Game Design: Using Rules to Build Experiences

When people ask, "What's your major/area of study?" and I reply, "Game design & Ludology", 99% of the time I get this response, "So you like...write code and stuff?" Well, yes...some (most) do, but I prefer not to (although I can). Then I launch into a dizzying array of real world comparisons and metaphors which usually leaves my glamored inquirer standing lost amidst an ever-growing storm cloud of crap pulled from my ass.

So I think it necessary to log an answer made of stone and mortar rather than smoke and paper:

What is Game Design?
In short, its just rules. That's about it. Game designers are people who make rules. Now, the games industry usually forces game designers to be masters of other fields too: art, programming, sales, management, etc. In fact it is pretty much required that as a game designer you also need a "back up" area of expertise (mine is writing and narrative construction; and maybe beatboxing).

Game designers are the ones who decide what, exactly, makes a game good v. what makes a game bad. I believe this is the most important part OF a game. Graphics, sounds, control methods (peripherals, motion sensors, etc.) are great, but the integral experience of the user is based around what they are DOING inside a game. Tetris is a great example (although timing and resulting innovation had a lot to do with its commercial success) of this.

Look at a game like....Poker. Poker is what I call a "pure mechanics" game (there is a ludological term for them somewhere). This means they are completely devoid of a narrative, and have no (intentional) higher meaning behind its construction. I would have used Chess, but I can argue that Chess has a narrative based on the names, traditional models, and mechanics of the pieces used. Poker does not intend to tell a story; however, because it is a game which is interactive, it acts a catalyst by which stories are created (everyone has a crazy poker night story). These games are arguably much more popular than most for the aforementioned reason. When a group of people gather for an impromptu game of soccer, a story is created about playing soccer.

Now the relationships between Ludology versus Narratology is to be saved for another post. However since it is in the context of this post, I will say this: rules can be used to tell stories. As seen in Conway's Game of Life (great video there) simple rules (Game of Life has four, although that video says two) can have a profound depth and meaning behind them.

I am currently reading Gonzalo Frasca's 2007 Ph. D. dissertation, Play the Message, and in the beginning he talks about a movie called Kamchatka which is about an Argentinian family holed up Anne Frank style. The father uses a Risk knock off called. T.E.G., to teach his son to never give up despite how the opponent is overwhelmingly powerful. The game itself is about warfare, strategy, etc., but the mechanics (rules in a context) can be used to drive home an idea. This is what I love about games. This is why I say there are very, very few "good" games out there, most simply do not take advantage of this. Most games use devices found in movies to further a narrative. Devices like dialogue and cinematics, both things that are hard-coded and can NOT be experienced in ANY other way because they are non-interactive (Resident Evil 4's "interactive cinematics" do not count either, although they are neat).

Game design is all about the rules. When the rules are placed in a context, they become mechanics. I am exploring this in my senior Capstone project Chains: An Exploration of Determinism and Free Will by creating systems of rules designed to dictate the actions of the universe, rather than create the universe by hand. Instead of saying, "the player goes here and does x using y", I say, "well there's gravity, the NPC's have "souls", and everyone is trying to achieve their goals in life". The game takes on a new meaning now in true non-linearity. The act of playing builds the story unique to the player.

Iterative Development

The whole concept of "Iterative Development" has been around for quite awhile. To summarize the process in step format:

1. Create initial prototype (alpha)
2. Let members of your demographic (or everyone) use it
3. Carefully record their feedback
4. Take feedback and put it into your product
5. Re-release product (beta)
6. Rinse and repeat until the money runs out

In the gaming industry, this process has become the standard since every game you ever play has internet functionality.

What I wanted to examine in this post was League of Legends by Riot Games. I am looking at LoL because it is an extremely weird adaptation of the Iterative process, despite how the game has "technically" been around for quite awhile. And by weird, I mean utterly brilliant and a herald to development processes of the FUTURE.

Defense of the Ancients: All Stars

**Disclaimer**
Now I know that DotA: All Stars did not "start it all". Aeon of Strife did. Or Tides of Blood (which I have actually played). Or...whatever did. But this is like Grand Theft Auto: every GTA before number 3 does not matter, despite how they were really good games. Moving on!

DotA created the "MOBA" genre, (Multiplayer Online Battle Arena), which I think is a horrible moniker ("Multiplayer Online Battle Arena" describes everything from Quake to Facebook games, it needs to be more specific; maybe mention RTS in there?) way back in 2003. It was built using Warcraft 3's map editor, which came with a copy of the game. Like all good games, it was built for FUN, not for profit. It garnered a HUGE following, tournaments were held all over, everyone had a great time, except noobs playing for the first time.

So the creator of DotA started a new project with Riot games called League of Legends released late 2009, which for all intents and purposes is a slower-paced, more user-friendly DotA all in a clean, neat little free client that uses the standard free-to-play business model of micro-transactions (which I might add, is phenomenally balanced; the shop gives access to things non-payers have access to as well, and it also allows people to buy non-impact things like skins for characters).
It utilizes a leveling system so noobs play with noobs, pros with pros, and once attaining level 30 (the max), you can take your game further with ranked matches. Its all very nice, and even has a narrative that I don't pay any attention to. On the other hands, there is Heroes of Newerth (HoN), which is a subscription-based client that is much less forgiving than LoL. Most (all?) of the major DotA players migrated to HoN over LoL for this very reason; its faster, harder, higher bar of entry.

My point: 
League of legends beta tested it's game inside ANOTHER GAME made by ANOTHER DEVELOPER.

DoTA was essentially the beta test for LoL. Brilliant stuff. Games like this are a balancing NIGHTMARE, requiring little tweaks and months of game play to feedback. Having the beta version so publicly available and supported, they had so much data that it could be perfected. Hell, it would have been slick enough to beta test a game in a game you've already released, but in someone else's? Ballermuch? This is the pinnacle of iterative development.

Now, obviously it wasn't intentional. The lead developer (probably) didn't even dream of his little WC mod becoming so huge and profitable. But it did, and I think the rest of the industry could learn from this. Utilize mod-heavy games with pre-established communities for your concept beta testing. Games like LittleBigPlanet, Starcraft II, Fallout 3 (gotta visit its mod nexus), etc.

Although I think it's cheating, many games say they're in beta (I'm looking at you Dead Frontier and Minecraft) although you can still give them heaps of money. It's like, "Oh, I'm in beta because I'm missing parts, I'm buggy, and generally incomplete...but I have this shop over here where you can spend money, I will be complete someday! Purchase early, save now!" And while it is cheating, its also a great idea as long as it is FUN (which both of my examples are, check them out).