Today’s article is a nuts and bolts dive into a specific implementation of the information horizon. Push The lane currently uses fog of war to manage the point at which new information is presented to the player over the course of a match. This is crucially important to the design of strategy games, especially single player ones, as single player games are not able to rely on other player’s future actions as a source of ambiguity. You can find the full article below!
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
Our editor Fabian Fischer has a new article on up Gamasutra about something that’s pretty near and dear to the cause of gamedesigntheory.org: improving the discourse surrounding game design and game design theory.
“That’s just my opinion!” This sentence or a variant of it is often put up as a kind of protective shield for people’s statements and arguments when talking about games. Of course this phenomenon can be observed in other forms of media as well. At first sight, the critical discourse about art and entertainment is primarily concerned with the audience’s personal opinions. However, given the youth of the professional industry and its still fairly underdeveloped theoretical foundation, the “opinion safety factor” is especially high when it comes to video games.
Check out the full post here on Gamasutra: http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/FabianFischer/20170412/295910/Toward_a_Productive_Games_Discourse.php
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.
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/
Ryan Rothweiler, who has been working on a tool for strategy game designers to quickly prototype their new ideas, also recently wrote an article about how we can improve the process of game design.
The process of game design is filled with difficulties and road blocks. I’m not talking about games as software development — I’m talking about games as rulesets design. The wants and desires of software developers are entirely separate from the wants and desires of a game designer, yet both use many of the same tools. Game ruleset designers need better tools if they want to push the boundaries of the medium.
Read the full article here: https://medium.com/@ryanrothweiler/improving-game-design-process-9e392ebf73af
Here‘s a little article/video combo about abstract games, and Raph Koster’s comparison of them to other media.
Check it out here: http://www.firstpersonscholar.com/abstract-games-with-raph-koster/#pq=rYQaUL
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
A new piece by Vivafringe talks about a common pitfall in some kinds of strategy games, using Fire Emblem as an example.
Fire Emblem mostly has a good, clean interface, but scanning for abilities is an annoying exception. A given character can have different abilities, and these can only be noticed by proofreading the tiny ABC circles in the upper right corner. If you don’t immediately recognize an icon, you need to longpress it to see what it does.
Try to avoid having long-distance interaction unless it adds a lot to your game. Make pieces more like Go, where stones can only affect adjacent spaces, than Chess, where a Bishop can threaten a square from across the board. If you do want a Bishop-like character, try to have the squares it threatens show up as dangerous in the UI, rather than forcing the player to trace all of its paths himself.
Check out the article here: https://vivafringe.wordpress.com/2017/03/22/avoid-proofreading-in-your-strategy-games/
Thomas Grip of Frictional Games, the creators of Amnesia and Soma, tries to get to the mechanical bottom of “Walking Simulators”. Comparing their core mechanism to other kinds of games centered around moving an avatar around, he concludes that it is probably not the walking itself that keeps players engaged. Instead those titles seem to require a certain “meditative state”. He is not content with assuming players will be wanting to reach that state of mind though. Instead he hints at new possibilities to densely pack the environment with important information, which Frictional seems to be aiming to explore in future games.
Walking forward is just a matter of pressing down a key or stick. And unless you are my dad playing a game, this doesn’t pose any sort of challenge at all. Your brain is basically unoccupied and the chance of your mind starting to drift is very high. Instead of being immersed in the game’s world you might start thinking of what to cook for dinner or something else that is totally unrelated to the experience the game wants you to have.
The article on the Frictional Games blog: https://frictionalgames.blogspot.de/2017/03/traversal-and-problem-with-walking.html