Dinofarm Games

From a single player perspective you make a good point, but people do enjoy slot machines and farmville. I like being able to get reward with out investing a large amount of time. There’s also the Player versus Player content that wasn’t mentioned. That aspect of the game could be quite enjoyable.

Good read either way, probably going to buy it, hopefully I don’t hate it.

I’ve never been a big Diablo fan (think I was just a tad too young when it came out), but I’ve been looking forward to D3. That said, I like how your article has made me look at the game from a different angle, and see if I still want to play it. I think I do — if I have time. But I certainly appreciate your outlook!

However, one thing you wrote reminded me of the game design article on Healing and Death in Guild Wars 2. Have you followed their blog? Very interesting. http://www.guildwars2.com/en/the-game/combat/healing-death/

So what you wrote was this: “So his argument is essentially this: thematic “death” is already punishment enough. So if you simply print text to the screen that says “you died”, but there is absolutely no penalty otherwise, that would still be enough of a “deterrent” from dying. This is so far removed from any kind of basic understanding about game design, and so completely and utterly wrong, that it upsets me to know that this man has infinite game-development resources at his fingertips.”

And as comparison, here’s how the GW2 blog describes death: “Defeat in Guild Wars 2 is intended to be an experience, not a punishment. Let’s face it: dying never feels great, even without a death penalty. As weird as it might sound, we decided to look into what would make dying a more enjoyable and memorable play experience.

….

The cherry on top of all of this: Guild Wars 2 will have a much milder death penalty.

Players who have recently been downed several times will take longer to revive each time. If no one revives you, you can spend a small amount of gold to come back at a waypoint. It’s as simple as that, and why not? Why should we debuff you, take away experience, or make you run around for five minutes as a ghost instead of letting you actually play the game? We couldn’t think of a reason. Well, we did actually think of a reason–it just wasn’t a good one. Death penalties make death in-game a more tense experience. It just isn’t fun. We want to get you back into the action (fun) as quickly as possible. Defeat is the penalty; we don’t have to penalize you a second time.”

So I’m just curious as to your reaction to the GW2 philosophy of death. It seems very similar, and for similar reasons, and yet it seems like good, well-thought-out gameplay to me. I’m just curious if you would give it an equally unfavorable review.

(note: I have not played D3 yet)

Cool article! I think what you’re saying is all true.
If you’re premise is that a “Game” is defined as something that adds value to the time you spend with it. While that seems to you and to me as something to strive for, it’s not necessarily the definition of a game. i think Diablo 3 has its place, I think. It does what it does very well.

The question becomes: What _does_ it do? It is a “get moar shinee things”-simulator. Now this formulation sounds as if that is a bad thing. It’s not, really…

The thing is that people seem to like to get more shiny things from clicking :)

Personally I don’t know whether I will buy it, but based on some youtube videos, it seems like a lot of fun, because I enjoy mindless action that I can influence to a certain degree. I don’t want to make interesting decisions at that point… I would not judge the time I spend with it as intellectually challenging, but it doesn’t have to be, right? sometimes I just want to induce cool animations with my mouse cursor so other animated things pretend to die :)

At other times, I play Starcraft 2. Now this is a game where I have to make interesting decisions. At least if I play online… But both types of game have their place in this world.

If D3 did not have the graphical fidelity that it does, I would not even give it a second glance. Nor would most people, I think (except for nostalgia reasons [see duke nukem]) So it’s clear that it’s game mechanics are utterly simplistic and not challenging to master. Again I ask, is that really a problem? If you are not looking for a “click mouse to make thing go boom and increase this other number there”-Simulator, then D3 is probably not for you. But are you really going so far as to qualify every simplistic “game” a “non-game” because it does not challenge the player enough? Is that truly a valid definition of “game”. I would disagree with that. I would enjoy your thoughts on that.

cheers
Phil

PS: Oh and I reached Level 1000 in your Flash game while reading :P at that point the number gets cut off.

Your article, while interesting, shows a misunderstanding of the game design of Diablo and what it is trying to be

“The UIs are arguably needlessly fiddly, with the player constantly needing to remove his “+2 sword” when he gets a “+3 sword” and other such situations that are entirely the result of a “loot drop” mentality, a mentality which is inherently illogical from a classical game design perspective but makes tons of sense in a high-fantasy simulator.”

Do you not understand what games are? They are reward out of action – the reward is the +3 sword over the +2 sword, and the action is you killing the monster to obtain it. This is the key principle of game design, to reward the player for playing the game. There is no game, anywhere, ever, that does not have the same principle in some way, shape or form. Any game with XP, for example, is following the exact same formula – you kill monsters, you gain a level and get stronger. The only difference from a design point of view is that having an inventory/loot focussed game increases the possible variety and depth of the game.

“You can’t just slap permadeath onto a modern video game, the entire game needs to be designed around this.”

Why? You just state that, but you offer no reasons. The permadeath in Diablo is simply to challenge the player even more for those who want it. Why does the game even need permadeath?? It is simply not that kind of game. There is no need for winning or losing, it is about reward and progress, which simply makes it an infinitely playable game. A game does not need to have resolution for the player unless it is a story based game, which Diablo is not. It uses the story as a way of providing an extra reward for executing the gameplay, aka killing nasty monsters to see cool effects and unlock new environments.

“However, even if you do die, it doesn’t matter – you lose a little gold and just keep going. Death is but a minor set-back, and that’s the worst thing that can happen to you in the game.”

Again, I’m just getting the feeling you simply don’t like what Diablo is about, and thats fine. But this screams of a misunderstanding of what the game is about – progression. It is about building the strongest character possible, and then seeing if you can make it even stronger. A death penalty makes far more sense from a design point of view than a permadeath for a game that is about constantly upgrading and improving your character. Granted, I don’t like that they abandoned the ‘body drop’ aspect of death in D3, because then it really does feel like dying simply punishes you by making you fight your way through again. But in D2, having to fight your way back to your corpse using only your spells and your own skill was a fantastic gameplay decision.

“So his argument is essentially this: thematic “death” is already punishment enough. So if you simply print text to the screen that says “you died”, but there is absolutely no penalty otherwise, that would still be enough of a “deterrent” from dying.”

The ‘deterrent’ from dying is the fact that you then have to fight your way back through the level, which takes enough time that it is really the only ‘deterrent’ needed. Also, the feeling that you as a player get when you die IS enough to punish most people, especially if you’re playing with a team and they then die because of it

“Both of these products are not games – they are a contract between the computer and a player that say “if you continue to click stuff, I will increase a number.” They are not any kind of contest; they are a number-gathering application.”

But that is all that any game, ever, is at its most fundamental level – reward for action. Diablo is just more open about that then most other games. The skill (and fun) in Diablo comes mostly from designing and building the best character you possibly can, while you seem to think that it should come from killing the monsters and that the game should be based around that. While that is certainly satisfying and usually fun to kill stuff, after you play the game for a while it is simply a matter of design. They give you the world to design a character, and you do it.

“In conclusion, Diablo is not a game”

As I’ve said, Diablo is perhaps one of the more pure games out there – it is direct reward (items, levelling up, etc) for action (killing monsters and gathering loot). Now, you may not like that it is simply that, and that the narrative does not drive the game as much as other games, but to argue that they make poor design decisions because of that is ridiculous, and some of your arguments just show that you don’t like the type of game Diablo is trying to be.

Your article really has given me food for thought. I’m not a fan of any of the Diablo games, to be honest, but after reading your article, I’m not sure why not …

I was a big fan of World of Warcraft for a long time. I only recently kicked the habit, and what you say about some games being about compulsion was certainly true for me; I kept playing WoW long after it ceased to be fun because … well, I guess because I wanted my numbers to increase.

Anyway, what I’m trying to wrap my mind around now is what would playing a game you consider to be high quality be like? Alas, I don’t have an iOS device, so I can’t check out 100 Rogues. One thing that popped into my head was somehting like Shadow of the Colossus. For me, the game really was about making choices and achieving a sense of mastery over seemingly impossible enemies. Also, there weren’t really any “numbers” to increase — it’s not like you get xp or gold to buy bigger and better swords after you kill each colossus. Is that more like what you have in mind?

