PDA

View Full Version : Jonathan Blow on "meaningful games"



dislekcia
28-11-2007, 02:52 AM
10 points if you recognised the name ;)

Gamasutra: Jonathan Blow On The 'WoW Drug', Meaningful Games (http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=16392)

The piece spawned this interestingly rambling conversation between ET and myself, reading the whole thing may cause blindness, deafness, blueness, grinchness, stress, mess and water cress:

me: but I'm not really thinking about that too hard
my webserver dying is a wonderful problem to have
cbridgman: but if you want to go and check out our online stuffs, it's one account per key
me: and I can solve it when it happens... ;)
hmmm, interesting read http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=16392
cbridgman: we'll start with online scores... a suitably humble beginning ;p
then maybe some odd little online games
hmm, Mr Blow eh?
I quite enjoyed that prototyping talk he did
he did some cool stuff with Braid
me: yar
that's why I pay attention to things he says ;)
cbridgman: hmm.. retrotank with rewind ^^ ;p
he's good at finding multiple mechanics with the same element set
me: I think that's a key ability
if you have to keep adding elements, things can get undevelopable very fast
cbridgman: most true
with RetroTank, all the stuff I'm ranting about will be prototyped first... and maybe I can do some of the multiple mechanics thing
me: ooh, good point about consistency and formal systems
hmmm
cbridgman: call them twists, really
me: we tend to hate games that don't feel consistent, do we expect them to be consistent at all times?
and consistency can take a lot of forms...
from controls, to physics, to dialogue
hmmmmm
cbridgman: well, imagine a game where the controls change constantly ;p
unless you're specifically building around that mechanic
it'd suck balls ;)
personally I'm not too big on switching up controls
I'd rather the controls do a predictable thing, but the game can change the rules of the environment
also, I'd think consistency is at least partially synonymous with polish
me: and stability
cbridgman: you could break your consistency by consistenly breaking it...
me: but I mean consistency as in things are repeatable
cbridgman: but that'd be consistent too ;)
me: you can afford to build a mental model, you'll know what happens next
cbridgman: I'd say gradual changes of the status quo would work better...
you gradually change a rule, then another
me: if the controls are so iffy that sometimes the car you're driving goes on a slightly different path given the same inputs, then you have a mental model that doesn't work for the game, because you can't predict that slight difference
true
cbridgman: after a bit, maybe you're playing something different?
me: then the important thing would be the reason why you're playing something different
cbridgman: aliens, usually
me: lol
cbridgman: alternate dimentions are another good excuse ;p
maybe the RT lettery dimention can look matrixey
and one or two things work a little different
btw, has there ever been a game where a tank can do a backflip?
me: Metal Slug
if I recall correctly
cbridgman: damn ;p
me: Might have been Metal Slug X
or Q
or whatever
cbridgman: anywho, I guess consistency is related to your ability to become skilled at a game
too much variance, especially the kind that you can't plan for stands in the way of you becoming good at a game
no variance though would likely lead to a boring game
me: yeah
cbridgman: so I'd say go with sets of predictable variance ;p
me: it's an exercise in mental model building
cbridgman: making it more of a feedback issue
me: if you're good, you can build an extremely accurate model
if you suck, you have no idea what's going on
cbridgman: if your feedback is bad, you can't break consistency without screwing up the experience
me: if the game ensures you have no idea what's going on, by being unpredictable (through bugs or design) then you're always going to suck...
cbridgman: master of orion 3 ;p
me: lol
cbridgman: it had so many spreadsheets... ;p
me: well, think about SC
we have these super-detailed mental models of the game
cbridgman: SC/Chess...
me: but a nooblet has no clue wtf is going on, and hence can't predict anything
cbridgman: Extremely complex world where you can have perfect information
SC isn't entirely perfect due to fog of war, but it's close
me: yeah
but if you know that information, you can predict
a zealot will always kill a ling
cbridgman: yep
unless he has an injured scrotum
me: you won't get the ling sometimes doing super mega critical damage and headshotting the zealot
if you did, everyone would hope for headshots
cbridgman: yeah, variable damage annoys me in strategic games
in fact, it annoys me in most games ;p
I think most of the games I play are ones which have fixed values for interactions
well, most of the games I play a lot ;p
doing X gives Y
but because you have the equivalent of five alphabets
me: consistent games?
cbridgman: it's got enough variety that there's still plenty to see
me: I like being able to plan, even if that planning is "I'm going to run around that corner and ****ing die!"
cbridgman: lol
well you have consistency in SC
but your plans can be broken by a single upgrade
the overall game is consistent, but the system is complex enough to provide inconsistency within those bounds
me: that's not inconsistency
that's complexity
cbridgman: probably the wrong word
me: an upgrade might wreck your plans, but it always would have
it's not like that upgrade has a 50/50 chance of ruining your ****
cbridgman: well, you don't know if he's getting that upgrade ;p
based on experience, you can suspect of course
me: the variability always comes from the other person, so once your mental model of the game is good enough, you're predicting the player
a noob would be "OMFG! Carriers! ****!"
cbridgman: lol
I still do that sometimes ;p
me: while a pro is like "I need to stop him having enough gas to build too many carriers... Also, I should probably build golgies for the ones he does make..."
cbridgman: ok, so it's consistency with complexity then... ;p
with the complexity bringing out enough variableness to keep it interesting
like soldat is the same thing over and over, but the controls are based on a mechanic which is easy to pick up, but hard to master
similar to peggle, where you can only see so many bounces into the future
the aiming mechanic gives plenty of variety to both games
Both provide perfect information, but imperfect controls... the controls are where the decisions happen, the fuzzy area. With SC, the decisions you make on what to build and when to attack is the fuzzy area...
me: I wonder if there's a max number of fuzzy areas
cbridgman: said fuzzy area is your "inconsistent", but learnable part
me: like, if you have too many sources of fuzzyness (even if they're really small) does it feel inconsistent?
cbridgman: so your inconsistencies need to be easy to learn, hard to master?
I'd think yes
me: I think you need to minimise inconsistencies
