Game Design 101: The 4 components of a game

Hey all,

Today, I want to take a step back and explain one of the very fundamentals of games.

Not JUST video games, mind you, ALL games.

Games are made up of four basic elements:

• Objects - The actors, per se.
• Attributes - Things such as health, movement styles etc.
• Interactions - How do objects communicate with one another?
• Environment - I like to call this "context", in what way is this game being played?

This is explained more in depth in the great book, Rules of Play, where Katie Salen and Eric Zimmerman both try to establish the building blocks of all games. I highly recommend it for budding designers and developers to understand the very fundamentals of the craft of game design.

Anyway, it's best to explain with an example. Let's take a look at Chess:

• What are the elements of Chess?
• Objects
• The pieces
• The players
• Attributes - Pieces each have their own movement styles
• Pawns - Can move one space forward, can move two spaces on first move.
• Rook - Can move as far as they want (without going through pieces) in one of the 4 cardinal directions.
• etc. etc.
• Interactions
• Players can move one piece per turn
• Pieces can capture pieces from the opponent's side if their movement pattern allows them to occupy the same space as an opponent piece.
• etc. etc.
• Environment
• Medieval look to the board and pieces.
• Played in a competitive or educational setting.

When I make games, usually the first three elements (Object, attributes, and interactions) come simply enough, and I mostly think about the last one, environment.

The reason why environment is so interesting to me is because it takes an existing game and can literally change the entire meaning of the mechanics. For example, if I changed the pawns from foot soldiers and I made them dishevelled animals, and make the power pieces (queen, king, etc.) hold whips. All of a sudden, the game takes on a new meaning, yeah? You can do this to many games, give them religious allegories, real world problems, or circumvent that altogether!

Changing the environment of your game can literally change how it is interpreted, just as much as changing the interactions, the objects, or attributes.

I notice a lot of designers tend to neglect the environment of their game, with their themes merely there to showcase the other three elements in a barebone fashion. I personally believe that all elements should work together to create a general feeling, that a complete package game does not neglect any of the four elements.

A great example of a complete package is Nintendo's Splatoon! Think about how that game is played, and how the kid / squid theming kind of just makes it all make sense, contextually. Imagine if the characters weren't squids, would it still make sense, or even be as fun?

I'll end with this, don't neglect any facet of your game, think about it as a complete package!

Jimmy

PS. The next post will be an Game Engine Design 101, I swear. Sorry that I've been going on this design bend, it's just been on my chest for a while.

The Whole Package: An Appeal to Polish

Hey all,

This month, I want to talk about a subject that game design schools rarely talk about. It's a subject that is really just common sense, but I'm going to mention it anyway.

Honestly, my thoughts on game design schools in general could be its own topic.

Anyway, I see a lot of young game designers, or young indies, showing their games, and I've noticed a trend. A lot of the games I see have solid gameplay, but other aspects of the game are lacking. It seems as if they were taught "make the game fun", and took that as "the ONLY thing that matters is gameplay." I then see these young'uns try to sell what would have gotten them a "B" in class as a retail product.

Capitalism will not be kind to those people. While fine for school, these products would be consider lackluster once their creators start asking for money.

I'm not trying to be toxic to young indies, in fact, what I'm saying should be taken as a letter of challenge.

Games are so much more than just the gameplay. While the gameplay is, indeed, the most important factor (no one worth their salt would debate otherwise), there are many other things that propel a game into greatness. Things such as a clean look, clean sound, and solid music will only make a game better. If everything in a game is as good as the gameplay, it'll only make the game appear THAT much better.

Do you think Tetris would have gotten as far as it did with gray blocks and no music?

To those young'uns: Think about the whole package.

Before people get on my case, I'm not debating against simplistic looking games, not at all. I will argue, backwards and forwards, that Tetris is one of the greatest games of all time, and that game uses colored blocks! What I am debating against are games that, while solid in fundamentals, use the following in any combination:

• Unequalized sound / music
• Royalty free sounds / music
• Unpolished, barebones, boxy graphics (If boxy is your aesthetic, at least make it look polished.)
• Menus are simple text, using Arial or similar font.
• A clearly not well thought out color palette.
• Lack an options / settings screen.
• Lack a logo / title screen.

