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

81–90 of 186 posts

Re: Game design is simple

#81

Post by Tade0 »

zwaps wrote: post #15

This reads like the handbook for people making grind-based games. Sure enough, the author exclusively works in the mmorpg space. If you are a game designer, please take this with a grain of salt. Fun does not equal repeated challenges. And let me also reject the implicit notion that stories are entertainment but not, academically speaking, fun.

Personally what I find off-putting is throwing around the term "dopamine". Yeah, there's a link and all, but why include this bit?

> Dopamine can release for 'richly interpretable' situations

Ok, and? I mean, Oh, right. The dopamine. The dopamine for gamers, the dopamine chosen especially to entertain gamers, gamers' dopamine. That dopamine?

Re: Game design is simple

#83

Post by Cthulhu_ »

zwaps wrote: post #15

This reads like the handbook for people making grind-based games. Sure enough, the author exclusively works in the mmorpg space. If you are a game designer, please take this with a grain of salt. Fun does not equal repeated challenges. And let me also reject the implicit notion that stories are entertainment but not, academically speaking, fun.

If you look at most games, they're all repeated challenges, but some are so good that you don't see or experience them as such.

Others are very obvious though; MMORPGs are the obvious answer and they often don't even have an interesting story or reward to go with the grind, because the reward is a gamble. Ubisoft games are another example, ever since the first Assassin's Creed their games have generally been the same formula of an overworld with a lot of repeated but sameish "quests". The Division series combines the two with randomized, chance based loot. (...coincidentally I'm playing that one right now).

But yeah, the "repeated challenges" thing is best left to that particular class of games. Some people realy enjoy it though.

Re: Game design is simple

#84

Post by Cthulhu_ »

EdwardDiego wrote: post #74
zwaps wrote: post #15

This reads like the handbook for people making grind-based games. Sure enough, the author exclusively works in the mmorpg space. If you are a game designer, please take this with a grain of salt. Fun does not equal repeated challenges. And let me also reject the implicit notion that stories are entertainment but not, academically speaking, fun.

> And let me also reject the implicit notion that stories are entertainment but not, academically speaking, fun. Stories are obviously fun, otherwise no-one would read books, but a story that you interact with meaningfully, that you can change significantly, really hard to do well. Like every game where you can do good thing or bad thing, and the game punishes you for doing bad thing. It's really hard to write a comp…

It's definitely hard to do and since I haven't played those games much I can't really answer accurately, but does Larian (Baldur's Gate 3) do a better job?

I think the main problem with Fable or Mass Effect was that the game wants to converge to one of a few endings, but definitely for ME there's a bajillion decisions you can make until you get there.

I don't know if you can get rid of this "definite" ending thing per se; some games say they have X amount of endings, but again, I can't really name any. It's probably more gratifying to have more self-contained sub-stories where the decisions made e.g. an hour ago have an effect on the progression and outcome, but not too much longer than that. You should have the choice as a player to switch from e.g. "good" to "evil" partway through your playthrough. References back to previous quests and their outcomes are nice but shouldn't be as heavy as "your one choice made 30 hours ago affect the ending of the game in a significant and irreversible way"

Re: Game design is simple

#85

Post by Llamamoe »

jessetemp wrote: post #62

I hadn't heard of the author before this. I'll definitely read more of their stuff, but I thought the bottom line for part three was a little incomplete. > Bottom line: the more uncertainty, indeterminacy, ambiguity in your game, the more depth it will have. Sure, starting from 0%, adding uncertainty adds depth. But the player needs to maintain some influence over that uncertainty. If you crank the uncertainty up too…

It also matters a lot what type of uncertainty a game has, and what the curve of learning to manage it is.

E.g. slight variations in inputs should produce a slight but ideally meaningful variation in output, so the outcome of pressing keys is both reliable as well as an open space for further mastery.

It's also important that you can trace and understand what happened in retrospect. Just missing because of a 5% chance isn't fun. Missing because you didn't consider wind direction and the movement of an object between you and the target on the other hand is perfectly grokkable.

Re: Game design is simple

#86

Post by Llamamoe »

spencerflem wrote: post #71
jessetemp wrote: post #62

I hadn't heard of the author before this. I'll definitely read more of their stuff, but I thought the bottom line for part three was a little incomplete. > Bottom line: the more uncertainty, indeterminacy, ambiguity in your game, the more depth it will have. Sure, starting from 0%, adding uncertainty adds depth. But the player needs to maintain some influence over that uncertainty. If you crank the uncertainty up too…

In some sense though, 100% randomness is meta-predictable: something happens that I can’t predict. There’s a lot less tension. Idk where in the middle is the best spot, I guess that’s where the artistry is

It's like an image, you want neither a single solid colour nor perfect noise, but something in-between with identifiable features, highs and lows. When it changes unexpectedly it should change into something new and exciting, not more noise.

Re: Game design is simple

#87

Post by mcv »

jessetemp wrote: post #62

I hadn't heard of the author before this. I'll definitely read more of their stuff, but I thought the bottom line for part three was a little incomplete. > Bottom line: the more uncertainty, indeterminacy, ambiguity in your game, the more depth it will have. Sure, starting from 0%, adding uncertainty adds depth. But the player needs to maintain some influence over that uncertainty. If you crank the uncertainty up too…

Yeah, you need to strike a balance. Maybe ambiguity is a better way to look at it than uncertainty or randomness; chess is fun, but the only random factor are the whims of your opponent. There's no randomness, but there is ambiguity about what their strategy is, and whether they're seeing something that you're missing.

An extreme example of more-is-better are games like EU4, where just understanding how trade works, is more complicated than most entire games, and that's just a single subsystem. You can ignore it, but mastering it can be satisfying. Or frustrating.

Re: Game design is simple

#89

Post by teamonkey »

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,…

As a game designer I’ve struggled with the topic of cutscenes and have landed on the side that they are not inherently bad design. Advancement of a story is a form of progression (THE form of progression in a narrative game) and the release of new story beats, or any new content in general, can be used to reward the player. That’s not to say that they can’t be done badly - many are.

The thing about cutscenes, as with most aspects of AAA games, is that they test well in their target market. Cutscenes aren’t exactly cheap to make, especially if acted. They wouldn’t do them if they weren’t popular.

But it’s perfectly fine that you, like many (and me), don’t like cutscenes. Embrace that and accept that perhaps those games aren’t for you, because there is so much choice out there that that you will certainly be able to find things more to your tastes.

Re: Game design is simple

#90

Post by Melonai »

HelloUsername wrote: post #78
gregsadetsky wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"juice" (in terms of game making) will always remind me of this amazing, classic talk - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fy0aCDmgnxg

Oh I thought you were gonna post that one of Vlambeer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJdEqssNZ-U

Same, Vlambeer were extremely good at "juicing" their games. Just look at Nuclear Throne and Luftrausers, games that would only be half as fun without all the action and chaos going on after every shot.

This one talk is the reason why all of my small game projects feature copious amounts of screenshake. :)

Post reply on HN