Just One More Game…: Learning as Central to Gameplay

Just One More Game…:Learning as Central to Gameplay Martin C. Martin www.martincmartin.com

Why Are Games Fun? • Many things go into making a game fun: • Beautiful images • Engrossing story, to mention two

Interaction • But those are shared with movies, TV, books • Yet people play games for hours • 3 hours is a long movie, but a tiny game • Tetris: no story, no graphics, yet incredibly absorbing So what is unique to games? Common answers: • Shaping the story • The thrill of winning • Affecting the world

Only For So Long • Tic Tac Toe becomes boring once you can play a perfect game • Choose Your Own Adventure books let you shape the story, but readers quickly lose interest • Knocking things over quickly becomes boring on its own

What Is Unique To Games? How does interaction make games fun? Proposal: Figuring out how to improve • Could also call it learning or skill building Outline: Improving  fun in existing games Game design principles Practical steps

Figuring Out How To Improve • First Person Shooter newbie • Aiming is tricky, so stand to shoot • Must choose: dodge OR shoot • Game gets difficult, player gets frustrated • Becomes clear: they could do a lot better if they could dodge AND shoot • Start to get the hang of it • Feel they have an edge over other players • Confidence rises: its own reward

The Learning Cycle • Player always trying to achieve goals • e.g. Hit enemy; don’t get hit • Always has a strategy to achieve them • E.g. dodge incoming; grab armor; look for cover • Looks at the world in terms of those goals • Always trying to improve strategy • E.g. discovers concept of sniping location • Leads to discovery of subgoals • Thinks “Now I’ve got it! Just one more game!” • Feeling competent is a reward. Makes goals easier.

Game Design Principles 1a. “What approaches will the player try?” • When confronted with a choice, player thinks up an approach • Approach could be strategy, hand-eye coordination, etc. 1b. “How can they tell what to improve?” • The initial approach is often simple; it needs improvement

1. What’s The Approach? Explains a lot about success/failure of certain games • Tic Tac Toe: Fun while learning • Example initial approach: treat as a race, i.e. focus on getting 3 in a row; ignore opponent • Learn you need to block opponent • “Ah, now I can play better, just one more game…” • Once perfect: boring • Who has read a Choose Your Own Adventure? • Fun until you realize: no way to discover which choice is right • Once you realize, choose at random. No skill.

2. Combination Puzzles Aren’t Much Fun • Player finds safe. What’s the approach? • Just try every possibility until you get the right one • Surprising how many forms of gameplay amount to the same thing • Example: defending a base in an RTS, AI rushes player

2. Combination Puzzles Aren’t Much Fun • Initial approach: defend evenly  gets creamed • Quickly learns: play game until attacked, revert to saved • Main skill is saving/restoring game; not much fun! • Simply asking “What’s the approach?” can cure this • Knowledge doesn’t transfer to next level

Game Design Principles 1a. “What approaches will the player try?” 1b. “How can they tell what to improve?” • “Guess The Combination” isn’t much fun • Players stick with existing approach until it fails • E.g. once player is in habit of “get attacked/ reload/prepare,” player will stick with it even if later levels allow experimentation

Introducing New Units • New unit: artillery • Can attack units at a distance • Shows up in menus without much fanfare • If player’s strategies have worked in the past, she won’t think to use artillery • If old strategy works with great struggle • May just think level really hard • If old strategy fails obviously and quickly • E.g. AI artillery can only be attacked by player’s artillery • Player will think “What else can I try?”

Changing Difficulty Levels • Creating easier difficulties seems easy • Just weaken parts of the game • May completely change player’s approach • E.g. slow enemies  player runs past all enemies • When player tries a more difficult level, must learn combat from scratch when opponents are very skilled • Can be very discouraging • Creating difficulties is like creating good problems in textbooks: harder than it looks

Game Design Principles 1a. “What approaches will the player try?” 1b. “How can they tell what to improve?” • “Guess The Combination” isn’t much fun • Players stick with existing approach until it fails • Player must be able to find viable approach

Only Advanced Maneuvers Succeed • Realistic combat flight simulators • If player jumps in without reading manual, ends up turning toward enemy, going in circles

Only Advanced Maneuvers Succeed • To do better, players must study manual and practice classic manoevers like Immelman & Split-S • No wonder these are niche games

