it playing all together).

They have no audio indicator for the interaction with the blob - even when you choose your angle and begin charging it. It lacks a sense of control you might get when a sound  plays letting you know when the charge is at max or min.

The actual launch sound is similar to a very quickfire catapult "ping". I don't think it gives the user enough feedback for this action. it's all over very quickly. However, the clunking of the robot when he bounces is nice. It definitely comes to a hault too early, though.

for interactions with objects along the launch path, it seems there are only 2 forms of audio - good and bad. obviously one or the other is played depending on if you get boosted along or come to a halt. feels a bit lazy because there are several things that can aid/stop you.

Burrito Bison Revenge
http://www.kongregate.com/games/JuicyBeast/burrito-bison-revenge

Immediately the title audio gives you a very standoff/duel feeling. Buttons have a "squish" kinda sound when you press them letting you know the interaction worked which I like.

launch sound is a weird springy kinda sound but it doesn't give the effect I feel like a ring would. I imagine that to be a bit more rubbery/elasticey.

when bouncing on a gummy the sound effect is immediately one recognised with something being squashed and even without being told to you would know to squash those things. the same with landing on the bombs - as it's a launcher game you have to go further - most explosions are associated with going further.

Berzerk Ball 2
http://www.launchgames.org/berzerk-ball-2.html

The title music is amazing! Gives a really authentic arcade feel to the game, and the beep when you hover over the play button just ties in really well with that.

The arcade feel is definitely what they're going for. On character selection the audio is similar to any kind of "arcade selection" character screens, see tekken etc.

Unfortunately the audio takes a nosedive and ruins that feeling. The music becomes very clownlike and jokey, and when you launch it then plays some heavy metal. It's kind of throwing me all over the place and I can't say I like it.

The visuals and the audio of the launcher don't quite add up - it's clearly someone batting your player further, however the sounds played when adjusting angle and power sound like a shotgun.

The game itself feels really lacklustre. I was really excited after just the main menu, but I feel a little let down now. It's tried to become too many things instead of keeping one theme.

Brenda Braithwaite & Ian Schreiber (2008) Challenges For Games Designers Charles River Media (chap 5 & 6)

 Why is chance an important component in games and what tools does the designer have at their disposal to deploy this element?

Why is skill an important component in games and what tools does the designer have at their disposal to deploy this element?

test

hard-core strategy doesn't work so well in family games. games that include luck are approachable and winnable by anyone. 

delaying/preventing solvability

game is solvable if possibility space can be exploited so a player can play correctly and always win.

tic-tac-toe fun for short time - player eventually solves. once game is solved it loses struggle towards a goal.

not all solvable games = bad. chess is solvable, but possibility space is very large. games with small possibility space need something to keep fresh - random element?

making play competitive

winning in chess = earned victory. losing = error in your play not luck. random elements keep players interested for longer. higher chance at victory, defeat less bitter when you can blame on luck.

increasing variety

no random elements = start the same, certain patterns emerge. tile-based games allow players to build in dozens of different ways. random elements can increase variety of player's experience + increases replay value.

creating dramatic moments

watching a process play out can be compelling under right circumstances. level of excitement or tension created by chance increases in direct proportion to how much one has riding on results.

enhancing decision making

essence of games = decisions players make

strategy = players have info and know outcome of move they make.

all variables known = decisions aren't particularly exciting (opportunity to capture queen in chess for free with no drawbacks isn't interesting decision because there's clear right answer)

random elements = no longer a strategy that's always right

moves might have high chance of failure but also big potential payoff - risky choice. others safe but small gain

deciding between moves becomes more complicated + compelling

mechanics of chance

dice

single die is random. roll multiple and add together = numbers in middle are frequent, numbers at extreme ends are rolled rarely. frequency of rolls becomes similar to bell curve. 2D6 common roll is 7, least are 2 and 12. more dice, more heavily result skews toward center (randomness decreased). greater number of faces on each die, greater the range (randomness increased)

previous rolls never influence future ones

cards

shuffled - randomising order

face-down on table - information hidden from player

dealt to players to only look at their own cards - each player has privileged info.

finite number of cards with any game, revealing a card affects probability of other cards.

blackjack - probabilities reset when all cards are collected and reshuffled.

some card games even include a card that forces deck to be reshuffled when drawn - randomly varying amount of randomness in deck. if deck reshuffled after every draw, drawing a single card from a deck of n cards is equivalent to rolling a die with n sides.

pseudo-random number generators

computer generated. in excel, enter =RAND()*5+1 in cell, format cell to show 0 decimals - simulates D6 roll

hidden information

nonrandom info concealed from player, it's still random from player's perspective.

e.g. Go Fish player must ask another for a card of a chosen type. without any further info this is a random guess, even though other player knows what they have. it's random to the original player.

