Must Gamers be Cynics?
Greg Costikyan is an idealistic game designer and critic who has been trying¹ to foster innovation in computer games since 2000. Back in 1994 he wrote a famous² game design theory essay: I Have No Words & I Must Design, with which I mostly agree… but I’m going to take a bit of it out of context and pick on it anyway. Here’s the quote:
If the game has more than one ‘resource,’ decisions suddenly become more complex[...] If I declare against the Valois, Edward Plantagenet will grant me the Duchy of Gascony, but the Pope may excommunicate me, imperilling my immortal soul.
These are not just complex decisions; these are interesting ones. Interesting decisions make for interesting games.
The resources in question have to have a game role; if ‘your immortal soul’ has no meaning, neither does excommunication[...]. Ultimately, ‘managing resources’ means managing game elements in pursuit of your goal. A ‘resource’ that has no game role has nothing to contribute to success or failure, and is ultimately void.
Costikyan is 100% right that dilemmas are interesting, but are the only interesting dilemmas game-mechanical? Well, when it comes to the current state of computer games, yes. “Hard core” players separate the game’s mechanics (e.g. the way the chess pieces move) from its “colour” (the pieces’ shapes and names) very quickly, and ignore the latter. But does it have to be this way? I say no! There are other ways to play. In a game that engages the player’s emotions — in particular a role-playing game in its true sense, in which the player strongly identifies with the character she controls – “colour” can dominate game-mechanics in the subjective play experience. Emotionally loaded decisions are interesting even if they do not affect your progress towards a goal — in fact, especially if they don’t: if the cowboy in the white hat accepted the reward for killing the bandits, he’d be a mercenary, not a hero³. Moral decisions become especially interesting if being virtuous actually makes the game harder.
The emotional impact of decisions increases if the game world reacts to them. For example, the quartermaster in Deus Ex reacts disapprovingly if the player decides to massacre all enemies in the first mission, although that is a game mechanically acceptable victory. Such reactions require a light touch to avoid becoming puerile and a lot of cleverness to avoid being very expensive (since the game developers must determine what behaviours they want to measure, how to measure them, and how to make the world react to them), but even in rudimentary form they are hugely rewarding for some players.
¹ And so far, alas, failing. In 2000, he hoped cell phone games, being cheap to make, were going to become a fountain of creativity. In fact, because potential players just see lists of titles (rather than demos or even a box blurb), licensing tie-ins or massive marketing are even more essential than in the “classic” games industry.
² “Famous” in a tiny niche of game design snobs, anyway.
³ Mercenary attitudes can be emotionally involving too, of course, but if they have no hidden heart, they get dull fast.
Popularity: 58% [?]
If the point is, that there is a lot of meaning in a lot of surface things not meaningful for the pure abstract game mechanics, then I agree. But wouldn’t it be better, if the topics and themes of the surface are supported by the game mechanics? In example, to be excommunicated doesn’t effect your soul in the game, because that’s not a concept of it, but people treat you differently if you are excommunicated, because you didn’t care for your soul.
I feel betrayed by a game, that gives me a surface I react to, but doesn’t react to it itself. How do you feel? Imagine you rescue the princess and it doesn’t effect the game. You don’t win, you don’t get any bonus or any change or reward. You could also just walk by and do all the other games stuff. Why is there a princess at all if she doesn’t have any meaning? Or more extreme, imagine there is a princess standing there, but you cannot interact with her anyhow. Just a picture in the game. Crap.
On the other hand, you can think of visuels novel, like this: https://www.yousendit.com/download/Y1RweVdnYTJrWStGa1E9PQ
On the abstract level, it’s a very poor game, almost not a game at all. But the story and pictures give meaning without mechanics beneath, making it an entertainment. Also in this case, I prefer more of the game and less of the story. But I am not everyone.
So again, how about you?
It depends on what you mean by “mechanics”. I agree that rich reactions improve a game (as it says in the original post); I just don’t think that the reactions need to “contribute to success or failure”. In your example, rescuing the princess should change the game but not necessarily reward you in a classically mechanical way (power ups, points…).
A nice book regarding this topic is “Swords & Circuitry” by Neal Hallford (PrimaTech). Hallford lists four different types of possible player rewards:
Rewards of Glory: that is simple something a player can talk about to her friends. Like finishing the game, getting a certain achievement (lately most of the games like MassEffect or the whole Steam Stuff features achievements) or finding an easter egg. Some games like MUDs/MMORPGs or Adventures may even live by providing only this sort of rewards.
Rewards of Sustenance: this is everything that lets the player keep her status quo in the game. Basically things like ammo, health, credits, curse breakers. This is a kind of rewards given in plenty to keep the player going.
Rewards of Access: things like door opening keys, NPC favors, new item blue prints etc. These rewards work best if the player has a motivation to reach the other side of the obstacle to which the rewards provides access. But one has to be careful with this type of rewards because not getting it slows the player down. In the worst case she grinds to a halt and quits playing.
Rewards of Facility: new means to do things. Like new spells, new units, new personae. At the best the new facility provides for new strategies and therefore new interesting ways to master the game. These rewards may be temporary, transitory or permanent, thus further splitting them up to supply more variation.
I’m sure there were other helpful classifications in that book. Like player types (the explorer, the buttkicker, the socializer etc.) that help define what kinds of rewards may work in game or not.
Ah, just because I happen to have this “what kind of rpg player are you” quiz open in another tab and it fits just nicely into this discussion
Player Type according to Robin D. Laws:
http://quizfarm.com/quizzes/Fashion/ellydragon/laws-game-style/
I’ve actually read “Swords & Circuitry”, but I’d completely forgotten that (nice) bit of it — good call, Kaspi.
Can we draw an analogy to real life, I wonder? Reward of Sustenance is getting paid for your job; a Reward of Facility is mastering a new skill; working on free software or winning a football game gives a Reward of Glory… but what do I need to do to get the red keycard?
Make it green and call it card instead of key and you’ll gain access to another country in real life
Just marry the right person or be a top talent will help to reach this goal…
Or earn a certain amount of money to reach new freedom (no more work, better living conditions, possibility to visit places that one couldn’t afford previously, new stuff to buy/own, what ever). Or get new contacts and favors with the right guys (shaking hands with the president, getting the necessary papers to build a new parking lot without the normal red tape, gaining entrance to the private club…)
I think there are a lot of real life examples for each type of reward. And sometimes one rewards implicitly leads to another (like mastering a certain skill (facility) makes you famous (glory) and that in turn gets you into new places (access) and provides for sponsoring contracts that feed you (sustenance)).