A nifty article that once again reminds me that the fundamentals of Role-Playing are so applicable to the fundamentals of Project Management. The (seemingly) simple acts of managing expectations and communicating with your team are never to be forgotten in either endeavor.
Also has several great links for further study: articles, books, v-casts, and podcasts.
This article raises an interesting point; though I believe its execution is less than ideal. It devolves into a rose-colored nostalgia but the point he's trying to make is no less valid. Old school isn't necessarily better but it is different and interesting. So I believe that he's exposing a want/need that could be filled by creative designers.
There is clearly an over-visualization of magic in our culture, and that is the crux of the issue: that media today tends to be overly overt ('dumbed down' some might say). So I think that harnessing magic as a more subtle, creative, and uncontrollable force would be a great mechanic for a game.
Of course, I love analyzing the quantified mechanics of games as much as any strategist. I find it fascinating to explore how different game systems quantify concepts like magic into tools that are actually usable around the gaming table/CPU. And if magic can be wielded by players, surely it must be fairly balanced/grounded in some manner.
So where's the sweet spot? How can a designer optimally appeal to both the creative and the tactical? I'd like to someday pursue that answer in the form of interpretive dance.
This simple article articulates my first reaction to the article above. It posits that old school/retro games were so enjoyable because of mystery. While I'm not sure I agree 100% with that over-simplification, I think it's on the right track. Mystery can be fun (and it certainly lends itself well to the whole Magic-balance idea above) but it can also be frustrating as hell.
I absolutely hate when games give me an explanation of "has a chance to cause X" worse, no explanation at all (as in, "I want to grab a branch and use it as a tool... oh shit, I can't do that... but why is punching a tree is the right answer? wtf?"). Maybe I'm too coddled or it's the Project Manager in me that must weigh every cost and benefit before making a decision, but 'mystery' shouldn't be as simple as 'not telling your players essential info' (not good mystery, anyhow).
I certainly don't believe in the idea that dumb luck is a valid game mechanic. Exploration? Yeah maybe, but not aimlessly wandering around with no clue. I gave up on The Legend Of Zelda because I couldn't ever find the right rock to bomb to find the entrance to the next dungeon. I gave up on Minecraft because my intuition about foraging for food and tools was completely contrary to its crafting mechanic. Thank goodness for the internet, or else I would be missing out on so many great game experiences.
So, the next logical step for me is to define Good Mystery. More on that later.
Some of these aren't really Design, but there are still valuable reminders in there. I sometimes feel that many of these tips are already ingrained into my mind, but I do like to go back and refit my thinking to my current projects specifically.
The article, however, doesn't quantify that claim with any variety of evidence.
The one example sited in the article is probably an outlier in terms of its effectiveness. Zombie Apocalypse is (probably) universally accepted as interesting and fun (has anyone seen The Walking Dead?) so obviously adding a zombie-themed narrative to a game backed by the authority of the CDC is going to "matter".
But this article does remind of an important design element; and that's to always engage the player. Even in a Serious Game, a creative designer should always be able to find at least some elements of story/narrative to keep the experience from being bland. Of course, it's surely difficult to do so in all circumstances, and without being patronizing to certain very serious subject matters; but that challenge is exactly why Game Designers make the big bucks, right?
Email John