Game Design Blog
This weeks readings goes over adding and subtracting game mechanics from a game.
0 Comments
Key notes from this weeks readings:
Within the readings it goes into detail on the reason why games are generally two to four players; and not three; but also explains how three player games can work. It states that us players don't generally see games that are naturally great 'for three players'.
It is distinctive to why the three player based games don't work well. But three player games can still exist, say if one player is getting close to a victory and then the two other players gang up on that player in the lead. It may be considered unfair to that person in the lead, but it acts as an equilibrium and allows for the other two players to catch up to the current winning player's position and status. So while it is unfair to one person, it still acts as a balancing method without relying on in game events, stats, etc. as much. There are also terms to describe common problems faced with multiplayer games, they include:
But finally, the best way to deal with the three player problem is to make sure players can't do enough to slow/hinder other players greatly. Balance it out so there is an equilibrium, and ensure the game 'is almost entirely positional'. Key notes found in this week's readings:
Key points found in this weeks readings
Key points noted in reading " Costikyan, G and Davidson, D eds. (2011) - Tabletop Analog Game Design.pdf"
Key points I found in this weekly reading:
Upon reading the notes from "Braithwaite, Brenda & Schreiber, Ian (2008) - Challenges for Game Designers" I found these particular key insights that resolve about creating games.
The first topic is about how there are games with little to no variety. "Games with no random elements always start exactly the same, and certain patterns (such as book openings in Chess) often emerge. While this is true, it doesn't mean it's only limited to such plays. While some may move sets may become default it doesn't mean it's entirely the only way. However the variety adds an element of surprise and can require the players to stay aware and be prepared for the unknown. This in turn, increases the player's positive experience, and allows for more replay-ability. The difference between children's games and gambling games. Due to kids having developed cognitive skills like an adult would, it makes it difficult to make complex decisions, so this in turn relies on making the game more luck based. Whereas when it comes to gambling games some games take skill, but do include luck. But isn't reliant on luck itself, it incorporates skill. Now this may not include some games like Roulette, and slot machines for example. But those games them selves lose appeal much more quickly than other gambling games. And finally. The third wheel problem. Even though my lecturer makes it very clear that games are generally for 1, 2, or 4 people. I think it's worth noting how games generally aren't intended on 3 players. As stated in the readings "Three-player games are difficult to design because of their dynamics." This is because 2 players can group up on one player, one player may be able to progress further and become 'uncatchable', etc. And this is why most board games say "for two to four players". The more you know. |
AuthorWeekly blog posts for game studies by Jake Cater. Archives
December 2017
Categories |