Last November, I spoke at PRACTICE: Game Design in Detail. Soren Johnson and Brad Muir also gave talks, give it a listen! My talk starts around 14 minutes. Also I participated in a panel discussion at the end. http://vimeo.com/83682678Read More
Yesterday EMPIRE, a game I've been designing for Crazy Monkey Studios for the past 8 months or so, was released. It was a pretty quick turnaround - after working on 100 Rogues, which took about a year and a half, and AURO, which so far has taken nearly two years, it's nice to design a game, make it, and put it out there. It was a pretty different experience, process-wise. Unlike AURO, I really knew what EMPIRE was going to be at the get-go. The game that it ultimately was released as was very close to what I had in mind from the start - especially combat, which I feel is very strong in version 1.0. Despite the fact that I'm really happy with where EMPIRE is now, I feel that version 1.0 is just the beginning. I have a lot of other plans for the game in future updates. For instance, I'd like to change the way that monsters work on the overmap. It would probably be good if monsters had the bases that they have now, but also sent out troops which milled about randomly until they came in contact with the player's city. That way, there's a bit more life/emergence to the monsters, and it also makes the whole "I target you, you target me" thing - which is kind of strange at the moment - less of a problem. Monster cities would never "attack" you, only launch wandering monsters. Monsters themselves would attack, but simply by walking onto your city. Since you and the monsters are already very asymmetrical, it makes sense that the way they attack would be different than the way you do. Another thing that I think the game might need is some third resource - perhaps "gems", or perhaps "settlements" - that you can see through the fog at different locations on the map. These would be required for certain tech things (such as perhaps Shaman's Huts), but also finite, and could be wiped out by wandering monsters. This would give exploration a much-needed boost in its coherence as a mechanism. Anyway, overall I'm so excited about having another game I designed out there. I can't wait to hear what people think of the game. If you know anyone who wants to review the game, send me an email and I can probably get you a promo code. https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=GIlf6Mb3djsRead More
I did a decently extensive interview over at IndieRPG.com about game design in general, which was posted on the site yesterday.
IndieRPG: I’m trying to think of who would be in the market for a tactical roguelike variant that isn’t already familiar with at least some D&D-derived character stats, and coming up blank. Are you looking to expand the market here, or is this simply a matter of design purity?
Keith Burgun: We don’t consider AURO a roguelike, and won’t be marketing it as such. It is a “dungeon-crawling tactics game”, really a game of its own kind. We absolutely want to be able to reach all kinds of people. We think that AURO can find a place next to abstracts like Chess or Tetris, and we’re shooting to make it as accessible as either. So, “expand the market” isn’t quite right, because AURO is definitely not an RPG and in my mind it’s also definitely not a roguelike (although people argue a lot about what that means exactly). It’s a new kind of game, so its market is going to be a new one.Read the complete interview here! Then today, they did another story about us - this time specifically about AURO and what it's all about. Pretty cool! Read More
Editor's Note: One of our most active Auro beta testers, Fabian Fischer (aka "Nachtfischer"), had written this great piece for his German-language site. We've been talking a lot about story in games on our forum, and I decided it would be great if Fabian could translate and update this article for my site, and that's just what he did. I think it pretty much nails why authored story and interactivity don't go well together. Enjoy!
A while back, Mr. Burgun wrote about this issue. Nevertheless, since there is still a frequent and passionate debate on the matter, so I thought it would not hurt to approach it from a slightly different point of view and throw some new arguments into the mix.
Story in the context of this article describes an authored, linear (not necessarily chronologically linear) sequence of fictional events.
Game specifically means a contest of ambiguous decision-making; most readers of this site should be familiar with this.
Competitive games should be valued by all of us, even those of us who don't play games competitively. This is because whether you're playing a game competitively or not, a competitive game is, put simply, a better, stronger game. More importantly, a competitive game is also more one that's more fun to play. For the purposes of this article, I'd like to define "competitive games" a little bit more specifically than it is colloquially defined, although my definition is still consistent with the definition you'd expect. A competitive game is a contest of decision-making that is both deep enough and balanced enough to withstand serious play for at least 10 years. A few notes on this definition. The "10 years" number is totally arbitrary, and only given as a broad, general example to represent "a long time". Preferably, a good competitive game lasts longer - the longer, the better. I simply mean that to be a competitive game at all, you have to hold up to serious play - play that is actively seeking truly optimal moves - for more than a few years. Also, don't think that because I'm using the phrase "contest of decision-making" that this contest can't include other elements such as execution or randomness. I personally feel that better games use less of these elements, but that's beyond the point of this article. It's simply meant to imply that these are, broadly, "strategy games", and certainly games of skill. So, a completely luck-based competitive activity, such as the card game War, would not qualify. Finally, as with most of my writing, this article is really directed towards coming up with solutions for games that have not yet been designed. It is not primarily meant to be a lens through which to observe currently existing games, although to some degree it can be used that way, and I will use it that way to illustrate my points.
Non-Competitive GamesMost "videogames" or "boardgames" that most of us could name would not fall into the category I just described, which is probably obvious. Here are some of the reasons for this:
- Excessive randomness: We all draw a line in the sand somewhere at how random is "too random" for us to be interested in playing a given game. Similarly, there is a line somewhere where a game is too random to be played competitively. At some point, a system is sufficiently random where the impact of skill is too negligible for people to want to invest seriously in it, at least without some external motivator like "betting on real money" or huge cultural attachment.
- Too Solvable/Shallow: Some abstract games, and most videogames tend to fall into this category. Essentially, if people can figure out what the optimal strategy is pretty quickly, that's a problem, because the decision-space shrinks up and players have nothing left to explore and no room to "get better" than other players, which is the basic core of competitive play.
- No Support: Boardgames tend to suffer this problem, since they can't be easily "patched". Indeed, there's a tremendous cost to issuing new "editions" of boardgames, and most games never get popular enough to warrant this cost. Most boardgames that get new editions do so because it's been 20 years since the last edition, or there's a new publisher, or they wanted to upgrade the art. Very few boardgames actually issue new versions because they want to improve balance or gameplay - David Sirlin being one notable exception, and he gets a tremendous amount of grief for doing so. The boardgame world is not quite ready for this idea of editions for pure game-balance reasons yet, it seems. For videogames, it's cheaper to support your game years down the line, but still, many developers either don't value doing it, or possibly can't afford to do it, and it never gets done.
- Technical Stupidness: Weirdly enough, lots of modern videogames that would otherwise be competitive aren't getting balance patches. Maybe someone else can fill me in on what the excuse for this is - there might be an excuse that exists, but there is certainly no justification.