The Paper Architect

 I recently added a page to my portfolio site (http://dannygamedesign.com/) called DESIGN THEORIES: here it is in post form.

(NOTE: The updates i’ve added to the site through the past weeks have been added to this post)

ENGAGEMENT – FILLING THE GLASS:  I had a revelation just recently that every simulated achievement or struggle within a game is a push and pull sequence. At it’s very foundation it’s the act of filling a glass or emptying a glass; then attaining more glasses to empty and fill once more. But the resistance and opposition to our attempts to fill the glass is what makes the act itself engaging. This becomes almost obvious when you think of all the meters and gauges involved in measuring your achievement within a game: health bars, experience bars, mana levels, power levels, attack modifiers, defense modifiers. But things get more interesting when you begin to see the relationship between the state of the glass and your attempt to fill or empty it. Let’s say you have too much water for the glass, so your new goal is to earn a bigger glass. Or the power you just gained allows you to poke a hole in your opponents glass causing it to empty faster. And now a power you have temporarily causes your water to turn to ice so the opponents hole poking attempt is futile. Better yet, you have the ability to destroy your opponents glass causing them to need back-ups if they are to continue the battle. All of these different thought processes begin to outline the thousands of interesting ways to turn the act of emptying and filling a glass (pushing and pulling) into something engaging and memorable. This is the simple beauty of Game Design. 

REACHING FOR THE STICK:  How often as designer’s do we look to punishments and death penalties to coax the player into making the “right” decisions? Like good little digital parents we teach and poke and prod until the player gets the picture. But very often the most effective way to teach a player right from wrong in relation to the game world is to reward them in subtle and powerful ways that they are on the right path. To remind them without saying a word, or entice them without showing any signs of the obvious thought and development. This is when the world itself truly feels alive and the player’s path feels rewarding and natural. Like the digital world around them is bestowing countless and subtle blessings on them for being awesome. Instead of countless punishments for being inadequate. 

THE FACE-LESS HERO: Having a main character or protagonist in a game is of course very important (in most cases), but how far should you take his identity? Some characters have their own reams of dialogue and back-story, an acquired wardrobe, and great hair (hah). But the more pre-made identity your main character has the more it requires the player to decide whether or not they relate to that character’s many strengths and weaknesses. Sometimes a story truly calls for a strong protagonist identity, and the player is able to live out a new identity in this strong character. But on the other hand, a main character with more of a blank slate allows the player to project more of himself into the character. Projecting his own traits.

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT: Resources and gathered assets in a game (digital or traditional) need to be used at some point, otherwise they’re useless. The whole point of farming a resource is to spend it or expel it in some way that’s useful or strategic, either defensive or offensive. But what if you want your player to use up a resource to build up the play/possibility space more frequently? Then as a designer you add a mechanic that encourages (or even forces, but be careful with that) a player to use that resource at a given time. A great example is the renowned SETTLERS OF CATAN table-top game; in the game’s basic rule-set if a player rolls the thief number, you have to discard resource cards if you have more than a certain number in your hand. This is meant to encourage building and cashing-in your resources, which actually populates the board faster and makes the matter of building more urgent than it would be otherwise.

THE SINGLE/CO-OP DILLEMA: This one is pretty simple. What makes a great single player game? What makes a great multi-player game? And what happens when you try to turn a single player game into a multi-player game? If gameplay is designed for a single-player experience, than very careful and special consideration needs to be taken on how to add another party to that experience in such a way that plays to the strengths of 2+ people at the same time, without breaking the experience and fighting the core mechanics. Some great games have handled this beautifully such as Valve’s PORTAL-2; The co-op experience is a totally different but related story-line that has all of its own charm and entice. And you ABSOLUTELY need the other person, there is no other way to complete the puzzles without that help of your fellow droid.

LUCK VS. STRATEGY: You’ve probably heard that “luck is the enemy of strategy”. The less luck is involved, the more you can predict and therefore strategize. But there’s a fine line, because if you can strategize too completely the outcome of the game is no longer interesting. This is where things get a little fuzzy; if you’re playing with other people, their choices provide organic (semi-random) effects on the game world, keeping things mixed up and interesting. If you’re playing solo the game is required to generate its own form of organic instances which can border on random chance. It’s necessary a lot of times because without that element things start to get stale and extremely predictable. The reason that so many board/table-top games utilize dice is for this very reason; adding the coaxed enemy of strategy to compel you into further strategizing against the results that followed. Tricky business, but I the sweet spot comes when the random occurrences no longer feel so random. At that point the player begins to relate to the pattern in a way that allows him/her to engage their own forces and strategies. According to Raph Koster fun only happens with succesful pattern achievement and recognition. If you haven’t read his book “A Theory of Fun for Game Design” you should.

SHOW AND TELL: You may have also heard, ‘It’s always better to allow the player to act out the story instead of showing them a cut-scene’. Again for the most part I agree. Instead I would say, ‘only use a cut-scene when you absolutely need that cinematic experience woven in.’ And don’t have the catalyst in an awkward part of gameplay, it needs to flow and be natural so the player can feel it coming up. Enhancing the experience, not taking away from it. Being able to express a scene with chosen camera angles and focus (while allowing the player to enjoy the moment, and take a short break from trying not to die), can be very powerful if done sparsely and with good artistic faculties. But in the end it will always be more rewarding and engaging to really allow the player to accomplish these story points through gameplay.

Tags: balancing, behavioral, design, development, gameplay, games, interaction, logic, player, Portfolio, psychology, theories, theory, update