The holy grail of game design

[Christian]

EVERYONE designing games should understand the things that are exposed in this site:

http://www.xeodesign.com/whyweplaygames.html

They have studied player experiences for many years and have got to a conclucion that will help game designers realize what make games fun. They have various documents on different subjects and also a video on the GDCtv.
I dont know how to express the importance of the things they say here, but i assure you that you will not look at game design as you do now, you will become enlightened.

[Omega]

Good link, thanks!

[Christian]

I wonder...now that we read all the things said there, can we still say that copying genres (like plataform games like mario, or strategy games like dune) is a good idea?, or is a better idea to find better ways to make people have fun?.

[soniCron]

I wonder...now that we read all the things said there, can we still say that copying genres (like plataform games like mario, or strategy games like dune) is a good idea?, or is a better idea to find better ways to make people have fun?. Well, I'd say it's definately a bad idea to copy dune. ;)

[whisperstorm]

Gee, this article has inspired me in new ways. What if you applied these concepts to traditional software as well as just games? If there was a way to add elements of play, to say an email program w/o detracting from its core functionality it could be a new genre of software.

[Christian]

you seeee?!? there are a lot of ways to improve all kinds of software, why?, because the of power interaction, wich is used in both games and normal apllications, is absolutelly underestimated, ignored by almost all software developers.

And now, going back to the "dune" topic :p , i mean, all actual genres are based in games done in 1980 and early 1990, now there are a lot of advances in game design, i mean, not real advances, but people are talking more about game design, it looks like nobody is listenging, but anyway, there are people trying to push game design and video-games to a new era of "now i understand why things are fun and now i dont need to use those prehistoric genres that developers have used in more than 20 years of video-game life".
There is more game design knowledge than there was 20 years ago, many books, schools, and experience from the past (imagine more than 20 years of games, all the companies...millions of games done). Also, more and more people are getting tired of seeing all the games over and over again, thats why i said dune, because it was a hit, and since then all strategy games are like it (the most important i mean), the sad thing is that dune has copied past games of its time (really old ones); just as a little example.
The core of what i am saying is that, there is a LOT of knowledge ready to be taken, out there, waiting for developers, a lot of that knowledge CAN change how games are done now, and eventaully it will change, but we, independent people should take the chance NOW, before the big companies does, why?, i have no idea, but it would be cool to see new interesting and fun things made by small companies.

[soniCron]

...but we, independent people should take the chance NOW, before the big companies does. The big companies never will. It's too risky for them to devote very many resources to experimental game design. Experiments in gaming will most likely always remain in the camp of independent developers. (Check out this thread (http://forums.indiegamer.com/showthread.php?t=3527) for more on this.)

[Curiosoft]

you seeee?!? there are a lot of ways to improve all kinds of software, why?, because the of power interaction, wich is used in both games and normal apllications, is absolutelly underestimated, ignored by almost all software developers.



Hey,

Now you're getting the picture. Imagine future tools designed the way digital toys (creative sandboxes, SimCity, etc.) are designed. It opens up a whole new realm of design possibilities and spaces.

This will happen sooner rather than later; I am experimenting with this paradigm now. I wrote an essay on it for myself; PM me if you want it.

Take care,
Curiosoft

[soniCron]

This will happen sooner rather than later; I am experimenting with this paradigm now. I wrote an essay on it for myself; PM me if you want it. I'd like to read it. How about posting a copy on here?

[Abscissa]

Yea, that does sound interesting. I've thought about the same thing myself, although nothing concrete enough to write anything about.

[Curiosoft]

Hey folks,

Here's what I have so far. This research area will be covered by the Chroma Coders club ( http://www.chromacoders.org ).

Position paper for Chroma Coders:

Yeah, there are now two types of tools. The future of tools is to make them toys; successful tools will have all of the traits of current successful software toys. Borrowing from the game analogy, tools – future successful tools will not be about making a current process efficient – it’ll be about making emergent systems.

These systems will allow you to have – create things – these tools will be like toys - like create sandboxes – with special attention paid to the concept of Buckminster Fuller’s synergy.

This means that tools must make use of core emergent principles, like the network effect, information effect, and other unknown ideas. So the question is…are all successful future tools like MMORPGs?

What are the design principles of the new tools?

Do we have to give folks the power to author content?

How come something like HTML authoring tools never caught on…but stuff like Friendster did? Both allow folks to author stuff? Is it because the authoring tools on Friendster are more specific?

Are we designing toys that allow users to create/generate different types of content?

What are the emergent properties of information? How do we use them as tools?

So the design principles now are…
1) It must allow folks to create stuff; create content; add content; this content must be specific to a domain or an identity of the individual; it cannot be open-ended (like the HTML authoring tools).
2) The content must create emergent properties; or the rules of the tool must create emergence. This means a tool can try to leverage the network effect (as is usually done now)…but it may be able to tap into unknown information-combination emergence that will reveal themselves in the next few years.


Examples of toys/tools:
1) Google
2) Forums
3) Friendster/Facebook

What are the information equivalent to the network effect?


Let me know if you have any questions. The more you ask, the more clarity I can add to the current model.

I also have a concrete app to test this idea on. Maybe I'll post that later.

Take care,
Curiosoft