Before you ask, yes, I've seen games try to sell themselves as retail products with some of the above.

If you are an up and coming indie / designer; on top of your game being fun / feeling good, ask yourself: "does EVERYTHING in this game feel as good as the gameplay?", as well. That way of thinking will help propel your game into greatness.

I'm not asking for much, just polish your game as much as possible.

Jimmy

The Idiot Box

Hey all,

There's something that's been in my mind lately, and I really can't hold back talking about it anymore, so here goes.

It really goes without saying that we live in an incredible time, we can communicate across the world, can look up information at the moment we think to look up something, and can project our opinions out to the world, as bad as they may be. (See what I did there?)

But there's a concern that I have, and I'm not the only one to feel this way.

We carry devices in our pockets everyday: idiot boxes.

Idiot boxes aren't designed to enable their users to create, they are merely designed for their users to consume: apps, news, entertainment, opinions, etc. Idiot boxes enable people to be more connected than ever, yet lonelier than ever. Idiot boxes allow us to embrace superficial relationships over real ones. Idiot boxes make people available at someone else's beck and call. Idiot boxes enable people to look up other people's opinions on subjects to avoid forming an opinion of their own.

What is an idiot box? You're probably reading this post using one right now: it's called your cell phone / tablet. Combined with the internet, idiot boxes have allowed people to engage in the behaviors I mentioned earlier.

I call these devices "idiot boxes" because they are not used to create, these devices are used for consumption, a lot like TV. Frankly, I think people use these devices as a crutch to consume content, to not think for themselves, to avoid critical thinking (hence "idiot").

Now, I'm not saying to throw away your cell phone, I use one everyday, if only because of work.

I pose to you a few questions:

• How many of your friends on social media are your "real friends"? How many of them would care if you were feeling down, not superficial "I'm sorry" caring, but really feel for you? Will these friends hurt if you are hurting, and vice versa?
• How many hours a day do you spend on YouTube, Spotify, Buzzfeed, etc.? How many hours of productivity have you lost?
• Have you noticed that your attention span has shortened, even to the point that sitting and doing nothing for 10 minutes is agonizing?
• How many times has someone asked you a question (via text or social media), and then expected you to reply almost immediately?
• How many times have you been to dinner and noticed that a LOT of people are on their idiot boxes, not engaging with the people literally around them? 
• How many times have you looked up a film review or game review and formed your opinion on said subject based on the review?

Idiot boxes and social media have turned people into a product, where people show only their best sides to the world, it's incredibly hard to make real friends in this way. "Friends" is simply a number that goes up based on your popularity. When times get rough, if all someone has is their social media "friends", that someone may not want to expose such feelings to the world, it can create a feeling of loneliness. Connected, yet lonely.

Having unlimited entertainment at our fingertips has given us instant gratification, we don't have patience anymore. We have grown accustomed to always having something playing, entertaining us; so much so that not having something around is the exception, not the norm.

Always being connected has allowed people to contact us at any time, for better or worse. People may expect an answer from another person immediately after sending a message, even when that person may be introverted or may not want to talk. We have become a product for other people to consume.

In some cases, people don't even pay attention to those around them, instead they choose to consume media from the idiot box. I don't know about you, but when someone does this to me (at dinner or something), I feel lonely, boring, or inadequate. Frankly, I find it rude.

Lastly, it's easy to avoid thinking critically when you can simply look up someone else's opinion and borrow said opinion.

All I ask is that every once in a while, break away from your idiot box, pay attention to those around you. Be understanding, be kind, and care for those immediately in front of you, they're people too. Spend time with your friends in the real world, talk with them over lunch or dinner. Take a few minutes out of the day to just exist, no entertainment.

Who knows, you may notice something you didn't before.

Jimmy

P.S. I find it amazing that we can communicate as much as we can now, just be sure to interact with the real world every once in a while.

P.S.S I want to make a game surrounding my feelings on this subject someday. Frankly, I hope by the time I get to making the game, my concerns are addressed and then I won't need to make the game at all.

