Skill vs. Luck/Randomization in Game Design Part 2

Alright, back to randomness vs. skill-based play.
One quick thing I want to mention is that all the topics in this blog apply to every kind of game, not just video games - board games, 'real life' games (such as tag), and even card games. Today, I want to talk about 1 card game in particular, probably the most popular trading card game of all time - Magic the Gathering.

In highschool I played Magic quite a bit; a few months ago, I picked it back up again and have been playing on and off. As I'm currently doing research and pondering on game design, I think I'm finally starting to understand some of Magic's nuances.

First and foremost, you will not win every game. It's essentially impossible. Even if you are the "better" player, or if you have a stone-cold superior deck, it's still possible (and even probable), that you can lose: you could get mana screwed (mana is a certain type of card that you need to play your other, main cards), you could have to mulligan multiple times because you lack mana and just slowly lose control of the game after your opponent has card advantage, you could get all of 1 type of mana when you need your other type, or (don't know if I've mentioned this yet) you could get mana screwed.

* Ahem *

Well, if this happens so much, why even play Magic? That doesn't sound like a fun game at all. Turns out there are some things you can do to remedy the possibility of having a bad start, but the real kicker is that, contrary to what most would expect, the variance in your card draws and unpredictability of the game make it pretty darn fun. You never know what kind of starting hand you'll get. You never know what cards you'll draw over the course of the game. Some card effects actually have random results as well! Even if it does happenstance you get 3 lands (i.e. mana; typically a great start) in your opening hand but none over the rest of the game, it's absolutely fine. The core experience is what's fun. And maybe next game, you'll get all your super strong cards and do well.

I suppose what I want to point out about Magic is that the randomness and variance are a core part of the game and are essential components in what makes it so much fun. There's always a possibility that a lesser skilled player could come out with the match if he/she gets a good draw. It's exciting, and keeps players coming back.

Ral Zarek. Quite possibly one of the most fun cards to play, specifically because of his completely random final ability. Fun times (both good and bad) were had.

A little while back, I had a discussion with a friend of mine about randomness vs. skill in Magic. He (a very experienced Magic player) told me it was about 70-30 randomness - skill. At first, this notion repulsed me. 70% luck? Really? For a brief moment, I considered dropping Magic because of this imbalance.

Soon after, I realized that it's simply the nature of the game's design and formula. It keeps things interesting. I can certainly say that I have triumphed against opponents who (very clearly) knew more about and were better at the game than I was, because of this element of randomness. And it felt good! But the better player, given enough games to offset variance, will eventually win (and most matches are played in best of 3's, so that helps offset the random draws as well).

So in summary, Magic the Gathering is an example of a successful game weighted more towards "luck" rather than skill. But, skill is still an important component and is integral to each match's winner. The game was simply made to have this particular balance between the two components - and it's a winning formula. The game is fantastic.

Next week, I'll discuss a game weighted more on the side skill at its foundation - League of Legends. LoL is a personal favorite of mine, so watch out for that post.

Peace,
KR

Skill vs. Luck/Randomization in Game Design Part 1

Yo, I'm back with another post. I'm gonna start this one off with a quick story.

Several weeks ago, I made a small game called Goblin Catch with some friends. It was meant to just be a 'weekend hack' kind of thing, a small game that someone could burn 4-5 minutes on and have completely discovered its nuances. The objective of the game is to get a score of 15 by collecting goblins; but I guess one could say the actual objective is to beat the high score and collect the goblins in the shortest time. If you're interested in playing it, you can find it here.

Back at uni, I told a couple of other people about it and they tried it out, and I got a lot of very interesting feedback on the game, some good, some bad.

First off, Goblin Catch is almost entirely luck based. There's no real element of skill required, no mechanical prowess necessary, no real opposition to your actions by the game which you have to surmount, and very little meta-strategy. The reason I say very little, is that, in fact, there is a strategy that you can employ to maximize your chances of beating the high score, without wasting a lot of time - can you think of it? (Hint: make use of the reset button)

Watching some of my friends play the game led me to realize that luck-based games like this can be fun, but they can also be extremely frustrating. They can be fun because the results are unpredictable - you could get 3 purples in a row on one try and demolish the high score, and then a completely horrible finish time on the next (say, if you get 15 green goblins in a row). Having a skill-based game framework seems much more consistent and appealing, no?

Well, maybe. Chess, a game in which every single variable is known from the beginning of the game, is one of the most popular games played worldwide. However, it loses some charm because it can sometimes get predictable (some people would argue there is almost always 'one correct move' in a given situation). Thus, we see that completely skill based games can have their flaws as well.

I think that keeping a game interesting for a long time (high replayability) requires some element of randomness and variance, some particular aspect of the game that can change contrary to the player's expectations - or maybe even providing room for the player to vary his/her own actions, such as numerous customization options.

For now, I'll just say this: when designing a game, you want to minimize frustration and maximize fun for players - that's a fair overarching goal (of course, in order to achieve this in the context of your game, you'll have to deal with a boatload of unique design issues - but that's for another day). I think there has to be a balance between skill and luck in every game, allowing players to enjoy the game and succeed when they have achieved mastery, but still have that varying element that keeps players coming back and trying to surpass their own accomplishments.

That's a long post ^, I'll stop here, picking up next week in part 2, when I talk a little bit about the card game Magic the Gathering.

Peace,
Kannan

The Return of About Game Design and the Importance of Visual Dazzle

Hiya Folks, it's been quite a while. After an almost 2-month hiatus, About Game Design is back! Hopefully, with more frequent updates >_>

In any case, today I want to talk about Dazzle. Yes, dazzle - not the foremost element of development that comes to mind when you're thinking game design, but its significance can't be understated. 

A couple weeks ago, I picked up Dead Space 3 from the Origin Humble Bundle (Humble Bundles are great by the way - get cheap games, and almost all of the proceeds go to charities of your choice!). To quickly summarize, the game follows space engineer Isaac Clarke as he travels to an isolated ice planet to save the world from a zombie threat.

The key word in the above description is 'engineer'. Throughout the game, you'll be repairing ships, fixing energy issues onboard, hacking electrical interfaces (via a nifty little circuit minigame), and in general performing a ton of random repair tasks in order to advance the story and reach the end of your quest. After solving problem after problem, the game's formula becomes a little predictable: fix an engineering problem in your current location -> journey to a new location -> combat some zombies -> fix some problems there -> rinse and repeat. You'd think this would be a little boring, no?

Well, yes and no. It's true that the formula gets a tad stale. But there's something which makes each new rotation in this cycle absolutely amazing - Dazzle. The new environments you visit on each leg of your quest are absolutely stunning. Varied, vibrant, and bursting with enough detail to make you think you were in the game yourself, Dead Space 3 really impresses visually. Take a look at this scenic view from the planet's surface:

Take a break from fighting zombies, and enjoy the sunset.

I quite literally forgot my current objective (and whatever tediousness they entailed) at some points and just took in the environment - truly dazzling detail from the developers of Dead Space 3. I absolutely didn't mind following the frequent repair quests if it led me to environments like the one above.

In summary, dazzling your players is a great idea. Aesthetic appeal isn't by any means the end-all be-all of a game (I can assure you that I've played great looking games that were not fun at all, and low-res games which were so well designed I could play for hours), but it can have a big impact - and maybe shore up some other shortcomings of your game.

Try to make your games/apps/websites visually appealing! You might be surprised at how well your players respond.

Peace,
Kannan