Conflict is only meaningful when the outcome is in question.

Often, computer game challenges are against foes who have a noticeably different in-game status from the player character. The player character has depth, while the foes are hardly characters at all. It isn’t even a challenger. It’s just a challenge. Even the most difficult challenges, the “boss” foes, rarely have any out-of-plot motivation, duty, or even activity that they engage in. There are several causes for this (not that it’s any excuse) all of which are more or less surmountable.

Character background is difficult to convey and generate.

The rise of multi-player direct competition games has illuminated this difficulty even more by demonstrating what happens when player characters to compete against each-other.

It doesn’t mean anything to challenge a non-entity, nor does it signify to crush an inferior. “Boss” characters are often meant as a game-play challenge, but as they are presented as characters, they often fail on that merit.

Reducing the player’s character to the level of other in-game characters is important for verisimilitude. Giving the player special powers makes them special, but also adds exceptional expectations which can often not be met.

The player should compete against evenly matched foes. Whether this is symmetrical or not, there must be a balance of forces or there is no need for contest.

games are not stories, but they do need momentum.

History building up to the point of interaction. NPCs and environment needs to support this momentum.

Good manuverability (high player agency) in the narrative trajectory.

Balance between the two, if too much manuverability then history means nothing. If too much momentum then the player’s choices don’t matter.

Many games neither justify the player’s character’s actions, nor give them options to make real choices.

What you want, what you can do, or what you have. Which is more important? Each informs the other. Each is superior to the others. Each serves the others. They all work together.

There are continually trends to move games (and everything else) toward a focus on one or the other of these aspects. An exclusive obsession with “what you have” is the basis of materialism. Fascination with “what you can do” leads to endless labor. Fixation on “what you want” produces day-dreaming and dissatisfaction. Continue reading →

The current trend is to make games ever more concrete, but we must not forget abstraction. Generally speaking, abstract games challenge deduction, while concrete ones challenge induction. Put another way, games with lots of specific rules and solid metaphors force the player to form their own generalizations and strategies, while games with a few simple rules and few examples force the player to devise effective applications and tactics. Continue reading →