"Characteristics of Games" was written by Richard Garfield, Skaff Elias, and Robert Gutschera - veterans in the industry. The most important bit about the book, is it seeks to define and categorize ideas so that they can be discussed in an accurate manner. This is more of a textbook, rather than an armchair read.
One of the up-front categorizations of games, is that they are a race or a brawl (or a mix). Races are straightforward - you run for win condition, with little or no interaction from other players. Brawls are more common in multiplayer games, where interactions and politics drive the action.
When first playing Eclipse (the most recent game discussed), it felt a lot like a race. Get the most VP. Some jockeying takes place, as you try to master the game in the most efficient way. Now, it almost feels entirely like a brawl.
- As you research, you grab techs that become no longer available for others
- You explore, attempting to take away expansion options from rivals
- Upgrading your ships is a form of politics - if your opponents don't feel like they can beat your ship designs, they are more likely to wage war on other players...or maybe you lure a fleet against you, and then do your upgrades and builds to crush for more VP
- Where you build is key for intimidation and attacking
- Who you exchange ambassadors or make alliances with, will shape the game
An early discussion that takes place, is the discussion of heuristics, or the method of play. I can identify with their general point that players get enjoyment from mastering heuristics of a game. Flipping a coin to determine who wins a game isn't satisfying. There's nothing you've learned or done, that makes you feel more likely to win in the future. Figuring out strategies and tactics engages a part of the brain that says "this is good, this is fun".
Flipping back to Eclipse, as you play the game through, you learn different ways of playing the game. You think "Ah-ha! I think this Tier 3 explore habit is pretty powerful, especially when paired with this other thing!" Maybe you figure out how to run your economy better. You no longer wonder "how can anyone win this game by skill?" You still might not win, but it encourages you to critically think where you went wrong, and where you could improve next time.
Let's say you do get better at the game. Sadly, according to the book, you may lose more often as a result. As politics get involved, other players are more likely to pick on the perceived "winner", or at least the person who is most on track to win. (This only matters in more than 2-player games.) Maybe this requires more knowledge on the part of the players, better political skills (both overt and indirect) on your part, or to develop a new technique that is less subject to politics.
There isn't a lot of directly applicable material, if you are looking to become better at playing games. One part stood out to me, in the topic of kingmaking. Usually how it goes, is that everyone tries to take down the first place player. I'm borrowing from the book, but I won't spoil the exact math. A, B, and C are playing a game. Each player has decreasing accuracy with their ability to take someone out of the game. In usual games, B & C take their shots at A, while A takes a shot at B (the closest in skill/chances of winning). How did the math actually work out? A should take out B. C should try to take out A. B - this is the interesting part...should go for C, at least according to the math.
But the book in general is extremely approachable, if dry. I've skimmed over several topics here - the book has another 50+. The appendices offer more in-depth knowledge, and occasionally you'll think about picking up some new math skills. If you aspire to good game design, this book can help with any gaps in your background - and it's unlikely that you'll have Richard/Skaff/Robert on call to talk about these things in person.
Thanks for sharing your knowledge with the world!
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment