Troy GilbertGamedev 2.0

The Unfinished Swan is a beautiful concept for a game. And, judging by the video provided, is being beautifully implemented. Within seconds of seeing it my whole perspective on first-person mechanics was flipped on its head.

Great article on the interface of Adventure Games, the components that go into them, and their evolution over time [via Kottke]:

Strange Horizons Articles: Searching Under the Rug: Interfaces, Puzzles, and the Evolution of Adventure Games, by Mark Newheiser.

An oft-encountered problem when discussing “games” is that we don’t have a fully-developed, universally understood terminology. We’re getting there… we’re much closer than we were just a few years ago, and lightyears ahead of where we were ten years ago. But there’s still a significantly sticky term that we seem to be permanently stuck with: the name of our medium, games.

The term “games” has been around for Really Long Time&tm; (I couldn’t find a reference indicating the date of the origin of the word, buts it has its roots in Olde Englishe&tm;). When we use it today we’re generally referring to video games, board games, card games, sports, etc., i.e. structured (however loosely) activities with interaction, rules and goals. There’s a ton of academic writing on the specific definition that I don’t care to go into… we all know what we’re talking about.

Or do we? The problem with the term games is that for 99% of its history it referred to a formal structure of rules with some goal. But we use it far more liberally these days, particularly in the indie or academic game circles, meaning more generally interactive entertainment (as opposed to films/books/music being passive entertainment).

Randy Smith (EALA) raises this issue in a recent Next-Gen column. Actually, he doesn’t directly raise this issue, instead he raises the issue that we used to have games where the player was allowed to fail, didn’t have a clear path for success, and in general had a much “grayer” experience. He cites Ultima V, which to be honest is cheating, as that game is much more the exception than the rule in regards to “gray” games.

His larger point is that “modern” game design, borrowing heavily from the good designs perfected in the casual market, dictates clear paths to success, objective scoring, concise rules, etc. (you can read his article). His question is whether or not we’re losing something by focusing on these things exclusively, i.e. have we overcorrected and lost something powerful?

The problem is the definition of what we’re doing, what we’re making. If you’re making a game that’s similar to a sport (Quake, practically any FPS with a military-theme, practically any RTS, virtually all casual games, all arcade games, etc.) then all of the elements of modern game design are totally appropriate. On the other hand, if you’re making a game that’s more akin to a simulation or a toy, then all the tenets of good usability, user interface design and accessibility (all different ways of saying the same thing) are critical.

But what if you’re making a game that’s like Ultima V, or Passage, or Super Columbine Massacre RPG, or the Olympic Torch Relay Game? These games are more about the message than the mechanism. The mechanics aren’t elements of structured play, but rather the necessary elements in order to get a specific emotion or point across to the player.

So, we’ve got serious games, casual games, hardcore games, just plain ole games… and message games? These are really our “art” games, games that focus on message or mechanics. They don’t dispense with mechanics, the mechanics are just secondary to the message. And as a result, they often have unoriginal mechanics because it’s not the point.

Note that I’m not dismissing mechanics as important in a “message” game. Cinematography is still critical to good film even if it is secondary to a message in many instances.

What are some examples of message games? I’d love to hear them in the comments. I’m looking for games where the point was the message they conveyed, not the mechanics with which the user interacted with them. I’ll start with the obvious ones I’ve already mentioned: Ultima V (and IV), Passage, SCMRPG… Planescape is probably one, though I’ve never played it. Others?

I first came across a discussion of mechanics, dynamics and aesthetics on King Lud IC. Patrick adds metrics to the equation (no pun intended). His metrics are an interesting idea, essentially measuring aspects of the dynamics then using those measurements to modify the other three systems (mechanics, dynamics and aesthetics). What he’s describing is basically a fitness criteria for the game’s DNA (mechanics, dynamics and aesthetics). I can see how this could be considered the “fourth layer” of MDA.

Patrick keeps asking how one would actually balance it. You could see it as a linear optimization problem (where you’re solving for n variables given m equations/relations). There’s a ton of mathematics research in this field (using computers to analytically solve the systems of equations). The beauty of any matrix of values is that you can run them through transformations (such as neural nets, or min/max algorithms, or even edge detection). It’s just important to remember the relationships. Take values as nodes in a graph, with edges representing relationships between the values.

I’d like to present my own definition of mechanics. I don’t think of it too differently from what Patrick presented; I see mechanics as the tangible, literal, immediate actions (or verbs) the player executes in the game. Classic examples would be run, jump, shoot, move, push, pull. Dynamics would be the effects of the mechanics on the world and the “strategies” that combine multiple mechanics. That may be exactly what Patrick and everyone else is saying, but it helps me grok it better in those terms (so maybe it’ll help someone else as well).

Of course, I may just be being pedantic about the term mechanics, but I see interactive storytelling, or drama games, as simply being more sophisticated dynamics on top of existing mechanics. I really do feel like we’ve developed a healthy enough palette of mechanics for our games; it’s the dynamics that are really too shallow and uninvolved, particularly considering that that’s where the meat is.

I’m sure this is exactly what the academics would say if I was better versed in their writings, but I see mechanics as the necessary instant gratification of interactivity, with the dynamics being the longer term satisfaction of interactivity. That’s why I thought Facade was a failure as a whole: the mechanics were not at all gratifying. How is real-time-typing-hoping-the-parser-understands-and-waiting-for-a-hit-or-miss-reaction a gratifying mechanic? It’s not. Sure, the longer term dynamics of the drama that plays out may be satisfying (when you reflect on it), or the anticipation of what may happen next (when you anticipate it) may be interesting, but the actual mechanics were piss-poor.

Of course, that short term vs. long term “satisfaction” was best summed up recently in this article on the short and long game.

Culture: Games and Metaphor is, very simply, superb. My only problem is its tired insistence that the Wiimote will magically improve things. A very odd supposition, as the author stressed metaphor, yet the Wiimote is far more literal (at least, when used intuitively) than the as-abstract-as-it-gets buttons on a gamepad. Even the example used of the Wiimote in Castlevania: what’s less metaphorical than holding a whip and swinging it at the screen? Furthermore, the more literal use of the Wiimote (argued by others to be its benefit!) almost requires a more literal player-centered perspective on the game world, i.e. FPS, the thing that the author complains about immediately proceeding the Castlevania comments.

Beyond those few errs, the article perfectly hits home the metaphor point. Particularly the discussion of Shadow of the Colossus, the most succinct explanation of that game as art.

Here’s an interesting article on genre from the Escapist that lead me to make this note in my notebook: “Genres help eliminate unnecessary exposition, they provide a known context for author and audience. Genre is economy.” And by “economy” I meant that genres are an efficient mechanism to reduce the overall information burden on the user (just like metaphors!). They help the user “chunk” across content in a given medium (and even across mediums).

Also, in regards to games being “representational,” the article points to a problem with more realistic looking games… the higher quality, “realer” representation implies to the user a higher fidelity interaction (which never scales as quickly). That’s why old school games feel “right” … their representation equals their interaction.