[MUD-Dev] Uniqueness of Games

[Adam Martin]

[John Buehler]

> 3. Remove the artificial rewards that encourage frequent killing
> of animals.  No experience for killing animals that is
> interchangeable with experience from blacksmithing, hiking,
> political lobbying, sword and shield play, engineering, etc.  No
> gold, no gems.  The reward is the meat and hides, which should
> have a value that permits a character to reequip, but certainly
> not gain wealth.  Gaining of wealth should be restricted to those
> who engage in commerce.

One of the things about a good computer game is that it is
different. To what? To what/how you would normally be doing
things. I love skiing; I really enjoy the skiing arcade
machines. The two statements have no logical connection whatsoever
DESPITE the fact that the arcade machines come complete with fake
skis that you wiggle with your legs in order to control the man on
the screen (which is a control mechanism much more closely related
to skiing than say a joystick).

The enjoyment I get from the arcade is that the games are very
similar to Wipeout - they are racing type games but with a
"floating" feeling in terms of the responsiveness of the controls
(Wipeout simulates anti-gravity drives in a believably different way
to tyre-racing games, and the skiing game simulates sliding -
especially sideways slippage - that convincingly gives a
low-friction feeling).

I've belaboured the single, precise analogy too much already, but to
complete the picture the most obvious enjoyment from skiing is the
rush of wind past you and the exhilaration of travelling at very
high speed (I'd say "break-neck" but for the unfortunate truth of
such a description in some cases), combined with the freedom of
movement compared to running (don't know about you but I certainly
can't run full tilt down a mountain and instantaneously change
direction to move perpendicularly).

My point is that the closer successive arcade games come to real
skiing the less inclined I shall be to play them. I believe this is
for the same reason that various friends prefer to play "original"
tetris, and whilst fancy versions with 3D graphics and stunning
backdrops are tolerated (NOT enjoyed any more), those that subtly
alter the gameplay (in any attempt to improve/elaborate) are not
tolerated. Example: Yahoo's Tetris derivative.  Response of everyone
I know who has tried it "Whoa. Thats weird. Hang on, this is a
completely different game; I'd prefer Tetris, thanks.". They
actually enjoy a game which is deliberately as simple as merely
falling blocks that you rotate in an attempt to create complete
lines.

Now, to tie that in with the bit of John's email that I've quoted,
I've been thinking about the playability aspect of games, and have
moved away from my original thinking - "Simulate reality
(imagined/science fiction or genuine) and just remove/blur the bits
that are less enjoyable, but keep the details that are enjoyable" -
towards a much more "What can we change that makes computer-game
imitation of reality (real or imagined) and that blatantly breaks
the suspension of disbelief but actually makes the whole concept
more fun?". The key bit of John's quote that I refer to is the
phrase "Remove the artificial rewards". Now, surely almost any game
with a score in the top left corner (i.e traditional arcade style
fare) has explicitly added an artificial reward that directly
results in extra enjoyment? And similarly with other deliberate
non-real changes. E.g. off the top of my head a different situation
is Wolfenstein 3D. If you wrote it today, your practically genocidal
activities (rather high body count for one prisoner with a knife!) 
on level 1 would have the guards on higher levels coming looking for
you - all at once, with big guns, before you even left the level :)
- and I'm all for that, it seems a fun idea to me. However, you need
to remember that now we are talking about a *different game* - not
an improved one, just a different one. The way you play (and hence
enjoy) the new game will be entirely different from the way you
play(ed) Wolf3d.

To be clear, I'm not contradicting John at all - his phrase simply
sparked my thinking - and IMHO Everquest and others are too shallow
(for my tastes) on simulation, but I think one can very very easily
swing too far into simulation if you lose sight of "what makes a
GAME version of something different" and more importantly WHY you
want it to be different. It is definitely not merely the "removal of
bits that are less fun whilst retaining the fundamental enjoyable
bit" - that can be true, but we have so much more freedom to do more
than that, with much greater affect on playability/fun. I think its
a generic expression of many people's dislike with the transition
from paper RPGs to CRPGs.

Adam M
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev