A Theory of Fun

[Pineapple]

The game industry has plenty of idea guys.

Show me with examples. Show me through action.

Many an idea that sounded great on paper didnt work when implimented.

Fancy books an eloquent philosophical discussion sometimes completely miss the mark. So lets see these ideas in action, because so far we havent.

[Margalis]

I had an idea at one point for each crafter simply choosing a subset of items that they "specialized" in making.  

...

The main goal of this system, as I saw it, was to make it so that novice crafters could make something that would be useful in the economy.

I don't think that works. The problem with novice crafting is supply and demand. A lot of people are novices. They produce goods that are not as good as higher tier items, AND they produce a lot of them. If 10% of those are better than the rest, there are STILL a lot of them, and they still aren't as good as higher level items.

If these items are components for better items, I guess it does address the issue somewhat.  If novices can choose 5 specializations out of 20 possible, and all of those can be used for higher tier items, you've effectively decreased the supply by 75%. (I'm assuming higher tier people will greatly favor the specialized items to the point that nobody gets the non-specialized versions unless they have to)

[Samwise]

Supply and demand is exactly what I figure the "specialization" system would address.  I'll use weaponsmith as an example, since it's the one I have the most personal experience with.

In the current state of the game, absolutely no weapon a novice weaponsmith produces is worthwhile to anyone.  Ditto for the subcomponents, so a novice weaponsmith can't sell subcomponents either.  Hence, a novice can't supply anything that there's any demand for.

Now, suppose this specialization system goes in, and a novice can make rifle barrels that are better than what a master without that specialization can make.  A master who wants to make the most uber rifles will most likely take specializations in a bunch of the upper-level rifle schematics, but he won't have any left over for the high-quality low-level subcomponents that he needs to eke out those extra few points of damage.  Presto - demand.  And since a novice needs experience that a master doesn't, they'll price their goods lower, making it more profitable for a master to exploit a novice than to partner with another master.  Just like a real-world apprentice system.  ;)

Of course, you'd also have to fix the XP system - for example, give usage experience for manufactured subcomponents, such that an apprentice who's helping run a business would get more experience than one who ground rifle barrels in isolation.

[Aenovae]

The game industry has plenty of idea guys.

Show me with examples. Show me through action.

Many an idea that sounded great on paper didnt work when implimented.

Fancy books an eloquent philosophical discussion sometimes completely miss the mark. So lets see these ideas in action, because so far we havent.

Exactly.  I hear so many well-meaning amateurs mention their genius ideas – “if only someone would listen to me!”  Yeah right.  Every Jack and Jill who makes, plays, or has even heard of games has their own "brilliant" ideas.

It doesn't matter if the idea comes from an experienced Creative Grand High Poobah or just some college student wishing for a tester position.  Ideas and theories are a dime a dozen in the game indistry, and pretty much anyone can come up with something that will be the BESTEST GAEM EVER!  What developers need the most is not abstract bullshit, but actual work.  Not noodling, not some vague design written in Word and printed out.

Fancy philosophies don’t make games, actual applied work does.  In this context, the idea isn’t very useful unless its author shows precisely how it can be made into a reality.

This rule applies when writing a book on game theory or design, when making a design doc, and even when Creative Director types explain their idea to the rest of the dev team.

[Aenovae]

I just realized that my previous posts (and other communications with Raph) were all negative.

Raph, I love your ideas.
It's just that I have a hard time seeing how they can actually assist people in making better games.

Ok, back to the censure.

[Xilren's Twin]

Fancy philosophies don’t make games, actual applied work does.  In this context, the idea isn’t very useful unless its author shows precisely how it can be made into a reality.

This rule applies when writing a book on game theory or design, when making a design doc, and even when Creative Director types explain their idea to the rest of the dev team.

But ideas are easy; coding, not so much. :)

Seriously, one of the biggest hurdles I see to designing fun mmorpg game systems is the difficulty of implementation.  You really dont know until after a lot of work has been done whether a given implementation of an idea is "fun" or not.  And by the time you have a working framework to one of these beasts it's very hard to rip and replace any given system if it turns out to suck.  You really only get 1, maybe 2 attempts before you're shit outta luck.  For good example see the recently cancelled wish...or the SWG Ham system.

Sounds like you would need decent alpha test to smoke out these poor implementations.

Xilren

[HaemishM]

For the crafting discussion going on in this thread, you must always remember one important principle of the psychology of MMOG players, whether they be crafters or adventurers.

If the knob goes to 11, no one will be satisfied with anything less than 11 for long.

[sidereal]

You really dont know until after a lot of work has been done whether a given implementation of an idea is "fun" or not.  And by the time you have a working framework to one of these beasts it's very hard to rip and replace any given system if it turns out to suck.

That's because they do massive amounts of work (concept, art, sound, scripting, collision detection, etc, etc) for any given system before they figure out whether it's balanced or fun.  I've discussed this before, but one of the great things about MU* development was that art/sound/physics/etc were non-existent, so you jumped into a pure simulation environment instantly.  Modern MMOG's really need non-graphical simulation environments for all of their new systems.

And then add jackass and griefer simulators.

[HRose]

Modern MMOG's really need non-graphical simulation environments for all of their new systems.

No, they need the graphical layer to really become a relevant element in the simulation. And leave the MUD concepts behind.

The graphic is the game.

[sidereal]

There is no graphical representation of SWG's economy that would be fun.  There is no graphical representation of  forced-grouped slaughtering 1000 centaurs that would not be tedious.  There is no graphical representation of corpse-camping that would be fun.  

Chess is fun, and is fun in any of 800 different graphical and/or textual representations.  You could easily build a text-mode version of Civ III or Final Fantasy VII or Starcraft that would retain all of the complexity of the originals without the immersion or the shiny.

For something to be fun you need both an underlying mechanic that is fun and a pleasant way to render it.  Pleasantly rendered unbalanced tedious garbage is garbage.  And the rendering takes considerably more time and work than the mechanic development, so it seems pretty obvious that you should make sure your mechanics work first.

[HRose]

There is no graphical representation of SWG's economy that would be fun.  There is no graphical representation of  forced-grouped slaughtering 1000 centaurs that would not be tedious.  There is no graphical representation of corpse-camping that would be fun.

Yes, because the concrete weight of the graphical elements in these examples is zero.

Let's take an FPS like Unreal Tournament. Here you'll see how the interactivity with the scenery and the various graphical elements become the main part of the system. Along with the line of sight, the field of view etc...

Using the lightning gun for example allows you to zoom in and do an head shot, but at the same time prevents you to see what happens around you. This is a perfect example of how the graphic can become a relevant element in the system.

MMORPGs need to evolve to include more and more the graphical perception as an active element of the gameplay. One of the main feature that made the players hate WISH was because of the point and click movement. This because the control of your character and the perception of the space around you are important elements for the players and human beings in general.

SWG also feels odd because you move like "on rails". You can see a rock but you cannot jump on it. The space is divided and organized in a completely artificial way that betrays DIRECTLY the normal perceptions.

One of the many reasons why it sucks.

This will work if you test the formal system and will be broken when you'll have actual human beings to interface with it.

[Riggswolfe]

[quote="HRoseSWG also feels odd because you move like "on rails". You can see a rock but you cannot jump on it. The space is divided and organized in a completely artificial way that betrays DIRECTLY the normal perceptions.
.[/quote]

Because of SWG I will never again touch an MMOG without a Z-axis of some kind. If I can't jump that fence then it makes me feel like I'm not in a real world.

I like this concept currently under discussion of simulating at a low level the various subsystems of an MMO. I don't know if it'd work in theory but it's an interesting idea.

Just out of curiousity, how far would you guys say it is into the development cycle of a game before it's too late? Let's say you have an Alpha and the subsystems aren't fun. Is it to late to change things at that point?

[Samwise]

It seems to me that it depends on how much money you have in your budget, and how much you've spent up to this point.  If you blew most of your budget on getting the game to Alpha, then yes, it's probably too late, unless the changes you need to make will be really cheap.

Hence the attractiveness of cheap prototyping.  If you can spend $100 to come up with a prototype that will show you 50% of the problems in your design, it's a much better investment than spending $1,000,000 on a shinier prototype that will show you 75% of the problems in your design.

HRose and sidereal are both right.  A low-fidelity prototype (e.g. a MUDlike version of your new graphic MMORPG) won't show you everything that's wrong with your design.  If it shows you a few things that are wrong, though, it's a very worthwhile investment, since it means that your first high-fidelity prototype will have that many fewer things wrong with it.

[HRose]

HRose and sidereal are both right.  A low-fidelity prototype (e.g. a MUDlike version of your new graphic MMORPG) won't show you everything that's wrong with your design.

No, we aren't both right. What he says can be true and useful, I didn't go against that.

Instead I was simply stating my point of view when he marked that as something that "modern MMORPGs really need".

I underlined that from my point of view these games should aim to *differentiate* themselves from MUDs, exactly because it's in the graphic layer that they have the *most* potential. So use that potential.

[Samwise]

HRose and sidereal are both right.

No, we aren't both right.

