[MUD-Dev] DGN: Reasons for play

[Sean Howard]

"cruise" <cruise at casual-tempest.net> wrote:

> After this wonderfully long discussion of the motivations behind
> game-playing and the such, I've yet to see any firm conclusions.
> Different people have their own pet theories, but we seems to be
> lacking a general consensus for the fundemental reasons our entire
> industry exists.

People play games because the human brain thrives on making
decisions. It actually gets smarter through such exercise. We need a
way to make decisions in a safe environment. Games exist to give us
this safe environment while also giving us structured decisions to
make that are tailor made to be interesting. Videogames are simply
games with a media component - entertainment and mental
exercise. There. That's why people play games.

We aren't discussing why the game industry exists. We are discussing
why more people don't partake in its many fruity flavors. Some
suggest that the flavors aren't quite as fruity as we think, and
some suggest that there are people out there who only eat squash.

> Here we are, merrily coding or designing away, with scarce more
> rationale behind our decisions than "I think it's cool." And
> sometimes people agree with us, sometimes they don't.

I think that is too common a practice, and one I take I great
offense at, but I don't think everyone designs in the same way. I
dare say that there has never been a great game designed using that
approach and never will be, and yet, the game industry somehow
manages to crank out a great game every once in a while (though it's
gotten increasingly difficult to predict what ahead of time).

> Surely a good understanding of what is actually wanted is the
> first step of any design process?

Depends on what you are designing. If you are designing a racing
game, and you've played a lot of racing games, you (probably)
already have an innate understanding of the genre. What you think
would be cool is probably something that already fits within the
framework. I believe that you can make an enjoyable, well made game
this way, but it won't be anything too special (most sequels are
made this way).

However, if you want to invent a new genre, or do something that
exists either between multiple genres or outside of any genres, the
only way to approach that problem is from the foundation. You need
to create the backbone that the meat hangs off - not doing so is a
recipe for failure.

> Or is that perhaps what seperates business from art?

An artist makes decisions for aesthetic reasons. A business man
makes decisions for financial reasons. The way the game industry
works is that, there is a subset of potential actions based on
financial reasons, and of those, you pick the one you think is the
prettiest.

> some want to make games that appeal to the people, others want to
> show the people what is so appealing about games.

A fair summary. However, I want to do both (though I'm not currently
arguing both). I just don't want to make games that appeal to
stereotypes, and I don't want to show people crappy, unappealing
games.

> Either way, grokking what is fun to play and what isn't must be of
> use to anyone. But we're a long way off a Standard Model of Gaming
> Mechanics.

> Is such a thing even possible?

No, and I'll tell you why. People disagree on things that are pure
preferences. I like to write (maybe you've noticed by the lengthy
emails to this list :) You may find it painful. Hell, another me
might find it painful for purely superficial reasons, like having a
crappy keyboard which makes his wrist hurt.

If I say that something is fun, undoubtedly there will be those that
disagree. If I say that something is fun to a select amount of
people, even if overwhelmingly correct, there will still be someone
who disagrees.  For instance, if you could create a game that 99% of
all players enjoy to some extent, that 1% isn't going to just accept
that they are wrong and join in the fun. Whatever minor reason they
take issue with is very important to them, even if it is something
as silly as the sounds footsteps make.

Anyway, the point is that you will never have universal approval,
and those in the minority will probably be quite vocal, even
manipulating others into sharing their opinion. It's impossible to
get an accurate read on whether people like what they like because
they actually like them, or think they should to be a good
person. (However, there are situations where people hate everything
about a work - the creators, the social stigmas, the political or
religious views - but still like the work regardless. This kind of
self hating respect is the most honest critique you'll ever get of
your work).

Long story short, the criteria we need to aim for is NOT enjoyment
but something more substantial and measurable (similar to how we
judge movies based on character depth or metaphor usage). Whether
that measure involves gameplay mechanics or not, and how, is a
different discussion for a different time.

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