I was thinking about how the logics of a game design work so cohesively that it makes things look empty. So you''ve layed out the economics, combat, character structures, societies, and what not and it seems as though the game lacks content. What i''m talking about is when you patch up a game design becasue you feel that something else should be included then these patches seem to add content in their own right. I''m refering to a patch as dirt as some of you may already know. I''m starting to think that better game designs are not one''s that work perfectly cohesively but work better to incorporate change, similar to code in a way. But then you''re back where you started with a design that just looks too smooth. I think that there''s definity a balance in game design where the system as a whole must be balancing somewhere between too smooth and too patchy. I''d like to here your people''s thoughts on this. "So you're the one that designed that game are you?" *Gulp* "Umm, yeah"

I''m struggling to understand what you mean. To me, the greatest goal is to have a clean, smooth design. What this means to me is that the fiction, the gameplay, the universe, etc., all look rightly fit... like everything belongs.

I''m not sure *why* this would be a problem. (In fact, I''m being tortured by the fact that my design __I''SNT__ this way yet )

Maybe an example of too clean would help?




--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

I have this problem with Drem Pod 9''s tabletop RPG products. The system is by far my favorite ever, and the worlds are very deep. But they don''t have any of the quirky, ripped off bullshit that all the other P&P RPGs do, and so I can''t shake the feeling that something''s missing...

Wavinator; just think about it and if you can''t quite put your finger on what i''m talking about then i''ll respond but give it a while first and just leave the ole think tank on in the mean while.

"So you're the one that designed that game are you?"
*Gulp* "Umm, yeah"

Monkey wrenches.

We constantly envision how our plans for the day, week, etc. are going to unfold.

But there are always monkey wrenches coming in from left field. Stuff that just wasn''t predictable, didn''t belong in our scripted plot for the day. But that''s life. It''s never smooth, cohesive, or perfectly on track.

"Incorporate change"... you mean like "Auran Jet" with its software upgrade modules?

quote: Original post by Paul Cunningham

Wavinator; just think about it and if you can''t quite put your finger on what i''m talking about then i''ll respond but give it a while first and just leave the ole think tank on in the mean while.

*wavinator scratches head. this fails to make the neurons do anything useful...*



--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

We''ll there''s no such thing as a perfect game right? So what does a perfect game design mean? It can''t be done, it''s the wrong frame of mind to think that it can. If everything in the game worked 100% then you would end up going around in circles, getting nowhere right? Because a patch is something that isn''t native to the original game structure and usually leads to inconclusions somewhere along the line. If everything is native and well balanced like a perfect ecosystem then nothing will evolve from the game, you''ll just keep going around in circles.

"So you're the one that designed that game are you?"
*Gulp* "Umm, yeah"

You are making me dizzy.

quote: Original post by Paul Cunningham

We''ll there''s no such thing as a perfect game right? So what does a perfect game design mean? It can''t be done, it''s the wrong frame of mind to think that it can. If everything in the game worked 100% then you would end up going around in circles, getting nowhere right? Because a patch is something that isn''t native to the original game structure and usually leads to inconclusions somewhere along the line. If everything is native and well balanced like a perfect ecosystem then nothing will evolve from the game, you''ll just keep going around in circles.

Okay, now the neurons are really misfiring.

Let''s say my intention is to design Chess. I want perfect symmetry and balance. I don''t want there to be one killer strategy. I want the game to work well in social groups.

Now, let''s say I get it right the first time, and conceive of Chess as it is today. Urrrrrr... am I missing your point? This kind of success doesn''t seem circular to me.

*maybe I can''t understand because of all the caffiene I''m drinking *

--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...