Thursday, June 28, 2007

Musing: Chris Taylor's Call to Action

A lot of people have thoughts and ideas about game design. For example, there's Chris Taylor, famous for the RTS Supreme Commander (and it's spiritual previous game, Total Annihilation. Famous mainly for being an also-ran to StarCraft ;) ).

He wrote an article about games. The crux of his article is that games are two hard. Games punish players and they should not do so.

In essence, he's putting forth a notion of design: that games should avoid punishments. That a game is "better" if it does not punish the player, if the player is easily allowed to progress through the game and see more stuff.

The fundamental flaw with his notion is this: it's not objective. It's subjective. It doesn't work as a credible theory of design because of this. His argument isn't that games that use strong Risks in the Challenge dimension are broken; it is merely that some people won't play them.

So?

A proper Theory of Game Design is not intended to say what the most people will play. Ultimately that is a subjective notion, one that changes over time based on what the population wants. An objective Theory of Game Design's purpose is to aid a game designer in being able to tell if a game is functional, as well as describe how functional it is.

My section on pathologies does not detail subjective problems. Something is pathological if it is objectively broken. There is some subjectivity to it, as the Situation Model does model a degree of subjectivity in its representation of the player's attributes. The Situation Model only goes so far as to allow the game designer to assign a generic value to a player's attributes in an area. A kind of, "You must have this much reason to pass this section."

Given that, is it possible to have a game who's Risk dimension is too great? For a particular player, and generalized over a number of players of similar mindset, yes.

As an example, the Risk for being on one's last life in World 8-4 of Super Mario Bros is enormous. Fail, and it's back to the beginning for you, where at best, you'll have to trek through 7 levels before getting back. As children, this risk was somewhat acceptable; children tend to have more time and tenacity on their hands. Plus, children get games when their parents are good and ready to give them to them.

Even so, Risk can be mitigated by another factor: how much fun it is to play. Super Mario Bros. game mechanics are rather enjoyable. While the early levels do get boring after a while, even a seasoned expert gets a thrill from some of the World 8 levels. If a game is fun enough, Risk can be averted.

However, there is one problem. While Chris summarized his position as wanting less Risk (using different terms, of course), that's not what his article actually described. The description of why he doesn't complete games did not deal with Risk; instead, it dealt with Challenge as a whole.

He says,

For one reason and another, I was never able to complete them because at some point while playing, I would hit a "blocker." (A blocker is a term that game designers use to call a part of the game that stops the player's forward progression because of a complex puzzle, or arbitrary twist in the game.) When I hit a blocker, I give it a couple of tries, decide that this seems like a great place to take a break for the night, and lo and behold, the game begins to collect dust and I never play it again. That's the story for most games on my shelf.


That is not an aversion to Risk; that is an indictment of the entire domain of Challenge.

Do videogames need Challenge in order to be videogames? No. The definition of videogames, as I present it, does not explicitly or implicitly require Challenge. It only requires interactivity and the intent to provide enjoyment.

However, do games, whether in videogame form or otherwise, need Challenge? Absolutely; Challenge is at the core of games.

Look at the difference between Chess and Tic-Tac-Toe. Why is Chess played at high skill levels, while Tic-Tac-Toe is considered a child's game? Because Chess provides a much greater degree of Challenge. Chess played against a tough opponent requires a great deal of Knowledge, Reason, and Comprehension in order to be successful. By contrast, Tic-Tac-Toe against the smartest player of the game in the world will always result in a tie.

In terms of non-videogame games, Challenge is ultimately all there is. Enjoyment is gained from little else; the base interactivity of non-videogame games tends to be moving pieces around a board. Table-top RPGs and high-end miniatures games with grand backstories can buck this trend, but for the most part, non-videogame games derive their enjoyment entirely from the Challenge that their mechanics generate.

In terms of gaming videogames, Challenge is still a very strong aspect. The Situation Model demands it. Though it models interactivity, because most of the dimensions of Challenge are based on factors in the Situation Model, Challenge is an important component of gaming videogames.