Okay, you can be wrong if you want to be.  ;)

[Margalis]

I really do not think you could make a text-mode Starcraft, that's just silly. But, you could make a Starcrat with placeholder graphics and tons of bugs that would still help you determine if it was fun or not.

Alpha is far too late to change major systems. During Aplha you can fix bugs and tweak things, and maybe address the 1 or 2 most dire issues. Alpha isn't the point where you can figure out your combat sucks and still have time to fix it.

[blindy]

There is no graphical representation of SWG's economy that would be fun.  There is no graphical representation of  forced-grouped slaughtering 1000 centaurs that would not be tedious.  There is no graphical representation of corpse-camping that would be fun.  

But fun isn't an objective quality.  Supposedly people have fun with SWG's economy.  I've never played the game, but I often hear its economy touted as one of its best features, for what it's worth.  I've had fun killing 1000s of crabs in FFXI in a forced group situation (not centaurs, but close enough).  And I've certainly had fun corpse camping people.  (Yeah, yeah, you probaby meant being corpse camped, but I've even had fun with that, when I've been able to overcome it and beat the campers.)

I never liked EQ's regular servers, but it was a very successful game.  But then I did like FFXI for a time (up to about level 50 or 55, when it just slowed down too much for me), and that was a very similar game.  Why did I find one fun but not the other?  Hell if I know, but I did.  

And judging from the Wish thread, apparently some people found even that fun.  So, if players can't decide what is fun (and clearly we can't), how are developers supposed to?

[Pineapple]

 So, if players can't decide what is fun (and clearly we can't), how are developers supposed to?

SWGs tradeskills are perhaps the worst grind I have seen in an online game. It is presented as a grind boldly and clearly, with little to no attempts to cover up the grind factor.

Anyone can tell you that grinds suck. So developers should at least have that basic rule solidified in their process. WoW does a good job of sugar coating their grinds. CoH does too. SWG doesnt.

[Samwise]

So, if players can't decide what is fun (and clearly we can't), how are developers supposed to?

I hear Raph Koster wrote a book called "A Theory of Fun" that discusses that topic in great length, and attempts to get at some of the underpinnings of what "fun" is and how developers can try to pursue it.  Have you read it?  It might be a good starting point for a discussion on that topic.  ;)

[Dark Vengeance]

Is it just me, or does every conversation about Raph's book get fagged up by people talking about the games he's worked on, or the state of the industry?

Has it ever occurred to anyone that perhaps Raph has not had the creative freedom to make the game he wants? In theory, he could have unlimited funding, no deadline pressure, complete creative freedom, and the most talented team available. In reality, there are publishers to consider, folks like Lucas and Garriott to appease, enormous fan expectations, deadlines, budgets, and countless other issues.

Judging the man's book, or his theories on game design because you hated SWG's tradeskills is akin to someone in Biblical times rejecting the teachings of Jesus because they thought he was a shitty carpenter.

Bring the noise.
Cheers............

[Xilren's Twin]

Is it just me, or does every conversation about Raph's book get fagged up by people talking about the games he's worked on, or the state of the industry?

Has it ever occurred to anyone that perhaps Raph has not had the creative freedom to make the game he wants? In theory, he could have unlimited funding, no deadline pressure, complete creative freedom, and the most talented team available. In reality, there are publishers to consider, folks like Lucas and Garriott to appease, enormous fan expectations, deadlines, budgets, and countless other issues.

Judging the man's book, or his theories on game design because you hated SWG's tradeskills is akin to someone in Biblical times rejecting the teachings of Jesus because they thought he was a shitty carpenter

All i have to that is "By his works you shall know him" :-p

Ironically enough, if you type that into google with the quote, you get 3 links, one of which goes somewhere strangely familar.

I for one appreciate Raph willingness to talk about this sort of stuff, but there's no question people rag on him b/c his past projects have so much potential that when it goes bad, the dashed hope and dreams bring on the angry mob.  Besides, it's not like Brad will show up and talk about games design.  Fame brings criticism, rightly or wrongly.

Xilren

[Pineapple]

Is it just me, or does every conversation about Raph's book get fagged up by people talking about the games he's worked on, or the state of the industry?

Has it ever occurred to anyone that perhaps Raph has not had the creative freedom to make the game he wants? In theory, he could have unlimited funding, no deadline pressure, complete creative freedom, and the most talented team available. In reality, there are publishers to consider, folks like Lucas and Garriott to appease, enormous fan expectations, deadlines, budgets, and countless other issues.

Judging the man's book, or his theories on game design because you hated SWG's tradeskills is akin to someone in Biblical times rejecting the teachings of Jesus because they thought he was a shitty carpenter.

Bring the noise.
Cheers............

No.
If someone decides to be the face of a project and pimp themselves in the limelight, then they will take a certain amount of heat for that game sucking. Especially on design aspects that they should have had some influence over.

Considering how much from SWG is obviously ripped from UO, I would say that those former UO guys on SWG had a great deal of influence on the design.

I'm sure Raph catches more heat than he should. The price of fame, I suppose, and perhaps unfair to a degree. I do not believe Raph is to blame for everything that sucks in SWG, nor do I believe that he is responsible for all that is good in UO or SWG. However there are large grinds and other unfriendly aspects of the last game he directly worked on.

Imagine it like movie stars. They get judged by the last movie they worked on. Unfair? Sure.  It's the price of fame.

[Dark Vengeance]

No.
If someone decides to be the face of a project and pimp themselves in the limelight, then they will take a certain amount of heat for that game sucking. Especially on design aspects that they should have had some influence over.

That's all well and good, if this were a thread on UO or SWG. It's not.

Imagine it like movie stars. They get judged by the last movie they worked on. Unfair? Sure.  It's the price of fame.

The last thing he worked on that you've seen is this book. Of course, I'm presuming you've read it, and aren't just prattling on like a disgruntled former SWG fanboy.

The subject is the book, not Raph and the totality of his career. Yet for some reason, a few selected fuckwits can't seem to grasp that anytime Raph's name is brought up in the context of design theory.

Bring the noise.
Cheers.............

[schild]

The subject is the book, not Raph and the totality of his career. Yet for some reason, a few selected fuckwits can't seem to grasp that anytime Raph's name is brought up in the context of design theory.

Get off the soapbox. Whenever someone brings up a book, the author is always the topic of discussion. It takes incredible balls to write something authoritative on a subject. Particularly when it's about gaming and the last thing your name was publically attached to was an abortion at arrival.

That said - no matter how much I respect Raph, I think someone would have to create something *truly* fun before coming up with a theory of fun. He hasn't shown us something fun, YET. And we'll find out if Garriot did the heavy lifting on UO when Tabula Rasa comes out. But that's a rant for somewhere else.

Design documents are easy. They're a dime a dozen. Making games is hard.

[Margalis]

Has it ever occurred to anyone that perhaps Raph has not had the creative freedom to make the game he wants?
...
Judging the man's book, or his theories on game design because you hated SWG's tradeskills is akin to someone in Biblical times rejecting the teachings of Jesus because they thought he was a shitty carpenter.

Has it occured to you that NOBODY ever has the creative freedom to do exactly what they want?

I would read a book my Miyamoto about fun, because the guy clearly knows how to make fun games. He always has - even when he didn't have the creative freedom he might have no. You may not like his games, but he has shown he can tackle a wide variety of games and make them all enjoyable.

We're talking about a guy who makes things from Mario to Pikmin to F-Zero to overseeing Starfox and Metroid Prime. So that's platformer, RTS, racing game, 3d flight game and FPS. The guy clearly isn't a one-hit-wonder who repeats the same formula over and over. He gets something most people don't get.

Compare that to someone who may or have may not made a couple of fun games in a single genre, all of which follow the same basic pattern.
---

I'm not trying to be dismissive of Raph. There are very few people on earth who I would really say "wow, this guy just plain KNOWS how to make fun games!" Especially if you are talking about repeating success across different genres.

[Pineapple]

The subject is the book, not Raph and the totality of his career. Yet for some reason, a few selected fuckwits can't seem to grasp that anytime Raph's name is brought up in the context of design theory.

Bring the noise.
Cheers.............

Pretend I am a movie writer/director/creator. So if I write a book on movie making, then none of my actual movies are factored in at all? People should ignore the movies, and just buy the book?

No I'm sorry, but a writer's credibility comes from their work in the subject. Anyone can ramble off common sense notions. Words are cheap, but action speaks for itself.

Now true, I am just a lowly gamer slacker. But if someone is going to claim they know what makes a great game, then I want them to show me. Not just tell me. Otherwise, it is just a 3:00am Info-mercial trying to tell me how to become filthy rich.

I would much rather hear from the nameless people that make the truly awesome games. They are too busy, however.

[Arnold]

Because of SWG I will never again touch an MMOG without a Z-axis of some kind. If I can't jump that fence then it makes me feel like I'm not in a real world.

That was one of the great strengths of AC.  Sure, things looked a bit blocky, but they felt great!  Movement was smooth and responsive to the controls.  The camera was smooth and had a superior range of motion.  You could pump up your run skill (or buff it) and run very fast - none of that molasses feeling that EQ or DAOC gave me.  You could raise your jump skill and jump onto rocks, buildings, whatever.  You could climb mountians!

I still vividly remember one of my early AC battles, where a low 20s archer, and former member of the allegiance, was raiding our town.  Most of us were  in the 10-15 level range, and I hadn't experienced a character with enhanced physical attributes and skills yet.  The archer got swarmed and then proceeded to ninja-jump onto the roof of a building and rain death upon us.  I thought that was so fucking cool.  Eventually, some of our higher levels got up there and chased him down, but he eventually won the fight.

[Arnold]

On the subject of crafting, I'd like to see someone explore it from a formula system, akin to AC's original spell system, but more randomized so that someone wouldn't be able to get a universal formula, like they did in AC.

So in this system, there would be a lot of different items and varying charactersistcs for each kind.  The combinations of materials to create each item is different for everyone.  Just because some guy mixed iron, copper, and shale to create a widget doesn't mean you will be able to do the same.  You need to figure out that it's aluminum, wax, and obsidian.

Of course, you'd want there to be some logic to the sytem, so there is something to "figure out" and not a total grind of randomly combining things and attempting to construct items.

I was kind of sad AC did away with the spell learning system.  On Darktide, using Splitpea (the program used to figure out component combos) was a necessity.  But there was a time after they switched the system that I wished I could go back and play a mage on a non-pvp shard and do it legit: figure out the spells myself.

[Calantus]

On the subject of crafting, I'd like to see someone explore it from a formula system, akin to AC's original spell system, but more randomized so that someone wouldn't be able to get a universal formula, like they did in AC.

[...]

Of course, you'd want there to be some logic to the sytem, so there is something to "figure out" and not a total grind of randomly combining things and attempting to construct items.

Those two ideas cannot work together. Either you have a system that is random, or you have a system that is logical and thus makes it possible to crack the system. If the average human brain can recognize a pattern within data, it is easy enough to code a software solution to the problem.

The closest thing you can have is for there to be a range of either specific materials to choose from, or specific quantities of set materials that narrow down the search for the right combination.

[Arnold]

Those two ideas cannot work together. Either you have a system that is random, or you have a system that is logical and thus makes it possible to crack the system. If the average human brain can recognize a pattern within data, it is easy enough to code a software solution to the problem.

The closest thing you can have is for there to be a range of either specific materials to choose from, or specific quantities of set materials that narrow down the search for the right combination.

Cracking is ok, as long as the system cracked pretains to only one character.   The problem with the AC spell system was that the encryption applied to the entire account, and IIRC, there was only one encryption scheme.  Also, the randomized components only included tapers(colored candels).  The other spell components were the same to all characters in the game.  This allowed characters to figure out the low level versions of the spells, and to share the information on how to cast them.

[Lum]

Design documents are easy. They're a dime a dozen.

No, actually, they aren't.

Making games is the art of the possible. Even if, like Psychochild or Teppy, you are blessed with complete freedom artistically to do what you want (something most people who have to justify budgets don't have) you still have many other things to consider - the people who already play your game who want more of the same, the people who don't, who expect you to do something different so that they will be interested, etc. etc.

So the art (and it is one) of designing in an MMO environment is to be able to, with all of those often wildly divergent strictures and many other technical ones besides, come up with something that is fun to play.

It's not easy, at all. It's far easier to snipe from the sidelines. Trust me, I've done both!

[schild]

I didn't say Good design documents were easy. I mean, someone has to be buying up all the shitty ones. 10% (or less) of what's on shelves is actually worth buying.

[Lum]

I didn't say Good design documents were easy.

No, you actually said "I didn't like the last game the author of this book wrote, so I'm going to assert that he doesn't actually have any business writing about the field he works in."

[schild]

I didn't say Good design documents were easy.

No, you actually said "I didn't like the last game the author of this book wrote, so I'm going to assert that he doesn't actually have any business writing about the field he works in."

Working in the "field of game design" does not mean "working in the field of fun."

[Lum]

So if the title was "A Theory of Game Design", and page 1 was "Hey! Make it fun!" and the rest of the book was unchanged, would that be any better?

I mean, Raph is justly renowned for treating game design with a scholarly discipline that few others can. He would not only be qualified to write the book he did, I dare say he'd be near the top of the list of people who were.

Refer back to what I said about the politics of game design. Just because YOU didn't like it? Maybe there were parts he didn't like either. And maybe this is part of his crafting a new baseline to start from. "Hey! Let's make it fun. Well, what is fun? Here's my thought."