RTS games include fog of war that conceals info about what opponent is building. although not entirely random, the uncertainty of how to respond to unknown threats creates random dynamics,

when hidden info is also random, danger of player becoming confused/frustrated. they should be able to understand consequences of actions.

all randomness is not created equal

poker - luck or skill? has elements on both. which dominates the game? answer depends on how many hands played - small number of hands, likely one player dealt more winning hands (luck based). more hands played, player ends up with same total number of winning hands, focus of game shifts to who maximizes money he earned from each hand.

purely random vs measured randomness, where nature of random elements are known and planned for by players. each hand may be random, but with sufficiently large number of them, randomness decreases

completely random games

children's games

not developed cognitive skills necessary to understand complex decision making - enjoy watching what happens as random elements collide. ironically children attribute it to their skill in rolling or selecting cards

gambling games

defining mechanic = real money won & lost. without money at stale, pure-luck gambling games lose appeal.

these games still offer choice, while still holding their pure chance.

role of skill in games

good game = series of interesting decisions. success of decisions is a measure of player skill. cause players to exercise their skills and reward with immediate feedback.

"magic circle" engaging a player so they fall through the monitor into the game.

when constantly making decisions, player enters state called flow - optimal playstate that designers works hard to achieve.

types of decisions

obvious decisions

highest number game: first player chooses any number. after hearing choice, other player chooses different number. highest number wins. not interesting for second player. the winning decision is so obvious it's not really a decision at all. talisman - primary mechanic is rolling a die and moving along track that many spaces, clockwise or counter. direction to move is choice, but one space harms player as much as other helps - obvious decision. 

once monopoly has ran out of choices (all spaces owned) people usually wait for game to end.

in most cases where decision is blindingly obvious, designer can remove choice and make automatic. e.g. modern RPGs rarely require players to rest and eat, although in 80s & 90s they did. games now do it automatically. by automating trivial decisions, focus given to interesting ones.

meaningless decisions

more frustrating than a choice with obvious right answer is choice with no right or wrong answers at all. though choice is present, has no effect on outcome. e.g. early RPG's "does though wish to see the king?" player can choose yes or no. regardless of choice, player ends up seeing the king.

decisions are interesting because they affect outcome of game. meaningless decisions are not interesting because they don't affect anything. usually better to eliminate from game.

player perception - modern games offer choice in narrative that doesn't affect outcome, however player perceives it does. only obvious after replaying game that they're meaningless.

blind decisions

roulette - real decision of what number to bet on. decision not obvious, isn't meaningless, not interesting. entirely random. game still compelling because it offers cash as reward.

strategic games can inadvertently include blind decisions. if a player approaches NPC and is given choice of how to introduce himself without any information, choice is made blind. decision becomes interesting and rewarding if player heard rumours about NPCs earlier.

blind decisions can be turned into other kinds of decisions by giving player some informtation

tradeoffs

happens when player doesn't have enough resources to accomplish all of his goals. these decisions can become obvious if one choice is better than the other.

dilemmas

similar to tradeoff, occurs when all choices will harm player.

prisoner's dilemma: two players have to independently make a choice - attempt to cooperate or defect (stab partner). if both players cooperate, each pay minor penatly. if both players defect, each pay heavy penalty. if one player defects whilst other cooperates, one who tried to cooperate pays max penalty whilst one who defected gets no penalty at all. it's a dilemma because no matter what opponent does, player can reduce his personal penalty by defecting. however, by following this optimal strategy, players end up in the suboptimal situation of everyone defecting.

risk versus reward tradeoffs

form of tradeoff. happens when player finds themselves faced with situation that has multiple outcomes but they have different levels of risks.

common in board games with dice, cards or other random mechanics. often have option to make safe move with small reward, or risky move with high reward (penalty if failure)

frequency or anticipation of decisions

frequency with which players make decisions is paramount. designer's goal is to keep players brain busy with possibilities. sims is great at this.

