approaching games

Sorry about the absence from blogging but who would have thought that having philosophy as major would mean so much reading and writing? Anyways...

I've been thinking about my approach to games (go figure) and I find that I need to clarify my thinking by putting some words down in text, and I intend to subject the Internet with my rambling.

First off, games are means to some end, they are not ends themselves. A game for the sake of itself is silly. You can have a basic end i.e. fun for a game but it is still not for itself. Now, like Aristotle said you can't really reason about ends, only about means.[in Nicomachean Ethics] Strictly speaking, we can choose any end that we want, or that makes sense to us, but of course some ends are better than others...

Having a well defined end makes determining the means much easier. You can tell from the game design blogs out there that those with strong, robust theories and interesting thoughts are those with a firm idea of they want to do. For Perko, one of his ends is creating robust social simulations, for Corvus its story creation. etc... (I know those are really huge glosses but bear with me) One of my problems I've noticed is that I don't have any well defined ends with regards to games. Some vague ideas about creating an "experience" and maybe "weirding people out" but those are so general as to be worthless (or nearly so).

I have been working on this though. Stay tuned...

Boredom Hatred

I hate being bored. I'm not ADHD or anything. My patience is at the very least about normal, if not more. But if something does not grab my attention within that span, then I'm bored. And I hate being bored.

When you're bored, you're asking yourself "Why am I doing the thing that I'm doing?" It might be "Why am I listening to this boring old man lecture?" or "Why am I mowing this lawn?" It's because you're brain is tired with what is happening. It's forced to watch the same results from the same actions with no or very predictable changes, unable to switch to thinking-about-something-else mode. It's not being stimulated. That's a very painful state for the brain. The attempts to resist the paralyzing effects fail. It's like a slow rack, slowly pulling your I hate brain paralysis. There is two possible escapes either find something interesting or 'zone out' which is essentially finding something else so interesting, you are no longer paying attention. I've gotten pretty good. I interested and amused by a lot of different things. That's why I don't feel like I deserve to be bored or even zone out. I'm mad when I'm forced to zone out. I shouldn't have to.

Boring games are bad. Games are supposed to be fun! Boring is like diametrically opposed to fun. It's at least in the totally wrong direction. Bad, bad, games. And yet, terrible writing and unbelievable characters make bad movies. Bad, bad movies. And yet I love 'B' movies. I love 'B' comics. I enjoy the ironic joy and laughter watching them. Bad sci-fi is my favorite kind, but I'm not exclusive. Here's the thing that makes good 'B' movies. They do something right. And more importantly, something right that's cinematic. Flashy lights, shiny machines doing stuff, beautiful ladies wearing something hot, invoking schadenfreude, these are things that look good on screen. A 'B' movie needs a saving grace which becomes its raison d'etre. Even if it's just the idea of watching giant insects stomp through a major city.

Of course, you see where I'm going with this. We do play boring games. We enjoy boring games. We sometimes get bored and continue playing. Now a lot of games get boring sometimes. Hell, nothing's perfect. But some games go beyond that at take boring to an excruciating degree. And then perhaps they circumnavigate and end up good. They find a saving grace, a raison d'etre. The enjoyable monotony of smashing things, the strangely realistic action of doing something implausible to see some hot ladies, a intentionally hilarious results, etc, etc...

Let us play... for honor!

I learned a new drinking game last night. It's not like most drinking games. Drinking games are usually either: (a) Everybody drinks at the same time, like drinking every time someone says "the Force" while watching Star Wars (b) Drinks are used as a penalty, like beer pong or some such or (c) or drinking is used as an obstacle to overcome such as flipcup. This one is different though. I forget the name (figures), but I remember the rules and they're quite simple.



You need one deck of cards. The dealer has to flip the top card of the deck onto the table, encouraged to do it with a flourish. Before he does any other player may announce that he will drink to the next card. Anyone but the dealer may do this, and any number may announce. The game will not proceed until someone does. When the card is put down face-up, anyone who announced they were going drink must drink sips/gulps/seconds half of the amount of the card rounded down. Aces you drink nothing. J, Q, K, you must drink 6,7,8 respectively. The dealer may pass the deck after three rounds but is not required to. After 3 rounds though, any player tell the dealer to "take a sip and pass the deck."



Brilliant. Most drinking games are about forcing people to drink. This game has totally flipped that around, which of course means that light drinkers can play with even your most grizzled alcoholic. So what's the point? Honor. Pride. That kind of stuff. It's about social status. I find that kind of intriguing. It is a game that doesn't just have a social context, it takes that advantage of that social context instead of just adding it on top. The mechanic also interests me enough to think about coding it. Hmmm, stuff to think about

The Bet

I have this thing about observing games and play wherever I see it, and most importantly observing the people how they are acting and reacting. Like it always amuses me to see people buying lottery tickets. Recently I experienced an interesting sort of game. Recently a pair of my friends got married. Now, they dated in high school, but it definitely was not a continuous relationship since that time. Then again, even when they were apart all they really seemed to think about were each other, so who knows?



