|
Playing
to Win, Part 0: Why Bother?
Some may be wondering why this site about game
design includes a section on playing competitive games. Here you go:
One cannot hope to design a hugely
successful competitive game if one is ignorant of how such games are
played at the highest level.
It’s that simple.
Multiplayer games are played for “fun,”
sure. Playing for “fun” and playing to win are wildly different
pursuits. Edward Lasker begins the second half of his book Chess
for Fun & Chess For Blood:
“In the preceding pages, we have looked only
at the pleasant side of chess—the kind played among amateurs for
the excitement of a battle without bloodshed, in which the supreme
command is in their hands, but the outcome of which is of no grave
consequence to either player.
“There is another side to chess, however,
which is quite different—tournament and match games played by
masters or those striving to become masters, whose standing, if not
livelihood, may be seriously affected by the outcome.
“Such games are no fun, even for the winner.
They are the hardest work imaginable. You play for blood! You avoid
the lure of beautiful combinations unless you see clearly that they
do not endanger your chance to draw the game at least, if you cannot
win it. For it is not the beauty of a combination which wins a
tournament, but the number of points you make—a whole point for a
win, a half a point for a draw, and an “egg” for a loss.”
Well said. But surely most players of any hit
competitive game do not play with the seriousness Lasker alludes to.
They don’t. And accordingly, the game must be fun at low levels of
skill. Players who play for the momentary amusement must have an
exciting experience. Every element—the sound effects, music, user
interface, mood, theme, feel, everything—must contribute to that
experience. But that is not enough.
Actually, I suppose it is enough if you are not
after making something really great, or if for other reasons beyond
the scope of the game design the game is doomed from the start.
It’s also enough for a game like Ready 2 Rumble, where the
game’s success had to do with the marketing, the characters, and
being a launch title for a new system. Its gameplay—which suffered
horribly, and worse, needlessly from slippery
slope—was almost incidental and didn’t have to be solid.
If those things are enough for you, then just
get out of here now. Go on. This site isn’t for you.
Ok, those of you still here…your game will
need to attract the hardcore players who play at an insanely high
level. They’re your opinion leaders. If a game can stand up to the
rigors of tournament play—which is orders of magnitude more
rigorous than you might believe—then it will be able to hold their
attention. As players get better, they will get more into your game,
not less into it. The hardcore players, as opinion leaders,
influence a big part of the casual market.
Just look at the examples: Street Fighter,
Starcraft, and Quake. All three games have some problems at
tournament level play, but on the whole, they hold together
surprisingly well. They can withstand the harsh extremes of expert
players trying to eke out every possible advantage…even after
years of play. If these games couldn’t do that, they certainly
wouldn’t have been the hits they are. There would have been no
tournament scenes. Interest would have died away. They would not be
perceived as THE standards of competition that they are.
Lots of people are qualified to make a game fun
for beginners. The real trick is making it still be a game at all
once the ridiculously clever top players get a hold of it. That’s
the trick, as well as the brass ring, for that’s what the market
rewards via the bandwagon effect.
I think one (of many) reasons there are such
few games that succeed on this level is that being a top player and
being articulate and logical enough to explain exactly why you’re
a top player are skill sets that generally do not go hand in hand.
As a result, there just aren’t that many people with both the
knowledge and ability to design tournament games.
All I can say is to jump in the pool and see
how it really is, if you haven't already. Play to win.
Talk back!
Discuss this article in the forums.
|