sometimes decision isn't frequent, but anticipation of a pending decision sustains player with thoughts. e.g. fps games where you're waiting in an elevator.

strategy and tactics

strategy consists of immediate goals that must be performed in order to achieve grand strategy. tactics are lowest level of micro decisions when carrying out a strategy.

tradeoffs make for interesting strategic or tactical decision-making. fast decisions are limited to tactics. games that focus on tactics can use tradeoffs or fast decisions (or mixture) resulting in different gameplay. 

completely skill-based games

tend to have some elements of chance. purely skill based games like tic tac toe can be solved and decisions that were once interesting can become obvious decisions when there ends up being one right move. designing game like this requires enough depth of choices in game that can't easily be solved.

most skill games are physically based action games - it's not about getting right answer but getting quickly.

mechanics of skill

auctions

designers can vary their mechanics. instead of auctioning single item, items can be auctioned in groups. multiple auctions can be performed at once. etc etc.

purchases

choices come from what to purchase, when to purchase etc

limited-use special abilities

players can gain advantage but use only once per game. a player knows what advantage he will get by using ability, but unknown whether a better use will be available later.

dynamic limited-use special abilities

varying strength of ability = strategic nature of decision is amplified. e.g. longer you hold item's button down, more powerful it may become. using now or saving it presents the player with interesting decision. 

explicit choices

weighing the relative value of one choice compared to the other e.g. choose one: gain 10 gold or heal 5 life

limited actions

one avatar = all actions taken through that avatar. multiple avatars, choosing which one takes which action becomes difficult. happens in final fantasy. 

trading and negotiation

multiple players working together toward mutual goals. mix of cooperation versus competition. alliances forged and broken.

strategic evaluation

assessing success of strategy and tactics - interview players/watch them play and gather info on your game. not everyone likes chess, go or risk. strategy in your game should commensurate with audience's desire for the same. 

do players care when other players are taking their turn?

high degree of strategy = reluctant to leave table

strategic game requires players to care about outcome of each player's move - other player's moves affect their own.

are players making long-term plans?

strategic games invite strategies that are carried out over multiple turns. stifled by existing mechanics of game/allowed too much latitude, unable to see how strategy could be sustained. ask players what they plan to do or how they think they will win. usually reveals a strategy or lack thereof.

are there multiple strategies for multiple games?

player should have an idea of how he will approach the play of the game. more rich the strategic opportunities are, more diverse answers will be. 

Tools for creating dramatic game dynamics

marc le blanc: 12 year veteran of computer games industry. contributed to thief, system shock, oasis. master's degree in comp. science.

study of games design comparisons to traditional narrative forms, it's inevitable.

70s & 80s text adventures like zork gave new way to combine play with prose.

zelda & GTA possess sights, sounds, characters and plots that we can see in a feature film.

ancient egyptian game "senet" - one of the top contendors, along with Go, for "oldest game known to humanity" - tells the story of the passage through the underworld to the land of the dead. players believed that the game was an oracle for mystical divination. events of game foretold what the player might one day experience.

story doesnt necessarily rely on the metaphor of the game, but on the events of the game itself: the plans and gambits, the bluffs and stratagems, the reversals of fortune. game becomes climactic struggle to a satisfying conclusion. game is dramatic

drama = desirable quality in a game. as designers we strive to create games that are climactic struggles in their own right.

challenge of creating drama in a game is compounded by our limited control over games we create. don't know the details of how our game will play out each time.

we do not create drama, we create the circumstances from which drama will emerge.

how do we go about the task of creating dramatic games? what tools can we use to guarantee a climatic struggle?

