It probably won’t surprise you to hear that I often think about why people play games.  For a while I’ve been batting around a metaphor that I find useful: Junk food vs. Nutrition.

Some games are simply fun.  They provide some sort of pleasure from manipulating the components or developing skill.  One of my favorite games of this type is Time Pilot (it’s available on XBox Live Arcade if you’re interested).  In Time Pilot, you pilot a futuristic plane that flies around shooting enemies; once you shoot enough enemies the “boss” appears, and when you defeat that you get to the next level.  That’s it.  Oh, there are a couple of wrinkles like point bonuses if you defeat all the enemies in a “wing”, but really that’s all it is.  And it’s quite fun.

Games like this I consider “junk food”.  They sate your desires, they provide enjoyment, but they don’t encourage you to “grow” at all.

This begs the question, what do I mean by “grow”, and what games would I consider “important”?  Of course this is all subjective, but this is my blog, so here goes.  I consider games to be “important” if they provide you with new information and new ways of thinking about things, if they encourage your mind to grow in some way.

For example, consider Portal.  Portal’s portals prompt players to think in new ways about space and motion.  Also, its story provides a new twist on the classic “enemy computer” trope, and its setting evokes a particular “research gone wrong” sort of horror.  These are things that guide the player to new thoughts and new information.

Now, some people will say that once you get all the “nutrition” from a game, playing it ceases to give you any new information.  That’s true.  Games aren’t infinitely “nutritive” (although some, like Master of Magic, feature so many emergent strategies that you can “profitably” play them for years).  After playing Portal for 10 hours you’ve probably gotten all the information you can from it, and now you’re just developing your portal-flipping skills.  At this point the game is “junk food”.  Also, some would argue that even a game as simple as Time Pilot has valuable information; there’s the interesting, if sparse, time travel premise, and there are various skill atoms you come across as you learn to play the game.  As no game is infinitely nutritive, no game is entirely junk either…Unless it’s merely a rehash of things the player has seen before.

Let me say that I don’t think “junk food” is bad.  If you want nothing more than fun from a game–there’s nothing wrong with that.  I’m certainly not going to tell you which games you can play.

But just think…If you want to grow, you can’t do it with junk food alone.

Now, as a relatively inexperienced game designer (compared to some out there, at least), I don’t feel as though my games are better than junk.  I don’t claim to be producing worthwhile games, yet…However, I do always try to include some “nutrition” in them, something new, something that makes people think, something that nudges the craft of game design just a little bit forward.  Phantasma, for example, has a somewhat original system of modeling spellcasting wizards, and it also has player-created “sculptures” and player-written books.  Chaostorm is a neat Web 2.0-ish game mechanic developed into a (simple, admittely) browser-based game.  And Aching Dreams takes resource management down to first principles to create a simple but flexible game framework…and, of course, it has sex.

Of course, this model informs the games I make, but perhaps more importantly it informs the games I play.  I’ve played a bunch of match-3 games, of course, for about five minutes each; they’re junk food.  However, Puzzle Quest: Challenge of the Warlords is a game I’ve devoted lots of time to–it illustrates how you can replace “standard” RPG gameplay with other mechanics, it explores the match-3 mechanic in a couple new directions, it allows you to develop your character in ways that influence the match-3 gameplay.  And it’s pretty fun too.  Conversely, I downloaded and played the demo for Castle Crashers, but I didn’t spend more than a few minutes on it.  Sure, it seemed well polished, but it was a four-player beat-’em-up like Final Fight or Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles…And sure, the animation is great, but game design isn’t about animation, it’s about information.

So, if you design games, are you creating junk food or a healthy snack?  If you play games (and, nowadays, who doesn’t)–How much time do you spend with junk food, and how much with stuff that actually helps your mind grow?  (I’ll admit that my “junk food time” is, well, let’s just say greater than zero!)

Recently I attended Global Game Jam 2009. It was interesting; I don’t have anything too urgent to report, I’ll make a full, thoughtful blog post about it later.  For now I want to talk about something else.

I was thinking about the question, how does an indie game developer make money?  People have tried all sorts of things.  It seems to me that the best way is selling a product, or perhaps a subscription.  Some people sell advertising on their websites.  Kingdom of Loathing sells in-game items (well, they call it “donations” but it’s basically selling).  They also sell T-shirts.

Some folks take in donations and call them donations, not promising anything in return, except that they often offer a sort of lagniappe upon receipt.  An omake; a bonus, in other words.  For example, Andrew Hussie is a comic artist and not a game developer (well, that can be debated but let’s leave it for now)…If you donate to him, he draws a non-canon comic panel (or strip!) inspired by whatever “prompt” you give him.  And Tarn Adams (”the Dwarf Fortress guy”) will send you a crayon drawing if you donate…plus add your name to the Bay 12 Games Champions List.

Now that, that is intriguing.  It got me thinking of something I could do.  Something I might call…The Roll of Heroes.  (Or something better if it occurs to me.)

The idea is simple: If you donate some money to me (that is, to Chaoseed Software), your name will be added to “The Roll of Heroes”.  This will be a list somewhere with your name on it; probably a webpage listing everyone who’s donated to me.  (Unless you want to stay anonymous–since you’re the one giving me money, I’m more than willing to accomodate!)

The webpage listing is the only reward that is guaranteed.  However…If you have donated, your name is forever recorded as someone who supported me in a very real way.  And I’m bound to remember that.  So just as an example, let’s say your name is “Catherine”.  Completely random, off the top of my head name.  If I’m writing some fantasy world background and I want the name of a revolutionary heroine…I might just take a look at my Roll of Heroes and say “Oh, I can name her Catherine!”.  Or perhaps I might name a city “Catherine-on-the-River”.  The point is, your name has a chance of being immortalized in one of my games.

Of course, it doesn’t have to be a name.  Let’s say you love the number 57 and you give me some money–the 57th Legion repels an invading army.  Or you’re overly enamored of the phrase “Now we’re getting somewhere!”.  If the Roll of Heroes says “Now we’re getting somewhere! — $20″ then I’m going to have characters say it if I can possibly sneak it in.  Or you have a trailhead leading to a website…well, if you have a trailhead, contact me directly and we may be able to work something out even without money.

I should mention that this whole idea is just that, an idea.  I haven’t implemented it yet, and I have to give it some more thought before I actually do it.  I’d welcome criticism, though, so feel free to tell me what you think!

For 3-7 players.  Uses a standard 52-card deck.

1. Shuffle, deal 7 cards to each player.
2. Players trade cards amongst themselves.
3. After a while (time limit?) trading ends.
4. Each player uses the cards they have to construct the highest-scoring poker hand they can.
5. Highest hand wins.

The information problem

Notice I’ve said nothing about what sort of information is allowed to be passed.  How do you know the other person will stick to their deal?  Do you have to reveal the cards before trading them?  What happens if you trade cards and suddenly someone says “Wait, you said it was a heart, but this is only a 3 of hearts!  I don’t want this, give me back my card!”.  Also, is it difficult to make deals with someone sitting across the table from you?

Playing on a computer solves many of these problems.  Any decent chatroom interface allows the players to chat with each other both publically and privately.  Also, I can envision a trading interface that would make things easy.  The trading interface would look something like this:

1. You choose a card(s) to offer.
2. You choose how to present those card(s).  If you were trading the 7 of hearts, there would be options for calling it “One 7″, “One H”, “One Red”, “7H”.
3. When both players are finished with the trade, they see the details of the trade and can examine it.  (”Trading One 7 For One D”)
4. If both players confirm, the trade is executed.  If either player cancels, the trade is cancelled.

This solves the problem of not getting what you expected by making it part of the game.  Yes, you might have gotten a 2H, but you saw that you were getting “One H” and you pressed “Confirm”–it’s your fault!

Notes

You may trade unequal numbers of cards.  Is a hand with four cards a legal hand?  I would say for this game it should be.  If you trade away all but four cards, but those four cards are four kings, you deserve to win!

Obviously there’s room for variation; giving the players fewer cards to start with would probably restrict their freedom, but giving them too many would shift the emphasis more toward simply arranging the cards you already had.  Playtesting is certainly a good idea here.  One thing that might be fun would be to shuffle two decks together; that way things become more uncertain and random.

I upgraded to Flash CS4, and I’ve been working on Aching Dreams 2, as well as simply learning ActionScript 3.0. So far I’m just working on the programming framework; the story, gameplay and characters are still being, ah, fleshed out.

Here’s something interesting I’ve discovered:

When you add an image to a Flash file in the library, it becomes an “embedded asset”. In AS3, you can use the getDefinitionByName() function to find the embedded asset class based on its filename (well, its linkage name, which is by default its filename). Then you can instantiate the class and get a BitmapData class; you can use this to construct a Bitmap class, then use addChild or addChildAt to display it. The really interesting thing is that the documentation says the BitmapData constructor takes a height and width…but this doesn’t seem to matter in the case of embedded assets. Pass the constructor anything you want, even 0,0, and it should still instantiate and display correctly.

EDIT: The followup post has more about this and a better way to pull it off.

As hinted at in an earlier post, I’ve created a new web-based game: NecroFodder!  It’s intended to be quick-playing but with some strategy involved as well.  Go check it out!  (It was created for the TIGSource Commonplace Book Competition.)

In other news…I’ve been getting a huge number of spam comments on this blog.  Fortunately, the WordPress software makes it easy to deal with them, so you guys never see them…But it still greatly puzzles me. O_o

Recently I had an interesting insight, but I need some background to explain it.

First, let’s think about games. Single player games, for now. One of the definitions of games given in Rules of Play is that game players deal with unnecessary obstacles. Imagine Super Mario Bros., for example; there are all sorts of obstacles in the path to the Princess at the end. In a sense, there is no reason why these obstacles are there; one could easily imagine a version of SMB that lets you just walk a flat, enemy-less path to the end. But the obstacles make it a game. (I highly recommend reading the book, because it’s much better written than my fumbling summary.)

So, SMB contains obstacles. We can think of these obstacles as skill tests. If you fail at a skill test–that is, if you miss a jump or can’t dodge an enemy–you are sent back to your most recent checkpoint. You have a certain number of chances, and if you use up all yoru chances, the game is over. So, SMB is focused on skill tests.

Now let’s think about another game, Knights of the Old Republic. If you haven’t played KotOR, it’s the type of computer game called an “RPG”, set in the Star Wars continuity. (”RPG” in this case is kind of a misnomer, but I’m not going to address that in this post.) KotOR is a fun game and I highly recommend it. If you’ve ever played any of the “main” Final Fantasy games, as well as Dragon Warrior/Dragon Quest, Atelier Iris or any of a thousand other RPGs…then you know the basic flow of the game. But let’s go over it to refresh our memories…

Knights of the Old Republic also has obstacles and skill tests, but its structure is slightly more complex. During most of the game you have the option to explore various areas at whatever pace you wish, and while there is always someplace to go (often many places), the game doesn’t force you along as much as SMB’s screen that only scrolls to the right. In KotOR you can take time to explore areas and increase the power of your party. This is important because the skill tests in KotOR are dependent on how powerful your party is, and to a lesser extent your strategy; you really need to spend time increasing the in-game power of your characters. Practicing–that is, developing your own skills–won’t get you far. Of course, this in-game power-up process isn’t too onerous, because mere exploration and moving from place to place will provide some of it. The game is pretty well “balanced” in that respect.

Let me take a moment to explain that last statement. “Balanced” is a term that can have several meanings. In the context of single-player games, like I’m using it, it usually means “not too difficult and not too easy”. In other words, the game provides you with a challenge that’s appropriate to your skill level; it’s fun. As I’ve said, most of the “skill” tests in KotOR deal with your characters’ in-game power, but the game includes a lot of exploration and questing that will increase that power. In other words, things that you were already expecting to do–exploration and questing–increase your in-game power enough to pass the “power tests”. Therefore, it doesn’t seem like you have to do anything “special” to pass these tests.