P.S.S.S Don't form your opinion based on mine, think for yourself.

Randomness and Player Agency

Hey all,

Have you ever felt like a random number generator (RNG), not the game itself, caused you to lose? Have you ever said "RNGesus beat me"?

Have you ever felt like RNG has led to your victory?

Today, I would like to discuss the use of random number generation and game design, specifically about player agency.

Agency: The capacity of an actor to act in an environment.
(At least I didn't OPEN with a definition. Sure, the definition came in about only 4 sentences, but who made you the authority on article / essay writing? Also, why are you counting?)

RNG is an interesting topic in games, because when applied correctly, it can allow for emergent possibilities that are more fun for your target players. When applied incorrectly, RNG can be an incredibly frustrating element for your players.

Think I'm exaggerating on that last sentence? Take a look at people's thoughts on Five Nights at Freddy's 20/20/20/20 mode.

In short, players want to feel like that no matter what happens, that the results of an encounter / battle / whatever are caused by their own decisions, by their own skills, not by the game itself. The player is an agent within the game's rules, and acts to cause reactions, and the results of the game should be a reflection of those actions.

That doesn't mean that all RNG is bad, however. For that, let's take a look at a few examples.

• Texas Holdem' Poker: Cards that are dealt are essentially random, as cards are dealt, the possibility space (the cards you can possibly get) decreases. Any one player can beat another player during a single game of Poker. Randomness is mitigated by playing a set of games. Good players are capable of playing the odds and wagering when the odds are in their favor, or bluffing (playing the other player), resulting in a win over the course of a set.
• Mario Party: Movement is random by rolling a die, the possibility space in that sense is constant. Mini games may have elements of randomness in them, sometimes deciding winners arbitrarily, but there are so many mini games played during a session to mitigate the effects of a single adverse mini game result. The end game star allocation makes the possibility space wide open, leaving players who are the best at mini games or map navigation to be subject to losing, potentially rendering an entire game of smart play as moot. Any one individual game can be so random that caring about winning is really a test in insanity. (I call this the absurdity principle.)
• Mario Kart: Item allocation is a weighted random, where players who are lagging behind are given a higher chance of getting better items. Items create new possibility spaces by knocking leading players out of the way, or giving lagging players a speed boost. The amount of variance is limited, and may cause a better player to not land in 1st place. Good players can mitigate the effects of the items through skilled play, item management, and maximizing opportunities over a set of races.

Notice something about the first and third entries? A good player can win by taking advantage of opportunities caused by helpful randomness, and mitigating the effects of adverse randomness (by either playing well or playing over a large set.). There's a key in there though, a skilled player HAS the opportunity to mitigate the effects of adverse randomness. Like I said before, "The player is an agent within the game's rules, and acts to cause reactions, and the results of the game should be a reflection of those actions".

Good use of RNG opens up the possibility space (the amount of possibilities that can be generated), but in a limited amount. Players continue to have agency in the outcome generated by the use of RNG. You can quote me on that.

Discussion about Mario Party is a great example of bad use of RNG. Ever heard someone say to you "I was winning, and then the game decided to give my friend all of the stars", or something equivalent? Dice rolling is one thing, handing out game winning tokens at the end of a game, when players can no longer take action, is another. Ever had that friend who almost ended a friendship with you because of Mario Party, or heard such a story? Mario Party becomes more fun when players give in to the "Absurdity Principle", which is essentially admitting that the game is crazy and to not take it seriously.

A bad game will use RNG to potentially affect the outcome of a game, and not give a player the opportunity to change the outcome based on said RNG, or severely limit the amount of actions that a player can take, removing or crippling their agency. A bad game will let RNG blow the possibility space wide open and essentially decide winners and losers. I literally have a phrase for it, "Deciding winners and losers.", don't let your game do that, if you're making one.

Bad RNG removes a player as an agent within the game, not letting their actions have an effect on the outcome. You can quote me on that, too.

Following the "Absurdity Principle" is hard to achieve, and the designer is walking a tight rope and relies on the player's subjective definition of fair and competition. I'm not saying to not make a ridiculous game that uses RNG, just be careful.