I can’t believe no one has done this yet, but…

a (1) : activity engaged in for diversion or amusement : play (2) : the equipment for a game b : often derisive or mocking jesting : fun, sport
2
a : a procedure or strategy for gaining an end : tactic b : an illegal or shady scheme or maneuver : racket
3
a (1) : a physical or mental competition conducted according to rules with the participants in direct opposition to each other (2) : a division of a larger contest (3) : the number of points necessary to win (4) : points scored in certain card games (as in all fours) by a player whose cards count up the highest (5) : the manner of playing in a contest (6) : the set of rules governing a game (7) : a particular aspect or phase of play in a game or sport b plural : organized athletics c (1) : a field of gainful activity : line (2) : any activity undertaken or regarded as a contest involving rivalry, strategy, or struggle ; also : the course or period of such an activity (3) : area of expertise : specialty 3

I apologize for the length of this message – brevity has never been my strong suit. I wanted to make sure that the points were made, though. Yes, Diablo is (by definition) a game. Yes, it involves decisions.
I share your frustration even though I disagree with your hardline stance; it kills me that the overwhelming majority of the gaming community wants to be given challenge-less mono-pathed simulators. From a game designer’s point of view, though, that just drives me that much more to create a game that can turn the tide back in favor of using your brain. My goal is to evoke genuine emotion from the user…I don’t want to make a digital Pavlov’s Bell, as so many of today’s games seem to be.

I’m not trying to point out how crazy you are. The thing is, you are just as inconsistent in by pointing out slinkies aren’t a game as anyone else is for suggesting that Doctor is, or that Minecraft is as much of a game as tag is.

If you want to try to prove that tag is a shitty game, you have to figure out why it was fun without consistent win or loss conditions. If played with only two players, it doesn’t even have an interesting decision. The colloquial definitions may be inconsistent, but that’s the way it goes with taxonomy. People called tag a game. Tag became a Game. Therefore, some games don’t have win / loss conditions, or interesting decisions. From that! People are free to make Games, and call them that, without win loss conditions without necessarily making shitty games. That ‘No win / loss or interesting decisions implies that game is shit, for all possible games, ever’, is the bit you’ve yet to prove (to me, at least). The only way you’ve argued in favor of that premise is as such: “x, y, and z don’t have clear win / loss conditions or interesting decisions. x, y, and z are also bad games. therefore, all games that don’t have clear win / loss conditions are terrible games”. You can see the fallacy.

I just had an interesting, basically nihilistic thought about tag that does disprove my arguments, (or, at least it did, temporarily). It’s PSed to the end, since I think my following points still stand as a fine summary:

Like I said, I liked the article. And yeah, if you added multiplayer to the SWF, along with lightweight story, lots of sparkles, and a century of man-hours from people that believe in the idea for one reason or another, I’ll probably start to consider it a game that’s fun (admittedly, with a lot of qualifiers about how, when, and why it’s fun). I’m comfortable with a level of inconsistency in my personal, working usage of ‘Game’ because yeah, I probably wouldn’t say I played a game called ‘Legos’. (In the aforementioned PS, I address why I don’t argue against that inconsistency anywhere but here). I also won’t enjoy Chess any less because of that inconsistency.

We just need to quit worrying so much about what is and isn’t a game (which is the only reason I decided to jump in here in the first place; the article’s a fine observation, but the conversation took this nasty turn into why games are games or fun). If the things you call great games are great, they’ll be lauded on their merits by people that care (like me!). If other games are more popular, there are valid reasons for that, and obviously not because they’re necessarily better games. Sometimes a ‘shitty’ game like D3 is fun, or fun in moderation, or fun for certain people but not others. Since it’s also a game, ‘fun game’ isn’t total abuse of the language. Misguided, maybe, but neither incorrect nor dishonest.

PS: If you strip away the actuation involved in playing Tag and just model it in software, it would be one dot chasing another with a bit of variance for muscle strength, respiratory stamina, etc, maybe some randomization for terrain variance tempered by strength of sight. That *would* be pretty boring. Would anything, though, if modeled so simply? Checkers, surely, as it already is basically dots on a screen. But who cares if they lose all their dots? Humans, when they’re driven by their instinct to win, that’s who! So people, all people, apply meaning to ‘losing a dot’ as a negative, and ‘taking a dot’ as a positive, both steps towards the permanent win / loss outcome that exists for both players.

I’m almost starting to see things your way, here, by the way.

