[MUD-Dev] Better Combat (long)

[Koster, Raph]

David Kennerly [mailto:kennerly at finegamedesign.com] wrote:
> Raph Koster wrote:

>> We can observe a gradual move towards increased formalism and
>> complexity in the development of almost any art form

> In videogames, we can observe a gradual move towards increased
> complexity in the development, for /less/ complexity in the
> consumption.

Really? What examples would you cite for this supposed trend? I
think that if you choose a given genre of game, you will tend to
find a pattern of increasing complexity over time, where neither the
less complex NOR the more complex examples tend to find wider
audiences.  Wider audiences tend to come solely at a wondewrful
moment caught at the cusp of complexity and (importantly) novelty.

Once a game is no longer novel, it tends to fall away in audience;
once a game is overly complex, it does likewise.

>> Given that games (in the formal sense) are formal mathematical
>> constructs, I think there's an interesting question to be had
>> there.

> A game is a cultural construct.  In the formal sense, a game is a
> formal ritual.  It is no more of a mathematical construct than a
> molecule or a right triangle is.  Some mathematicians model games,
> often as a recreation. As a meta-game?

IMHO, the core of games is formal and mathematical. Games are
centered on rules. Said rules operate on a known limited variable
set.

The rules and variable set are heavily influenced by culture, and in
that sense games are cultural constructs.

A game is a formal ritual. Rituals, however, are performed by
rote. The moment games become rote is the moment they cease to be
fun.

A molecule is a preexisting construct that obeys mathematical rules
implicit in reality. A right triangle is a pre-existing construct
that obeys mathematical rules implicit in reality (technically, only
in the Euclidean version of reality, but why quibble?). Games are
abstract constructs created to obey a set of arbitrary rules.

In the right triangle example, changing the geometry under which you
look at it may result in it no longer having angles that add up to
180 degrees. It may result in all the lines in the triangle actually
being parallel to one another.

The act of creating a geometry is actually very similar to the act
of designing a game. Each game ruleset is a toy universe with laws
of physics.

>> Given that games are fundamentally formal constructs and not,
>> generally, communicative media (unlike other art forms, which are
>> generally communications *mediated* by formal constructs) that
>> may mean that videogaming may be headed down the path trod by
>> chess and go--towards elites and no mass acceptance.

> To support your hypothesis, have you considered exemplars that are
> numerically-intense and have only a small, devout following?  For
> example, Outpost and Puerto Rico are elitist boardgames.  Or
> Phoenix Command, a pencil and paper small arms tactics sim with a
> 1000-sided hit location table.  Although purely strategic, Chess
> and Go are still two of the most popular boardgames on the planet.

Outpost and Puerto Rico are perfect examples of what I am talking
about.  So, for that matter, are Chess and Go. Frankly, being two of
the most popular boardgames on the planet leaves them in in a rather
small niche ghetto. :P Tic-tac-toe, Boxes, and Battleship probably
get played far more. The question is why more Tic-tac-toe players
don't become chess players.

> As for the viability of videogaming: When the top rentals of the
> week are Spiderman 2, Red Dead Revolver, and a slue of sports
> titles, it's a safe bet that the masses accept.

At the moment, certainly. The hypothetical was about the long term,
across generations.

> The trend of videogames is not elitism--it's speciation.  While
> some species embody complex rituals, to target some brand of
> elitism, others are simple, for the masses.  Videogames speciate
> to target subcultures, because economy of scale does not imply
> efficacy of entertainment.

You are asserting subcultures of complexity levels. This I agree
with.  However, I will assert that with games, people move on from
simpler to more complex, which is not necessarily something that
happens with books or music. There's an endless supply of books of
the same complexity level. However, the part that changes from book
to book is mostly peripheral to the core experience of the game.

I know I have argued in the past that the experience of the game is
what we need to assess, the game as a whole, but in this particular
debate I am really focusing on true formal game design, what you
termed "the art of the game." It doesn't matter how many pieces of
art you dress up Crash Bandicoot in, it's the same game, whether or
not it is sold as Donald Duck Goin' Quackers.

What I am proposing as a question is whether, as we speciate the
games, we gradually drop off the lower level of complexity in the
game designs, because the population as a whole is more educated in
the mechanics. We have seen this occur in many genres of games, and
it has always resulted in extreme nichification that eventually
chases away even those who like the genre, as the games become more
and more inbred and baroque.

The question is, is this inevitable for all games? The trend of
games is towards requiring competence in calculus (or
equivalent). When your eight-year-old is doing the equivalent of
calculus in order to play a platformer, are we going to limit the
number of eight-year-olds who will get into gaming?

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