http://www.gignews.com/
In the Game Design section

Thanks for the help with the correct words! I'll be doing a little work on it each night and it should turn up in the January (i got goods spellings todays ) issue. Damn this brain, anyone got a spare. I am planning on having a few case examples of this theory for show too.

The reason why i'm using the seesaw is becasue it's something everyone will understand. Also because the theory is a attempt to help build a solid foundation for my understanding of Game Design.

An example of the fulcrum in work is exactly what Dwaftsoft is working on with the "Freeflowing combat system", it's an example of making a fulcrum that is less contrictive and thus increases a higher achievable skill level in the game for the player. Where as the "lever/plank of wood" is what the player could use in the game like a sword or a spell. The "Lever" or "Plank of Wood" is what sits across the fulcrum, did i just say that? ummm. Hows that for an explaination of an explanation

So basically if you make the fulcrum more free-willed then it will "more likely" be harder to balance the game.

Definition of Progress: Durability control (see Financial interests of stockholders)

Edited by - Paul Cunningham on November 16, 2000 4:28:20 AM

I don''t mean to sound arrogant Dwarfsoft but i was thinking that if you''d be willing or able to narrow down the Freeflowing combat system idea into a couple of easy to read paragraphs i''d really like to use it as an example in this contribution? Email me if it appeals to you
paulwc@cherry.com.au

Definition of Progress: Durability control (see Financial interests of stockholders)

I am already doing so, and would be willing to hand over such material ... Actually, I have been saving a copy of every thread from the last year (well, almost every thread, I started at the bottom and am up to June 25th) and am doing so to read through and get ideas. There is a lot of good old stuff down there...

Anyway... I will see if I can get it written up within the next couple of days... I have an exam on Saturday, so don''t expect it before then

-Chris Bennett of Dwarfsoft - Site:"The Philosophers'' Stone of Programming Alchemy" - IOL
The future of RPGs - Thanks to all the goblins over in our little Game Design Corner niche
          

quote: Original post by dwarfsoft

I am already doing so, and would be willing to hand over such material ... Actually, I have been saving a copy of every thread from the last year (well, almost every thread, I started at the bottom and am up to June 25th) and am doing so to read through and get ideas. There is a lot of good old stuff down there...

Anyway... I will see if I can get it written up within the next couple of days... I have an exam on Saturday, so don''t expect it before then

-Chris Bennett of Dwarfsoft - Site:"The Philosophers'' Stone of Programming Alchemy" - IOL
The future of RPGs - Thanks to all the goblins over in our little Game Design Corner niche
          

No rush champ, no rush. It''s more important that it''s short and to the point clearly. I''ll be sending my stuff away early December. I''ll be working on it constantly but until you do your stuff i''ll leave space there for you. Cheers


Definition of Progress: Durability control (see Financial interests of stockholders)

The reason why I can get it written up so quickly is because I have already been doing so for the Doc as it is anyway... But I will write up a formal short version for you before December... I am not sure how likely it is that I can get on the net in December anyway... Hmmm

-Chris Bennett of Dwarfsoft - Site:"The Philosophers'' Stone of Programming Alchemy" - IOL
The future of RPGs - Thanks to all the goblins over in our little Game Design Corner niche
          

Yurg. *Gets out red pen*
The following is meant as constructive criticism.

I think your analogy could be better. Folks are going to confuse the balance in balancing beams with the balance in game balance. And before you even have a good definition you run off comparing different games on the basis of the confusing analogy.

"one way is to examine a game is in terms of its two
basic structures: The fulcrum and the balancing beam"

Here you''re confusing the basic structures of a game with the basic structures of the see-saw. You''re applying the model before the reader can understand it. To put it another way, I''ve looked through several game design books, and I don''t see a chapter on fulcrums as a basic part of the game design.

A better sentence would be:
"one way to examine a game is to divide it into two basic areas: a fulcrum and a balancing beam"

Now you can properly lead into a definition of the two.

Instead, you proceed with:
"The fulcrum is an easy part to overlook in game design because
it’s often the first and no one likes going back to the drawing board to change this after doing a lot of work later but
sometimes it’s necessary. "

This should be part of your conclusion. The reader still doesn''t know what you''re talking about.

"So what is the fulcrum? Well all you have to do is have a look at one of the oldest games in history to see what I’m talking
about - the seesaw. The fulcrum of every game is the rule set devised by the game designer that can not be changed by the
player no matter what they do, it just stays put whilst everything else swings to and fro overhead. "

Ok, now you start to define the analogy. But instead of defining it, you say: look at a see-saw. So now I''m looking at a see-saw. Then you jump back to "the fulcrum in game design". What was that bit about the see-saw? Arrgh! Use some transitions, man, and decide what we''re talking about, see-saws or computer games!

And you mix the analogy halfway into the last sentence of the chunk above, further confusing things.

The next paragraph is only worse:
"Generally the fulcrum is the foundation of every game design, the foundations that every game designer must work off"

This sounds as if the fulcrum is the same rule set in every game.

Then:
"A
constricting set of rules as seen in the game Snakes and Ladders will end up leading to lower achievable skill levels in the
game whereas Quake or other 3D Arena FPS will an almost unlimited flexability will naturaly lead to a high achievable skill
level within the games parameters – this is the fulcrum at work."

Huh? What? Skill levels? What are we talking about here? Player skill? That doesn''t usually come in levels. Some stat in the game? And what does this have to do with a constricting set of rules? I here someone just recently set a new world record at the arcade game donkey kong. Is this a result of ''the fixed rule set of the game?''

" It’s not always this easy to see what the fulcrum rules in a game are"

It gets more obscure? And when did the fulcrum (''fixed rule set'') become an adjective (''fixed rule set rules''). Use it as one or the other, but not both.

Honestly, go review a freshman comp book, or at least get yourself a copy of Strunk & White.

I would also try a slightly different break in the pieces, not revolving around the player perspective. After all, there are things that are fixed from a player perspective (relative unit strnegth) that are easy to tweak as needed. Then there are things that are fixed from the player perspective (how initiative is determined) which are difficult to tweak. Then there are the things that aplayer does get to change, like how many factories he has built during a scenario, which are pretty much out of the hands of the game designers unless you advocate gross limits on player action.

JSwing@wport.com

Yes i know that i'm not the best writer in the world ok. And i have been working on it for the last 8hrs and seen a lot of these problems. There would be no way i would send out something half baked to get published on a website with my name on it. And i'm very appreicative of the feedback annon.

Since that first post i've also realized quite a few mistakes in the analogy itself even without the grammatical and context corrections. You just beat me by a few seconds actually because i was going to close this thread and start a new one a fresh. But your pointers have been very helpful, i hope i didn't cause any brain veins to explode. Oh well, thanks again and i shall take heed of your advice, cheers.

One more time for the dumbies
ar+gu+ment n. A discussion in which reasons are put forward in support of and against a proposition, proposal, or case; debate.

Edited by - Paul Cunningham on November 16, 2000 11:20:47 AM

Ooops, clicked on reply instead of edit. Lets try again.

Edited by - Paul Cunningham on November 16, 2000 11:19:54 AM

Reread my post and it had a bit more sting than I meant.

I look forward to your finished article.

quote: Original post by Anonymous Poster

Reread my post and it had a bit more sting than I meant.

Sting? Only if one gets emotionally attached to their work in a way that i don''t. I still appreciate the advice/pointers. But i shall re-read it again, maybe i''ve forgoten something already?!

One more time for the dumbies
ar+gu+ment n. A discussion in which reasons are put forward in support of and against a proposition, proposal, or case; debate.