But still, is it the concept or the understanding of a concept that matters to a definition? The possible concept Games as requiring winning and losing has existed literally since the dawn of time; it’s a concept. Considering Games this way is a clear argument-winner, as long as you argue that your definition is right because it’s the definition. If it’s the understanding of that definition that matters, then Tag can still qualify as a great game despite its boring ruleset; watching animals and children having fun playing tag strongly suggests that the concept of Game was marked and named before the ability to even conceptualize what an absolute win state meant, and included the acts of play as well as rules of play. If tag came first (and if ‘came first’ is the only point of contention on definitions), then Gameness can fairly incorporate the thrill of actuating game actions (in tag’s case, running and, in Diablo’s case, playing longer) into Gameness’ quality guidelines, since the understanding of Tag as a Game wouldn’t have ever ‘been’ without including the nature of the necessary actuations.

Tag’s quality is still subjective (it’s less fun for kids in wheelchairs and more fun for adults that enjoy running [and yes, I now realize it's more fun because of reasons separate from the rules, but I am still in the process of defending my alternate definition. just realize that, if accepted, that definition makes this point valid]). Also subjective is the funness of any game to some people, like the 40-year-old, smart, adult WoW players don’t always see and loathe the carrot or stick, or the hypothetical super-human evolutions that solve chess that find it boring.

You cannot incorporate this subjectiveness into a set of guidelines for Gameness quality without making value judgements about what Games people like (again, I’m still in the process of arguing for my definition of Game, and so this can’t be accepted yet. But, given an accepted definition of Game that includes the stuff that makes WoW fun for some people, ANY negative judgement of WoW as a Game would be nothing more than a value judgment of those people’s tastes). I’m guilty of making those value judgments, I realize.

So, how do we accept a definition of game? if it’s a matter of ‘what made something someone understood as a Game into a Game first: playing or being able to win?’, then play is what I believe is the important part. I suppose we could argue further about the point in history at which cognitive awareness of something like victory came to be. We could even start to examine at which point Game is understood in an individual’s cognitive development, and probably still see that children mark tag as ‘Game’ before they would understand what a victory condition means to play. Even then, though, you have to look at what a child understands as Game rather than what they are told is Game, or else colloquial falsisms can interfere. I don’t have the research to back this up, but maybe someone else does, or can even deny.

Does this definition allow you to consider going to the bathroom a game? Yes. Does this mean there can never be a good game about going to the bathroom? Absolutely not. My definition at least allows more possible great Games to get made. (How could it not? it’s a broader definition). And conversely, a broader definition doesn’t stop you from appreciating tight rulesets and emphasis on rules in making Auro, nor does it lessen anyone’s enjoyment of Auro.

Hopefully I’m demonstrating my overarching theme, though, which is that definitions don’t matter.

But yes, if it’s only whether concept or conceptualization came first that defines Game came, then you can’t argue either way with certainty. It’s also hard to argue with certainty using any other means of determining definition, for that matter. You could just as easily argue definitions for ‘bird’ and ‘chair’, and do the world about as much good. If you accept that an absolute definition of ‘Game’ is uncertain, or at least inconsistent in places as used in society for far longer than we’ve had digital Games, but take opportunities to point out how Minecraft and Diablo 3 are unquestionably bad Games, then you are only making a value judgment against people that enjoy those Games and have an equally valid definition of Game that includes them.

If we want to disagree, then yeah, we disagree. It’s still just a matter of what people call things. For now, more people disagree with you. Will it always be that way? Who knows, but I think I’ve reasonably defended a different definition.

Sorry for derailing the discussion, if I have. As soon as it started into what is and isn’t a game, though, I figured it worth actually thinking the problem through further than I have before (and maybe you / others). Unfortunately ‘why do we have definitions’ isn’t the simplest thing to argue.

You’re right, I was missing a key word: skillful. A game is something that gives you reward out of skillful action.

And buying a stick of gum at the station… actually, that is in lots of games that not many people would say aren’t games. Granted, they’re a small part of a larger game, but they do still exist in games – Mafia, GTA, and other similar sandbox games allow you to drive to a store and buy stuff. Interesting, and I don’t actually like that im realising this now, but that is technically a game. It takes skill to drive there, and the reward is food/petrol, etc.’

I don’t think that adding that word into that definition detracts from my arguments, but it does nullify your responses in regards to the 3 games you mentioned, and the SWF file…. I think. Although, while the SWF file might not be considered a game, some people might make a game out of it for themselves – I find myself wondering how many times I’ll need to click to reach the limit, or make the number bigger than the box, etc.