When faced with the sudden surprise announcement, after convincing us that it was not an April Fool's Joke, the other guys were of course conflicted. Would this work? How long will it last? The questions about the fate of these two hung in the back of our minds while we celebrated the beginning of the marriage process. Naturally, after those two left the rest of us started placing bets.



Basically we, three, each put down a bet. One bet that the marriage would last for a year or two before divorce, another bet between two and three years, and I optimistically bet three to four. If no one was right, all the money would go toward a party or something. We had talked about how much we wanted them work but our brains telling us that it wouldn't last. The other two reflected it seemed kind of cold to take bets on that. I firmly protested just because we act this way in the Magic Circle of a Game is not indicative of any lack of respect for two, on the contrary we wanted them to last! We all in fact wanted to lose!



That sent reverberations through my skull. A game we all wanted to lose. An interesting idea, no? It may or may not unique in that respect, especially with the way some people play certain drinking games, but it is certainly not common at all. It seems to come about when there is a cost outside of the game to winning. I'm not sure if that's the only time though. I'd have to think about that some more. The point is that I wonder if one can design a game to be like this. Some games are of course moddable so that this is an out come like a Vampire game where everyone takes the Flaw Dark Fate. Not that Vampire games are 'won' as such, but its close.



What would be more interesting was if the alternate endings in Wing Commander III, which were accessed by losing certain missions were somehow better. Like better ships at the end, or somehow more satisfying and less tragic.



I wonder what a game designed from the ground up to encourage losing would look like.

Carving out the Underground

That Patrick is definitely on to something (and perhaps on something :D). Punks are where its at. Punks are what's happening. Let's rebel against convention. Tear down anything we can. Graffiti anything we can't. Groupthink drains the vitality of life. Color outside the lines and make a difference. Many more cliches besides. To really feel it though, you gotta find and participate in vibrant community of like minded people. A few punks jamming in their basement is cool, a concert invigorates the soul. So where are the groups of game making punks, cranking out games to express themselves. Oh the punks are out there, Super Columbine RPG!, flow, and the rest of usual suspects, but why does it feel so scattered. It feels like they are justs blips of brillances, I want a whole damn guitar riff of crazy games to blow my friggin mind.



There are attempts in the right direction, but they all seem to fall short somehow. Slamdance might have worked but it pull a courted game because of fear of backlash, the exact opposite of what we need. Manifesto has got the right gusto but somehow it feels too commercial for what I'm talking. They're going to be important distributor and marketer, functioning like indie record label, but that's only part of the puzzle. I'm talking about a community that'll be cranking out game to piss people off that Manifesto will be clamoring to put on their page.



TIGSource is closest thing actually. I've looking at the Indiegamer forums, frankly they are just oo insular for my tastes. Actually, you what's closer, the community of game design + theory bloggers. The problem with them (us? Do I posses the hubris to count myself among them?? Alas no...) is that they don't produce enough. Lot's of great ideas but very little experiments. They don't need to be complete, 40 hour games. Hell, they don't even have to be polished casual games. Just games with a lot verve and ideas.



There was a website, called Bestgameever.com I think, where they wanted to make a game every week roughly. A bit extreme, but that's the kind of thing I thinking of. Creativity should be busting people at the seams just trying to get out. We shouldn't be afraid of putting up incomplete works. We probably should be against sharing some code or designs neither. Sharing is caring! Seriously, though, some collaboration would be cool.



There's more to this. Developing our own aesthetic that's our medium's, the way noir developed for film (yes I know noir was inspired by novels but inspiration is okay, the point is the the style as whole). One besides retro please. And yes, pixel art does not automatically make a style retro. Some other ideas, but hey, who likes long winded blog posts.



Not me.



Man, I really hoped to end this post on some sort of inspirational note, telling everybody to go out and break something or be an individual. I really mucked that up.

Musing about game structure

I was thinking about positive feedback loops that one Craig likes to write about this morning.

I mused that most good games are about optimizing a chosen positive feedback loop that is in the game. The fun part lies in the skill in avoid disruptions to that loop. It occured to me that many thoughts on game balance are misguided in that you are not trying to minimizing the positive loop found in a game system. That creates a game that is approaching a point where every move is just as valid as any other. Games of alea aren't as bad as that since the whole point is that one move is better than the others it's just you're not sure what it is.

The goal for game balance is increase the difficulties in maintaining any one positive feedback loop. Add many valid and roughly equal positive feedback loops that are mutally exclusive (i.e. you can fast or tough units). And some wonky negative loops to balance it out, that's what big N did with Super Smash Bros. and its one of the most balanced fighting games I've ever played. Make the positive feedback loops hard to learn and hard to predict. Design it so that multiple systems have to be managed in sync to maintain a positive feedback loop like 4x games do.

Oh, and this is why it's easy to design multiplayer competitive games. Each competitor is trying to maintain a positive feedback loop but they're usually mutally exclusive (you can't both be winning).