[@ DXimenes]

@ DXimenes Great TED talk. Thanks.

I'd agree with the idea that what matters most is the player's experience, not necessarily the elegance of a design. Simplicity/elegance is just something that some designers aim for, and it has an impact on player experience.

As with everything in design, It Depends On The Game.

Indeed.

Interesting thoughts. 'Fun' and 'complexity' may not be the most appropriate terms though.

It reminds me of how some designers describe 'elegant' game design: fewer rules, more depth. Depth actually refers more complexity - few rules giving rise to a complex and interesting array of situations. This is different to 'complicated', meaning composed of elaborate parts (or at least, thats how I see it). Kind of splitting hairs and being pedantic here... sorry.

Overall though, totally agree. As a player and designer, excess complication is frustrating.

Love the art style. Looks very solid, and I like me a good puzzle adventure game.

The game's narrative is dependent on dialogue. The goal with dialogue is to make an NPC like you more. at various intervals, based on how much an NPC likes the player, more of their story will open up, allowing the player to experience more of the game'a narrative, explore more areas, etc. Dialogue is the basis for character interaction. There is not necessarily a permanent fail state, rather than an NPC disliking the character, which in turn makes it harder to progress with the game. However, the game is on a sort of loop, much like Majora's Mask, which resets characters at the beginning of each loop.

Ah right, that sounds interesting. I think the loop idea is great, allowing the player to try things differently the next time around. In terms of making this system feel less random, you could consider providing the player with notifications or other feedback that help to explain why a character responded the way that they did. The Walking Dead notifies the player of anything that a character will remember later on, which helps to highlight the consequences of your choices. Its a little heavy-handed, but more feedback is always nice to have.

[@Jordgubben]

@Jordgubben unfortunately, yes. There is a lot of anecdotal evidence of people solving tough technical or creative problems in their sleep. Hence the phrase "sleep on it" or the common advice of taking a walk when something stumps you.

Interactive dialogue is a tricky one to get right. Like you said, its difficult for people to predict the outcome of their choices which can be frustrating. This isn't just a game problem though, its just the nature of real conversations - you don't necessarily know where they're going to go, or what you're going to get out of them.

A couple of questions about your game: Is there a fail state to the dialogue? Is there an objective that the player will be trying to achieve through dialogue? I'm just wondering if the dialogue itself will act as a kind of minigame, or is it for narrative purposes.

I personally enjoy dialogue trees that act as a way to engage more deeply with the characters and story, rather than create a barrier to player progression. You never really 'fail' at dialogue, but you are allowed to express yourself through the dialogue options and influence character relationships in a subtle way. The Walking Dead and Mass Effect have nice, natural feeling dialogue trees.

Helsing's Fire is another game that makes use of light and shadow as a mechanic. Its a nice little puzzle game for iOS.

Shadowmatic was another one that uses light and shadow as a mechanic.

Its interesting that shadow is as important as light in these cases. Similarly for Thief or Splinter Cell, but for very different reasons. Helsing's Fire uses light and shadow in a puzzle heavy combat system, which is interesting.

Most of the brain is involved in the creative process, since it is a process that requires making connections between unrelated ideas. The theory is that in more relaxed states of mind, when the brain is not focussed on a specific task, it is more free to make these associations.

So, there's some science behind the idea that you're more creative when sleepy.

[@ccowan:]

Thanks for the feedback. Lots of little tweaks I think I can make to improve the experience.

** SPOILER **
@ccowan: Yes, that's the end of the game. Nothing you can do to avoid it.

Hey, thanks for the feedback. I'll do a polishing pass at the controls to fix those issues.

Yeah, you really need audio for the ending!

Hey everyone,

I made this game over the last couple of weeks for the 2015 A Game By Its Cover competition. Its an immersive puzzle adventure. Looking for playtesters to give it a go and provide some feedback! (playing alone, with headphones on, in a dark room recommended)

Play Life On A Mountain

Enjoy!

Just thought I'd share this link with you guys. Its from an epic list of tips for User Experience designers. All are kind of applicable to game design, but this one in particular raises an interesting idea that could be appropriated by us.

52 weeks of UX: Makers of Frames

There's a lot of overlap between UX design and Game Design, mainly because UX design is a more general field that applies to lots of different things and is really all about understanding the end user.

Any thoughts on these articles? I'd be interested to discuss where and how game design overlaps with other design disciplines.

Also, just realised that game engines are kind of like this too. So there's a spectrum from game engine through to a simulation - all contain systems that can games can be built within. Things like AI or physics systems.

[game]

Hi everybody,

So, if you're into this kind of thing you may have come across some of these definitions of game before:
"A game is a system in which players engage in an artificial conflict, defined by rules, that results in a quantifiable outcome." (Katie Salen and Eric Zimmerman)
"A game is a form of art in which participants, termed players, make decisions in order to manage resources through game tokens in the pursuit of a goal." (Greg Costikyan)

Key things being rules, goals, player etc.

Some of you may find these kinds of definitions prescriptive/restrictive, but I find it useful to define things somewhat clearly if you're going to discuss it in any depth.

One question that arises when you adopt these definitions is 'how does something like minecraft/sim city' fit in. There are no (explicit) goals! LiES!

So, my theory on this is that these kinds of software are more appropriately described as simulations, which provide a platform for people to make up their own games. So Minecraft itself isn't a game, but "build a massive hole without being killed" is a game. Really, all the player is doing is making up their own goal, the rules are kind of implicit in the simulation itself.

