Keith Burgun

Thoughts on Game Design

Game Design Theory Podcast Episode 4

Published on September 8, 2012 by keithburgun

Some of you might know that I started running a podcast over at dinofarmgames.com called the Dinofarm Games Podcast.  We’ll, this is the same podcast – just re-branded the Game Design Theory podcast and put over here at keithburgun.net.

 

In this episode, we talk with Matt Dunnam about a recent Rock Paper Shotgun article, and go in-depth about the relationship between stories in games, something I’ve written about extensively.  We also talk about Matt’s theory that perhaps games require randomness (or hidden information) in order to avoid solution.

If you want to subscribe, here’s the new RSS feed.

Enjoy, and please be sure to let us know what you think.  Also, we’re always looking for questions, so ask away, and we’ll respond on an upcoming episode.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Posted in: Game Design, Podcast

  • Alex

    I think input randomness is usually always good, whereas output randomness is bad all the time.

    Look at Chess960 – the original Chess was basically solved for Bobby Fischer, so he got really bored with it. Chess had not actually been solved (nor has it been today), but it was solved for him, because he could remember what to do in each and every situation, which broke the game. So, he made Chess960 (a variant of Random Chess from the late 1800s, I believe), which got rid of most of the memorization aspect of Chess. People (grand masters) can remember what to do when the board is always set up one way, but 960 ways? Nope. That’s too many different board setups to remember. In this way, the “game” of Chess is preserved, while the broken part of it is all but destroyed. Fischer even said Chess960 was the purest form of Chess.

    Of course, Chess960 is still technically solvable, but it doesn’t matter, because no human could ever remember all the different scenarios that the game has, as opposed to regular chess.

    So, in my opinion, it doesn’t matter if the game is solvable as long as the solution is far out of the reach of human memory or intellect.

  • http://www.peripheralarbor.com Paul Spooner

    As far as storytelling and interactivity, I totally agree. You should re-work and re-post your “infamous” article from a few years ago. I was going to comment there, but the discussion (on that page anyhow) is dead.
    Thanks for the sharing! I’m still perusing your blog. Lots of great insights.
    I wrote a similar article before I discovered yours, I’ll just leave the link here:
    http://blog.projectfledgeling.com/20120306/5/

  • keithburgun

    Awesome, Paul. I think it’s only a matter of time before more and more people start to realize that we were right all along.

    I have been planning on re-visiting that article, yeah.

  • Jeremy Watson

    There can still be agency in managing risk/odds when dealing with randomness. The design goal I think for any designer is that their game is meaningful and lasts. If poker could be determined in a single hand, it would lose it longevity.

    I highly disagree that random mechanics (like card draw and dice) are only for “party” game design. The person playing with you is indeed the random mechanic in itself as you already discussed on your story. How you react to the opponents play is identical to how you react to a die roll. You are playing the odds, covering yourself and making assumptions (like the one about an intelligent player always playing toward positive outcomes).

    I do agree you have to be careful and make sure you give the players tools to mitigate the randomness through agency. I don’t know why anyone would scoff that they can “only win by luck” so lets play a different game that I have even less chance at winning at.

    I have too much to say so I’ll stop here.