cbridgman: the more unknowns you put in, the harder a game is
or maybe it'd just be more annoying ;p
me: rather use emergence and complexity to challenge the veracity of a mental model
cbridgman: as a gut feel, I'd say base the game around a single fuzzy area
me: but allow people to set up mental models based on good feedback and consistent systems
cbridgman: I'd also think that a bigger game could have more than one fuzzy area...
me: you read what Blow said about mental pollution?
cbridgman: SC has a couple, does it not? Or at least one fairly big one
nope, been ranting.. haven't looked at the article much ;p
me: SC only has timing of actions
that's it
everything else will happen exactly the same way if set up the same
cbridgman: true, but the breath of that activity is big
me: yeah, it's huge
cbridgman: breadth?
bleh
whereas soldat or peggle have a smaller fuzzy area
btw, I'm sure there's a better term for fuzzy area ;p
retrotank and CC only have one fuzzy area, btw
retrotank is aiming, and CC is mapping
and just btw... sc's 'timing of actions' as a fuzzy area... that's really broad ;)
retrotank, cc, soldat, sc, all timing of actions
If I got specific, I'd say soldat or monochrome actually have two
aim and evade
with weapon choice being the flavourer
so RT has two aswell then ;p
me: hmmm
cbridgman: peggle I'd still say only has one
me: position as a fuzzy area?
cbridgman: well, you're trying to constantly move your avatar in order to dodge incoming bullets
me: RT also has fuzzyness in the ships...
cbridgman: being able to judge distance and speed relative to your agility
me: they appear in different places, you can't predict them over time
cbridgman: that's a skill
me: but they have very little impact on the game
cbridgman: fuzzy areas are basically the stuff you learn to get good at
and I suppose that's where the game lives
the rest is building an environment to emphasise the fuzzy areas, to make them important
or at least a playground in which to exercise the skills to be learned from the fuzzy areas
me: that makes sense
the player is always going to be a big fuzzy area
that's where the player's idea of what's happening in the game and what they can actually pull off vs what actually happens is tested
so what makes that fun?
cbridgman: flavouring ;p
me: is that when you feel that you're progressing/refining your mental models and skills?
or is it something else?
cbridgman: a bunch of stuff, really
theme is important... people like novelty, role playing, etc
me: well, I'd prefer to look at Blow's perspective of the player finding something meaningful
cbridgman: having a fuzzy area being inherently fun activity I'd think is an instant win
me: yeah
cbridgman: a few weekends ago, Louis and I were experimenting on a pool table
he wound up inventing peggle ;p
me: I think that we like testing ourselves though
cbridgman: I think people play games for a variety of reasons, which is why there's so many styles
but at the core, it's just about enjoying what you do in the game
whether it's mental stimulation, blowing the hell out of things, or slowly building up something from nothing
you could probably identify a set of fuzzy areas
and then map them to an underlying player motivation
some people like thinking when playing games, others want to run on auto pilot
and I don't think there's any one game that everyone will like, because people like different fuzzy areas
but if you're looking for wide appeal, you choose a fuzzy area that the most people can relate to and understand
like peggle is a blend between pool and pinball, both commonly understood
but at the core, it's just about angles
me: that's just a mirroring of mental models though
we understand angles, so it's not a big investment to learn Peggle
we expect certain things to happen and they do, so we find the prediction rewarding?
cbridgman: there's a lot to be said of peggle making a big deal of things ;p
its reward system scales very well to how well you do
me: true, but Blow talks about those rewards possibly being lies
you read that part?
if you think about it, does that reward actually mean anything?
cbridgman: yes, or no.
me: lol
cbridgman: reward is highly subjective...
me: true, but there are things you can look at
cbridgman: someone might be uber happy and feel great about pulling off a 10 bounce
someone else might not feel a thing
me: like in Peggle, if you just randomly managed to get something right, the reward is cool, but it doesn't feel like you got it out of skill
cbridgman: well, that was my disconnection point with peggle
me: but if the game notices you really refining your angle, say, and you get a good shot and it spews a reward at you called "Deadeye! Great shot!"
then that reward means a lot more
cbridgman: after learning enough about the game, and the limits of how skilled you can get
that's kinda the unofficial end of the game for me ;p
me: yeah, I get that
cbridgman: doing the challenge level balance on CC
I -really- understand how that game works ;p
me: but I wonder if the rewards couldn't be made more meaningful, as in the game trying to understand player's mental models...
cbridgman: I set the crazy targets damn high though
me: lol
cbridgman: but if I hit the point where I can play a perfect game, and hit the target
that's the end of the line
me: same reason I can beat the bots in Monochrome, but everyone else finds them really nasty
I think the challenges are there as possible reward paths in CC
if you want to explore them, go ahead
enjoy!
so is offering many reward paths too specialised, or can you go too general?
cbridgman: well, my motivation there was to add a little variety to the game
in the end you're playing the same game, but going for different targets (which are a little to samey, actually)
but I had to work within what the game could do
me: understood
by what was your main motivation for adding them?
besides, y'know, monies ;)
cbridgman: I wanted goals
free play is cool and all, and you can form a couple of goals there
like beating the top score
taking over the high score list
but those are player created
in that style of game, I like to have a series of goal posts to aim for
CC, like Tetris, has no end
challenge levels would work well in Tetris too
I think if I'd had more time, I would have added even more goal posts
me: well, it's like Blow was talking about: If you strip out the goals, is the game still fun?
cbridgman: like being able to finish a challenge a second time, but the target is 25% higher
me: is it quality in that way?
CC is, it worked without those goals
they just refine the game and add to it
cbridgman: well goals aside
your primary focus in making a game should be on making the moment to moment play fun
good controls, good feedback, just enough fuzzy to keep it interesting
me: que Anton de st Exupery: "A designer knows his job is done not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away."
or something like that
cbridgman: hehe
Yep, I quote that to people sometimes
me: right, I'm sticking this on the forum
brb ;)

