Notgames Forum

Interesting - I have been asked in an interview recently what the difference between a literary character and a game character was. I still have not sent the interview back because I cannot, for the life of me, think of one attribute which is not based solemnly around 'games are interactive'. It lead me to think about characters differently - in unemotional terms, I see them as a 'cloud' of attributes through which you street the reader/viewer/player. A good character forms a sort of harmony and that can be done in any medium in which the medium itself has the power of steering.

Now you mention this, I realize my own question I use to force people to think of their game concept quicker was atomic - your one mechanic. You are right, it is multiple things, changing, but elegantly. I have no idea how valid this is, but perhaps start thinking of it as a concert, with an anthem, different leitmotifs, a crescendo. Not just in terms of content but of actions itself. You could have quiet interludes without control (spend 2 minutes in this room before it unlocks), free-roaming led-by-hand experiences, tight scenes. I imagine the challenge (one I also now am struggling with) is that you have to communicate the gameplay language to the player before he can use it, so the teaching of new mode is a difficult element if you start building symphonies.

I was spurred to use this metaphore because you used hard as-if a per-case thing... and while symphonies are hard they are an intellectual puzzle and perhaps an approach not entirely dissimilar to games in abstract.


I'll have to dig for this - but I will report to you when I have played Amnesia early Januari when my new PC arrives.

The last thing I remember was the ladder in the cistern in Amnesia. It didn't occur to me that I could push the lever in two directions. Instead I was throwing some more rocks at the damn thing.

The solution, however, for my taste, is not to have such obstacles at all. In a game, they quickly feel very artificial. Even if it would be likely to experience obstacles like this in real life, when you experience them in a game, the feel artificial. Just because you know you're paying a game. And also because there usually is a solution (unlike in real life).

[rant mode]
Perhaps a bit off-topic, but for the last couple of days I have been thinking more and more of this hardness property and feeling that it might work as a good guideline for making better games. Basically, the harder the game is to make, the better it is. What I mean by hard here, is basically the same thing as computer science use it when saying that certain groups of problems are hard. Proving a mathematical theorem, composing a symphony and writing a poem are all hard problems - there is no simple short cut. What this means for game design, is that if you can easily construct extra content for your game or even even "easily" procedurally generate it, then your design is simple and of lesser "quality". There is bound to be lots of special cases here and so on, so it is nothing I take that literally.

For both Amnesia and the Penumbra games, I have always been a bit annoyed at how hard it was to make extra content. I have seen other devs being able to create add-on packages,etc and been jealous of this. However, now I think I should actually embrace this and instead be worried if any part of the game is too easy to design and replicate. It is when game contains something that I know will be impossible to reuse or extend that I should feel most proud of it and this should be something to strive for.

I find that the same is true for great music, literature, movies, etc. Sequels and follow-ups are very rare.

Now this does not mean that games with simple mechanics that allow easy creation of content are bad by any means. I just think that it might be a  good thing to have in mind when designing. This could be especially true for "not-games", where the whole point is to go beyond the normal games that now flood the market. In these games, it is also very easy to see how the content is simple (as apposed to hard) design, with repetitive gameplay and a bunch of DLC and the like coming out close after release. It is games that do not get sequels or where game-play on repetition where we see the some interesting things happening.
[/rant mode]

I highly recommend building your game world first and then seeing what opportunities arise. I find it very difficult myself to imagine such things on paper. When you build a world, the opportunities for interaction quickly present themselves. And if you still lack inspiration, just observe a test player for an hour.

I'm kind of obsessing lately over the concept of simulation as a further extension of figurative painting and cinema. I'm working on a blog post about the two different kinds of rules in games: the rules that serve the simulation and the rules that are part of the game. And I want to make a case in favor of the former and against the latter. Because the former serve the simulation and the make-belief experience, while the latter destroy it.

This is something I am drawn to too. My own is goal is to try and approach a virtual world that is as coherent as possible, making the game more about "living" than "playing". Will be very interesting to hear details on your thoughts and approach to this!

I think there could be a solution here for your current problem as well. Maybe the gameworld simulation can change, guiding the behaviour of the player. Instead of adding a puzzle or evaluating performance.

Maybe the player can have control over parts of the simulation. Perhaps the player can make the avatar say certain things or stand in certain poses that the game can interpret as "he thinks he's done here, he wants to move on", upon which the game can decide to either move on or lead the player to something they have missed.

I don't think I've ever seen that in a game: the ability of the avatar to express the feelings of the player about the game. Maybe it's a bit like asking for a clue in casual puzzle games. But then embedded in the simulation: the things the character does when they get bored or confused could be different depending on the personality of character in the fiction, and even of the situation in the story.

I strongly believe in giving the player this kind of agency in a virtual world. I think one of the best features of Grand Theft Auto is honking!

I think that is a very good viewpoint. But furthermore, if you choose to view it as a hard problem rather than just hard work it may become easier when you find ways of doing it. An ideal game is like a the ideal symphony - not a single not can be removed or added. But I think we are far from this stage of development. We are still making folk music, so to speak.

This is a good rant, though. It very much confirms my feelings and inspires me to see the next game for what it is, a big challenge.


Very interesting, I am very much looking forward to that. It does sound like there is a mild danger you may put everything which 'feels natural' in 'simulation', however... the rules of football are evidently part of the game but also are 'non-negotiable' and become transparent to the point where one just behaves like that. The mind optimizes the question of realness away, or in social thought, rules becoming transparent is the essence of a game's half-realness.

