Slashdot Mirror


How To Play Like a Game Designer

jillduffy writes "The GameCareerGuide site has up an article on playing to learn. Folks who make games play them differently than you or I; they're looking at the mechanics from a first-hand perspective. James Portnow's article attempts to relay some of the essence of that experience, to allow us to play with a more critical eye: 'Playing games in order to study them is not what most people would consider "fun." This doesn't mean it isn't fun at all; it just means you have to think a different way. You have to find joy in discovering mechanics and watching their emergent properties unfold. You have to be willing to endure a certain amount of tedium in order to glean clues about the inner workings of a game. Most of all, you have to be able to enjoy playing bad games as well as good.'"

3 of 62 comments (clear)

  1. Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I find it a little like watching movies. I enjoy the movie, and for the most part I am immersed in the movie's story, yet at the same time there is a part of my brain that is viewing the movie itself with detachment, as an example of *craft*, and admiring the lighting and cinematography, etc.

    It is the same with games. Most of myself engages fully in playing and enjoying the game, but there is this parallel track in my brain that is examining the mechanics and the decisions made by the designer. After 20 years of playing video games, I unconsciously seek out the boundaries of the state space. I will usually recognize the techniques the designers are using the shape my gameplay experience, even at the same time as I willingly suspend disbelief and enjoy said experience.

    People with "Explorer" tendencies according to Bartle's Four might already play like this, too. And even game designers sometimes like to turn off their brain and just shoot stuff. But even when not consciously studying the game's mechanics, there is a part of my brain that is continually teasing them apart while I play.

  2. How about "designing like a player"? by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Personally, I think this would be the right way, not the other way around. I don't care how a designer "wants" me to play a game. I'd prefer him to design a game I want to play. Maybe then we won't get the millionth sequel of a game nobody wanted to play in the first place, with fewer tedious missions that do increase play time but at the expense of everyone wanting to get it past him so he can get to more interesting ones.

    Why is it that in every damn RTS game you have this stupid mission where you have to take a bunch of your critters through a lenghty, winding corridor? Is there anyone who really enjoys those missions? Nobody I talked to does. Everyone wanted to play RTS games to harvest resources, spend them on an army and drown the enemy in a mass battle. Does anyone really like those "I have only 10 infantery men and need to bring them home safe" missions?

    Why is it that in every damn FPS game you have this mission where you need to find something hidden inside a twisted maze with corridors, all looking alike? No enemies to speak of, just running for an hour or two. Anyone here really liking that?

    It's like it was in MUD times. Every MUD I know contained at the very least one maze. Wizards just loved to make them. Players just hated to play them. Every "new wizard guide" I read contained at the very least the "do not create mazes, for people loathe them" clause. And yet, we still get them. With graphics. And blackjack and hookers. Ok, no blackjack or hookers, that would maybe make them interesting.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  3. Re:It's not just about mechanics by Fex303 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    --"Math." This is a bit confusing, but I think the author is talking about thing like AI decision paths.
    There's a bit more to this. Almost all games use math at some level as an abstraction. Sometimes it's obvious - the number of hitpoints your RPG character has, sometimes it's not - the amount of life left on your lifebar in Tekken, and sometimes it's completely hidden - the force required to trigger a crash rather than just a bump in Burnout.

    Some players don't care about this stuff too much. They get a feel for the actions and just go with it. Others spend quite a bit of time reverse engineering these mechanics and working out the best way to manipulate these. I'm often one of the later.

    I spent a couple of hours building spreadsheets that let me compare various bits of WoW gear and graphing the optimal moment to switch from +Int to mana/5 seconds to +Spirit gear. Why? Because a) I'm a massive fucking nerd, and b) because learning and using the math behind it was fun. A large part of the fun of WoW for me was working out the best systems to exploit the mathematics behind the game. Once I'd hit endgame and I'd unraveled the game systems, it held a lot less appeal, and I quit while my guild was still making good progress through MC.

    I think this is part of the reason that Nethack remains so much fun for so many people. The math and systems behind the game are phenomenally complex and, while obfuscated, there is little else in the game to distract from them. Each game plays out in a slightly different way depending on how the various systems interact. (Although, for me that slightly different way seems to be Nethack finding a new way to have me kill myself.)