On his blog, Benjamin Cribb recently published a sort of “meta-design” post, not discussing concrete design principles, but rather the process of developing theory itself.
Better understanding the common or competing structures of game design theories will help us to be more diligent in crafting these theories, and reduce confusion while debating them.
It’s a really interesting read! Check out the full piece: https://bennycr.wordpress.com/2017/09/01/how-system-discovery-culture-progresses/
Nikhil Murthy has a new post up over at Gamasutra. In it he expands on the idea of “foreshadowing” which we typically know from storytelling media. He argues that in the context of games, this concept can also be used in ways which better fit the medium than just copying what movies are already doing. And that means taking a look at the gameplay mechanics themselves.
Check out the full article: http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/NikhilMurthy/20170719/301979/Mechanical_Foreshadowing.php
Keith Burgun mentioned to acquire another fantastic guest for his Clockwork Game Design podcast. In the new episode he talks to James Lantz, among other things the design mind behind one of the best strategy games of recent years: Invisible, Inc.
The discussion ranges from strategy games design in general, over a short excursion about last-hitting in League of Legends, to being the son of a game design guru.
Give it a listen: http://keithburgun.net/interview-with-james-lantz-designer-of-invisible-inc/
On his blog Ethan Hoeppner goes into depth regarding the ways information can be provided to players during a match of a strategy game. He introduces the interesting concept of deliberately using “information spikes” to disrupt the players’ plans so that they regularly have to readjust their strategy on the fly, while still being able to make relatively predictable use of the constant flow of information in between.
Full article: https://ethanhoeppner.github.io/gamedesign/plan-disruption.html
There is a new article up on No Hidden Info. It’s an attempt to explore the very nature of interesting decisions in a less “vague and unsatisfying” manner than many of its precursors. The heart of the essay lies in the concept of “tension”:
Rules (player actions and environmental rules alike) come into tension with one another as a result of three properties interacting to create clashing incentives: exclusivity, situationality, and indirectness.
Check out the full text: http://nohidden.info/Tension/
Keith Burgun weighs in on the recent discussions about score systems in strategy games. His new article basically argues for getting rid of them since they lend themselves better to short-term tactics or race-like structures than well-planned strategic decision making.
Thinking of your game in terms of points, and these short loops of getting points, I think lends itself to a game that repeats many short arcs. It also lends itself to thinking of a game as sort of arbitrarily expandable. […] The inherent nature of “gathering points” is, perhaps, less suited for a strategy game than for a contest. A strategy game is a structured thing with a beginning, middle and end. A contest is a measurement.
Check out the full article: http://keithburgun.net/against-score-systems-and-for-success-and-failure/
Ethan Hoeppner continues his previous exploration of using a continuous “par” number to adjust a game’s difficulty. To further support this approach, he this time makes a case for continuous goals in contrast to a binary win/loss states, arguing that the latter lead to a loss of important feedback information:
Ultimately, the problem with the win/loss system can be thought of in this way: The player attempts to maximize their probability of victory, but they aren’t told how well they did at that, instead the feedback they receive is just a single bit of information; the “win” or “loss”.
Find the full article on Hoeppner’s blog: https://ethanhoeppner.github.io/gamedesign/binary-and-continuous-goals.html
You recently might have found Raph Koster’s little “brain teaser” about abstract games to be interesting. Well, now you can hear an in-depth conversation between himself and host Keith Burgun on the Clockwork Game Design Podcast. They touch on a range of topics from the broader state of the game design craft and the surrounding discourse to more concrete guidelines for designing abstract games.
Give it a listen: http://keithburgun.net/game-grammar-and-game-design-theory-interview-with-raph-koster/
You might recall the discussion on Skinner Boxes we highlighted a couple weeks ago. Now Reddit user VMaikel continued that discussion in a new thread, partially taking it to a meta level by pointing out the difference between internal and external operant conditioning.
Clear language and a willingness to understand each other is what’s needed for better game design philosophies. We have to be aware of our own design goals and those of others. If we want to have more meaningful discussions we need to make a difference between disagreeing with a design goal and the methods used to achieve that goal. The fact that you disagree with a design goal does not automatically mean that the methods used for that design goal are ineffective.
Check out the thread that, again, already generated quite some additional discussion: https://www.reddit.com/r/gamedesign/comments/63dzig/operant_conditioning_extrinsic_rewards_and/
At this year’s GDC, Stefan Engblom of Supercell talked about the team’s approach to card balancing in Clash Royale. While he pointed out a few areas where collecting data can be useful, he also emphasized that it’s clearly not everything. Instead, he underlined the importance of flexibility and quick iteration when trying to find the fun. But most of all, he recommends every creator to play their own game over and over again during development and after, to gain a deep understanding of and feel for the gameplay.
Watch the full talk in the GDC Vault: http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1024272/Quest-for-the-Healthy-Metagame