But in Callois' terms, if you are speaking about agôn games, transparent rules that govern your success in achieving goals mean a very 'thin' interactive space (to speak with Harpold), which is benificiary. If your goal is memesis then that rules are consequent in simulative terms rather than agôn-favouring terms is more important. But that induces a thicker space for goal-achievement.

Perhaps that is part of the problem as well (reflecting back to positive and negative freedom); the moment a person wishes to achieve a goal in a negative freedom space he starts playing the rules rather than the game. It is the problem in law of drivers trying not to get caught rather than obey the law because to them the former is more beneficial (all the advantages of breaking the law).

It does mesh quite well with one of the points of notgames, then, of course, that of having no implicit goals. But perhaps it is important to note whether you as a designer are responsible for making me not play the rules or whether I as a player should, like when reading a novel, know how to behave.


Interesting. You could structure that by making a game-in-a-game. You and an AI (with whom you have a tie so strong that you do not perceive him as a game) 'play' a game together which you do allow the player to think of as a game.

Thank you for the warning. I'll certainly keep this in mind.

My concern, however, is art, not reality. And in art, playing with the rules, is one of my greatest pleasures. When we see the humanity of a beggar, the eroticism of the Madonna, the evil of Aphrodite. When we brush against the limitations imposed by rules and habit and perhaps every so slightly suggest a gentle transgression.

I do think an author should be prepared to take responsibility for anything a player might do with their work.

Maybe it's a question of implicit rules versus explicit rules. In a way, the former cannot be broken, or even doubted, by the player. Because they enable the simulation: gravity, three-dimensional sound, navigation, etc. The explicit rules are the ones that require a sort of negotiation. The player needs to accept that it is required to kill all monsters before the door of the dungeon opens.

You're right that once you accept these explicit rules, they may become like second nature. But I think this is a dangerous terrain for the author. And we should really ask ourselves if we want such behaviour to feel natural. Is that the message we want to send?

Oo, I'm excited to see you write about it this way.  A while back I wrote a blog post about the same thing.  I make a distinction between videogames as an art form - your "simulation" - and what I call "abstract structures for meaning" such as story and game rules.

Some snippets:

---

Thomas, I think a possible way to think about milestones would be to frame them situationally instead of spatially.  Your milestone then would be to cause the world to reach a certain overall state that allows further progress, instead of finding a key to unlock an area.  Your "key" then would be a situation.

One example of a situational milestone would be a character getting angry and throwing a tantrum.  That could be caused by any number of things, or even triggered automatically (if it was within character to spontaneously throw a tantrum).  If you had spatial limitations, the character would storm off and unlock whatever areas were needed or take some sort of route throughout a space.

I suppose this almost is a question of medium transparency and whether you want the reader to read a book or read a story.

For instance, I am learning to make a point in discussions to emphasise I do not make 'protest' games and that Dinner Date does not 'make fun of' powerful protagonists, because I want to prevent people start playing it as an artefact and rather play it as a game. I want the rule that you do not change Julian to be natural because the rules are what creates the experience. I suppose the same goes in Amnesia - that the screen blurs should be 'part of it', not something which feels unnatural. Rather Daniel's freight should feel unnatural and something to be avoided.

So perhaps some explicit rules (and non-standard implicit rules) should be pre-negotiated to make sure the player can engage the system in a meaningful way? That someone knocks me down in Zeno Clash feels like something undesirable because I do not 'accept' that characters can knock me down (or rather, they aught not to). But that experience is only possible because I force myself to live 'in' the rules which make the game possible.

This always leads to some meta-data which 'grows' on players. So perhaps, yes, I want part of the experience to be natural (and thereby transparent) because it is the gateway to better experiences.

I am beginning to believe that these rules becoming transparent is a growing process which force of mass has more influence on than cleverness.

@Thomas and God at play

In light of this, perhaps keys and valves are just rules we have accepted (even though they often make no real sense) and most situations are not?

I agree that part of the issue is to convince the player that certain things are just required. When playing mario, it is never questioned that you need to reach a flagpole or collect stars, the player just accept this as a condition for progress. I think these sort of things only work to a certain extent though, and especially when you slow down the pace these become harder to maintain. In mario you are so focused on the action, that any thoughts on the actual world are no of interest, so player never questions why there is a flagpole / star in the first place.

However, as you slow down the pacing of the game, and encourage the player to think about the game's world, all of this things become annoyances. Why do I have to collect stars? who put them there? and so on... This is a problem we faced instantly when in Penumbra: Requiem, we tried to loosen on the world/story coherency and just add fitting stuff. People started wonder why things were in that sort of state, and then in the were just pulled out of the experience.

I find this a huge difference between gamey games and more notgamey games. You must be so much more careful when world building. This is a very very good thing though. The will to encourage your audience to really think about and carefully experience your work, is the same that differs good and bad food (any art really!).

There is of course stuff that you do get away with, for example nobody complained about loading screens in Amnesia and similar, even though they are hardly supported by the fiction. The room for these kind of things is way smaller though.

The danger of conventions is that they are only useful for people who are familiar with them. Only to them can they become transparent enough to experience the rest of the fiction,

Gamers might think of Ico as an artistic masterpiece. But I once witnessed an non-gamer play it and she couldn't get into the atmosphere and the story at all. She was laughing all the time because the game conventions simply made the world seem absurd. It was embarrassing.

I want to take the term "design" in "game design" seriously in the way that furniture designers do. A chair is for sitting. Your reference as a designer is the body of the user. Not other chairs.