-D

Thaumaturge
29-11-2007, 02:33 AM
I think that he makes a very good point about games teaching, and it is interesting to me to consider that we have a say* in what, precisely, they teach.

This ties in very well with Competition 15 - after all, if games inherently teach, why not find a sneaky way to turn that to education?

I do think that educational games could perhaps be sneakier, however (by which I do not mean to criticise the entries in Competition 15 - not at all!).

As to the conversation, I'll admit that I only skimmed over it. ^^;


a zealot will always kill a ling
cbridgman: yep
unless he has an injured scrotum

Those poor Zealots with injured scrota...

Or do Lings (is that 'Lings as in Zerglings?) perhaps fight better with injured scrota? Perhaps they get angry... ;P


cbridgman: yeah, variable damage annoys me in strategic games

Ugh, likewise. If it's fairly noticeable, I sometimes employ the save-game feature (if provided) to circumvent it. I did that a lot when playing Battle for Wesnoth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_for_wesnoth) to ensure that my troops came out on top.

(Admittedly, I'm not a particularly good strategist, I find, largely, I imagine, from lack of practice.)

*A say, that is, in much the same way that we have in the state of our society, I believe - what we say, do, do not say and do not do is a form of implicit "vote" for the state that we desire; in the case of games, the population in question is smaller, and thus one developer has a greater "say" in the state at a given point, I would imagine - although that's a rather simplified version of the matter, I believe.