My point is that there are things people expect to do in games and things they don’t really want to do. Playing an RPG like KotOR, people expect to spend time exploring vast areas, fighting monsters along the way, solving problems for NPCs…those are things that players usually think are fun. However, in some games you can reach a point where your characters are just not powerful enough to pass the power test; in this case you have to do something to increase your characters’ in-game power. You have to take time out from the fun stuff you were doing and, say, go kill monsters for a while. Often this is referred to as “grinding”, a word that wonderfully evokes the mindless, fun-less nature of the task. RPG players aren’t exactly surprised when they have to do this, but the more grinding is necessary, the less balanced the game seems to be.

(I realize that I’m making sweeping generalizations about what players find “fun”. Different players find different sorts of fun in games–that’s something that’s been hammered into me over the years, no question. But it’s all in service to my points!)

So, the point is–Ideally, when players play games, they don’t have to spend any time on tasks that aren’t fun. Assuming players enjoy exploring and questing more than they do wandering around finding monsters to kill–a truly “balanced” game shouldn’t require any monster-kill grinding. Sure, without obstacles it wouldn’t be a game, but what we’re looking for is that line that separates “obstacles the player enjoys overcoming” and “tasks the player feels forced to accomplish in order to get back to the fun”. That, to me, is what every game designer searches for (even if they don’t consciously realize they’re doing so).

Okay, that’s cool. But let’s back up a bit. Let’s think about KotOR again and its “power tests”. When I talk about these tests, I’m usually thinking of bosses. These are in-game characters or creatures that the player must defeat in battle to advance to the next stage of the game. The player’s in-game power must be powerful enough to defeat the boss; therefore, to reduce the boss to its most simple form, it’s a test of the player’s in-game power.

So what happens when you go through this test? There are usually two options:

• Pass the test–Go on to the next stage of the game.
• Fail the test–Game over. Start over from your last saved game or some other checkpoint.

But wait–This reminds me of something. It reminds me of a post or article over on The Forge, although I wasn’t able to find the specific reference. I bet it was something posted by Ron Edwards; I’ll try to recreate the argument as best I can.

Now we’re moving away from computer games and talking about pen-and-paper roleplaying games–Dungeons & Dragons being the most famous example. For those not aware, Ron Edwards has spent a lot of time thinking and writing about RPGs, coming up with new models for what they actually include. Of course there’s debate, but here’s one basic point that he (and many other people) agree on: A lot of published RPG rule systems do the same basic stuff because “that’s how everyone does it”, but there are other ways to do things that are worth exploring. Hence, a site about “indie” RPGs, where people who are interested in non-mainstream stuff (or, to put it another way, bored with mainstream stuff) congregate.

Here’s one example of a different way to do things in RPGs. Let’s imagine there’s a character with a “Pick Locks” skill. They sneak into an enemy compound in order to steal some documents. They come upon a door they need to get through to advance further; the door is locked. So, they do a power test–they roll some dice and look at their Pick Locks skill.

Let’s say they fail the roll.

So…Now what? The character is stuck. They can’t advance until they succeed at their roll. Just like KotOR–back to the last saved game.

Now, in a real RPG session you usually have a GM who is there to improvise in some way. One simple way to deal with this problem is to let the character break down the door–but this might attract the attention of guards, making the character’s situation stickier.

Some RPG systems tackle this problem by developing the notion of “stakes” more. In the original scenario, the stakes were simple:

• If you win this test, the door is open and you can advance.
• If you lose, you cannot advance.

But there are other ways to do this. Let’s imagine the stakes of the conflict were set as follows:

• If you win this test, the door is open and you can advance.
• If you lose, you get the door open, but you make so much noise that guards are attracted.

In a sense, all we’ve done is fold some improvisation into the conflict. (RPG theorists often refer to these “tests” as “conflicts”.) We’ve made more explicit the idea that this test doesn’t put a halt to the game; instead, failure puts more pressure on the character and makes the story more interesting. The focus is not as much on the mechanics of the in-game power; the focus is more on how the story will develop and what (hopefully interesting) things will happen to the character next.

So, going back to KotOR’s power tests, now they look a bit limiting. Basically a KotOR boss can be summarized as follows:

• If you win, you advance.
• If you lose, reload your save and grind until you think you can try again.

