[MUD-Dev] Metrics for assessing game design

[David Kennerly]

Hey Adam,

I apologize for taking so long to reply.  I'm glad you posted it,
and I think the principles you mentioned are worth considering.
It's not what I usually think of when I think of "metrics," but I
agree with three paragraphs of principles.

Maybe I'm mistaking parlance.  I would expect a metric to contain a
standard unit of measurement that two independent experimenters
could test for under identical conditions and both return identical
results.  And that, like the instructions of an algorithm, a
metric's unit of measurement requires no cleverness to identify,
only the proper detection equipment or procedure.  All this could be
added to what you wrote, but it seemed to me that that addition
would be an immense amount of additional work.

> P.S. About 50% of those who've dismissed this out of hand have
> been professional games developers who felt that "of course it's
> not possible to rate fun,

Well, I'm not sure either way, before or after the reading the post.
It's one thought to say that it is or is not possible to rate fun.
It's a thousand more thoughts to say how.  Personally, I don't care
about the possibility of "rating fun" in theory, unless it is
strictly impossible; I care about it in practice.

Thanks a lot for the examples!  They clarify your points.  I enjoyed
the Bomberman example.  Right now, I'm still not sure I understand
the application to the example of Bomberman "powerdowns".

<http://www.kanga.nu/archives/MUD-Dev-L/2003Q3/msg00246.php>
On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 10:07:46 +0100 Adam Martin wrote:

> Worked examples:

...

>  Bomberman scores very on question one; every bomb re-shapes the
>  level (Which DOES matter because it alters how and where you will
>  meet your enemy). Even movement scores moderately well, because
>  of the slow speed of movement. Even choosing which powerup to
>  pick up scores well, because the fuse on bombs is so slow that
>  you have time to massively alter the effect of your bomb (by
>  picking up new powerups) before it goes off - and when you start,
>  the other player could be "trapped, but safe" but 3 seconds later
>  the other player could be "trapped, but safe" but 3 seconds later
>  the other player could be "trapped, but safe" but 3 seconds later
>  the other player could be "trapped, but safe" but 3 seconds later
>  "trapped, and about to die".
>  "trapped, and about to die".
>  "trapped, and about to die".
>  "trapped, and about to die".

>  The framework/metrics above suggest that bomberman could be
>  improved by adding "powerdowns". These would increase the ability
>  to alter the available actions: they give you some potential
>  opportunity to "conserve" powerdowns in case you became trapped by
>  a combination of your own bombs and other people's. You could then
>  downgrade your bombs, enabling you to stand closer to your bomb
>  without being caught in the explosion, and possibly even providing
>  safe space for you to survive.

There's a couple of things I'm unclear on.  Primarily, how does the
"framework/metrics above suggest that bomberman could be improved by
adding 'powerdowns'"?  Although I see your supporting evidence, I
don't see a chain of derivation from the framework proposed linking
to this example.  There are many things that could satisfy the
evaluation criteria that you listed.  Why a powerdown in particular?

The secondary point I'm confused on, which may be related to the
primary, is the details of the powerdown.  The Bombermans I've
played have one bomb button and one directional pad (DC) / joystick
(arcade), or arrows keys (PC).  One of them, incidentally a Korean
MMOG, does have a special button and does have special items not
related to the usual Bomberman set.  But for the most part the game
was four directional movements (one of four directions on the grid)
and one bomb placement button.  That's a total of five keys on a
keyboard.  Only five.  That's beautiful.  So how does the powerdown
get activated?  Or, is it picked up like a powerup is picked up?  It
seems like this was not what you intended, because almost no player
wants to pick up a blast range reduction after rushing around the
board to grab as many blast range increases as possible.

And then how does the powerdown work?  Does it powerdown bombs that
you have already placed?  To what degree does it powerdown?  Bombs
come in a wide variety of blast range, depending on the number of
flame powerups picked up.  This blast range is critical for
preventing an endgame stalemate between timid players.  Otherwise it
can often be a stale cat and mouse ending.  Of course, there's other
ways to solve this, but the powerdown as proposed as an isolatable
improvement would reintroduce the problem that the powerups solve.

Some of the excitement of bomberman is the problems you proposed
that a powerdown would solve.  It is precisely because one can be
cornered into no safe place to survive that enables the masters of
bomberman to make mortals of us all.  This facet of the game design
is enhanced by the inability to reduce bomb range.  Because then the
firepower up is not only a strategic advantage, it is a tactical
test of how well the player can use the additional blast range.  It
kills either player equally well.  Heated endgames of bomberman
sometimes completely consist of masterful bomb placements.  The lack
of powerdowns rewards this skill mastery--to a good end, too.

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