Because it's taking me too long writing interesting posts that nobody reads, I'm going to try a different strategy. I'll still post advanced thoughts about game design from time to time, but I'll alternate them with light-weighted sections that (I expect) can be written faster. If it works, it will let me update my blog more often.
One of these ideas, is to review some decks from different card games. Particularly, trading card games give plenty of freedom on deckbuilding, and lots of cool concepts can be built with the given tools. I confess that I'm constantly impressed by the creativity shown by some of the deckbuilders I've met on the net. There are truly masterpieces around here, which can be beautiful, funny, or just plain weird, but always amusing. As different games give different possibilities, I'll include decks from different games in these articles.
I'll start with an example of the first Trading Card Game ever, Magic: The Gathering. Magic has been around for more than a decade, and has the vastest card pool (a term refering to the ammount of unique cards available in the game) of all card games. As such, there's room to fit any crazy idea that one can imagine. As an example of the many oddities this game allow, here's a joke deck that was submitted for the 2007 Auction of the People.
// NAME: Spell it!
// AUTHOR: Carlos Hoyos (DrJones)
2 Aysen Abbey
4 Brushland
2 Captain Sisay
2 Disappear
1 Emmessi Tome
3 Flagstones of Trokair
2 Guan Yu, Sainted Warrior
4 Hallowed Fountain
1 Icefall
2 Jalum Tome
2 Killer Bees
4 Lotus Vale
3 Manacles of Decay
2 Nature's Chosen
2 One Dozen Eyes
3 Path of Peace
3 Quirion Explorer
3 Ranger en-Vec
3 Sea Drake
3 Treva's Ruins
1 Ur-Golem's Eye
1 Veiling Oddity
1 Wall of Ice
1 Xun Yu, Wei Advisor
4 Yavimaya Coast
1 Zhang Liao, Hero of Hefei
This is an alphabet deck, which means that the names of the cards start with one each of the 26 letters of the english alphabet. If that wasn't enough of a restriction, the deck pushes the joke even further by also having every non-land card named like letters of the alphabet, as if in a spelling test. Now that's a deck with character! What's more appealing than beating your opponent with a bunch of I's and "one U"? Just look at his/her face when "D's appear"!
Unfortunately, some of the best card names had to be cut from the final decklist: "Ow!", "Perilous forays", "Icefall" and "Presence of the Wise" (among others) were left out for either being awful playability-wise, or puny-wise (specially the last one).
The good thing about this deck, is that you don't need to know anything about Magic to appreciate it, which is the sole reason I picked it to introduce this new section. The next ones will include a brief description of gameplay, to make them accessible to people unfamiliar with the games and/or the cards.
Have a nice day!
Monday, 29 October 2007
Monday, 15 October 2007
Pacing
I have always found very hard to weight the importance of a good pacing within a game. In other forms of entertainment such as shows and movies, pacing is essential; so much, in fact, that whole tools have been developed in order to optimize it and many studies can be found on the subject. However, it doesn't seem to be one of the deciding factors on a game's success, and many examples of top-selling games are totally awful at it. I personally prefer games that don't drag, so I'll devote this article to the study of pacing.
What is pacing?
Pacing is the behavior of a flow of events accross the time frame (in a game's case, a game session, from startup to end). Proper management of pacing keeps players interested, builds the mood, smooths gameplay, and sets the duration of a game in advance. A peculiarity I discovered reading reviews of succesful games with bad pacing is that they tend to polarize players: players who like them do really, really love them; those that do not hate them absolutely. Maybe love is a requirement to enjoy games with this property?
Which aspects affect the pace of a game?
The most relevant aspect, without a doubt, is the number of players. This poses a problem for games that allow a variable number of players, as things that work well for a low number of players might not work so well with more (and vice versa); other relevant aspects include ammount of variables and calculations handled by each player, frequency of corner cases, and the game state favored by the mechanics. Let's see how to address them to obtain a smooth gameplay.
1. Number of players:
Most games are tuned for a certain number of players: playing with less can unbalance the game towards one player if they play different roles, and it also can cause slow-down if the game features:
- collaboration: less players means less resources at start and slower adquisition of resources, so overcoming obstacles as a group will be harder and take longer, moreso if there are restrictions in how/when can players help each other.
- "stallbreakers": If the game expects players to randomly adquire certain objects that are vital to continue playing, cutting players might reduce by a lot the chances to find them early.
