My thoughts on what makes a good game
I'd rather talk about board games than study.
I can't think of a good way to introduce this topic, so I'll just jump into it. I think that to analyze whether a game if 'good' or not, you need to consider two things:
1. How many choices does a player have?
If a player makes no or few choices during the game, the game is not good. For example, consider the card game War. Both players flip the top card of their pile. There is no choice involved, so War is not a good game. Similarly, Snakes and Ladders has players rolling dice and moving their pieces with no choices to make along the way.
2. Is it obvious to players which choice is best for them when faced with a choice?
Suppose now that while playing Snakes and Ladders, players throw two dice and choose which die determines their movement for the turn. The game is still not good, because a player can easily see which roll will benefit them more based on where their piece will land. Similarly, in Monopoly, when a player lands on an unowned property and has enough money to purchase it, it is usually in their best interest to buy it. Even if the choice is not obvious (for example when trading properties with other players), there are so few choices that one bad decision can cost a player the game (which relates to point 1 about how many choices a player makes in the game).
Now in Vegas Showdown (currently my highest rated game), players make at least one decision per turn, and the outcome of each option they have is not easily determined. Should you outbid a player to get a slots room? Or should you take the lounge at the minimum price? Should I save my money for a premier tile next turn? Each decision is quite tactical (which is a topic of its own), and the outcome of each is quite different in terms of the immediate and long term effects. Since there is no noticeable 'best' option, any choice the player makes will have a minimal, yet distinct, impact on the game.
For the most part, I think that's what makes a game good. There are plenty of other considerations such as player interaction, runaway leader issues, king-making, complexity, and plenty of other stuff that I haven't mentioned, but I think this is a good start.
Listening to... Transplants - D.R.E.A.M.
Link of the moment... A good resource for game design and the such.
I can't think of a good way to introduce this topic, so I'll just jump into it. I think that to analyze whether a game if 'good' or not, you need to consider two things:
1. How many choices does a player have?
If a player makes no or few choices during the game, the game is not good. For example, consider the card game War. Both players flip the top card of their pile. There is no choice involved, so War is not a good game. Similarly, Snakes and Ladders has players rolling dice and moving their pieces with no choices to make along the way.
2. Is it obvious to players which choice is best for them when faced with a choice?
Suppose now that while playing Snakes and Ladders, players throw two dice and choose which die determines their movement for the turn. The game is still not good, because a player can easily see which roll will benefit them more based on where their piece will land. Similarly, in Monopoly, when a player lands on an unowned property and has enough money to purchase it, it is usually in their best interest to buy it. Even if the choice is not obvious (for example when trading properties with other players), there are so few choices that one bad decision can cost a player the game (which relates to point 1 about how many choices a player makes in the game).
Now in Vegas Showdown (currently my highest rated game), players make at least one decision per turn, and the outcome of each option they have is not easily determined. Should you outbid a player to get a slots room? Or should you take the lounge at the minimum price? Should I save my money for a premier tile next turn? Each decision is quite tactical (which is a topic of its own), and the outcome of each is quite different in terms of the immediate and long term effects. Since there is no noticeable 'best' option, any choice the player makes will have a minimal, yet distinct, impact on the game.
For the most part, I think that's what makes a game good. There are plenty of other considerations such as player interaction, runaway leader issues, king-making, complexity, and plenty of other stuff that I haven't mentioned, but I think this is a good start.
Listening to... Transplants - D.R.E.A.M.
Link of the moment... A good resource for game design and the such.
Labels: board games, game design, opinion
1 Comments:
Comments have been very quiet lately. I don't have much to say on board games, but I had to say something. Snakes and Ladders is still alot of fun, whatever you say about it :P
By
Anonymous, at 9/22/2007 11:00 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home