Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.
On the use of luck in games
A subject near and dear (or near and furious, as the case may be) to many of our hearts: luck, as a game designer might view it.
The article actually says very little about whether or not luck in games is a good thing generally, but it defines a method of analyzing that question for any particular game. I know I've definitely seen differences between games where luck feels like being cheated, and those where it keeps play from getting boring; this article is the first attempt I've seen at formalizing that distinction.
Discuss.
The article actually says very little about whether or not luck in games is a good thing generally, but it defines a method of analyzing that question for any particular game. I know I've definitely seen differences between games where luck feels like being cheated, and those where it keeps play from getting boring; this article is the first attempt I've seen at formalizing that distinction.
Discuss.
Comments
First off, he talks about the difference between evident or concealed luck, and the effects thereof. The mistake he makes is that he assumes the evidence or concealment of luck to be a function of the game mechanic, and not also a function of the player. Look at a game like Ra. We know that the game amounts largely to just an Egyptian slot machine, and winning and losing is highly dependent on luck. Yet, other gamers disagree with us, and they say the luck in the game is much less of a factor. The game has a luck factor that is evident to some players, but concealed to others.
Thus, if you design your game with concealed luck in mind, you must also consider whether the target audience will discover the luck factor and make it evident. Take Pokemon, for example, where on the surface there is a large appearance of luck. However, certain players have dug deep in the code of the game and discovered the underlying mathematics, that were previously hidden. And they discover that there was actually a lot less luck involved than at first appeared.
The article makes a frequent example of the cone-fire mechanism in many fps games. In the end, he suggests that random perturbation of the crosshairs will preserve control, accessibility and learnability. This may be true that it positively affects accessibility and learnability by making the luck in aiming more evident. However, according to his definition, it actually diminishes control. He defines control as "This is the sense of government that the player has in trying to achieve his goals. " If the crosshairs are moving on their own, the player will feel less in control, not more in control. By having the luck element less evident, players feel more confident that they are in control of the aiming, even if they are not. The sense of government is maintained, when the actual governance is the same.
Also, he seems to not give enough regard the degree of luck. Sure, fps like Counter-Strike have cone-fire. And if indeed, aiming were random, then it would have a negative effect on control, learnability, and accessibility, as he says. However, in a game like Counter-Strike, while there is cone-fire, it barely matters. Your actual aim matters 99% of the time, and the cone-fire is only a factor maybe 1% of the time. If this wasn't the case, aimbots would not be so effective at consistently getting head-shots. The degree of the luck factor is more important than transparency, congruency, or polarity, as it modifies all three. A large amount of concealed negative luck will cause most players to just quit whereas a very small degree of concealed negative luck can actually make a game more interesting.
Lastly, he also ignores manageability of luck. Some games, like Candy Land, offer no management of luck outside of cheating. Even when the randomness is perfectly evident, there is no legal action the player can take to mitigate the randomness. yet in a game like poker, even when given horrible cards, a player still has means available to win. They can bluff, and scare other players off with high bids. They can also continue to fold, and minimalize losses, until they draw a good hand.
I'm not sure I've accounted for everything. But if you want to do a better measuring of the effect of luck on a game, you will need to take at least these factors into account: degree, manageability, polarity, transparency to target audience, and congruity.
Robert Heinlein
I know I am asking for a broad range of topics, and if that seems impossible, where can I get some real good information on game theory. My college has one class, and I hope to be able to take it, but I think it is going to be very elementary. Are there any good sites/books you reccomend I could should pick up to teach me game theory? I will be buying books, but I would rather not buy them blindly.