An excess of players increases the waiting if the game uses non-simultaneous turns, and also brings trouble if the game features:
- countermeasures: the more players, the more likely one of them will have something to counter the actions of the leading player, stalling the game ad infinitum; This effect (known as "King bashing") is more pronounced if players can constantly refill used resources.
- single elimination: not only it takes longer to finish a game, but also losing players must await more time before the next game starts.
- resource hog: If limited resources must be divided among more people, it might happen that nobody has enough power to overcome the first obstacles, lagging the game start.
PROPOSED SOLUTIONS:
- Narrow the number of players allowed.
- Tune the game for a number between the maximum and the minimum.
- Set different starting setups for different number of players.
- Set different game modes for different number of players.
2. Ammount of Computation required:
A task that can be very time consuming is keeping track of a value, specially if it's the sum of many elements or a function of other values. Halting the game a couple of seconds to perform some basic calculations is not a problem, but when the value has to be recalculated continually every turn the game slogs considerably. One example of such a task is resource management. If goods can only be adquired at certain times, all planning has to be done in advance, and must cover all actions up to the last purchase. In unforgiving games, that can make for very long turns.
PROPOSED SOLUTIONS:
- Avoid having to perform calculations in advance.
- Put a limit in the number of elements to consider in a sum.
- Use only easy to add values like 0, 1, 2, 5, and multiples of 10.
- Avoid complex calculations such as multiplication and conditional bonus.
- Use a more flexible/simple resource management system.
- Minimize the number of resources to track.
3. Rules complexity:
"Rules-heavy" games require a lot of time before startup, and if they are not played frequently, players will have to read the rules every single time. Another issue happens when a game scenario hasn't obvious, clear or intuitive answer, which requires to stop the game to look up the rules to handle it. If the game has many corner cases, it's likely the pace will be broken many times.
PROPOSED SOLUTIONS:
- Streamline rules to cut corner cases.
- Simplify the rulebook, or include a simplified rule set plus a bunch of optional rules.
- Move element-specific rules from the rulebook to these elements.
- Include redundancy and/or reminder text in places that might create doubts or corner cases.
- Distribute between players the task of taking care of certain rules.
4. Favored game state:
Some mechanics and implementations of a mechanic are known to favor hang-ups and stalemates. Knowing about them will help avoiding these common pitfalls:
- Random acquisition of basic resources: If some basic elements of the game are obtained through a random event, players will get stuck from time to time due to pure bad luck.
PROPOSED SOLUTION: Include a non-random method to obtain the resource at startup, or if the player doesn't have any. For example, if a game requires to roll a 6 to get a pawn, it may include a rule to allow player without pawns to get one without rolling.
- Destroying/Spending Resources: Mechanics that destroy/waste multiple basic resources can severely stuck players if those resources don't recover as fast.
PROPOSED SOLUTION: Reduce the quantity of elements implementing the mechanic and limit their effect and/or power. Elements that waste multiple resources should be rare and worthy.
- Defensive Imbalance: If answers are more powerful, abundant and/or efficient than threats (for example, in many versus one scenarios), the use of these actions will be discouraged until enough power to overcome the answers is achieved, which can take a lot of time or even never happen (a stalemate).
PROPOSED SOLUTION: Limit the occurrence of many versus one scenarios, if the problem is mechanical, fix the imbalance in the implementation, add "stallbreakers" for when the game lasts too long.
- Adding costs to Basic resources: The best way to discourage the use of something, is to attach it a cost. That's why the most basic resources of a game tend to be the cheap. Because they are required to advance the game, putting a cost on them tend to create stall situations.
PROPOSED SOLUTION: Include ways to access those resources without a cost. Reduce or remove costs from basic resources. Use a different mechanic.
That was all! I hope this study helps in designing better, smoother games. If you enjoyed it, post your thoughts on the comments.
What is pacing?
Pacing is the behavior of a flow of events accross the time frame (in a game's case, a game session, from startup to end). Proper management of pacing keeps players interested, builds the mood, smooths gameplay, and sets the duration of a game in advance. A peculiarity I discovered reading reviews of succesful games with bad pacing is that they tend to polarize players: players who like them do really, really love them; those that do not hate them absolutely. Maybe love is a requirement to enjoy games with this property?
Which aspects affect the pace of a game?
The most relevant aspect, without a doubt, is the number of players. This poses a problem for games that allow a variable number of players, as things that work well for a low number of players might not work so well with more (and vice versa); other relevant aspects include ammount of variables and calculations handled by each player, frequency of corner cases, and the game state favored by the mechanics. Let's see how to address them to obtain a smooth gameplay.
1. Number of players:
Most games are tuned for a certain number of players: playing with less can unbalance the game towards one player if they play different roles, and it also can cause slow-down if the game features:
- collaboration: less players means less resources at start and slower adquisition of resources, so overcoming obstacles as a group will be harder and take longer, moreso if there are restrictions in how/when can players help each other.
- "stallbreakers": If the game expects players to randomly adquire certain objects that are vital to continue playing, cutting players might reduce by a lot the chances to find them early.
An excess of players increases the waiting if the game uses non-simultaneous turns, and also brings trouble if the game features:
- countermeasures: the more players, the more likely one of them will have something to counter the actions of the leading player, stalling the game ad infinitum; This effect (known as "King bashing") is more pronounced if players can constantly refill used resources.
- single elimination: not only it takes longer to finish a game, but also losing players must await more time before the next game starts.
- resource hog: If limited resources must be divided among more people, it might happen that nobody has enough power to overcome the first obstacles, lagging the game start.
PROPOSED SOLUTIONS:
- Narrow the number of players allowed.
- Tune the game for a number between the maximum and the minimum.
- Set different starting setups for different number of players.
- Set different game modes for different number of players.
2. Ammount of Computation required:
A task that can be very time consuming is keeping track of a value, specially if it's the sum of many elements or a function of other values. Halting the game a couple of seconds to perform some basic calculations is not a problem, but when the value has to be recalculated continually every turn the game slogs considerably. One example of such a task is resource management. If goods can only be adquired at certain times, all planning has to be done in advance, and must cover all actions up to the last purchase. In unforgiving games, that can make for very long turns.
PROPOSED SOLUTIONS:
- Avoid having to perform calculations in advance.
- Put a limit in the number of elements to consider in a sum.
- Use only easy to add values like 0, 1, 2, 5, and multiples of 10.
- Avoid complex calculations such as multiplication and conditional bonus.
- Use a more flexible/simple resource management system.
- Minimize the number of resources to track.
3. Rules complexity:
"Rules-heavy" games require a lot of time before startup, and if they are not played frequently, players will have to read the rules every single time. Another issue happens when a game scenario hasn't obvious, clear or intuitive answer, which requires to stop the game to look up the rules to handle it. If the game has many corner cases, it's likely the pace will be broken many times.
PROPOSED SOLUTIONS:
- Streamline rules to cut corner cases.
- Simplify the rulebook, or include a simplified rule set plus a bunch of optional rules.
- Move element-specific rules from the rulebook to these elements.
- Include redundancy and/or reminder text in places that might create doubts or corner cases.
- Distribute between players the task of taking care of certain rules.
4. Favored game state:
Some mechanics and implementations of a mechanic are known to favor hang-ups and stalemates. Knowing about them will help avoiding these common pitfalls:
- Random acquisition of basic resources: If some basic elements of the game are obtained through a random event, players will get stuck from time to time due to pure bad luck.
PROPOSED SOLUTION: Include a non-random method to obtain the resource at startup, or if the player doesn't have any. For example, if a game requires to roll a 6 to get a pawn, it may include a rule to allow player without pawns to get one without rolling.
- Destroying/Spending Resources: Mechanics that destroy/waste multiple basic resources can severely stuck players if those resources don't recover as fast.
PROPOSED SOLUTION: Reduce the quantity of elements implementing the mechanic and limit their effect and/or power. Elements that waste multiple resources should be rare and worthy.
- Defensive Imbalance: If answers are more powerful, abundant and/or efficient than threats (for example, in many versus one scenarios), the use of these actions will be discouraged until enough power to overcome the answers is achieved, which can take a lot of time or even never happen (a stalemate).
PROPOSED SOLUTION: Limit the occurrence of many versus one scenarios, if the problem is mechanical, fix the imbalance in the implementation, add "stallbreakers" for when the game lasts too long.
- Adding costs to Basic resources: The best way to discourage the use of something, is to attach it a cost. That's why the most basic resources of a game tend to be the cheap. Because they are required to advance the game, putting a cost on them tend to create stall situations.