MDA
exploration of drama guided by this core framework (mechanics, dynamics, aesthetics)

mechanics > necessary pieces that are needed to play the game. refers to the rules of the game - also to equipment, venue, anything necessary to play. e.g. chess > rules, how pieces move, dimensions of board, etc.

dynamics > "behaviour" of the game - actual events and phenomena that occur as it's played. in chess, tactical concepts like the knight fork or the discovered check as well as structural concepts like the opening and endgame. when we view a game's dynamics, we ask "what happens when the game is played?"

dynamics of game not mandated by its rules and not always easy to intuit from rules themselves.

dynamics emerge from game's mechanics

aesthetics > emotional content. game can challenge our intellect, foster social interaction, stimulate our imagination, provide us with a vehicle for self-expression. these properties are part of the aesthetics.

aesthetics emerge from its dynamics - how the game behaves determines how it makes the player feel.

one of the greatest challenges of games design is understanding how specific game dynamics evoke specific emotional responses.

mechanics of game always exist (e.g. chess board sitting on the shelf - thought of as box of mechanics waiting for us to set it in motion. dynamics however only manifest when the game is being played. reaping the aesthetics from the game depends on actually playing the game and bringing aesthetics to life.

playing a game = casual flow that starts with its mechanics, passes through dynamics, and ends with aesthetics - as a designer this is true, as a player I believe it to be the opposite (I just remembered after writing this that Hunicke actually covers this in his MDA article)

work backwards - what dynamics will accomplish our aesthetic objectives, from there design game mechanics that will create those dynamics. when designing a game, our experience begins with aesthetics, passes through dynamics, and ends with a set of mechanics.

how does drama function as an aesthetic of play?
what kinds of game dynamics can evoke drama?
from what kinds of mechanics do those dynamics emerge?

aesthetic models help us know when we have achieved them and if we're headed in the right direction.

drama is only one aesthetic among many. many reasons to play a game. they can challenge us, realise our fantasies, bring us into social contact, and many more. each experience is a separate aesthetic pleasure with its own aesthetic model. aesthetics can coexist. when designing a game we hope players have many kinds of fun, not a single kind. 

visualizes the dramatic arc: rising and falling action of a well-told story. central conflict creates tension that accumulates as story builds to a climax and dissipates as conflict is resolved.

tension = quantity that can accumulate and discharge, increase or decrease as time passes.

dramatic tension = level of emotional investment in the story's conflict. sense of concern, apprehension, urgency with which we await the outcome.

drama in games

in theatre authors have complete control over every moment of unfolding narrative. game designers have greater challenge - assure that game will be dramatic, even when we don't have direct control over the narrative, which isn't scripted in advance, but rather emerges from the events of the game.

conflict creates drama. conflict comes from contest around which the game is built. some contests challenge player's intellect, stamina, other players, single player challenges. all necessary for drama. 

dramatic tension is product of two different factors

uncertainty: sense that the outcome of the contest is still unknown any player could win or lose.

inevitability: sense that the contest is moving forward toward resolution. outcome is imminent.

neither is sufficient by itself. without uncertainty game becomes a foregone conclusion. without inevitability outcome of conflict seems distant.

magic the gathering - game starts with full deck of cards and nothing in play. in first few turns the players' ability to affect outcome of game is limited by lack of mana resources. outcome is unknown. as play progresses, more cards come into play and game moves towards a conclusion. late in game, abundance of mana resources means player could change game drastically in a single move. outcome of game seems imminent. these mechanisms sculpt the game. 

uncertainty and inevitability are evoked by different systems and dynamics. independent of each other. gives us finer control over dramatic arc of game. tune them separately. 

to imbue games with dramatic uncertainty, we need to create ongoing sense that the game is close and that the contest is yet undecided. 

force is approach of creating dramatic tension by manipulating the state of the contest itself. game close because we make it close, or limit how much of an advantage a player can get.

illusion is approach of manipulating the players' perceptions so that game seems closer than it is.

pure force (eg cybernetic feedback systems) pure illusion (eg fog of war) as well as techniques that combine the two (eg escalation)

ticking clock is sense of imminent resolution - gives a game its sense of momentum. constant reminder that game will end soon

feedback system might look like this

game state = all information that would be put in a safe file. FPS game state = name of current level, position of every object on level, player's health and inventory. 

scoring function is the sensor of cybernetic feedback system. rule of game that gives numerical measurement of who is winning and by how much. measurement based on facts of the game

game mechanical bias is actuator of the cybernetic feedback system. rule of the game that gives one of the contestants an advantage over the other. in a DM game, giving one player twice as many points as other would give that player an advantage.

controller is comparator of the cybernetic feedback system. rule of the game that chooses which player receives the game mechanical bias. decision made based on scoring function.

handicap = aiding player who is behind. eg in racing game, player who falls behind gets max speed increased so he can catch up to leader. this is similar to feedback system. scoring function is the distance between the two racers. speed boost is the mechanical bias. controller is rule that says speed boost goes to losing racer.

