Confused and consumed

Skyrim just ate 60% of my weekend. Damn.

Since I’ve been writing stuff on work, I’m somewhat spent right now, but I’ll try to give you something nourishing to think about.

One of my favourite words is gameplay dynamic. I think I’ve used it enough to wear out its original meaning, but my own definition for it is ”how the game works at its highest level”. Usually when I check out a game, I try to divine its gameplay dynamic: How the game will flow, what I’ll be aiming at and how people are going to interact with each other. Let me illustrate with some examples:

Magic’s gameplay dynamic is quite varied, since it is dependent on the players’ decks. Usually you are either trying to suppress an opponent or achieve your own goal. At first you try to get to the level of resources you can operate in, then you try to disable the opponent’s opening attack and finally (if you are alive and the game is still continuing), you will try to outmaneuver your opponent with the limited resources you draw.

In Battlestar Galactica, the most you will do is juggle. You will identify the most dangerous threat and try to neutralise it. If the situation allows, you will try to get more resources (like cards) to yourself. And finally you will try to identify the Cylon(s). And as Cylons, most of the time you will try to break trust between the players and work towards the point where revealing yourself will do the most damage.

The more mechanical the game, usually the simpler the dynamic. For example, in Dominion you just need to identify the most optimal strategy to get to the 8 coin per round situation. The interesting games are those where the gameplay dynamic includes interaction between people, because then you can’t just rely on math and logic; You need empathy and the ability to manipulate perceptions.

And now I forgot why I was explaining all this. Shows me not to write when tired.

Victim of zero scheduling

I recently talked about board games with one person. He was a fan of Dominion and swatted away my observations about the game. Mainly, that it tended to get somewhat solitary-like, with every player just optimizing their own game. That got me thinking about the nature of multiplayer games.

Single-player games tend to become too easy when faced with an AI opponent. They work with limited parameters and usually make the same choices in same situations. By identifying how an AI reacts to something, it is possible to figure them out and metagame them into a corner. Then the games just become an exercise in optimization. Making the best possible choices. With shallow game mechanics, it becomes boring.

I like to influence other players and their game. Especially in games with hidden information and luck elements, like Magic or Battlestar Galactica. If someone is winning, I would prefer to divert resources to cripple that player instead of just accepting defeat and trying again next time. It is much more exiting to stay on top while every other player is trying to knock you down. It tends to create more organic and people-centric gameplay.

People-centric. Few games are people-centric. Most big games (video games, board games) are about skill tests, numbers and logics. Few are about people and their thoughts. Perhaps this is a train of thought best adressed in another post.