PROPOSED SOLUTION: Include ways to access those resources without a cost. Reduce or remove costs from basic resources. Use a different mechanic.
That was all! I hope this study helps in designing better, smoother games. If you enjoyed it, post your thoughts on the comments.
Thursday, 5 July 2007
Out for Summer
I'll be out this summer. I'll be testing some games, working on an AI project for the university, remodeling my house, rest a lot, and watch TV. I will not have connectivity on my new location, so I won't be able to update my blog these months. See you on September!
Thursday, 28 June 2007
Exploring creativity: Making questions
Being creative is a desirable trait for a card designer. It helps you explore design space, discover things you didn't knew, and make your game feel fresh and different. It is also very fun, and while not all ideas can be included, some could be used in another new game.
There are many tricks for creativity. One that I like to use is to ask yourself questions to which you don't have an answer. From my experience, the best ones are those that require you to write a list, the longer, the better. Most people tend to stop looking at the first answer to their question, so allowing multiple answers is a way to make people look for more solutions.
A trick that tends to work, is to ask for all members of a group that satisfy a condition. Asking for the best members is not very good, because the human mind works like the cache of a computer. It looks first within a small list of elements from the recent memory, and if none of these work, then digs deeper into memory and search for a matching element. So, when asked for the best music band, a person will name the best group from that small list. If the person is required to think more than ten seconds about it, it is almost guaranteed that he or she will find better answers that are deeper in his or her memory.
An example question could be: "What are all the things you can do to a card?". It is interesting to explore not just the desirable actions, but also undesirable ones, to prevent unexpected problems that might arise; you might include some blank cards just in case a card gets lost or damaged. For this example, I'll restrict myself to just positive uses for a single card, ignoring decks and card-to-card interactions.
There are many tricks for creativity. One that I like to use is to ask yourself questions to which you don't have an answer. From my experience, the best ones are those that require you to write a list, the longer, the better. Most people tend to stop looking at the first answer to their question, so allowing multiple answers is a way to make people look for more solutions.
A trick that tends to work, is to ask for all members of a group that satisfy a condition. Asking for the best members is not very good, because the human mind works like the cache of a computer. It looks first within a small list of elements from the recent memory, and if none of these work, then digs deeper into memory and search for a matching element. So, when asked for the best music band, a person will name the best group from that small list. If the person is required to think more than ten seconds about it, it is almost guaranteed that he or she will find better answers that are deeper in his or her memory.
An example question could be: "What are all the things you can do to a card?". It is interesting to explore not just the desirable actions, but also undesirable ones, to prevent unexpected problems that might arise; you might include some blank cards just in case a card gets lost or damaged. For this example, I'll restrict myself to just positive uses for a single card, ignoring decks and card-to-card interactions.
Good things you can do to a card:
Turn it sideways.
Hide info in the other side of the card.
Flip it.
Throw it to the air or to a hat.
Put it in some place/zone.
Pick it from some place/zone.
Set any number of values on it.
Spin it.
Memorize it.
Depict something in it.
Give it/Pick it from another person.
Cover it, totally or partially.
Put small things over it/under it.
Rate it.
Put opposite elements on different sides of the card.
Assign different meanings to it in different contexts/zones.
Put it horizontally, vertically, or inclined.
Give it a different shape, color or size.
Activate it (the rules should explain how to do it).
Talk to it.
Turn it sideways.
Hide info in the other side of the card.
Flip it.
Throw it to the air or to a hat.
Put it in some place/zone.
Pick it from some place/zone.
Set any number of values on it.
Spin it.
Memorize it.
Depict something in it.
Give it/Pick it from another person.
Cover it, totally or partially.
Put small things over it/under it.
Rate it.
Put opposite elements on different sides of the card.
Assign different meanings to it in different contexts/zones.
Put it horizontally, vertically, or inclined.
Give it a different shape, color or size.
Activate it (the rules should explain how to do it).
Talk to it.
Not all of these are useful, but the more design tools, the less restricted I will be while designing my game. For this reason, I'll add more ideas to this post as they come to me. I'm going to reserve card-to-card considerations and alike for another posts if there is enough interest, so say what you think about it!