that kind of feedback system keeps close - mario karts uses it - negative feedback system. opposite is positive feedback, striving to make the difference as large as possible.

dramatic uncertainty depends on player's perception that outcome of contest is unknown. if game is tied or close, it's inherently uncertain. this means negative feedback systems are powerful tool for creating dramatic tension. driving scoring function to zero creates dramatic uncertainty. 

negative feedback systems can sometimes cause game to stagnate. positive feedback systems provide mechanism for breaking equilibrium and moving game forward.

other game mechanics create dramatic uncertainty. could be described as illusory - rather than altering the state of the game, they manipulate player's perceptions

pseudo-feedback

create game dynamics that appear as if the game were being driven by negative feedback system. however there is no cybernetic feedback system - just perception of one.

escalation

score changes faster and faster over course of game so more points are at stake near the end than the beginning. game show jeopardy is example of this. first round is worth $100, ends with $500. because of this system, player perceives game is progressing further than it actually has. 

hidden energy

imagine a racing game not driven by a feedback system. player receives turbo fuel reservoir instead to use during the race. gives player a speed boost. however, reservoir only holds 30 seconds of fuel in a race that lasts few minutes. game designed so that effective use of the turbo is the key to success. 

it's energy because it represents the potential to score. it's hidden because it is not part of the player's own appraisal of the game scoring function. 

fog of war

creates dramatic uncertainty by limiting the information available to the players. players cannot predict outcome of contest because they aren't presented with enough information. as game progresses, more and more information becomes available.

decelerator

obstacle that slows the players down late in the game. makes it seem closer by changing scale and pace of game. american gladiators - one of late obstacles was a cargo net that contestants had to climb. climbing net was slow work, so trailing player would reach net before leading player had cleared it. net brought players into physical proximity without necessarily changing true score of game. decelerator creates dramatic uncertainty by creating illusion of a close game.

cashing out

score of game reset to zero. bomberman - game is played in rounds of a few minutes. each round is contest of serial elimination. first player to win three trophies from three separate rounds wins game. during game, players get powerups becoming more and more powerful until elimination becomes inevitable. nothing carried over except trophy awarded to winner. 

ucnertainty alone is not sufficient to create dramatic tension - need dramatic inevitability. if contest appears as if it will never conclude (or no time soon) then it has no sense of urgency - tension dispelled.

uncertainty and inevitability aren't opposites. uncertainty - who will win? inevitability = when will we know?

dramatic inevitability comes from any game mechanic that functions as ticking clock - gives player measurement of their progress and how far away the end might be.

twenty-one

1956 saw debut of infamous game show twenty-one which became centerpiece of quiz show scandal. in 50s, dramatic tension converted directly into ratings and business. resorted to rigging results and recurring contestants. producers became authors, scripting its entirety.

rules of twenty-one

1. two players, each in isolation booth. cannot see or hear other player's play. neither knows each other's score.

2. players score points by answering questions, first to 21 win.

3. in first round, each player asked two questions. in subsequent rounds, each player is asked one question.

4. before being asked question, player must choose how many points to wager. any number from 1-11. must wager at least one, and must answer.

5. if player answers correctly, player gains wagered points, if not, player loses wagered points. players score cant drop below 0.

6. end of round, either player may choose to end the game and player with most points then wins.

played in a vacuum unaware of other player's choices. twenty-one viewed as two simultaneous solitaire games. player is free to play until dropping from exhaustion or until opponent chooses to end game.

game lacks any kind of ticking clock.

lack of ticking clock dispels any hope of creating dramatic arc.

first night of twenty-one was plagued with zero-zero ties. instead of rigging, how can we fix?

limit total time play? limit number of questions? number of wrong answers?

MDA a formal approach to games design and games research

Hunicke et al (2004) describe games as 'systems that build behaviour via interaction'

From your reading of the article, how does this system work and what kinds of controls does the games designer have at their disposal?

MDA - Mechanics, Dynamics, Aesthetics

iterative, qualitative, quantitative analyses support the designer in two ways: analyze the end result to refine implementation, analyze the implementation to refine the result -- approach from both perspectives, consider wide range of possibilities and interdependencies. 

all desired user experience must bottom out somewhere in code. games continue to generate increasingly complex agent, object and system behaviour, AI and game design merge.