So, do we have to do it like this? We can take a page from the indie RPGs and create different stakes than something “win/retry”. But now we’re getting into a branching storyline and exponential growth of content. In other words, if you want a “lose” option, you have to write and develop it; that could be hard.

Perhaps there are ways to more easily develop branching and adaptive storylines. But that’s a post for another day…

Today I looked into learning JavaScript.  Basically it’s a weakly-typed declarative/functional language with a couple object-oriented features for good measure, much in the line of PHP or Perl.  The interesting part, though, is the “HTML DOM”, a set of objects that allows JavaScript to access and manipulate the web page it’s a part of.  I went into this project looking to learn automatic form validation, and I’ve figured that out.  Even that much may allow me to add new features to my web-based games.

Speaking of web-based games, I had an idea for another little project for the TIGSource Commonplace Book Competition.  I’m calling it “NecroFodder”.  We’ll see if anything comes of it.

First, Greg Costikyan (yes, that Greg Costikyan) has given Aching Dreams a favorable review.  Not intense praise or accolades by any means, but for what the game is, I’m very pleased with what he said.  And there’s an interesting conversation going on in the comments, too.  Really, this is kind of an amazing feeling for me; obviously Cook did a lot of work on the project (more than just art), but I’m the one who had responsibility for programming, UI design, fixing bugs, not to mention building and “shipping” the finished product.  So I feel rather…validated!

Also, I’ve started on an interactive fiction game called “The Duel” for TIGSource’s Commonplace Book Competition (horror-themed for the Halloween season!).  Check it out and make suggestions!

So, recently I completed writing a long…well, I guess you’d call it a short story, or maybe even a chapter of a novella. And now that that’s out of the way, I can get on with doing other cool stuff. (It had sort of been weighing on my mind for a while.)

I’m doing more PHP work on secret projects, and I’m also working in Inform on a project for the TIGSource Commonplace Book Competition. (I’m actually working in Inform 6; it’s more programmer-oriented than Inform 7, but hey, I’m a programmer! And it’s what I learned. Maybe someday I’ll learn 7.) I bet I’ll even be able to finish this one for Halloween.

Oh, yes, Halloween. I always want to have something…special happen for Halloween. We’ll see what I can *ahem* dig up.

I’ve noticed that I haven’t really been enjoying “twitch” games, that is, games that have action and focus on manual dexterity and/or timing.  I’ve especially been frustrated by those that are difficult.  Today I started thinking about why that might be the case.  (Brought on by playing Mega Man 9.)

The thing about action games is that they expect you to play them over and over, to practice, and thus to develop the skill of playing the game.  Then, once you finally master the skill and pass the game, you’re supposed to feel a sense of accomplishment.  And that’s good, if that’s what you want.

However, I play games a little differently.  Personally, I don’t really enjoy developing a skill to play a game; if I have trouble passing something and finally get through it, I feel relief more than accomplishment.  I’m not looking to develop and exercise skills in “simple” play of a game.

What I’m looking for is more in the line of experiencing the game.  I want to explore the environments, learn the information about the game world, hear the story, see the ending.  If I have to go back and repeat something until I get it right…well, that’s just interfering with my true enjoyment of the game!

You might be thinking that this implies I never replay a game.  However, this isn’t true.  There are games with multiple endings, of course, but what I really enjoy are games with multiple strategies.  My favorite type of games are the strategy/builder type games; Civilization, Master of Magic, Galactic Civilizations, Master of Orion.  (Why do I feel like there should be a game entitled “Master of Civilizations”?  Well, anyway…)  Once you finish one game of Galactic Civilizations 2, you can play another as a different race.  Or with a different galaxy size.  Or different distribution of planets, combination of opponents in the game, research speed, opponent intelligence (difficulty level)…And that’s not even considering the different ways you can play the game, conquering through military force or seducing planets through influence, etc., etc..

Therefore, while action games can certainly be fun, they don’t hold my attention like strategy games.

(This is all, of course, completely subjective; I’m well aware that everyone plays games for their own reasons!)