anyway.



thread: 2011-02-21 : Into the Unknown?

On 2011-04-08, David Berg wrote:

Hi Vincent,

Yeah, it's been a great discussion!  Thanks again.  At this point, I think I have a pretty good understanding of what you mean by connections, and by the 3 insights.  I'll definitely keep those in mind for future design work (already did for my Ronnies entry, actually!).

I have two main questions lingering.  My first question is freeform or not?, from your response to Paul in post #74 (he also asked some relevant follow-ups in the next post).  Given that you see the design goals as very different for freeform vs games, I'm wondering how you'd tell one from the other.  I don't know which side Delve is on, as I see it as a spectrum.  Thus I'm attempting a combo of "design a game's input-output mechanisms" and "communicate principles and inspire play based on them".  Maybe that's counter-productive.  So: How would you assess a game's place on the freeformy scale, and how would you design for something in Delve's in-between position?

My second question is the one from my post #79, about the type of guarantee needed for a strong connection.  I'm not sure whether your position is that (a) players just need their attempts to always produce interesting results, even if the processes producing them are hidden, or (b) players need to engage with the process, to observe it in action, in order to apprehend the connection to what we're here to do.

If (b) is more a point of marketing than of producing good play ("I always have fun with this game, but don't know why" is a weak fan endorsement, to be sure!), then I'm content to have Delve reach fewer players in exchange for it better achieving its goals.

But if hidden-from-players processes are going to produce "how to play" confusion that no amount of orientation, inspiration and instruction can fix (or some other big problem), then yikes, I'll need a very different approach!

I know you said you'd like to wrap up, so I promise not to greet your answers with nit-pickery!  I feel like we're almost there on the second one already.



 

This makes...
initials
...go...
short response
optional explanation (be brief!):

if you're human, not a spambot, type "human":