There are a lot of discussion here that misses the point. You claim D3 is not a game since it offers no challenge or decision-making and some people respond that it is a good “game” since it’s still fun. I agree with your point that an activity that is only fun is not a game. I also agree with you that D3 is not very interesting from a gamer perspective. But your article, probably because you wanted it to be a bit provoking, is not entirely true. The fact is that even though D3 may not require skill or good decision-making, it definitely rewards you for having/making them. I’m not saying D3 is a deep or challenging game, hell I’m not even saying it’s a good game. But it is a game. If I ever sat down to play D3 I would complete it 3 times as fast as my mother would. I would be a better player than my mother. In your flash game example I would not be. This is not to say D3 is anything but a boring and simple game with nice graphics but it IS a game.

Wow… and you call yourself a game designer? Without knowing even the basics of exactly that? Arguing with a company that’s been in the business far longer that you have been and most likely will be?
God beware that I’ll ever play something you create, your idea of what a game should be sounds horrible.

I agree with most people who are against you on this, people like John Kirkland above.

“WoW itself is not a contest, that’s why it’s not a game.” now I am not a WoW-player myself and quite frankly I don’t even like it, but tell me a game where you don’t win in the end. Sure, there are games which story end in the hero dying or his quest failing but the overall goal of reaching the end of the game was achieved.
Everybody who plays a game wins in the end, at least in singleplayer-mode. You can die a million times on the way but it can be sheer luck, godly timing or just perseverance that kept you trying but as long as you don’t give up you WILL make it to the end.
Of course there are games out there that give you hardcore-modes with permanent deaths. Diablo 2 had it and so does the more recent Witcher 2. I agree that death became less and less significant, with regenerating shields or health, or auto-saves every few steps. But that surely is not Diablos fault. So many people are now more or less casual players. They sure as hell wouldn’t want to play a game where, when you die once, the story is over.

I’m losing myself here in my trail of thoughts and I would have so much more to say but right now I confuse myself over it.
Critique is good, it makes people think and maybe even change their stance on things. But as a reader it sound to me more like you don’t like Diablo or at least Diablo 3 and now frantically look for reasons to justify yourself. While at the same time you sound like a giant douche, stating everything under the vail of “just looking at the game design here folks, I’m 100% objective”. If you want to tell us how great you are and how amazing your game is, don’t do it by posting a troll text like this. Because it is nothing but trying to get attention and reactions. I guess a good way to lure readers on your site to check our your game, huh? Nice played.

“In the meantime, I have designed Auro to be as focused as possible. It is a game, and no one will ever be confused about that.” way to pat yourself on the shoulder mate. I can really see how this is not a shameless plug for your game.

But I do honestly wish you good luck with your game, really. Competition and smart minds is something the gaming-industry really needs and you are obviously not stupid. Just do it like your game: Stay focused on that and leave other people’s games out of that.

“Okay, so… are you going to continue on with that line of thinking, and call a play a game, too? If a play is a game, then maybe a movie? Hell, let’s just call everything “game” so that the word has no function what-so-ever!”

The difference between pretend play and the performance arts is in their natures.

Pretend play still puts and keeps decision making and action in the hands of its players. The situation and outcome are determined by the players’ choices. A group of children playing doctor can end in an operating room scene or is simply focused on the examination room. The children playing patients can choose and pretend to have any number of different diseases, while the “doctor” can decide in different ways to treat those sicknesses, from something as simple as prescribing medicines or comically in highly imaginative surgery. However, imaginative games like this can go anywhere, especially depending on what its players choose. All the players have all the choices.

As for theater and acting, it depends which part of the show you’re in. If you’re of the audience, then you’re just a viewer. Nothing you do, say or decide is going to affect the outcome of the story that unfolds before you. Certainly you’re also not in the position to even forward them. If you’re an actor, the difference between player (gamer) and player (actor) is subtle but remains: the actor is following a script. Certainly, the challenge (and fun) lies in how he carries the script, says his lines, does his actions and tries to convey to the audience action, emotion, and idea, but the outcome is already fixed. He’s playing only in a specific and archaic sense of the word, and certainly he’s not making decisions to compete. In fact, he’s cooperating with others to stick to an already set script in order to bring a story to life. He’s a cog in a performing machine, not the guy throwing around the switches. There’s no “tactical decision-making” here.

