Why is the palette of situations and encounters so broad in board games yet so narrow in video games? After playing a wild variety of board games over the years I've been continually amazed by how difficult it is to try and achieve the same variety of situations, challenges and encounters in computer games. In board and card games I've played everything from a zombie fry cook to a lawyer of accused witches during a parody of the Salem witch trials, not to mention a struggling urbanite or lost soul trying to evolve consciousness. In most video games, I'm some sort of combatant, whether I be a soldier, general, spaceship, tank or whatever. Occasionally I'm a manager of something or leader. Very rarely I get to be something completely orthogonal to combat or management, as in the Sims--but in these cases my encounters, choices and situations often revolve around time management and spatial strategy. Casual games offer an exception: In Flower, you're the wind. Diner Dash makes you a waitress. And games like Katamari Damacy offer you a completely abstract role. Full blown simulations are also exceptions. But for most hardcore games, it's often either boot camp or MBA classes. Even MMOs, which often offer a huge variety of professions would falter without some amount of crossed swords or weapon blasts. In contrast, when you create cards or squares / nodes for a card or board and then assign rules and resources to control what happens when you encounter them the possibilities seem limitless. I'm not sure why-- maybe it's the level of abstraction or because the format forces you to use your imagination. Yet unless you're willing to ape the same format for a computer game (such as the computer port of Life) there seems to be some sort of restriction (either in imagination, technology or gamer / designer culture) that prevents us from broadening the palette of situations and encounters we can expose our players to. We give them war, tactics, swords and gun emplacements, but precious little else. Why?

I believe that it's not that video games can't be abstract or different often, but that the majority of the gaming community want to be submersed in a game where they can play in a role that they normally don't come in contact with. Something that they only dream of doing, like being a wizard conjuring spells in a MMO or fighting terrorists overseas. Most developers make the same type of games because they think it's what the people want. Obviously not the same idea with casual games, like you said.

Yet, casual games are still video games, so it's not that video games aren't as broad as board games in general, just most hardcore games.

There are some PC games which have an interesting setup and gameplay... take the Fallout series for example but of course what you say its true.

I love playing board games more than video games because of the human interaction. Some people may say a game of (e.g.) Risk is the same in a PC or in a board game. Or playing Magic The Gathering against Magic The Gathering Online. For me its a completely different experience. I like people to be there to talk, chat, complain about rules, have a beer and... if there is enough time... play. In fact playing the game for me is just an excuse for the former. You just cant do that in a video game.

In the computer game world, millions are spent in creating a game and the large developers try to keep on the most profitable franchises to guarantee their money return. That limits a lot of variety. I.E. I gave a friend of mine a PS3 as a gift (I owed him a lot) and the first thing he did was going to the store and bought a control and Pro Evolution Soccer 98. Some time later we were talking and he told me... hey I bought a new game for the PS3!!!!... Pro Evolution Soccer 99!!!...

Soooooooo... companies already have niches and try to profit from them but people is guilty for not requesting more from them.

Indie games are interesting exactly for the opposite. They cant compete against the monster studios but can risk in different approaches. So you get a lot of interesting games at very low prices. Some of them get famous and the big companies will buy them (and probably ruin the franchise) but thats how it goes... if you want innovation... go for the indies.

Unfortunatel you cannot innovate much. A lot of people just likes an easy game and not an overtly complex one. There are a lot of excellent games which simply werent understood and were forgotten (does anybody remember Master of Orion or Master of Magic?)

For me, I found my objective as an indie is to build a muliplayer gaming platform for turna based games (cards, board, etc). Im in the process of that trying to build a game which combines Magic The Gathering and Warcraft 3. My objective is to build a platform strong enough to be the base of future games I have in mind. So I plan to develop board games on the web but where the units are alive and can move and will fight, spit fire, fire a missile, that is a live board game with a lot of communication options to chat and video conference. The only thing missing will be the beer and the pizza.

