I have a game design phenomenon that needs a name

[TheCastle]

I have been brainstorming and building my design philosophies lately and I have come to a point where I believe for me to better explain my points and to help others see eye to eye with me I need to find a proper name for this game design phenomenon.

It is a very common  game design phenomenon found almost in any game that supports multiple modes of play with in a singular persistent frame work. In other words a phenomenon based around the idea of degradation of quality based on diversification of game play modes with a persistent frame work.

The term is needed to refer to the overall loss in quality when a game is balanced around one style of play first yet it offers other ways to play the game. Ideally I would not want to call this Castle’s syndrome or something like that because, lol, I would not want to associate my name with a phenomenon based around the idea of degradation of quality based on diversification of game play modes with a persistent frame work. Well that and it doesn't exactly roll off the tung very well heh..

However I cannot come up with a name that fits. Or for that matter if a fitting term already exists. I feel, however that this term needs to exist and it needs to be recognized by game communities and developers alike. For now I will use a temporary name for the term, Apbatiod.

===================================================
Example 1:
In an environment that closely mimics the game quake 3 as possible one would say that the most difficult mode to get right is 1 vs 1 while the easiest mode to get right would be free for all. Keep in mind that in quake 3 the frame work is almost exactly persistent in every way across all game play modes. Running speed, weapon damage, health and powerups are a nearly perfect example of a persistent framework. Quakes3 also supports all of these modes with in its persistent framework, tourney 1 vs 1, free for all, team death match and capture the flag.

The difficulty to balance each of these modes properly in regards the games persistent framework goes in this order.
tourney 1 vs 1 > capture the flag > team death match > free for all

When I create my new quake 3 game I am most likely to favor one of these modes over the others. Either by accident or by plan. Lets say for this example I balance my frame work around free for all.

I adjust movement speeds and weapon damage to make a really great game of free for all. (*Cough* Unreal Tournament *Cough*)... I also go ahead and support the other modes as well however I keep my framework persistent in every mode. In free for all nobody cares if the map has 2 mega healths, every gun is a spammy nuke launcher and your damage amplifier provides an 8x damage boost. However fun for a free for all match this will be all of the other modes that are harder to balance will suffer a great deal of Apbatiod.

Lets take the same example and base my frame work around 1 vs 1 first instead. Since the difficulty of balancing 1 vs 1 is much higher I leverage the idea that I can minimize Apbatiod simply because things matter less when balancing a mode like free for all.

It can be argued that for CTF weapons and movement could be balanced differently than you would if you balanced your game around team deathmatch. But the bottom line is that the mode that you focus your energy most will always shine the brightest while the results for the rest of the modes your game supports will somewhat randomly hang in the balance. Most of the time this results in a loss in quality on all other modes but the one you are focusing on. This loss in quality can range from fundamental to negligible however it is always present.

As a designer your goal when working on a game that has a diverse number of game play modes is to find a framework that can remain as persistent as possible with as little Apbatiod as possible.

===================================================
Example 2:
World of Warcraft bases itself on a PVE framework however the game also supports PVP. Since PVP was not the games main focus and the PVE frame work remains mostly intact while participating in PVP it can be said that the PVP in World of warcraft suffers from considerable Apbatiod.

If World of Warcraft based its main framework around PVP instead of PVE then I can ascertain that casual PVE would suffer negligible Apbatiod while high end content such as traditional end game raids would suffer considerable Apbatiod. Yet again in my example the difficulty of balancing a particular style of play is somewhat directly proportional to how detrimental Apbatiod will be.

If World of Warcraft based itself on PVE but changed the way the game is played during PVP then it would be correcting Apbatiod by not allowing a truly persistent framework. I believe WOW does this actually by giving some classes abilities that can only be used in PVP ect. In other words changing your persistent framework to correct or alleviate Apbatiod.

===================================================
more simple examples
In Doom 1 deathmatch your levels were the actual single player levels in the game. Since they were not tailor made levels for death match Doom 1s multiplayer suffered considerable Apbatiod. This is true for weapons as well from single player to multiplayer. Taking a single player game and tacking on multiplayer with out Apbatiod correction could very easily cause an unplayable mess!

Specialized class based archetypes with a rock paper scissor mechanic in place will cause fundamental Apbatiod when applied to a 1 vs 1 PVP environment.

Anyone have any thoughts on this?

[trias_e]

It reminds me of exaptation in evolutionary biology.  This is when an adaptation was originally selected for a different reason than it is currently being used.  Like feathers first being selected to keep birds warm, then eventually being co-opted allowing them to fly.  In these situations, the co-opted trait is often not that great at what it is doing now, but gets the job done.