                                                 production and consumption of game artifacts

                                       the designer and player each have a different perspective

games' consumption is relatively unpredictable.

MDA framework formalizes consumption of games - breaks into distinct components

establishes design counterparts

"mechanics" describes components of game at level of data representation and algorithms

"dynamics" run-time behaviour of the mechanics acting on player input

"aesthetics" desirable emotional response evoked in player

games more like artefacts than media - content of game is behaviour not media that streams out to player

think about games as designed  artefacts help frame them as systems that build behaviour via interaction. support clear design choice

designer perspective > mechanics give rise to dynamic system behaviour - leads to particular aesthetic exp.

player perspective > aesthetics set tone, born out of observable dynamics and eventually operable mechanics

consider both designer and player perspectives

small changes can have rippling effect

sensation games as sense-pleasure

fantasy game as make-believe

narrative game as drama

challenge game as obstacle course

fellowship game as social framework

discovery game as uncharted territory

expression game as self-discovery

submission game as pastime

charades, quake, sims, final fantasy - fun in their own way.

charades - fellowship, expression, challenge

quake - challenge, sensation, competition, fantasy

sims - discovery, fantasy, expression, narrative

final fantasy - fantasy, narrative, expression, discovery, challenge, submission

develop models that predict and describe gameplay dynamics we avoid common design pitfalls

probabilistic distribution of the random variable 2 D6

eg 2 six-sided die helps determine avg. time takes a player to progress around board in monopoly

identify feedback systems within gameplay to determine how particular states or changes affect overall state of gameplay - monopoly: leader increases in wealth > penalise players with increasing effectiveness. poorer becomes poorer.

the feedback system in monopoly

as gap widens, only 1 player continues to be emotionally invested. others realise they won't win and don't care to play any longer.

to fix could reward players who are behind to keep them within reasonable distance - could impact game's ability to recreate reality of monopoly practices - reality isn't always fun

mechanics are actions, behaviours and control mechanisms afforded to player within game. along with game's content, mechanics support dynamics

iterative refinement important - see changes as they happen

moving between MDA's three levels of abstraction we can conceptualize the dynamic behaviour of game systems.

by breaking a game down and looking at its mechanics, dynamics, and aesthetics, we can develop techniques for iterative design which gives us better control over our desired outcomes and behaviour

Formal Abstract Design Tools - notes and thoughts on a quote

computer game > design, art, audio, levels, code work together to create player experience

technology is evolving fast - issues we don't know about will be solved in 10 years

design is the game - without it there's just data

design evolution lags behind other technological advances ****why****

no shared language of games design

we need to be able to look at, remember, and benefit from our games - mistakes, lessons, etc.

"just fun" or "not much fun" isn't enough

FORMAL ABSTRACT DESIGN TOOLS
Formal - implying precise definition, ability to explain to someone else
Abstract  - emphasize the focus on underlying ideas not specific genre constructs
Design - we're the designers
Tools - form the common vocabulary we want to create

cool stuff is not FADT. it violates the need for a formality. it is a vague word defined differently by lots of other people. "+2 giant slaying sword" in rpg is not abstract, it's one game's element. the sword itself is based on a mechanic of a game, which is a good example of a  FADT.

analogy - you don't build a house out of tools; you build it with tools - game isn't just about "player power-up curves"

design vocabulary is a tool kit to pick apart games. once design is thought out, you can investigate whether a given tool is used by the game already.

sometimes tools don't work well together, sometimes they'll conflict. the designer wields the tools to make what you want, don't let them run the show

Mario 64 blends apparent open-ended exploration with continual, clear direction along most paths.

major design decision was to have multiple goals in each world. first time a player arrives in a world, they mostly explore the paths and direction available. first star in a world is set up to encourage players to see most of the area.

simple consistent controls and worlds, predictable physics, allow players to make good guesses about what will happen if they try something.

monsters and environments increase in complexity but always build on previous already existing interaction principles.

Mario 64 makes situations discernible

players know what to expect from the world and are made to feel in control of the situation. goals and control are created at multiple scales, from quick low-level "get over the bridge in front of you" to long-term high-level such as "get all the red coins in the world".

intention is the first FADT. accumulating goals, understanding the world, making a plan and then acting on it is a powerful method of getting a player invested and involved.

perceivable consequence is an important tool - players knowing why something went wrong. actions result in direct, visible feedback.