At this point, I want you to know that I read your blog post at least twice, checked out all related blog articles, such as those on Auro or your company’s philosophy, went through the comments here and in the blog post on the NPC web comic, and tried my best to understand your viewpoint and your ideas before even considering the first letter to type in my first reply. Despite the passion and focus I’ve shown in my replies, I put in effort and time to speak directly, seriously and respectfully. My challenge to your ideas lies in how much weight I gave your perspective- which is to say enough to start a discussion with you.

I DO NOT TAKE KINDLY TO BEING SARCASTICALLY INSULTED OR SHOWN CONDESCENSION AS SHOWN IN THE TONE AND NATURE OF YOUR REPLY. THAT IS WHY I ANSWERED THIS FIRST BEFORE ANY OF THE OTHER PARTS OF YOUR RESPONSE. WE CAN EITHER CONTINUE, TRYING TO HAVE A CIVILIZED, RATIONAL AND VIGOROUS DISCUSSION ON THE IDEA OF WHAT CONSTITUTES A GAME AND ITS RELATED ISSUES (ESPECIALLY WHERE YOUR SUPPOSED GOAL IS TO MAKE BETTER GAMES), OR YOU CAN SAVE ME MY TIME AND EFFORT BY SIMPLY TELLING ME YOU’RE UNWILLING TO ACCOMMODATE DISSENT AND DISAGREEMENT TO YOUR PERSONAL OPINIONS OF WHAT MAKES A GAME, ESPECIALLY WITH HOW YOU SNIDELY SNAPPED AT ME. I CAN EITHER ADDRESS YOUR OTHER POINTS KNOWING YOU’RE WILLING TO LISTEN, OR I CAN SPEND MY TIME DOING SOMETHING MORE PRODUCTIVE AFTER REALIZING YOU JUST DON’T CARE TO HEAR ME OR OTHER PEOPLE.

Old entry, I know.

I agree with some of what you say, but I don’t like that you immediately dismiss Hardcore mode. The thing is Hardcore mode is exactly what turns Diablo (II) into a “game”, according to you, so it’s irritating that you dismiss it simply because it isn’t checked by default, and you doing so is a very large part of this entire article and its outcome.

At some point, the game has to be considered with Hardcore mode enabled, as the difficulty obviously isn’t designed around meaningless death (because there’s no “difficulty” in that). I don’t think Blizzard could have gotten away with making it mandatory anyway; instead it’s something to try when you’re ready, and it’s easy to access for that. Unfortunately I don’t actually have the experience with Hardcore mode to know how the given difficulty stacks up with it, but at least all three difficulty levels can be completed with it.

Diablo II is thus a game where you can turn meaningful death off whenever you please, although playing with meaningful death is eventually expected; you can choose to play around with the game, or take it seriously. I don’t see the issue with this from any perspective.

Old post, and I did write a long reply but… kind of meaningless for a post so old, and it got kind of messy.

Point I was going to make is that really, Diablo 3 is a game despite your claims to the contrary. Even without the stat increases and loot, there’s still other content there, and you would have to make decisions about different skill builds and tactics if you cared about either efficiency, or simply put permadeath on. So maybe it only fits the definition of a game in certain circumstances and maybe the gameplay is thinner than you’d like, but it is there behind the slot machine machinations. Eh, I just like poking holes in peoples arguments :)

So, yeah, there’s that. I’d partially agree with the Farmville comparison, but I’d argue that they don’t have reason to manipulate you after purchasing the game as they’re not going to get anything out of it, so the motivation is different, and that’s meaningful in my opinion. On the other hand, World of Warcraft? Yeah, that’s pretty much Shiny Upgraded Farmville.

Interesting post though.

Turn Hardcore mode on. If you refuse to do that, you can never talk about Diablo in game design, by your own rules. Your rules also apply to so many games that it’s painful anyone wants to perpetuate something like this. There is a reason those games do what they do, and there are very easy ways around it. Just like with Diablo, if you do not or cannot acknowledge these ways, you should not and cannot ever bring those names up in game design.

Hi Keith! You tweeted at me, Frank Lantz, Dave Sirlin & Shawn Allen about this article, and I tweeted some thoughts back about contests and your black SWF. This is such a great article! I enjoy your thinking about this stuff immensely and was inspired to write you a comment.

So here are some things I think I understand about your position on games; if I have any of this wrong, definitely correct me, please! I agree with a lot of your starting points re: games but I suspect have a different perspective on some ideas. It’s those that I want to elucidate and ask you about. I think this requires a little bit of “what do we agree about” groundwork, especially given all the much different definitions of games that other people have posted.

a) “pure games” are contests that have win or loss conditions, goals, rules, and meaningful decisions. I think of this as fairly common ground for formalist game designers, although obviously there are a lot of people (Manveer Heir in a rant at GDC, even Eric Zimmerman these days) who lobby for the inclusion of a wider set of interactive experiences in the “big tent” of games, things that are more toylike, or have very few meaningful decisions and are mostly interactive or “turn the crank to see the story” experiences, etc.

b) “contest” implies winning and losing but not necessarily other players (either as direct/interfering competition or parallel “score competition”). The rest of humanity could die and you could devise a game with a system that provides you a contest, which you could then test yourself against, improve skill, win and lose, etc. I think you subscribe to this point of view. In 100 Rogues I can engage in a continual contest against myself and my best previous performance, etc.

c) Diablo 3 is basically Farmville is basically Black SWF. Yes! I agree. The only thing is, I think all of these are games that have win & loss conditions, are contests in which some players can best other players, and involve meaningful decisions and skill development. This does not mean I think they are good games, or that they involve a LOT of skill development, etc or skills that I personally want to encourage people to develop. On to what I mean:

c) when we talk about “Minecraft” or “Diablo” we are speaking of the game as shipped with rules, goals, and win/loss conditions specified by the designers/creators of the game — not any other way that players devise to play the game. I kind of agree with this and I kind of don’t. There’s an interesting, non-binary grey area here, maybe a spectrum. Obviously LEGO or a rubber ball is not a game even if you come up with games to play with them; Minecraft (in Survival Mode) is similarly more like a “thing you can use to make your own games” but has some implicit goals in its constitutive rules like “don’t die because you will lose all your stuff” that impact player strategy and goal formation. A single game can designate goals for players players both of the “you finished the whole game” completion variety AND meaningful score (for performance, speed, etc.) They can even be designed to allow two playstyles (one player just plays to finish, the other to play well and score) with a well-designed experience for both; you could argue that this means there are actually two different games, but the fact that they occupy the same space and rules system and you can stop playing one and start playing the other with the same state is surely noteworthy. (Another example of a “contest” that can be played either way is the Boston Marathon, which is designed to allow “I just want to finish players” but puts more focus on the skilled competitors who want to beat each other, etc.) To put it another way — games need players; players come with their own motivations and attitudes, sub-goals (or strategies) and ways of interpreting the game as designed object. Four of us could be playing Risk, and you might be playing to beat us, I could be playing to kingmake our third friend, and the last person could be playing as a sheer force of chaos; we’re still playing the same game despite having different goals (and two of us don’t even care about winning).

d) Failing to continue playing a game is not actually a loss condition, unless rules for forfeit have been explicitly spelled out or coded into the game by the designer. I’m not sure this is what you think, but it’s sort of implied by some of your thoughts on this page, right? It’s obvious enough in head-to-head multiplayer games that forfeit usually has to be handled somehow. If we play chess and I just walk away and don’t move, most people would assume that you have won. But what about single-player games? If I am playing 100 Rogues, and I don’t lose but I feel like I’m screwed, and I get frustrated and delete the app because I don’t want to actually get to the loss condition, have I lost? I tend to think so. If this is true, it means that MANY games can be considered lost if players bail, even a game with super-light death setbacks. For instance, masocore platformers (VVVVV, You Have to WIn the Game, etc) clearly take a lot skill, have interesting strategic decisions, have win conditions — but in masocore platformers, death resets you very nearby so that you can quickly retry your death-defying leap strategy. These games “defeat” players mostly by making them give up in frustration — only the skilled and dedicated win (and usually get much better at the platforming skill involved). Similarly, I would argue that you CAN lose Farmville if you let it beat you, and you give up. This tends to happen at certain points where players lose a ton of resources in the game — they’ve failed to complete the appointed task such as “come back in 8 hours to harvest your crops” and instead return to find a massive field of death and two months’ worth of earnings, hundreds of thousands of gold coins, down the drain. This is much more punishing than most games with permadeath in terms of time-loss, even if the skill and meaningful decisions involved are vanishingly thin! As a result of this kind of thing, any ten-year-old could tell you which players in a series of farms have “lost” Farmville — they’re the ones with dead, empty farms that have been let rot, like an Animal Crossing town covered with weeds. The game hasn’t actually declared a loss state, even if the player has managed to lose all their money this way — but would it make a big difference if Zynga said “YOU LOSE START OVER” at this point?