So a PvE game whose players are begging for PvP, throws in a PvP arena with all of the systems they built for PvE intact.  This would be exapting or co-opting the game design and shoving it in a direction it wasn't originally intended for (but still can work ok).  Often, the flawed second direction is much better than the perfect first direction.  But one could see a signifcant benefit to simply designing around the second direction in the first place.  My knees certainly could see that benefit right now.  Fucking easily-dislocated kneecaps.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exaptation

[Samwise]

I would call this "red-headed stepchild syndrome".  As in "the multiplayer option is such an obvious red-headed stepchild I don't know why they even included it."

[TheCastle]

Interesting indeed

Evolutionary exaptation is definitely any interesting analogy for this phenomenon.
I have to put more thought into this and research a bit more.

Thank you very much for that lead

Using the evolutionary process as an example to explain the degradation of quality between multiple modes of play with a persistent frame work is very interesting to me.
If you think about it in most cases when making a game with multiple modes of play we always attempted to make all of the modes at the same time. But every single time I remember having a general persistent frame work created with out openly expressing that we would be necessarily catering to any specific mode. In practice however, one mode usually becomes the default testing ground where our persistent frame work is born and initially adjusted but then after that we apply various little changes to the persistent frame work that feels as good as possible in each mode. You evolve your persistent framework to fit all supported modes as well as possible before releasing your game.

However this phenomenon usually becomes more observable after the game has been released and a new mode of play is added. The evolutionary process at this point is stunted however you are now expected to add Capture the Flag to your game. Messing with your persistent frame work at this point would be seen by most devs in the same light as adjusting a house of cards. Don't touch it just make the CTF as well as you can with the persistent frame work as intact as possible.

So in many cases the loss of quality becomes most observable when the developer is unwilling to modify the persistent frame work for each individual mode of play. So this loss of quality happens as a result of stunting your evolutionary process.

Of course there are a sizable list of logical reasons to avoid updating your persistent frame work for every little thing. If adjusted for each individual mode of play your persistent framework wont by definition be very persistent any longer...

The only way to balance your game perfectly is to adjust your frame work 100% around each mode of play.
However this is not a realistic option and it would cause a very disjointed experience.

I would call this "red-headed stepchild syndrome".  As in "the multiplayer option is such an obvious red-headed stepchild I don't know why they even included it."

In COD4 it appears clear to me that they built the games persistent framework around Team death match. Thus all modes with team play fit fairly well with in the games persistent framework. Notice that optional modes of play that are not team based or do not allow you to use your pre built loadout have considerably fewer players. These modes of play I would definitely consider red head step children. In this case the modifications to the persistent framework were included however it was not enough to make the modes interesting in their own right.

However, If you take Counter Strike the default mode of play was Demolition. It was the most popular mode of them all.
The persistent framework remains almost perfectly intact in all modes of play with CS except the escort mode.
Since Hostage rescue was not the main mode it was not as polished or as well designed as demolition however the loss in quality was negligible. (And to be fair its not the best example)
Would you consider that as being a red headed step child?

Is a negligible loss in quality something you would consider a red headed step child?
Would you consider the PVP in World of Warcraft to be a red headed step child?

The term Apbatiod would be useful for describing all types of loss in quality even if its negligible. Based on the idea that all modes of play other than your base mode of play will show signs of Apbatiod.

[Venkman]

I think the evolutionary biology term from trias_e is spot on, but I would add "emergent" to it. It's the act of creating an instantiated experience that caters to an unforeseen audience. This instance is a force-fit atop an incapable model but made to work because of demand.

WoW PvP is the perfect example. The audience did not crave PvP that affected the totality of the game world (most not have any frame of reference for this). But they wanted more than just /duels. So Blizzard did the right thing: compartmentalized the activity for only those players and gave them an entirely different method of advancement.

COD4 is a good example too. Design around personal achievement that you bring to a Team DM match. But there's no reason to not have the other popular and traditional modes of play. TF2 is similar there too.

I think "quality" though is a red herring. To call WoW PvP weak is to assume a) the players don't enjoy it; and, b) there's as successful games that have done it better. Neither is reality though. They discovered what a lot of players wanted and gave it to them. It is therefore better to use a term that doesn't connote a biased quality rating, so I extend what trias_e started:

"Emergent exaption".

[Samwise]

Is a negligible loss in quality something you would consider a red headed step child?

Yes, to a negligible degree.  As in, the signs of abuse are present but not quite as obvious.

Would you consider the PVP in World of Warcraft to be a red headed step child?

Haven't played WoW, so I can't attest to it.

The term Apbatiod would be useful for describing all types of loss in quality even if its negligible. Based on the idea that all modes of play other than your base mode of play will show signs of Apbatiod.

You're a bit of a wanker, aren't you?   

[Daztur]

Hmmm, not sure about terminology but one way of dealing with the problem is by making different modes of play align better. For example the main reason that some classes are vastly better at PvE than at PvP is that the AI plays much differently than players do, if the AI acted more like a human player than the degradation effect that you're talking about would be smaller.

[schild]

You're a bit of a wanker, aren't you?

More like an apbatiod.