After all, what good is gaining Knowledge if the game does not confront you with a Situation in which that Knowledge is required? What good is Experience if the game does not test it? And the only way to test such things is by creating a Situation with Challenge in the appropriate dimensions.

It's like rats in a maze, really. It was discovered that rats running through a maze actually learned how to get around simply by being there. When they started putting food in various locations, the rats were able to find the food much faster than rats who were new to the maze. But nothing indicated to the researchers that the rats learned the maze until they started placing goals in it.

Only when something is Challenged are you certain that it is really there.

However, unlike most non-videogame games, videogame games can create enjoyment from non-Challenging features. The act of interaction, for example, can be enjoyable, as can the videogame's setting or other non-game factors. Even so, much enjoyment can be had by having the player surmount a Challenge.

The difficult, of course, is Pacing. That is, providing the right Challenge at the right place at the right time. As mentioned, some people like sharper pacing curves than others. Despite the fact that Myst sold many units, very few of those buyers actually liked the game. It had a very sharp pacing curve, one that was too sharp for many.

So, what Chris is asking game developers to do is lower the pacing curve. This begs a question though: is there a right pacing curve for a game? A single correct solution for a specific videogame?

No. Ultimately, everyone likes their pacing in a certain way. Some players get bored with games that are too easy. Other players get frustrated with games that get too hard too fast.

What Chris ultimately wants is for game developers to cater to the low-pacing crowd. That's his call, but it need not affect your decisions as a game developer. Higher-paced games are still valid and viable games, from an objective standpoint.

On a personal level, I can't really bring myself to care for the low-pacing crowd. It simply isn't that interesting of a task to design games for them. Their enjoyment tends to stem from the base interaction or other facets of the videogame's construction than from anything involving the game rules themselves.

This musing went kind of wide of its initial purpose, but maybe it's an interesting read none-the-less.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

北部專業敦麗室內設計、系統家俱規劃,式樣新穎、經濟實惠、簡雅大方,符合現代玩家空間設計

Anonymous said...

成人線上免費觀看成人脫衣秀成人a小說愛情視訊愛正妹愛液自拍愛液漫畫愛漫畫網感性性愛的技巧慢畫網慢化慢性肥厚性鼻炎護理資訊慢性愛撫慧慈照片慶色免費直播成人影片免費看線上成人影片免費a片影片短片sex絲襪自拍免費影片xvideos影片xvideo免費影片xvideo影片xx18net影片交流區xxvideo影片yam小魔女自拍天堂影片免費yam天空免費影片yam天空辣妹影片yam甜心寶貝貼影片youtube成人影片分享youtube色性影片區女生線上自慰網夫妻性愛偷拍女優卡通女女成人女同志情色文學女同志性交貼圖女同志性愛技巧女同志性愛聖經女同志性愛女同志怎麼做愛女同志被強姦女同志聊天女同志網t圖片女同志女同小說線上看

Amit Parashar said...

online casino blog
Pretty sure he will have a good read.

Anonymous said...

As the obloquy suggests, same day loans are acknowledged
car repairing expenses, profitable for child's investigating fees, going away on period leisure tour, purchase decorations and so forward. payday loansAvail present cash till next day for sanative - Earning at least 1000 per time unit Under the condition of these loans, you are free to landed estate lilliputian cash help move from 100 to 1500, till the short and handy payment period of 14 to 31 days that more often than not comes on the eve of your next day.

Anonymous said...

The cash in front thus borrowed has to be sinking inside time the state with putative builders like Orris, DLF, Ireo, Emmar, Raheja and so on.
payday loansGone are the days of having to thrust down
to the section of fast cash. Applying for flying bad commendation loans online lets
you inquiry a lot in dictation to select sagely for it doesnt necessitate work and faxing person.
Because the supra two benefits work against the establishment
for the other bucks owe companies who really provision these
fast loans. Are you all set to assume the cash you necessitate into your guardianship precise now to 5000-100000 pounds for a fundamental measure of 3 geezerhood to 25 age.
Cash early day loans are truncated term loans that are legal bank report in US.