Wednesday, 20 June 2007
How not to start a card game
For this entry, I was looking for advice I could give about how to start a card game. I could have spent an hour or two talking about the paperwork, the designs, the intrinsic elements of the process of creating a card game, and a bunch more of boring stuff that I've yet to mention. Even though I plan to talk about them someday, I promised last entry that this one would be shorter. That's why I'll take the other path, and talk about how not to start a card game.
While analyzing and designing card games, I've found some starting points that seemed ok at first sight, but that later in the process show their ugly face. Some in particular are very dangerous, as they almost always end being a disaster. I thought it would be a good idea to put some warning signs beforehand, so that new designers don't take the same path as me and waste their time with unworkable, uncommercial products. Here is a list of ideas you shouldn't bother to try:
While analyzing and designing card games, I've found some starting points that seemed ok at first sight, but that later in the process show their ugly face. Some in particular are very dangerous, as they almost always end being a disaster. I thought it would be a good idea to put some warning signs beforehand, so that new designers don't take the same path as me and waste their time with unworkable, uncommercial products. Here is a list of ideas you shouldn't bother to try:- Games based around someone else's Intelectual Property:
I mention this sign first because it is most commonly seen in new designers. Its popularity comes from the designer not having to bother with the background work, as it uses one done by another author. Game elements and cards are put into place fast by taking them directly from the source, and along with a card game system "borrowed" from another card game, the whole project can be finished in a single day. That is how Japan's card game industry works, by the way.
Many downsides of this approach are summarized on Make up your own damned IP, a worth reading article from the blog InvertedCastle. Even with the owner's permission, the game's fate will become deeply attached to the original source, and it will fade away with it. - Games with which you can play poker:
Never, ever, design a card game with that idea on mind. On the surface, it looks as an added value. In practice, it suggests people that they could be playing poker instead of your game (not the best idea you would want to transmit). The nail in the coffin arrives when you realize that people might just buy a poker standard deck to play your game. Ouch! - Strategy Games based around rock, paper, scissors:
I've never understood why people associate strategy with rock, paper, scissors. For starters, the only strategy that works in that game is the lack of any discernible strategy. The only appeal the game could have, is the feeling that it is about reading the opponent's mind, which is completely lost once you add the randomness inherent to almost all card games.
Note that the game includes as a principle that every tactic has a countermeasure, a property that is always interesting to have in a strategy game.
Saturday, 9 June 2007
So... what do you want to accomplish?
Let's assume that you get enough energy to create a card game from start to finish, and you are eager to sit down and start writing cards in your notebook. That's a conceivable scenario, and in fact, almost everyone I know started this way, including myself.
Now, although that's a perfectly valid way to start a game, you might want to ask yourself beforehand if that's what you really want to do. You might be wondering why. Hadn't I assumed at the start that you wanted to create a game, afterall? Well, this is because there's something that you might not have considered yet: while you wanted to design a game, the question is, which one?
Before going deeper on the question, I'll discuss some concepts about game design. Games are composed by a set of rules, wich form the game's internal structure. These rules define what the game resources are (be them be cards, points, dice, or any other with which the designer comes up), and their meaning. The logic conclusion is that in order to start designing cards, you need to abide to a certain set of rules.
Now, most people don't spontaneously decide to create a card game. What it happens is that they find a card game that they enjoy, and this is what gives them the idea of making their own. Because of that, they are inclined to adopt the set of rules of the original game, with maybe some small changes to adapt it to their personal tastes. The problem with this approach is that it limits too much what can be done with the game, so the end result will be very similar to the original source. Is that what you want to accomplish?
When working with a source reference, you can make changes to it at different levels of abstraction. The higher the level, the more impact the change has in the game, and the more different they will be in a subjetive scale of likeness. Each type of change has its advantages, and it's more adequated to a different kind of project. Here's a brief description of each one that I have improvised, ranging from most concrete to most abstract:
Type of change: Tweak.
Description: This is the most basic (low-level) change that can be done to a game. Tweaks include adjusting values to cards to maintain game balance, flavor changes, polishing the wording, and adding and removing cards to the game. Changes to the game rules are minor (if at all), and no new zones, resources, nor fields are added or removed. The nature of these changes is so basic that the result is still perceived as the same game, but they are nonetheless important. They can be the difference between a fun game and an unfun one.
Good for: New editions, new attempts at getting a game published, expansion sets, clones.
Not so good for: compilations, new games.
