I've been trying to understand some of the mechanics that some games use to turn mundane subject matter (like running a diner or farm) into interesting gameplay. What elements do you think are key? In the ones I've been looking at (variants of Diner Dash, Plant Tycoon, Farm Frenzy, Harvest Moon), I see that one important mechanic is planning and resource allocation under some deadline. Some require a bit of hand-eye coordination and (as is common in match 3s) skill in pattern / image recognition and quick clicking. The actual ability to act is sometimes a resource itself-- in that there are many things to do, but only a limited time to do them in. In some, the distance an avatar has to move to take an action creates a resource bottleneck. In other's, it's up to the player's mousing speed when clicking on objects or characters in order to assign an action (like clean a hotel room, or take an order). I also notice that the more mundane the activity, the more it seems to help to have a lot of different activities running concurrently. I'm not sure if this is key, but it also may help that the player does not control the minutae of each action (such as actually moving a chacter along a path to then take an order and return with it). What other aspects do you think are important?

I think there are two rules that are most important.

+ It needs to be slightly intellectual. It should make the player think out each step.
+ It needs to be rewarding. It should lead to a player-desired goal.

Usually "thinking" gameplay is enough to avoid being mundane. Laying out a city in Sim City, for example. The player needs to be aware of several variables during that activity. The reward is to watch it develop, and to earn virtual money for more mundane activity. That activity probably seemed far more mundane to the designer than to players. As the creator of these activities, you're going to be seeing them in a much dimmer light than your players.

In a way, computer programming is the ultimate mundane activity [smile]

I think it's about goal, strategy, and identity. The game gives you an identity - often that of a poor clueless nobody, but one who is given an opportunity. You are thus motivated to become rich and renowned by developing a masterful understanding of how the game world works. The strategy is how using your understanding of the game world allows you to succeed where, had you actually been clueless, you would have failed; sometimes this means where you actually failed last time. Specific goals are how the game directs your efforts and benchmarks your changing identity; running out of specific goals is the most common reason people lose motivation and stop playing games that do not have a plot-based ending.

I think its also about competition. Even if you are playing offline, one player, if you are playing the game for anything past the second time you are competing against yourself.

Mundane games that players can quickly progress through and complete are not engaging. The games that you return to again and again and again are those where you are "determined" to better that higher score.

It worked well for atari - nothing simpler and more repetitive (if this is the description of mundane)than the atari games. But the stickability comes from the competition element.

I think it can be brought down to 2 simple aspects: scoring and rules. Scoring is measuring how well you do (win? lose? high score?) and the rules are the protocol that prescribes which choices form part of the game being played and which choices do not.

eg. I walk to work every morning, but if I start timing myself,and acknowledge that I must count the time from my front door to work's front door, then it can be something of a game, especially since the rules allow me to choose different routes.

Quote:

Original post by fantasy couriers I think its also about competition. Even if you are playing offline, one player, if you are playing the game for anything past the second time you are competing against yourself. Mundane games that players can quickly progress through and complete are not engaging. The games that you return to again and again and again are those where you are "determined" to better that higher score. It worked well for atari - nothing simpler and more repetitive (if this is the description of mundane)than the atari games. But the stickability comes from the competition element.

Just to expand on this a little.
Atari appeared to live by the rule "simple to learn, hard to master".
In many respects Nintendo's Wii Sports is the modern day successor to many of Atari's 2600 titles. It takes very little to swing your arm to return the Tennis ball. The process of returning the ball is very satisfying and therefore the game is both accessible and enjoyable.
In order to compete at a higher level however you will need to time your return and apply varying amounts of spin.

I think also it's about the optimization gameplay; finding that particular setup that brings in maximum profit/progress with as little effort or cost as possible. Whenever I play Sim City, Sim Tower, or other such games (Restaurant Empire, Tropico, etc), you are sort of being told to find the best setup in a given condition so that you can then have access to the next level of the game's options - this sort of thing continues until you've reached a point in which you're a billionaire or run an establishment of billionaires and have access to all of the game's provided options. And once that happens, there is usually little replay value left as you then simply repeat the same layout you discovered to get the same results in your next replay. The only other thing to do once you've "beaten the game" is to experiment and/or role play with the game, but unless your game isn't also heavily about role playing in the first place, I don't think there would be any replay in that either.

If you're looking a way to vary the replay of a goal-oriented optimization game (and there can be many ways to do this, including the addition of RPG elements into the game), you could offer randomized conditions to the player to which the player will then always have to discover new optimal setups in each of those unique situations - but this will only work if the objects that the players are working with (such as structure placements, services, and etc) don't excel universally in every situation, and rather, specialize in particular situations. Too often as you get to the title of "billionaire" or some equivalent, you begin to have access to structures/services/tools that work the best under every circumstance - that I think really limits the game's replay variation.

[Edited by - Tangireon on September 23, 2008 5:44:37 PM]

Quote:

What Turns The Mundane Into Gameplay?

Introducing a leveling system and calling it an MMO.

The graphics and sound are important as well as the things occuring within these games that turn the mundame into gameplay. For example, in diner dash, if you don't move quick enough, you see the customers begin to get angry and express their anger in noises which adds to the entertainment value. Not to mention that the graphical style used makes things more exxagerated.