[TheCastle]

I think the evolutionary biology term from trias_e is spot on, but I would add "emergent" to it. It's the act of creating an instantiated experience that caters to an unforeseen audience. This instance is a force-fit atop an incapable model but made to work because of demand.

WoW PvP is the perfect example. The audience did not crave PvP that affected the totality of the game world (most not have any frame of reference for this). But they wanted more than just /duels. So Blizzard did the right thing: compartmentalized the activity for only those players and gave them an entirely different method of advancement.

COD4 is a good example too. Design around personal achievement that you bring to a Team DM match. But there's no reason to not have the other popular and traditional modes of play. TF2 is similar there too.

I think "quality" though is a red herring. To call WoW PvP weak is to assume a) the players don't enjoy it; and, b) there's as successful games that have done it better. Neither is reality though. They discovered what a lot of players wanted and gave it to them. It is therefore better to use a term that doesn't connote a biased quality rating, so I extend what trias_e started:

"Emergent exaption".

Ah yeah that was one flaw with my theory. For example some people do in fact enjoy Hostage rescue more than demolition in Counter Strike. Explaining this loss in quality would show a bias where it is not necessary. An analogy that makes more sense would be to compare music on a vinyl record, A compact disk, or MP3. One can argue in favor of listening to his mp3s even in spite of the negligible loss in quality. When my goal is only to give a name to the differences in "quality" and not try to build some silly argument that it was not a worthwhile effort to create CTF in quake 3. We all know it was worthwhile to add PVP into WOW and it would be folly to say otherwise.

Emergent Exaptation
I'm going to do a bit more research on this but I have to admit this thread has helped me a lot. I realize the question I am asking would normally, in most other forums, get a series of off beat responses. This has got to be one of the only forums around where a question like this can actually be graced with an answer about something like this.

Hmmm, not sure about terminology but one way of dealing with the problem is by making different modes of play align better. For example the main reason that some classes are vastly better at PvE than at PvP is that the AI plays much differently than players do, if the AI acted more like a human player than the degradation effect that you're talking about would be smaller.

This is why I think it is important to take note of this phenomenon and place it as a higher priority. Acknowledging emergent exaptation and what it entails can effect the entire process of your games design. For example realizing and noting the mode of play that will feel the least negative results of emergent exaptation with out the need to modify your persistent frame work could save tons of time and resources. What you are describing is ways to modify your persistent framework to better accommodate your different modes of play.

there are, from what I can tell, three ways to reduce the negative effects felt when dealing with emergent exaptation.
1. Build your persistent framework around the hardest to balance mode first in hopes that easier to balance modes of play will work within that framework.
2. Adjust your persistent framework
3. Do not use a persistent framework

For example:
If Warhammer realized and took the negative effects of emergent exaptation more seriously they would potentially have considered making the enemy AI act more like human opponents rather than attempt to shoe horn tanking classes and main healers into its PVP elements. Changing the behaviors of your PVE opponents would have been less of a negative effect on the focus of the game since it is supposed to be based more on PVP and RVR. Realizing what is your main form of play as the top priority and thus realizing that PVE is an emergent exaptation when considering Warhammer's design one might take different action when adding other additional modes of play such as PVE into the game.

This as opposed to approaching the entire project with the mentality that all modes of play are created equal. There are plenty of times in game design when its better to realize where your focus is and take note of your emergent exaptations and apply them to your focus game play accordingly. I feel as though this is an important part of game design that I, and many others, are guilty of simply glazing over with out proper insight. If your game has more than one form of play with a persistent framework this should be something that concerns you.

You're a bit of a wanker, aren't you?  

I think too much about this stuff hehe...
If you see something wrong with what I am saying please go ahead and criticize it openly lol.. I say this because I want to know what people have to say about this.

Anyway this has been an incredibly helpful thread for me.

Thank you
 

[nef]

Hmm, I'm gana go out on a limb here but how about just, Bad Design?

If you design your Quake3 game around FFA like your first example and it's greatly balanced.  If you just add 1v1 w/o trying to balance it to either fit your persistent model or don't have a persistent model (change it in 1v1) I'd jus chalk it up to bad design :P

Obviously, no game is going to be perfectly designed, but striving for perfection should still be the goal.  If you bust your ass on one mode and just "enable" the others, thats just lack of effort on the designers part.  No fault to him, maybe he did it simply because people really wanted it, so he just went ahead and gave it to them.  I'd still say that his lack of attempting to design those modes is just bad design.

Oh and your example w/ WoW isn't perfect either.  Technically, they did change the state of the game for their "other mode" (PvP), so what do you call that if the attempt is assumed a failure? The game changes when you are in PvP, CC has smaller effects, the to hit forumla changes.  I'm sure theres more, but those are right off the top of my head

[patience]

I doubt Frederick Brooks was the first to coin the term but the words you are looking for is "Second System Effect."

I honestly thought you were talking about something else until you gave your examples which fits the description of design decisions made to add functionality to the program hoping to add value but instead compromise the original intent of the software's design.