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.

Television sets as a medium

Consider the television. I don't really know for what need it was created, but early uses of the TV include news broadcasts and programs that were often performed and taped in front of a live audience. TV programs were originally aimed at sending infromation to an audience.

Consider now video games (specifically, 'modern' video games). The purpose of most games these days (especially first person shooters and most action/adventure games that are played with an 'over-the-shoulder' view) is to immerse the player in a virtual setting. I hope that immediately you can discern the difference between these two audiences. One brings the esperience to you, while the other tries to bring you to the experience.

TVs haven't changed much over the years. They still display things on a rectangular screen and not much else. Television programs have changed drastically in style (American Idol still treats viewers as an audience, but consider CSI or 24 which have fabricated environments, if you understand), but still only output information to viewers.

Video games however, are fundamentally different: they require interaction with the player. It is this interaction that makes gaming a distinct experience from television. Let's break video games into three distinct parts: input, output, and processing. If we consider now the 'next generation' consoles (PS3, XBox360, Wii), we see that PS3 and X360 are focusing on increasing the processing capabilities of the experience, while Nintendo is expanding the definition of what the input is.

In terms of the output, all systems are limited by their medium: televisions. They are increasing the number of polygons on screen at one time through processing, creating more 'realistic' images, but I argue that in this context, 'realistic' is a comparison to the realism that televisions are capable of, which is a program intended for an audience. They're still just dots on a screen. Until the big three rethink the output phase of the gaming experience, they will be limited in how immersive their games are. I certainly don't have any revolutionary ideas about what the new output medium could be, but that's not my job.

All in all, I'd like to congratulate Nintendo for being the first to truly revolutionize the input part of the equation. PS3 and X360 have embraced things like tilt control, analog buttons, and even camera input, but 95% of the games out there still use controllers just as they would have ten years ago (though I suppose analog control has become standard). Nintendo is trying to do away with the generic design while still keeping it an option.

Sorry if this is a terrible entry, but I'm just sort of typing whatever comes to mind as it comes to me.

Listening to... Ozma - Flight of the Bootymaster
Link of the moment... I don't know if I'll wind up buying a next gen or not.