And this applies to real life too. Sports are games that people have made up that take advantage of the laws of physics. In football (soccer) there's the rules and goals people made up, and the rules implicit in the laws of physics (e.g. ball cannot teleport into a goal instantaneously).

How about this as an approach to design? I mean, it obviously kind of exists already with all these survival simulators, Gary's Mod etc. But also, it can explain the way Immersive Sim genre kind of works - make a simulated world. Then add goals. GAME!

Rant over. Any thoughts on this?  Perhaps a drive to make interesting simulations/systems that can support a variety of games? Maybe a way for AAA to have the variety of gameplay they want in their titles without having to program a bunch of separate systems?

I'm always of the opinion that a multitude of approaches is better in a medium than a limitation of approaches.  I think it's a good thing that there are people making really experience-driven mechanics-light games just as I'm glad that there are people making really technical action games and strategy games.

Agreed. I think the talk is interesting though because often it is the mechanics-driven design that gets all the attention.

As a final point, I don't believe that focusing less on mechanics is the only way to make a game focused on the experience.  Often the mechanics are a vital part of what creates the experience of a game.

Yes! This is something that the talk doesn't get right in my opinion - an opinion that seems to be shared around these parts too! Making a game as an experience does not have to mean that it is light on mechanics, just that the mechanics should support that experience. Mechanics, like art and audio, become a tool for crafting the overall feel of the game.

I'd say there's a flip-side to this: BioShock Infinite focused heavily on experience, and the mechanics were unexciting. The aesthetic only carried me so far before I was bored to death with the game. So I'm wondering if aesthetic-driven design works better for shorter games or for games with non-standard mechanics.

Yup, uninspiring mechanics can run the risk of boring the player. Infinite would have worked much better if there was a little less of the actual game!

This is how I naturally feel about designing games, however I do have to constantly dial it back.
Once you actually show these experiences games to people, my experience is, they will not appreciate what's novel or how something feels, instead they will complain about not having level ups, points, achievements, health bars etc. etc.
En masse gamers want what they know, they wan't what they are already used to.

It's a good point. The success of Monument Valley, which ditched a lot of those classic game elements, may be in that it targeted non-gamers. I think the gaming literate sometimes don't realise how inaccessible that stuff is, or how unnecessary it can be to the actual experience. However, these systems may be a strong part of the experience that some gamers are looking for.

That's fun -- we know it's fun, we've been honing that for 30 years -- but it's *so* compelling that I think it can drown out whatever else you're trying to do,

This is an interesting point, that certain 'fun' designs have been so refined that they overwhelm newer approaches. If we look at games as an experience, then these limited designs will lead to a limited set of experiences

Sometimes I play games that are just dripping with atmosphere and/or good ideas, but then there's stuff to kill or platforms to jump onto, and I get onto that familiar addiction treadmill and rush past the good stuff to try to get my fix.

This too. Recently played through Shadow of Mordor, and quickly went from "Oh, I'm in Mordor killing Orcs! Cool!" to "Gotta complete that mission / collect all these things / upgrade this skill etc". It became a bit of a totally addictive checklist to grind through, which for me detracted from the experience.

I don't see why the two have to be mutually exclusive, though. I'd say (at risk of being horribly cliche) that Shadow of the Colossus combined the two pretty well. Katamari's another example of something with a strong aesthetic vision that also incorporated pretty well with a challenge-based gameplay.

Totally. I think the point isn't that you shouldn't have interesting game mechanics, just that the focus should be on the experience first and everything in the game should support that.

On the other hand; The reason bunnies want more difficulty is because it gives them a chance to improve a seemingly useful skill, to play the game. Showing off and aiming for a high score are natural animal tendencies to demand peer validation.

I think that's part of the appeal of the experience that such games offer. The experience of progression, of learning something and mastering it, is a repeating one in games probably because it is so rewarding.

Interesting talk from the Lead Designer of Monument Valley, worth a look if only for his fairly anti-mechanics point of view;
http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1020878/Designing-Monument-Valley-Less-Game

General gist of the talk, if you don't want to watch it: focus less on the mechanical side of design, more on the aesthetic, experience side of things. Discard commonly held wisdom of challenge and choice and focus instead focus on making something that pleasing to interact with.

Just wondered what people's thoughts were on this idea. Its kind of anti-gameplay, but I have to say I thoroughly enjoyed Monument Valley, amongst other similarly "experience-focussed" games. I'm thinking that The Walking Dead, maybe even Limbo or Ico would fall into the same category here.

Thanks for the feedback. Some useful stuff that I can definitely work on:
- avoid the spam click / flying hack. Should be simple to address.
- sense of progression - I really like the idea of a world that slowly opens up to the player as their powers grow. There's definitely room for new abilities, such as a "double jump".
- less confusing level design - probably need a couple of landmarks to help orientate the player.
- ways of increasing the flow: jump pads and other environmental objects that help tie the world together - thinking of Tony Hawk's Pro Skater and all the rails that tie together ramps and half pipes.
- make the enemies more essential

Actually a pretty big list now I look at it. Lots of things I'd planned to include, but given the 7 day limit on the jam I couldn't implement them to a satisfactory level.

Hi all,

Made this game for the 7DFPS game jam. Its a simple first person platformer where 'shooting' launches you through the air. All set in a mysterious ancient ruins populated by some angry stone totems...

PLAY KUXTAL HERE

Anyway, play it, see what you think. Is it fun? Did you understand what you needed to do? Do you think this could be extended into  full game?