If you know exactly what's going to happen, you don't have game anymore, you have just work. What are uncertainty generators in a game? 1) Complexity - the game rules are so complex it is very hard to predict accurately what is going to happen. Chess, civilisation. 2) Politics based multiplayer - in a game with more human players, if a group of players follows a common purpose, they can acomplish anything. The boardgame Diplomacy: if all players on the map decide to destroy you, they can, even if (because) you are very clearly ahead of them. Sanity would likely stop them from doing such things - in every cooperation some players stand to win/lose more than the others. Sanity however is seldom a certainty. 3) Plain Random - always reliable. See the cards in the game of Risk. Headshots combined with random weapon fire in Counterstrike. 4) Lack of knowledge - the fog of war in the average RTS. If you don't know the state of the game, you obviously aren't certain of it's conclusion, even if you have zero chances of actually winning. 5) Constrained reaction - it may be that in a game there is a simple strategy that always allows the bigger player to win. The designer can make such strategy impossible to apply by breaking the tight move-countermove cycle: a) lack of knowledge - you can't react to something you don't know about (also point 4 above) b) constrained orders: difficult micro-management - point 6 below c) constrained orders: the game simulation advances in large turns - the player's decision making only happens between the turns. It doesn't matter whether the game simulation works in realtime (Laser Squad Nemesis - great game btw.) or not (Diplomacy boardgame). The point is much can happen between the player's decisions. 6) Physical challenges - hand eye coordination is never certain. From 2d platform games to the average RTS countless games get their uncertainty this way. ______________________________________ Pax Solaris [edited by - Diodor on January 3, 2004 3:32:18 AM]

In reading your post, I realized I can break games down into 3 classes:

• Those I play with other people, such as Monopoly, Poker, Rummy, chess, etc. Winning is very important.
  
• Those I play on the computer that don't really pretend to be anything other than a standard traditional game, except I'm playing against the computer or as a solitaire type game, such as Freecell or chess. I want to win those types of games.
  
• And lastly, your more traditional computer game, such as an RPG, an FPS or something similar. In such cases, I don't really care about winning or not. If winning is required to make the game fun - then the game is a failure, and I'd rather play cards with some friends. I want an immersive experience.

I wish more people could figure that out.

[edited by - bishop_pass on January 1, 2004 3:25:11 PM]

In which category would you place an online/LAN multiplayer game? Or does it deserve a 4th?

And depending on your answer... why do you feel that a traditional card/board game should be more about winning than a mutiplayer game?

quote:

---

Original post by bishop_pass

And lastly, your more traditional computer game, such as an RPG, an FPS or something similar. In such cases, I don't really care about winning or not. If winning is required to make the game fun - then the game is a failure, and I'd rather play cards with some friends. I want an immersive experience.

---

I maintain that even for a game where winning is not important, uncertainty is: predictable is boring.

It's hard for me to imagine a game where winning is not important though. Whether the designer imposes goals on the player or the player chooses goals for himself - these goals can be achieved with a lesser or higher degree of success - isn't this a form of losing or winning too? A game that has nothing to do with winning would hence have no goals - but how can a player do anything at all without goals?

______________________________________

Pax Solaris


[edited by - Diodor on January 1, 2004 4:49:02 PM]

Another uncertainty is in the story. This is especially true in RPGs that are easy to win but you still play because you are interested in watching the story unfold.

And your point about it becoming work is illustrated when you play one of those single-dimensional story-based games a second time. It is indeed work.

So would this add to a category already mentioned or should you add #7 Story suspense?

quote:

---

Original post 5010

Another uncertainty is in the story. This is especially true in RPGs that are easy to win but you still play because you are interested in watching the story unfold.

And your point about it becoming work is illustrated when you play one of those single-dimensional story-based games a second time. It is indeed work.

So would this add to a category already mentioned or should you add #7 Story suspense?

---

I agree with story being a different uncertainty category. Perhaps it should be included in a larger category: "undiscovered assets" - all the stuff the player doesn't yet know about in the game is in this category: story, unit types, game rules, levels, easter eggs etc. The old adventure games depended almost entirely on this type of uncertainty.

______________________________________

Pax Solaris

[edited by - Diodor on January 3, 2004 3:39:11 AM]

quote:

---

Original post by Diodor
1) Complexity - the game rules are so complex it is very hard to predict accurately what is going to happen. Chess, civilisation.

---

It''s not the rules that make it hard to predict, it''s the other player. In chess the rules are extremely simple and easy to predict. "I move my queen there, your rook dies". Simple. Easy. Always happens that way. No random chance that might cause the queen to lose(see risk). The complexity comes from the other player.

bishop_pass, I totally disagree with your classifications. First you make a completely irrelevant distinction between playing against computer or human -- Why? And this group only included traditional games, though RTS games are pretty much in the same category(ies). And the last class is, "don''t care about winning". Hunh? Usually people who play RPG, FPS may not care about winning the game overall, but they''re interested in local wins anyway, and satisfied by them. Winning the monster in front of you being the most common. I''d say that in most (if not all) RPGs and FPSs, winning *is* required to make the game fun. If you just lose the fights all the time or wander around without a goal, the game gets frustrating and boring.

And where does Tetris fall? I care about winning myself when I play Tetris, and I''m not looking for immersion from Tetris.

All in all, what weird classification. No wonder more people haven''t figured it out. And won''t.

quote:

---

I''d say that in most (if not all) [...] FPSs, winning *is* required to make the game fun. If you just lose the fights all the time or wander around without a goal, the game gets frustrating and boring.

---

I quite disagree with you. In fps it could be about team winning or about you winning or both. Think of the team strategy in Counter Strike. Most of the time timing is the key issue (that''s immersion). It just doesn''t matter what happens next (which is a fight of about 10 seconds tops) - it''s all about the team moving together et all.

A