Skills required: Common sense, attention to detail, experience with the game.
Type of change: Variant.
Description: Tweaks played according to the game rules, variants play with the game rules. Variants tipically change the starting configuration, and can also add or remove game zones. No new systems are created, but sometimes some systems (for example, a "combat" system) work different. Still, the source game is still easily recognizable in the final product. Because they require little work and knowledge, most designers start either with a tweak or a variant of their favorite game.
Good for: New game modes, mods, spin-offs, compilations.
Not so good for: Expansion sets, showing your talent as a game designer.
Skills required: Out-of-the-box thinking. Ambition.
Type of change: Redesign.
Description: Tweaks left the game rules untouched. Variants changed some rules, but the systems remained constant. Redesign, likewise, changes the systems, and only abides to the fundamental concepts of the source. That way, it takes advantage of all the elements that made the original so good, without tying the designer to the old design.
Good for: Look-alikes. New games. Sequels. Publishing lines.
Not so good for: Spin-offs.
Skills required: Creativeness. Design skills. Abstract thinking.
Type of change: Departure.
Description: At this level of abstraction, changes can be made to the fundamental concepts of the referenced game (some examples of them are bluffing, diplomacy, or tactical battle), so that the game doesn't have to use the same. In fact, the only limits here are the fundamental aspects of card games. Working at this level, you don't even need a reference game, so the only practical reason to have one is to take away from it the concepts that don't work, or to create something completely different to it. Of course, this new game will have to stand on its own, and it's not easy working at such high levels of abstraction. A mistake here means that the game will be broken beyond repair, as it will have a fundamental flaw that cannot be corrected.
Good for: Basis for follow-ups. Avoiding comparisons. Showing your talent as a game designer.
Not so good for: Sequels.
Skills required: Abstract thinking. Vision of the global picture. Talent.
And that was all! I didn't thought it would take so much text, hope the next entries are much, much shorter.
Now, although that's a perfectly valid way to start a game, you might want to ask yourself beforehand if that's what you really want to do. You might be wondering why. Hadn't I assumed at the start that you wanted to create a game, afterall? Well, this is because there's something that you might not have considered yet: while you wanted to design a game, the question is, which one?
Before going deeper on the question, I'll discuss some concepts about game design. Games are composed by a set of rules, wich form the game's internal structure. These rules define what the game resources are (be them be cards, points, dice, or any other with which the designer comes up), and their meaning. The logic conclusion is that in order to start designing cards, you need to abide to a certain set of rules.
Now, most people don't spontaneously decide to create a card game. What it happens is that they find a card game that they enjoy, and this is what gives them the idea of making their own. Because of that, they are inclined to adopt the set of rules of the original game, with maybe some small changes to adapt it to their personal tastes. The problem with this approach is that it limits too much what can be done with the game, so the end result will be very similar to the original source. Is that what you want to accomplish?
When working with a source reference, you can make changes to it at different levels of abstraction. The higher the level, the more impact the change has in the game, and the more different they will be in a subjetive scale of likeness. Each type of change has its advantages, and it's more adequated to a different kind of project. Here's a brief description of each one that I have improvised, ranging from most concrete to most abstract:
Type of change: Tweak.
Description: This is the most basic (low-level) change that can be done to a game. Tweaks include adjusting values to cards to maintain game balance, flavor changes, polishing the wording, and adding and removing cards to the game. Changes to the game rules are minor (if at all), and no new zones, resources, nor fields are added or removed. The nature of these changes is so basic that the result is still perceived as the same game, but they are nonetheless important. They can be the difference between a fun game and an unfun one.
Good for: New editions, new attempts at getting a game published, expansion sets, clones.
Not so good for: compilations, new games.
Skills required: Common sense, attention to detail, experience with the game.
Type of change: Variant.
Description: Tweaks played according to the game rules, variants play with the game rules. Variants tipically change the starting configuration, and can also add or remove game zones. No new systems are created, but sometimes some systems (for example, a "combat" system) work different. Still, the source game is still easily recognizable in the final product. Because they require little work and knowledge, most designers start either with a tweak or a variant of their favorite game.
Good for: New game modes, mods, spin-offs, compilations.
Not so good for: Expansion sets, showing your talent as a game designer.
Skills required: Out-of-the-box thinking. Ambition.
Type of change: Redesign.