e) Persistence and dedication alone do not constitute sufficient “skills” for a game’s contest. The black SWF game up there probably doesn’t seem like a “real game” to most people, probably because they assume nobody would find something so boring to be an “entertaining diversion or amusement.” However, I think you have actually constructed a game — you might consider it a crappy game, and I might agree even though I played this kind of game for years as a small child with a 1970s blood cell counter belonging to my father. The goal is to make the number go up, like you said, and it has a score. The moment the player loses is when they unload the web page (thus deleting the state) or when they can honestly say in their own minds that they have abandoned the activity. (The latter may make this a crappy game in the same way that tag is — no clear ending, just people giving up.) Some players will have a higher score than others, and therefore implicitly have won the contest vs. those people, as surely as someone with a higher Tetris score. It’s just that the skill involved is persistence, not “ability to rapidly orient and position tetrominoes in a grid.” I would be happy to challenge you to Black SWF — either endless or with a time limit of a few days (i’m not as interested in the sprint style) and I feel confident that I’ll do well, possibly beat you, because I have strategies for persistence, avoiding the failure-inducing risk of boredom, and making the game both enjoyable and time-efficient. If you think about it, these kinds of skill — how to be persistent, keep from getting bored and abandoning things — have been of fairly vital importance in human history, from the invention of agriculture and loom-weaving to submarine operators in WWII.

So, what’s my point here? I don’t think everyone should be making Black SWF the game; even though I enjoy that game in a childlike way, and like setting my own goals in it (my current score is 1337) I don’t think it’s a particularly great game. What I am interested in is the fact that “games of persistence” can be reasonably seen as contests, some people are better at them, and these kinds of mechanics are highly engaging and enjoyable for a lot of people in the world. I don’t think it’s just compulsion that drives people to score over 1000 in Black SWF. I’m perfectly aware that the score is a meaningless reward that simply measures my own persistence, and I don’t feel addicted or compelled (there’s not really enough reward to create a psychological addiction). There’s an actual “how long can you go” mechanic which involves adoption of goals and testing of the self. The same is true of Farmville — which I would describe as a crappy but very engaging game. The contest in Farmville has to do with deciding what kind of appointments to make with the game vis-a-vis one’s own schedule; do I plant 4-hour crops or 48-hour crops? Players devise strategies that intersect with the rest of their lives, sometimes get tripped up and fail; they consult spreadsheets of profit and loss risk, they project how many days it’s going to take to buy their bigger farmhouse. These may not seem like interesting decisions to US but they’re certainly decisions with strategic impact on the game state, and involve various kinds of skill. I’ve come to think of these things as “micro-skill” — they don’t affect the win/loss of the game, but they do affect the economic efficiency of the player’s farm, or the rate at which they move towards the goals they’ve adopted. I can say for sure that “efficiency optimization” is designed by devs in as a real, structurally present goal of Facebook management-sim games — even though it is never explicitly thrust upon the player. It’s the equivalent of “level completion time” in a more traditional game where you get a bigger bonus for playing skillfully and efficiently, making smart tactical choices, etc.

But yes, I do think Diablo is basically Farmville, and both games are basically Black SWF, but with “more stuff.” Some of this stuff is crappy storylines and graphics, some of it is micro-skill moments where the player can optimize or lose fewer resources, but at the heart of it — it all comes down to persistence.

Thanks for giving me an opportunity to think through and write down this stuff (and extra thanks if you actually read this post, which is above and beyond.)

Seeing as you seem to be having a bit of trouble here:

A game consists of states, goals, and rules. You move through the states towards the goals within the parameters of the rules.

Love,

Someone who gets paid to design games for a living.