Hey everyone! Today I have a good-old-fashioned formalist-ish game design article. It’s been a little while since I’ve really done one of those, unless it was attached to Push the Lane.
This article is also a little bit different than a lot of my other work because I usually talk about rulesets: what the actual rules are. I tend to talk less about, within a set of rules, what players can do. Today, I’m talking about designing strategy space, and a specific way to think about the strategies that players can pursue in your game.
If you’re into strategy games, you probably at least loosely know the basic idea behind “rushdown” (or “rush”), “economy” (or “econ”), and “defense“. A lot of us first heard these terms in RTS games like StarCraft, wherein the “zergling rush” was a very common and easy-to-understand manifestation of a “rush strategy”. Terrans building a ton of bunkers and missile turrets and siege tanks was a pretty clear example of “defense”, and expanding (getting another base with another source of minerals) was an “economy” play. In some games, it can be seen as a triangle, or rock-paper-scissors relationship, with rush beating econ, econ beating defense, and defense beating rush. It’s worth noting that “rushdown” is not, itself, a strategy, but rather a family or style of strategies in a given game. There may be many different rushdown strategies. Also, it’s spectral. You may pursue a strategy that’s like 60% rush-y, or 80% rush-y, etc. Continue reading →
Hi everyone! As you may know, I did a talk at Indiecade ’17 last month. It went really well, so I thought I’d piece together a lot of that talk into a podcast episode to share with you guys. It’s about the special problem of avoiding toxicity, violence, and hostile feelings in strategy games, and how single player games are part of that solution.
I was originally going to put together a video version of it as well, but I don’t think I’ll have time to do that because I’ve really gotta get back to Push the Lane. Expect some streams of that soon.
If you’d like, you can follow along somewhat and/or check out this PDF of the slideshow. Not all slides worked with the audio, so for the podcast I had to delete some sections, so beware that it might be a little bit confusing.
In other news, there should be some big exciting site announcements for keithburgun.net coming really soon.
As always, you can support this show by visiting my Patreon page. Thanks as always to supports like Aaron Oman and Jean-Marc Nielly.
This week, I have an interview with Riot Games lead designer, Greg Street.
A few months ago, the League of Legends YouTube channel posted a “Dev Diary” video. A few people who follow my work alerted me on social media about this video, telling me that it sounded a bit like theory I often advocate was being expressed in the video. I often watch Riot’s dev-diary type stuff, but I had been a bit out of the loop at the time, so I missed it. But once I checked it out, it did feel kind of familiar!
And it’s true that it does sound a lot like me. For reference, when you Google “input randomness” I’m pretty much all of the top results; the only other people talking about it are people referencing my work, with a couple people referencing the Ludology Podcast (which is where I originally got the terms from).
It turns out that Greg was aware of my stuff, so probably that is where he got the terminology, if not the theory. Anyway, I got a chance to chat with Greg about the theory and how it maybe should, or could apply to League. I think it went well! Let me know what you think in the comments, and thanks for listening.
Announcement! In the future, I think I’ll do more articles in “video form”. Very lightly edited videos, mostly a voice over and some pictures/titles/video. I think that video seems to be where more of the conversation is happening these days. Here‘s the first video, on incremental complexity, a new way of thinking about strategy game design (designing them, and teaching them), inspired by Pandemic: Legacy.
Support my work on Patreon here! Special thanks to Patreon Patron Aaron Oman!
Today, in Episode 36* of the Clockwork Game Design Podcast, I had a great conversation with BrainGoodGames‘ Brett Lowey. If you don’t already know BrainGoodGames, they make some of the best single-player strategy games out there. All four of Brett’s games—Militia, Axes & Acres, Skyboats, as well as his latest, Minos Strategos—are available on Steam.
But making great games isn’t necessarily enough for me to want to have a conversation with someone. What made me interested was “BrainGoodGames’ Design Commandments” which he posted on his site recently.
The conversation was great and went to a bunch of interesting places. We covered his commandments, of course, but discussed his origins and what he considers to be the successes and failures of his games.
I should mention also that Brett is one of the editors over at gamedesigntheory.org, the new site I recently launched that highlights current game design bloggers and media producers.
Enjoy the episode!
*PS I think I said it’s 35 in the episode itself – ignore me!