Description: Tweaks left the game rules untouched. Variants changed some rules, but the systems remained constant. Redesign, likewise, changes the systems, and only abides to the fundamental concepts of the source. That way, it takes advantage of all the elements that made the original so good, without tying the designer to the old design.
Good for: Look-alikes. New games. Sequels. Publishing lines.
Not so good for: Spin-offs.
Skills required: Creativeness. Design skills. Abstract thinking.
Type of change: Departure.
Description: At this level of abstraction, changes can be made to the fundamental concepts of the referenced game (some examples of them are bluffing, diplomacy, or tactical battle), so that the game doesn't have to use the same. In fact, the only limits here are the fundamental aspects of card games. Working at this level, you don't even need a reference game, so the only practical reason to have one is to take away from it the concepts that don't work, or to create something completely different to it. Of course, this new game will have to stand on its own, and it's not easy working at such high levels of abstraction. A mistake here means that the game will be broken beyond repair, as it will have a fundamental flaw that cannot be corrected.
Good for: Basis for follow-ups. Avoiding comparisons. Showing your talent as a game designer.
Not so good for: Sequels.
Skills required: Abstract thinking. Vision of the global picture. Talent.
And that was all! I didn't thought it would take so much text, hope the next entries are much, much shorter.
Friday, 8 June 2007
Why do I never seem able to finish a game?
Let's say you've been playing for like a month this cool new card game. You have enjoyed it quite a bit, but the novelty starts wearing off. Then, in a spark of creativity, you come up with what seems to be a brilliant idea: you could make your own card game! Sounds familiar, doesn't it?
That's because everybody and his dog has had that same idea at some moment in his gaming life. The vast majority of those games never materialize, though. Why is that so? It doesn't seem to be that hard.
The main reason those games are abandoned is because most people makes the mistake of comparing the experience of creating a game with the one of playing it, when they're completely different. They think about the final product, but not about the long process that precedes it. As it's a lot of hard work, and most people don't find it fun, the game is abandoned long before they have a chance of playing it. Ironically, playtesting is a very tedious step: you have to print tons of proxies, play a dozen of mostly broken games, and then making changes to the initial design that will make all the previously printed proxies useless. Let's not enter in details if the game allows players to build their own decks...
Another reason these games never get done, is because the lack of long-term motivation. See, the excitement of starting a new project is strong enough to get you moving, but also short enough that it becomes satisfied pretty soon. Once satisfied, you lose all interest on the project (much like you stop drinking when you are no longer thirsty). If you want to finish a game, you need a motivation that lasts up till it's done. Money and love are strong ones, but can't be used for everything, so find one that suits you.
There's one last reason I want to mention: disappointment. The game is shafted because it's not up to the expectatives, has a major flaw somewhere, or it's just not fun. That could be expected if the designer was testing new things (which don't always deliver), but also by working with no clear direction. Before starting a project, you should have a good idea of what are you looking for, and more importantly, what are you trying to accomplish. But that's a matter for another post.
That's because everybody and his dog has had that same idea at some moment in his gaming life. The vast majority of those games never materialize, though. Why is that so? It doesn't seem to be that hard.
The main reason those games are abandoned is because most people makes the mistake of comparing the experience of creating a game with the one of playing it, when they're completely different. They think about the final product, but not about the long process that precedes it. As it's a lot of hard work, and most people don't find it fun, the game is abandoned long before they have a chance of playing it. Ironically, playtesting is a very tedious step: you have to print tons of proxies, play a dozen of mostly broken games, and then making changes to the initial design that will make all the previously printed proxies useless. Let's not enter in details if the game allows players to build their own decks...
Another reason these games never get done, is because the lack of long-term motivation. See, the excitement of starting a new project is strong enough to get you moving, but also short enough that it becomes satisfied pretty soon. Once satisfied, you lose all interest on the project (much like you stop drinking when you are no longer thirsty). If you want to finish a game, you need a motivation that lasts up till it's done. Money and love are strong ones, but can't be used for everything, so find one that suits you.
There's one last reason I want to mention: disappointment. The game is shafted because it's not up to the expectatives, has a major flaw somewhere, or it's just not fun. That could be expected if the designer was testing new things (which don't always deliver), but also by working with no clear direction. Before starting a project, you should have a good idea of what are you looking for, and more importantly, what are you trying to accomplish. But that's a matter for another post.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)