[MUD-Dev] Better Combat (long)

[David Kennerly]

Raph Koster wrote:

>> 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?

A few that come to mind are Diablo, Virtua Tennis, Crazy Taxi, Tony
Hawk Pro Skater, BnB, Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker, Return of the
King, Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, and ... City of Heroes.

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

Mathematics is the manipulation formal systems.  Thus, some
mathematicians model games.  The reason we might think a game is a
mathematical construct is because so many mathematicians have played
and theorized about several games.

> 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.

Touche.  :)

> A molecule is a preexisting construct that obeys mathematical
> rules implicit in reality.

In 1857, Arthur Cayley was looking for molecules when he enumerated
several kinds of graphs, known as trees.  These predicted
undiscovered molecules.  But the math didn't exist before.  He
invented it.  So it's not that molecules follow mathematics.  It's
that mathematicians followed molecules and didn't stop until they
found models that fit.

> 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?).

Euclid explained geometry well, but before him right triangles
existed.  It took centuries before trigonometry, the mathematics of
right triangles, was complete.  And yet that didn't make the
tangible three-sided shapes any less real during the interim.

> Games are abstract constructs created to obey a set of arbitrary
> rules.

We have mathematical constructs to describe games because
mathematicians invented them.  Probability was commissioned as the
science of dice and card games in 1654.  Von Neumann and Morgenstern
wrote The Theory of Games and Economic Behavior, which includes the
generalization of turn-based games (incidentally using trees in the
extensive form), in 1944.  Yet the games they analyze preexisted by
centuries.

> 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.

I see what you mean, but this is sketchy ground.  That's not a
physical triangle; i.e., that's not using an etching, or depositing,
stylus to generate straight segments between three physical
positions.  That's mathematics.  The triangle you are speaking of
/is/ a mathematical construct.

As you alluded, altering Euclid's fifth postulate changes space.
But this space, too, is not meatspace.  It is not the space that
contains the molecules in air that we inhale to survive.  This space
is another mathematical construct.

> 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.

*nods* Indeed.  I sometimes think of myself as a man too lazy for
science.

>> 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.

Does complexity not occur in some novels, such as Ulysses and
Umberto Eco?

> 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.

There's a difference between game mechanical complexity and game
culture sophistication.  By your context, you mean the former.  But
I believe the latter will be the telltale sign of gaming evolution,
as it has been with cinema, television, especially advertising,
computers, cell phones, and the Internet.  As new generations become
more and more immersed at earlier and earlier ages, it becomes a
part of the culture.  Thus, the medium evolves, not for complexity,
but for literacy.

As new generations have come to be familiar with the tropes of
movies, the tropes have become more subtle, faster, and simpler.
Although production complexity of cinema has increased, consumption
complexity has not.  Cinematic dialogue has not shot off toward
Shakespeare.  Game tropes have plenty of simplicity.  Blizzard is a
house of simplification.  StarCraft and Diablo are the essentials of
their genre.

Likewise, Crazy Arcade and QuizQuiz are massive lobbies of simple
games.  One is called OX quiz, which is as simple as a quiz can be.
Imported from a Japanese game show, one either gets on the O side or
the X side of a board for a true/false question.  The losers are
eliminated.  Since all this occurs with a few dozen people, it's a
bizarre conformist, but fun for some cultures, social experience.

Designwise, game interfaces are getting simpler.  Avatar-centric
controls are leading toward camera-centric controls.  By
camera-centric I mean, if you want the character to go left-screen,
press the left-directional button, even if the character is
backwards or upside down in the camera view.  Camera controls
themselves are leadign towards artificial cinematography.  This is
increasing development complexity for the express purpose of
decreasing play complexity, which is, as Paolo Piselli neatly
explained, decreasing cognitive load.

Many games are foregoing explicit controls for automatic behavior.
Both The Wind Waker and The Sands of Time semi-automatically select
various actual attacks depending on the proximity to the target.
And in The Wind Waker, Link auto-jumps when faced with an edge.  In
Virtua Tennis the player doesn't so much choose a swing as press the
button when the ball is near.  There is more skill to it, but you
don't need it to play.  When I have non-gamer guests, I often
introduce them to Virtua Tennis.  It's very easy to learn, can be
played with just the D-pad and the A button.  Yet, it has quite a
lot of room for skill development.

> 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.

Inbred?  Yes, many are.  Baroque?  Some are but some aren't.

> The question is, is this inevitable for all games? The trend of
> games is towards requiring competence in calculus (or equivalent).

For each one more complex, there is at least another that is
simplifying.  I believe this bifurcation has been occurring and will
continue.  Not just at the extremes, but covering the whole range of
complexity enjoyable to some players.  And generations from now (if
I'm alive to see it), I expect to be surprised by currently
undiscovered game designs.

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