Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Game design is simple

raphkoster.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 186 posts

Re: Game design is simple

#171

Post by Raph_Koster »

ninkendo wrote: post #20

My question: is there a concise theory of game design that properly explains why cutscenes are fucking stupid ? There are a lot of AAA games out there that very clearly seem like the developers wish they were directing a movie instead. Sure, there’s loads of cutscenes to show off some cool visuals. But then they seem to think “ok well we need to actually let the player play now”, but it’s still basically a cutscene,…

They're not stupid -- they're feedback. You get them as a reward for having done something, usually.

But they are also not gameplay, obviously.

https://www.raphkoster.com/2012/01/20/narrative-is-not-a-gam... https://www.raphkoster.com/2012/01/26/narrative-isnt-usually...

...and maybe https://www.raphkoster.com/2013/03/13/why-are-qtes-so-popula... since you dislike QTE's. :)

Re: Game design is simple

#172

Post by Raph_Koster »

tgv wrote: post #113
threetwoonezero wrote: post #103

I’m not experienced game designer, but I definitely view games a bit differently from the author. I don’t like complexity much tbh, and I’m sure there are people like me who enjoy some clicker like experience without game forcing me to solve problems

Candy Crush was immensely popular. It's not exactly chess.

1. As the article says, "People will be willing to go along with pretty simple and pretty familiar problems as long as the feedback is great."

2. For arbitrary n x m boards, Candy Crush (and Bejeweled, it's predecessor), has been shown to be NP-complete. That means as a general class of problem, it's officially hard. This is why I said that "A lot of very good problems seem stupidly simple, but have depths to them." If you look at some of the ones I examine in this talk: https://www.raphkoster.com/games/presentations/games-are-mat... you'll see they are often what seems very simple!

Re: Game design is simple

#173

Post by Raph_Koster »

meheleventyone wrote: post #94
jebarker wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also a decent definition of intelligence

I think for both contexts its far too simplistic to be more than a generalization and certainly for fun its a very local definition to serve Raph's ideas about what constitutes a game rather than encompassing enough to define it fully. For intelligence for example you could have a PID controller where there is automatic tuning which would fit the definition of learning and application. But I don't think we'd call it…

No, it's not a very local definition at all, it's actually a generalized definition for all forms of game and entertainment -- and art, even!

You seem to be assuming I have a reductive definition of game, when the definition given in the article is basically "anything people choose to play." See https://www.raphkoster.com/2013/04/16/playing-with-game/ which is linked in there.

I strongly disagree with lumping "intelligence" into the question though, so I am with you on that.

Re: Game design is simple

#174

Post by Raph_Koster »

foota wrote: post #82

Jokingly, something about the idea of taking NP problems and making them into games seems cruel to the optimizer in me.

Most classic games are in fact built out of NP problems, or at least the upper reaches of PSPACE. https://www.raphkoster.com/games/presentations/games-are-mat... has an overview.

Re: Game design is simple

#175

Post by Raph_Koster »

Animats wrote: post #68
MattRix wrote: post #14

For the people taking the title literally without apparently reading the article: > Put another way — every single paragraph in this essay could be a book.

It's more like someone ran a PowerPoint presentation through a converter that makes a web site. There's good stuff in there, but the presentation is clearly a slide deck.

No, I added all the images after writing the article.

But the images ARE from the many many presentations I have given on game design, which can be found here: https://www.raphkoster.com/games/presentations/

Many of the links are to those presentations, and many of them are deep dives on single sentences in the article.

Re: Game design is simple

#176

Post by Raph_Koster »

Razengan wrote: post #114

One thing that gets me is how there hasn't really been a language made solely for gameplay logic.. Almost every other domain has its specialized language: SQL, Julia, even HTML/CSS/JS.. but game developers still have to trundle on with general purpose languages invented 500 years ago by people who had nothing to do with games.

Towards the end of the article I mention "some of us have been working out the rule set for how you can link loops into a larger network of problems for literally over twenty years."

That is referencing the "game grammar" effort undertaken by myself, Dan Cook, Stephane Bura, Joris Dormans, and many others. It is very specifically about arriving at a notation system for gameplay logic.

The original talk from 2005 is here: https://www.raphkoster.com/games/presentations/a-grammar-of-...

The principles in this talk went on to be used by the field of computational modeling of games, AI game generators, and also used in training AI game players.

Re: Game design is simple

#177

Post by tgv »

Raph_Koster wrote: post #172
tgv wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Candy Crush was immensely popular. It's not exactly chess.

1. As the article says, "People will be willing to go along with pretty simple and pretty familiar problems as long as the feedback is great." 2. For arbitrary n x m boards, Candy Crush (and Bejeweled, it's predecessor), has been shown to be NP-complete. That means as a general class of problem, it's officially hard. This is why I said that "A lot of very good problems seem stupidly simple, but have depths to them."…

Sorry, but that's a bit of hyperbole. Candy Crush may be NP complete (in some sense), but that doesn't make it hard to play.

Re: Game design is simple

#178

Post by ninkendo »

Raph_Koster wrote: post #171
ninkendo wrote: post #20

My question: is there a concise theory of game design that properly explains why cutscenes are fucking stupid ? There are a lot of AAA games out there that very clearly seem like the developers wish they were directing a movie instead. Sure, there’s loads of cutscenes to show off some cool visuals. But then they seem to think “ok well we need to actually let the player play now”, but it’s still basically a cutscene,…

They're not stupid -- they're feedback. You get them as a reward for having done something, usually. But they are also not gameplay, obviously. https://www.raphkoster.com/2012/01/20/narrative-is-not-a-gam... https://www.raphkoster.com/2012/01/26/narrative-isnt-usually... ...and maybe https://www.raphkoster.com/2013/03/13/why-are-qtes-so-popula... since you dislike QTE's. :)

I would be fine if cutscenes were feedback, or reward for gameplay.

But that doesn’t explain games where as soon as you start it up for the first time, there’s a minimum of 20 minutes of (often unskippable) cutscenes before you can even control a character. Or cutscenes at the beginning of a level/mission where you kinda have to watch it to know what’s going on at all, but they’re like 10 minutes long, so you’re gonna be there a while. Sometimes even those ones are unskippable. I remember playing Jedi Fallen Order and I just left the couch and cleaned the kitchen for a while because I could not have given a shit less about the story they were pushing on me, and I came down and it was still going.

Games need to respect my time. You turn the NES on, press start, and there’s Mario on the left side of the screen. You’re playing now. You turn on Forza Horizon 6 or whatever and it’s 20 minutes before you can control a car, at minimum. And that’s a fucking racing game, with no story I would ever possibly give a shit about.

Re: Game design is simple

#179

Post by ninkendo »

AdieuToLogic wrote: post #55
ninkendo wrote: post #20

My question: is there a concise theory of game design that properly explains why cutscenes are fucking stupid ? There are a lot of AAA games out there that very clearly seem like the developers wish they were directing a movie instead. Sure, there’s loads of cutscenes to show off some cool visuals. But then they seem to think “ok well we need to actually let the player play now”, but it’s still basically a cutscene,…

> My question: is there a concise theory of game design that properly explains why cutscenes are fucking stupid? Two things to consider regarding cut scenes. First, sometimes they are mandated by the game story writers and backed up by artists wanting to show off. Second, and more importantly from a game developer's perspective, they are a useful tool for hiding scene loading I/O such that the customer experience doe…

> First, sometimes they are mandated by the game story writers and backed up by artists wanting to show off

How is that possibly an excuse? It reads like you’re agreeing with me. I could give a shit less about the feelings of some artist that wants to “show off” to me when they’re getting in the way of me enjoying the maybe 20 minutes of time I have to try and play a game between other obligations.

Games like those seem to be designed for teenagers who have hours or even days on end to sink into a game. I’m a 40+ year old dad with negative time on my hands. The gaming industry has basically left me behind.

Re: Game design is simple

#180

Post by freiheit »

ninkendo wrote: post #178
Raph_Koster wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're not stupid -- they're feedback. You get them as a reward for having done something, usually. But they are also not gameplay, obviously. https://www.raphkoster.com/2012/01/20/narrative-is-not-a-gam... https://www.raphkoster.com/2012/01/26/narrative-isnt-usually... ...and maybe https://www.raphkoster.com/2013/03/13/why-are-qtes-so-popula... since you dislike QTE's. :)

I would be fine if cutscenes were feedback, or reward for gameplay. But that doesn’t explain games where as soon as you start it up for the first time, there’s a minimum of 20 minutes of (often unskippable) cutscenes before you can even control a character. Or cutscenes at the beginning of a level/mission where you kinda have to watch it to know what’s going on at all, but they’re like 10 minutes long, so you’re gonn…

> But that doesn’t explain games where as soon as you start it up for the first time, there’s a minimum of 20 minutes of (often unskippable) cutscenes before you can even control a character

I honestly wonder if this is done to reduce returns. Steam, for example has a Put 30+ minutes of cut scene in, 60 minutes of intro/tutorial, and you’re past 2 hours of game launched time before discovering the game itself just isn’t fun for you (too predictable? Grindy? Too easy? Too hard?)

Post reply on HN