Elements of different games From: rwallace@cs.tcd.ie (Russell Wallace) Date: Mon, 09 Aug 1993 14:35:28 +0000 The following is some ideas I have worked out as to why different types of games are considered fun, and what elements each type have. I'd be interested to see what people think of these ideas. I hope the cross-post doesn't cause offense, the reason I've done this is that I've included games of many different types here, so people in each newsgroup might have something to say in response. I think that by and large the fun people obtain from strategy and role-playing type games (computer, human or mixed moderated) is derived from five sources: 1. Power building. The fun of seeing your position, whether it be a single character or an interstellar empire, increase in power and influence. 2. Exploration. The fun of exploring an imaginary world, drawing maps, discovering its history etc. 3. Strategy. The fun of pitting one's wits against an opposing player, or against a puzzle designed by the moderator. 4. Diplomacy. Forming alliances with other players, trying to avoid being betrayed, etc. 5. Role-playing. I think this can be very broadly defined as thinking of any game as a simulation of a world, rather than just a collection of abstract symbols. The more complex forms of role-playing occur when one is playing a character, and viewing the game world and reacting to it from that character's perspective, rather than from one's own as a player. The following is a list of many different types of games, with my evaluation of the main elements in each type. For example, the Adventure, Zork, etc. genre of games is listed as 2,3 (5) meaning that I think these are primarily exploration and puzzle-solving, with a little bit of role-playing. Most of you should be familiar with most of the types of games listed. Galaxy and Atlantis are computer-moderated PBeM games, and MUD stands for Multi User Dungeon, meaning a real-time multiuser adventure game, usually logged into using telnet. Hack, Rogue, Moria etc. 1 (2). Mainly power-building, a little bit of exploration. Adventure, Zork etc. 2,3 (5). Mainly exploration and puzzle-solving, with a bit of role-playing. Chess. 3. A strategy game, pure and simple. Diplomacy. 4 (1,3). Mainly diplomacy, with a little bit of strategy and power-building. Classic human-moderated Dungeons and Dragons (go down a dungeon, kill things, get magic items and XPs). 1,2 (3,5). Mainly power-building and exploration with a little bit of strategy and role-playing. Human-moderated role-playing games (of a more sophisticated style than D&D etc.). 2,3,5. Galaxy. 1,3,4 (5). Primarily a game of strategy and diplomacy, some role-playing also. Atlantis. 1,2,3,4,5. (Says he immodestly :-)) Combat-oriented MUDs. 1,2 (4,5). Conversation-oriented MUDs (without much combat, treasure finding etc.). 5 (2). Combination MUDs (heavy emphasis on role-playing, with plots including a certain amount of combat etc., e.g. Masquerade). 2,5. This suggests that when designing a game, one should look at similar games, evaluate what elements they contain, and consider the possibility of improving existing elements, or adding ones not previously present. For example, when writing Galaxy (of a genre of games which are generally about strategy and diplomacy), I tried to also put in at least some role-playing. Note: I am not trying to make the above analysis out to be objective fact. Clearly a great deal of this is my opinion, and I'm not trying to start an argument with those whose opinions will differ. My reason for posting it is because I'm interested to see how other people will view the issue. What do you all think? -- "To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem" Russell Wallace, Trinity College, Dublin rwallace@cs.tcd.ie Referenced By Up