Luck!
Guimo

Quote:

Original post by Kenny G I believe that it's not that video games can't be abstract or different often, but that the majority of the gaming community want to be submersed in a game where they can play in a role that they normally don't come in contact with. Something that they only dream of doing, like being a wizard conjuring spells in a MMO or fighting terrorists overseas. Most developers make the same type of games because they think it's what the people want. Obviously not the same idea with casual games, like you said. Yet, casual games are still video games, so it's not that video games aren't as broad as board games in general, just most hardcore games.

I'd have to agree with this point more than any other. People want to be submerged and quite frankly, board games don't submerge you more than video games. In board games, there are no side-stories, no character development, no dialogue between characters, no music, etc. In the end, some ideas and characters may make great board games but they don't translate well to video games or perhaps they are just terribly executed.

Hi, I don't actually know what the topic is, some thoughts:

o Board/card games are games because the players voluntarily enforce the game rules; in video game, players often try to cheat the rules.

o Board/card games are trivial to implement as video games (if the player can dig playing virtual board/card games over the internet.) On the other hand, board/card games cannot effectively emulate video games. It would take the player forever to calculate the changes by hand to play an equally complicated board game version of SimCity. Video game picks up the designs that were impossible to implement as card games. Say combat, what are you going to do to represent violent? Tear your opponent's cards apart? Smash their plastic pieces? It would be too expensive to play. You can't spawn a new card from thin air either.

Quote:

Original post by Wavinator But for most hardcore games, it's often either boot camp or MBA classes. Even MMOs, which often offer a huge variety of professions would falter without some amount of crossed swords or weapon blasts.

Why are hardcore video/computer games mostly action-oriented? I'd say because they can (sprites/GPU), it is more attention-grabbing to see something than to read/imagine it, and digital game interfaces have always been designed to specialize more in handling action-oriented subject matter anyways.

Take a look at the history of digital gaming - from the days of Pong and the joystick, to the rectangular NES gamepads that played Super Mario Bros., to the modern console interfaces we have today - console interfaces were designed from the very begining to be about action (with very few exceptions). PCs however, because their interfaces aren't as restrictive as that of the consoles (a keyboard has a hellavalot more buttons, and a mouse is just like your hand), were able to adopt both tabletop games as well as action games.

Tabletop games, on the other hand, aren't as limited in its interfacing as digital games, but only on how they communicate their ideas to their players. They rely primarily on the players' ability to recreate scenes in their own minds; then you might have things that help this process along such as board pieces, cards, and sometimes just dice and some sheets of paper and pens (Dungeons and Dragons). When your medium is primarily in the players' minds, I'd say you aren't as limited in adopting ideas in a tabletop game as you would be in a video/computer game (with all of its individual resources such as graphics, code, sound, music, etc).

Quote:

Original post by Wavinator Why is the palette of situations and encounters so broad in board games yet so narrow in video games?

Probably because it's a lot more expensive to create animated sprites/models, write code, send out and maintain software than it is to publish your own rulebook and setting for a tabletop game, unless your tabletop game involves miniatures. When lots of investment is involved, people would want to know that what they are investing in will be secure, that it will make them money, hence the clones and genres. Indie games, however, because a lot less investment is made to making them overall, we are able to see subject matters that are completely different than that of your traditional "game subject matters". You also have a lot of other examples in the main industry where companies took chances, and have made really different games.

[Edited by - Tangireon on March 6, 2009 12:59:16 AM]

Quote:

Original post by Guimo For me, I found my objective as an indie is to build a muliplayer gaming platform for turna based games (cards, board, etc).

http://www.brettspielwelt.de/?nation=en

I think that the difference is between the medium. There are some things it is easier to do in computer games, and because there is no competition (not that it would be a significant competition for either mind you) for these there, then the market naturally moves towards these.

Board games are more of the social experience. Players will spend a lot of time interacting outside of the game with other players. As most of our communication is non verbal (around 80 percent IIRC), then using voice over IP will never give the same socialisation experience as you can get in real life.

Computers, on the other hand, are really good at moving things around on the screen fast. Due to the communications restrictions, any communications needs to be simple (like orders, etc) and verbal. This means that combat games, or games where the information is highly organises (so not much direct communication between players is needed) will be easier to do.

So to sound bite it: Board games are the way they are because of the people you play with, where as computer games are the way they are because computers limit the range of communications.

Quote:

Original post by Wavinator Yet unless you're willing to ape the same format for a computer game (such as the computer port of Life) there seems to be some sort of restriction (either in imagination, technology or gamer / designer culture) that prevents us from broadening the palette of situations and encounters we can expose our players to. We give them war, tactics, swords and gun emplacements, but precious little else. Why?

I think you have partialy answered the question yourself.

For the most part board and card games don't have the technical hurtles to jump in development. You don't need a team of specialised persons to publish a card or board game. No programers, no musicians, no voice talent, no 3D modelers, animators and level designers, no GUI, no API, no bug reports, producers, video game publishers.

For less than $5 you can get some index cards and develop a card game. Spend time playtesting that, refineing what you created. Then have an artist (or DIY) design up the final cards before sending them off to a printer for replication. Basicly sidestepping all those programers, muscisians, 3D modelrs, animators, level designers, GUI and API issues and software bugs, producers and video game publishers...that can act as both a filter and funnel to reshapeing what the game designer might of had in mind originaly.

Additionaly video games seem to become less and less abstract with each new generation. And thier players are becomeing more critical of largely irrelevant details...perfect rag-doll physics in FPS games for example. Used to be that just a simple animation was all thats required to inform the player that a hostile enemy will trouble them no more...now, that enemy better tumble over with acurite rag-doll physics or gamers are going to voice thier displeasure.

Of course there might also be a "reap what you sow" effect going on. Kinda like people who are fans of Metallica wanting to form thier own band, that sounds a lot like Metallics which inspires others to follow suit. With such narrow focus and repeated motifs, real innovation can only proceed at a glacial pace.

Quote:

Original post by Tangireon Why are hardcore video/computer games mostly action-oriented? I'd say because they can (sprites/GPU), it is more attention-grabbing to see something than to read/imagine it, and digital game interfaces have always been designed to specialize more in handling action-oriented subject matter anyways.

This is a good point, but I wonder if something about our nature is more at work here. Did you ever see the ad for Coca Cola done in the Grand Theft Auto theme? If not, it depicts the lead character doing all sorts of good deeds as he walks about the town. It plays great for the Coke brand, riffing on the emotion of love and contrasting it with actions that look like they're about to be violent, but I doubt it would be received well in the gore drenched hardcore market.

If it's true that we want to be submerged, I think it's interesting to ask what it says about us that we want to be submerged in violence and death.

Quote:

Tabletop games, on the other hand, aren't as limited in its interfacing as digital games, but only on how they communicate their ideas to their players. They rely primarily on the players' ability to recreate scenes in their own minds; then you might have things that help this process along such as board pieces, cards, and sometimes just dice and some sheets of paper and pens (Dungeons and Dragons). When your medium is primarily in the players' minds, I'd say you aren't as limited in adopting ideas in a tabletop game as you would be in a video/computer game (with all of its individual resources such as graphics, code, sound, music, etc).

The visualization factor is a great point. However, you would think that the more abstract the game, the wider the palette of situations. (I'm thinking turn-based games, which are mostly still about war).

Quote:

Quote: Original post by Wavinator Why is the palette of situations and encounters so broad in board games yet so narrow in video games? Probably because it's a lot more expensive to create animated sprites/models, write code, send out and maintain software than it is to publish your own rulebook and setting for a tabletop game, unless your tabletop game involves miniatures. When lots of investment is involved, people would want to know that what they are investing in will be secure, that it will make them money, hence the clones and genres. Indie games, however, because a lot less investment is made to making them overall, we are able to see subject matters that are completely different than that of your traditional "game subject matters". You also have a lot of other examples in the main industry where companies took chances, and have made really different games.

True, conservative business practices have a lot to do with it.

However, even for indie games I'm amazed at how difficult it is to come up with noncombat interactions between characters that offers the kind of challenge and cyclical scalability that you get with combat. You could make a game about doing good deeds, for instance, but where would the challenge lie? What would you do, charge up a smile or pat on the back? Not the same feeling.