RPGs have mixed consequence. example of direct = because of X, Y has happened. pure form of perceived consequence. example of less direct consequence = player decides to stay at inn, next morning he's ambushed. designers possibly built in this code to the game, but it's not perceivable to the player. to the player it appears random.

"games are not books, games are not movies. In those media, the tools used......are used to manipulate the viewers or readers, to make them feel or react exactly the way the director or author wants them to.  I believe the challenge of computer games design is that our most important tools are the ones that empower players to make their own decisions"

intention, perceived consequence, and story.

A very correct statement. The most obvious tool that we can put in the player's hands is the ability for them to make their own decisions, or at least feel like they are. It's something he refers back to a lot in regards to Mario. Although it's a game with a very obvious objective the player is given control as to how they approach the objective and which path they take to get there.

The fact that he refers back to Mario 64 so often speaks wonders for the game itself. It has managed to use the three important tools - intention, perceived consequence, and story - all at once and as he mentioned in the article that's a tough task for any games designer. SquareSoft are another designer that manages to combine these elements in their Final Fantasy games, by using intention and consequence during the combat system, and story and consequence in the actual unfolding of the story.

Thinking of how they can be used is hard. I feel like every game has to contain elements of each of these or it won't feel like a game. For example, as Church says, even fighting games have a story, although it is the player's story rather than a story as we know it.

For it to feel like a game to me, I think that each of these tools has to be in the game in at least some way, whether it being an RPG with a set story that unfolds, or a sport game where the player or the game of football is a story. For a game to be good, players need to understand why things are happening. As discussed in my last post about paidea and ludus, games do combine all these elements. Games can still be games without pieces of all elements, although it's rare to find something that doesn't use a bit of everything.

I have no words and I must design - my notes and my thoughts on a quote.

Here are my notes after reading Greg Costikyan's "I have no words & I must design". After all my notes are my thoughts on the quote "An interactive structure of endogenous meaning that requires players to struggle toward a goal."

A game is an interactive structure of endogenous meaning that requires players to struggle towards goals

gameplay - possibly overused, what even is it? > bad term = good gameplay (expand upon it)

"game" is a very broad term - described as "plastic medium" by Costikyan

refers to Chris Crawford's "The art of Computer Game Design" - contrasts games with puzzles. puzzles = static, present player with logic structure to solve. games change with player's actions.

almost every game has a degree of puzzle-solving, although not as literal.

puzzle = static. game = interactive. interactive doesn't just mean computer video game. interacting with cards or pieces on a board game.

interactive game is redundant - interactive.

can interact with a light. for interaction to = game, must have a purpose or force decisions.

most games have goals. as players allow the objective to guide our behaviour in the game. some games do not have explicit goals. e.g. SimCity (Will Wright a designer) - sandbox game - no victory conditions.

SimEarth, also designed by Wright, complete contrast to SimCity. limited play - game ends once intelligent life has evolved. game crashed on the market in comparison to SimCity.

Wright describes SimCity as a software toy. compares to a ball. it offers many behaviours - bounce it, twirl it, throw it, dribble it. usable in game of football, basketball, etc. the game isn't the toy, the game is what the player makes it.

In a way, SimCity isn't a game. it is like a toy that lets the player play what/how they want to.

Character improvement is fundamental to both RPGs (roleplaying game) and MUDs (Multi User Dungeon).

Although there is no goal within these types of games, as a player/group we set out to find a goal ourselves, or have the gamesmaster create a goal for the players.

games are goal-directed interaction - although goals alone are not enough

competition creates struggle. the opposition is the struggle. best way to create struggle is head-to-head versus a determined human opponent, e.g. in a game like chess. 

competition isn't the only way to create struggle. protagonist has goal: faces obstacle a, b, c, and d. struggles at each turn, growing after each obstacle. completing obstacles gives satisfaction. obstacles don't have to be enemies.

dungeons and dragons you cooperate with other players in your group. mutually supporting each others goals. opponent isn't in the form of other players. struggle in D&D is monsters, NPCS, and the world itself set out by the dungeon master.