When making your game, if you choose to have an RNG element to your game, consider these things:

• What does this use of RNG do to my game's possibility space? (What results can come from it?)
• Does this use of RNG limit what my players can do, and if so, by how much? (How much agency will my players have?)
• Does this use of RNG decide winners and losers?
• Can players overcome the results of this use of RNG?

If any section in here needs clarity, let me know.
Jimmy

A Topic About Persona 5

Hey all,

Today, I wanted to discuss a mechanic of a game that has been making some waves. Before I really get started, I want to say that I'm enjoying Persona 5 so far, I'm about 84 hours in and about to wrap up the final chapter.

I'm not here to talk about the game as a whole, however. I'm here to talk about one mechanic, specifically the monster recruiting mechanic. I'm going to be 100% frank here, I think it's not as good as it could be.

To the uninformed, Persona 5 is a new game from Atlus in which the player controls a group of teenagers who use their new-found powers and friendship to save the day, while staying true to themselves. This game allows players to recruit monsters into their party by communicating with the monster after it has been struck by a critical attack or its weakness while in combat. Once the communication has been initiated, the player must answer 2 questions from the monster correctly. Each question has three possible answers, and the answers are based on the monster personality, which can be viewed before initiating communication, but not during.

I have several problems with this mechanic:

• A lot of the answers to the questions involve lying to the enemy. In a game whose narrative is about being true to yourself, why do you have to lie to the enemies? Doesn't this oppose one of the points of the narrative?
• Not being able to view the monster personality during a conversation in order to gauge what kind of answer will most likely be correct, is bad.
• If the player gets one question right and the other "half right", the monster will randomly either give an item (and run away) or join the party. I dislike random chance in situations like these.
• Not knowing what kind of answers are correct essentially makes the answers random, and when the player gets these questions randomly wrong, the player may feel cheated. Also, in this case, the optimal way to play IS to guess randomly, removing any agency the player may have in this scenario.
• The tutorial about monster recruiting isn't exactly helpful: "Gloomy monsters like vague answers." Sometimes, none of the possible answers to a question fit the description, maybe this is a translation issue, but I dislike it nonetheless.

Now, I wouldn't just complain about something and not have a solution of my own. This is just me spitballing, but I think even this would be a better mechanic.

Have the monster say something about their personality over several turns, the player is allowed to either get another personality hint or select the person on their team whose personality best matches the monster (or make an educated guess on the personality type or whatever) to convince the monster to join their team. The player gets extra money or experience for convincing the monster sooner before the maximum turn limit. Think of it like a game of Mastermind. The randomness would be removed and player's would still have to engage with the monster's personality. Maybe if the player has a narrow miss of recruiting the monster, they will get an item instead, but NOT by random chance.

I just made that up, seriously.

To be clear, I'm not against random number generators in games, but I am against them in select situations where player agency is involved. Maybe I'll go over this in a separate post.

Oh well, at least this mechanic as it stands is better than Shin Megami Tensei 4? That game was not as good as everyone said it was.

Jimmy

I got myself bored again.

Hey all,

It's 4 am again, and I got bored, again.

Music!

I promise I'll post an update for the zombie game next week, Chang-e soon afterward?

As a side note, you learn a lot about music composition from studying someone else's work, go figure.

Also, despite me making this using my own equipment and whatever, the music composition is not mine, and I haven't added anything original to the composition itself (like a remix or something), hence why I don't attempt to generate money from it. Don't steal, kids.

Thanks,
Jimmy

My Creative Inspirations / Makeup

Hey all,

Today, I'm just going to post a short list of things that inspire me to create, or some people say "my creative DNA"

Conker's Bad Fur Day

Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time

Gurren Lagann

Jojo's Bizarre Adventure 

Ranma 1/2

One Piece

Dragon Quest VIII

Dragonball Z

Street Fighter (Pick one that isn't the first)

Dark Souls

Earthbound

Shadow of the Colossus

These are all the ones that come to mind, at least while I'm riding the bus...

All of these had an effect on me and inspire me to create, every single day. If you'd like, you can post yours in the comments!

Jimmy