BlackHawk
29-11-2007, 07:46 AM
I'm with Blow (and Daniel Cook (http://www.lostgarden.com)) on the fact that gaming has become more drug (http://www.gamedev.net/reference/design/features/genreaddict/)/quick fix than food. That's why games like Indigo Prophecy and Heavy Rain have me excited. They show one way of providing more substance/sustenance to 'hungry' players.

The fact that our global culture has evolved into a quick fix mentality (because of all our technological advances) makes getting people to slow down and hooked into more cerebral gameplay that much harder. Trying to teach someone the finer nuances of chess is very hard when they haven't the will or motivation to learn it ("Chess is boring!"). Teach them the same gameplay with StarCraft and they'll get hooked first by the great graphics and then maybe by the strategy.

Evil_Toaster
29-11-2007, 06:04 PM
@ Thaumaturge: Well, I meant zealots with injured scrotums. But you make it good point, it could be either or. :)

I can't say I reload games in RTS's to get around variable damage systems, statistically the damage balances out. However, fixed damage is superior (imho) for gameplay in that it allows you to judge the result of encounters down to the unit>unit level, as opposed to variable, where you work on averages. (The more variable it is, the more general you have to go)

Evil_Toaster
29-11-2007, 06:13 PM
I'm with Blow (and Daniel Cook (http://www.lostgarden.com)) on the fact that gaming has become more drug (http://www.gamedev.net/reference/design/features/genreaddict/)/quick fix than food. That's why games like Indigo Prophecy and Heavy Rain have me excited. They show one way of providing more substance/sustenance to 'hungry' players.

The fact that our global culture has evolved into a quick fix mentality (because of all our technological advances) makes getting people to slow down and hooked into more cerebral gameplay that much harder. Trying to teach someone the finer nuances of chess is very hard when they haven't the will or motivation to learn it ("Chess is boring!"). Teach them the same gameplay with StarCraft and they'll get hooked first by the great graphics and then maybe by the strategy.

I agree generally, except about chess. ;) I much prefer chess with explosions. Part of the reason people say chess is boring is that the presentation is quite dry, and the gameplay itself is very analytical. If I must play chess, I'd rather play battle chess, with its amusing death animations. ;)

The quick fix/drug mentality that pervades games is a different issue entirely. The question is how to make your moment to moment gameplay engaging without constantly dolling out those "fake" rewards.

I'll be applying my current thoughts on the matter to the commercial version of RetroTank, where I'm going to try to allow the player to solve problems/do the same thing in a variety of ways. Basically, put in a set of abilities, program in the interrelations, and leave it up to the player to decide how to do things.

Personally, I think there's much satisfaction to be had in games which allow you to come up with solutions to things on the fly, rather than only having one fixed activity path to travel along. You build in such a way that the game allows the player to innovate, which gives the player a bigger sense of connection, because they're putting their own creativity into the game experience.

Thaumaturge
29-11-2007, 08:38 PM
I think that, in many cases, such an innovation-friendly system would indeed be a wonderful addition to many games.

I wonder how it might be applied to adventure games - multiple possible solutions are not unknown, but how would one implement a more open-ended system?

I suspect that an accurate simulation system (which should of course accurately simulate unusual interactions as well as standard physics-like interactions) combined with a puzzle system that simply looks for a particular state (there is a piece at the end of the board, or the machine is running, etc.) rather than looking for a particular sequence of actions might be a good start.

But I also suspect that such a system might hinder some solutions, unless their interactions were specifically coded for (lubrication of moving parts might be an example - how would a simulation system handle a puzzle that involves a stuck window, one solution to which might be its lubrication?).


I can't say I reload games in RTS's to get around variable damage systems, statistically the damage balances out.

Well, in the case of Battle for Wesnoth I seem to recall that it had a lot to do with their unit upgrade system, which meant that I'd rather reload and retry than let a unit that I've levelled up twice over the course of a few missions die, to be replaced by a raw recruit to keep alive and level up during later and probably deadlier missions.

Tr00jg
01-12-2007, 12:35 PM
Wow, what an awesome thread. I am tempted to post D's and ET's talk on my blog. You have extremely valid points about the "fuzzy area". For some, mastering the "fuzzy area" is what makes a game rewarding, to me too. A RTS is a great example. Starting slowly and experimenting with different units in different situations led me to discover what is good and what's not and then utilising my experience for that. That IS rewarding.