Grim Fandango - graphic adventure - essentially animated stories held apart by puzzles. The game isn't entirely linear. Solving a puzzle transit to next space in game, encountering new puzzles. Why not get rid of puzzles and turn it into a story game? Because you lose the struggle - it's no longer a game.

Struggle is a tough concept - if there's too much, a player will find it frustrating. If it's too easy, it will be dull. Where feasible, allow adjustment of struggle.

A game without struggle is a dead game.

Games are to kill time. If a game is over quickly, it isn't much fun.

Game requires players to struggle interactively toward a goal.

"Games are structures of of desire" Eric Zimmerman. Games have goals, players mutually agree to behave as if goal is important to them when they play.

Not much distinction between childhood "let's pretend" and a commercial paper RPG. Main difference being that children playgames have minimal structure. However structure is invented as and when it's needed, e.g. having to tag someone to attack them.

"Let's pretend" has minimal structure, can become confusing. Confusing structure is deadly to a game.

Small change in structure breeds a big change in player behaviour

A good game provides considerable freedom for the player to experiment with alternate strategies and approaches.

Ultima Online allows players to engage in player-killing. Garriott didn't want players to kill each other, he allows his games to have a moral subtext and allow players to take certain moral paths.

A good game will not dictate an outcome, but guide behaviour through the need to achieve a single goal.

A game's structure creates its own meanings. Meaning grows out of structure, caused by structure, endogenous to the structure.

Monopoly money is useless outside of the game itself. Has meaning endogenous to the game of Monopoly. It is vitally important to its players.

Is stock market a game? It's interactive, has structure, has a struggle, has a goal - but isn't endogenous. Shares in companies would still have meaning if the stock market evaporated.

An interactive structure of endogenous meaning that requires players to struggle toward a goal.

Entertainment is a side effect of many things, but not always the purpose. The purpose of games is to entertain.

Creating a compelling game - provide goal, create endogenous meanings, establish a structure, make sure you make the player struggle.

Categories of pleasure: sensation, fantasy, narrative, challenge, fellowship, discovery, expression, masochism.

Sensation
Good visuals, tactile pleasure, muscle pleasure (e.g. dance dance revolution)

Fantasy
It's important to be able to lose yourself in a game. Losing yourself is fun.

Narrative
Not all games will be improved by adding narrative, but games should support a sense of drama. Good narrative = sense of rising tension, leading to a climax. Games, too, though with a sense of accomplishment after the climax.

Challenge
Equivalent to struggle mentioned earlier. Heart of any game. A game has a struggle.

Fellowship
= Community in online gaming. Creates points of contact with other people and reason to feel friendly towards them.

Discovery
Exploring a brand new world, revealing new information. Exciting appeals of many games.

Expression
RPGs, MUDs, MMORPGs are best to self-express. Choice of name, personality, appearance, attributes, etc.

Masochism
Pleasure to be gained from submitting yourself to structure of a game. We don't care about whether or not we get monopoly money, but when we play, we agree to act like we do. An important transition to make when playing a game, especially to have fun.

WHAT MAKES IT A GAME?
This entire section is worth reading again and again.

Games unlike other artform - not passively received - means you aren't spoon fed the entertainment. you work for it.

An interactive structure of endogenous meaning that requires players to struggle toward a goal.
I completely agree with this quote. I've never really looked at games in such a broken down manner and this quote really hits the nail on the head, for me. 

"An interactive structure"
Games are structured environments in which we interact with either other players, pieces on the board, cards, characters in the game.

"Endogenous meaning"
It's really interesting to think that a game can be described as having no meaning outside of itself. I don't think that's the case, at least not all the time. It's very easy for people to become attached to their in-game characters. For example, some people play a lot of Dungeons & Dragons, weekly, for hours at a time, and it's very easy for those people to practically live the character. Although, again, it kind of is endogenous because albeit they might play the game a lot, once they stop playing the game they return to their normal life. I don't know where I sit on this but it's hard to disagree with him.

"requires players to struggle towards a goal"
The most important part of a game. Almost every game will have a goal, although not always predetermined by the game itself. In RPGs it's often the case that the goal is set both by the dungeon masters and by the players themselves, and it's that which I find interesting - we create our own goals when playing if we aren't set any. The goals ("rules") are required to have fun.

All in all I really like this quote from Costikyan. It breaks down what a game really means almost perfectly.