Players Need Feedback • To improve their approach, players need to understand where it’s working and where it isn’t • For complex Sim games, they need a lot of feedback • E.g. why is nobody moving in to my SimCity neighborhood? • Without feedback, effects of their actions seem random • With it, can look at pollution and police coverage, then look at residential vs. industrial zoning, … • “Ah, my residential is too close to the industrial! Now I’ve got it, just one more game…”

Advisors? • Designers of complex games often want to “coach” their players • One idea is to have an advice, i.e. and NPC that suggests things to do. • What’s the approach? • Listen to the advisor, rather than figure it out yourself • Info screens are essential to Sim games • Advisors seem to come and go

Existing Gameplay:Adventure Game Dialog Trees • What do these principles say about existing games? • Adventure games: What’s the approach? • Choose each item in turn • No real penalty for wrong answer • No strategy for recognizing correct one • Each character is different • Answer often non-obvious, to make game more “difficult” • Result: combination puzzle

Existing Gameplay: Adventure Game Puzzles • What about Adventure games outside of dialog trees? • Sometimes puzzles are easy • E.g. give membership card to bouncer • Sometimes out of the blue • E.g. use towel to “flick” someone • Either way: • No way to learn from wrong solutions • Last resort: apply every object to every other • Combination puzzle

MUDs and MMORPGs • First levels: learn interface & basic game mechanics • Once you get the hang of that • You’ve risen a couple levels • Monsters don’t give enough XP, need a party • Learn to work in groups • Spells, monsters, quests, parts of the world… • As soon as you get the hang of one, you need to learn others • These games all learning curve • And they’re some of the most addictive

Save Anywhere vs. Save Points • Some people passionately argue for one; others argue just as passionately for the other • From most design points of view, it’s minor • i.e. just as interactive, doesn’t change units, gameplay, etc. • Affects learning, sometimes drastically • Save anywhere: even 1 in 10 chance OK • Save points: player must solve challenges regularly • Differ in how well skills must be learned • Each challenge can’t be as hard

Practical Steps Because of too much involvement, [game designers] are unable to objectively comprehend how the actual players would feel when they play the game for the first time. - Shigeru Miyamoto, Nintendo Creator of Donkey Kong, Mario Bros. and Zelda

Practical Steps • Put range of approaches in design document • If nothing else, forces you to ask “what’s the approach?” • Kleenex Testing: play testing for design • Have players “off the street” play the game once • Team member watches but can’t say anything • Done for Half-Life, settled many design arguments • Sims 2 team swears by it • What might a transcript look like?

Example: Space Invaders • Shoot blindly into crowd • Few shots go between columns • Slows firing rate  think how to avoid • Pay attention to aiming, align with column • Aligning difficult, so try for entire column at a time • Invaders don’t stay still long enough, so move half way through

Example: Space Invaders • Move back to column after dodging • [Learning fine motor skills to position base] • Soon, leading targets and trading off shooting vs. dodging • Later: shoot hole through bunker • Take out lower rows first • Take out outside columns first • Infrequent fast missiles: can’t dodge, so stay covered when not firing

Design in Space Invaders • One shot at a time  rewards aiming • Worse aim  game slows down • Better aim  game gets frantic • Unlimited could lead to firing faster, not better • Then forced to learn accuracy at higher levels, when also trying to dodge & strategize • Invaders shoot sparingly at first • Player focuses on shooting columns before dodging, encouraging fine control

Realism • A feature’s effect on gameplay: • Not just how it changes the rules • But how it changes approaches & learning • People agree AI should be fun, not smart • Is a coordinated enemy more fun than mindless hordes? • Should units have morale? • Without any further framework, discussion ends up on realism

Realism • RTS: Simulate physics of missiles? •  Defender micromanaging movement •  Click fest • AI in FPS: Learning? Shell Shock? Stress? Panic? Morale? • Effect on approach essentially arbitrary • Strategy games: Alliances? • Must be understandable, not schitzophrenic • AI logic transparent: lots of warning before a pact is broken, emissary explain why happy/mad • Player must know how to exploit it

Summary • When confronted with choices: • Players develop theory of game world • Come up with strategy/approach • Apply approach • Find strengths/weakness, always thinking how to improve it • E.g. in FPS: Not hitting enemy? Get closer. Taking too much damage? Move back • When it succeeds, they feel rewarded and competent • Game is a journey: the path is at least as important as the outcome • www.martincmartin.com

Just One More Game…: Learning as Central to Gameplay