narrative as a skinner's box, or why I love Witcher 3.

An outline of what I am talking about here.

1. Games are not a good medium for narrative
2. Games often use various forms of 'skinner's boxes' (rewards given at irregular intervals) to encourage continued play
3. Narrative can function as a skinner's box
4. .
5. .
6. .
7. Also, I love Witcher 3

So lets unpack that a bit. I am not going to try to prove the first two bullets though I would like to expand on them, but would like to demonstrate point 3 if you give me the benefit of the doubt on the first two. 

1. I don't believe that games driven by narrative can work. Storytelling simply cannot be that rich when the player can interact with it. Both the fact that there is a player and that interaction has to happen restrict the depth of narrative. Any narrative has to be focused on the player as real tangible person. That means that the narrative has to be driven by modern morals and philosophies, the preference of certain demographics, the desire of a person to be entertained etc. You cannot explore the inner life of protagonist that is an extension of an average player as you would a protagonist that is the imagination of a creator. And the fact that ultimately a game is about interactivity you cannot explore the specific character as you would had you had full control of it. In a movie or a book everything exists for narrative, in a game everything exists for the player and that dramatically limits what is possible. 

2. Many games are based around a continual drip of rewards. A divine column of light when you level up, a baritone 'delicious' when you crush some candies, a golden burst when you find an ultra rare thing. In some games this occasional reward is the entire point, in some it is just an element to keep you engaged. There is nothing inherently wrong with this. This design ensures a continuous burst of dopamine and makes the game pleasurable in the long term. I do think games that rely on this exclusively are cheap and somewhat exploitative (see slot machines) but that's a separate point. 

3. Here we get to the point of this blog. I think story in games can be used very effectively as that skinner's box. I adore witcher 3. I think the characters and voice acting is well done, the writing is solid, the topics ambitious for the medium, etc etc. But never in a million years would I suggest that what makes the witcher good is the story. The inner life of characters is shallower than the B grade fantasy novel, and the acting and expression is below your most low brow summer blockbuster. What I believe makes the game great, and what is the core value proposition of the game is exploration. There is a million places, and things, and beasts, and stuffs of all kinds. The pleasure of the game is in discovery, of trying to see if there is something neat lurking around the hill that you had no reason to go to. I think the main narrative (which by the way stirs really no emotional response from me) provides a useful road map for the order in which you should experience the world in the broadest sense and are rewards for accomplishing the main task. And all the little side pieces are just random rewards for engaging with the games core mechanic of exploration. Knowing that the ruler had a gay son and that said ruler killed a subject for using the fact as an insult, and  then the ghost of the subjected haunted a well and made life for the locals is not brilliant story telling but it is a brilliant reward for taking the time to see, talk, and walk about the world. 

There are many similar games that encourage exploration by the promise of better loot and bigger baddies. Some have even done it successfully (I played vanilla WoW back in the day and I loved seeing new areas in a massive world, and the promise of loot kept me digging around all the dungeons and seeing all the stuff). But I think story is a better reward for a game that promises exploration. The reward system supports the core aspect by making the world richer. You don't have to have the precise writing of 'old man and the sea' or the character building of furiosa, or the deeper themes of citizen kane. You simply have decent morsels of story that support and extend the overall purpose of the game. I would also add that the loot system in the Witcher is much more restricted to end game content, it motivates the latter bits of exploration. For much of the main game you are happy plowing away with whatever you find in the course of reasonable play. Forcing a player to grind mobs for a sweet drop goes against exploration mechanic and is minimized. Alternatively, most towns have a simple way to boost the effectiveness of your gear with a whetstone  which does encourage additional travel back and forth furthering the main theme of exploration. Isn't the Witcher great?!

I firmly believe that when talking about games that the only discussion worth having is about how good is the 'play' . Sound, mechanics, visuals, story, all of it exists only to advance the game play. If the game is about understanding and mastering systems everything should be a conscious choice of either simplifying, clarifying, extending, etc the system. If the game is about exploring a system everything should be to facilitate, enrich and encourage that exploration. Witcher 3 does this incredibly well. 

on twitch

I don't understand why twitch.tv is not more hyped in broader media and why money is not rapidly pouring into the platform. Or why even after a purchase by Amazon the engineering of the service has not been polished. It's baffling.

Do people not realize that this is the creation of a new medium! Sci-fi level stuff.And not old timey sci-fi but today sci-fi. How crazy is it that Saga (a fantastic comic that everyone should read) has a whole plot line dedicated to actors performing live streaming theater where audience members are able to interact with the performer. Or the 1995 utterly fantastical Diamond Age has a major plot feature of performers able to interact with audience in a mass market platform. This is twitch! Today!

The platform is still looking for it's bearings. It feels like it offers two somewhat distinct products. Large audience youtube style video game content where magnetic personalities and smaller more intimate performer-audience interaction is the key. The lines between the two are blurry at times and even at the extremes they share commonalities (live content and live chat). But i suspect that the two types of content will gradually diverge more and more.

What is more interesting to me is what is still possible to do with the medium. Norway pioneered soothing slow TV with a trains rolling through a country side or a woman knitting. Imagine a soothing live stream where people watch and interact with a  knitter. Or scenes of domesticity which allow the viewer to join a family for dinner. Or an improve show that feeds off the viewers. There are whole new entertainment experiences that haven't been tried. Would anyone watch me and a few friend cooking and talking about games? Who knows, but it possible, which is damn exciting.

game vs experience

So, in thinking about my game taxonomy I'd hit on an awkward snag. I see four core game archetypes but then social engagement felt like a needed add-on. This was because i think of archetypes are the core features that make a game worth playing and there are certainly games where the social aspect is what makes the game what it is. But it is hard to think of social interaction as piece of game design (excluding ice-breaker games, but those usually suck). Initially, this came about when thinking about the colossal success of LoL but it also extend to the most basic games like charades and tag.

Now, I have come to think that social is not a feature of the game but a feature of the game experience. A game may dominate the experience or the game can be a small piece of the experience but they are not the same. The social interaction around the game can hugely color the experience but so can technological, physical, and timing features. Drinking games are often fairly simple games but they may offer rich gaming experiences. A well designed MMO without people will fail to deliver a satisfying experience and so will fail as an enterprise.

All of this to say, that when thinking about a game I propose to think about the design of the game, and the experience that is afforded by engaging with the game. I believe that this offers a stronger platform from which to critique games.

Why I play too much Hearthstone

I started this blog to think more about games in general and instead I ended up playing one game all the time. 

I am currently looking at games using the taxonomy I laid in my previous post (many months ago). Briefly, I see about 4.5 features that games typically address: Skinner's box stimulation, simulation, narrative, and mastery; with social interaction being the slightly incongruous .5. Most games hit a few of these points but my feeling is that the more successful games have a core feature that they deliver on very well and may then include some ancillary features as well.

Hearthstone addresses these features in a very nicely balanced ladder of importance providing me with what feels like a rich experience. Of course the key part that makes it so likable to me is that the way it prioritizes these features agrees with my personal preference for them.

I would argue that the core value proposition of Hearthstone is mastery. The thing that makes the game compelling is that there are things to learn, to understand, to improve upon. You can climb in ranks of constructed play, you can strive to get good at the draft format. You can try to get good any of the dozen or more popular decks to play, you can try to succeed with more fringe archetypes, or get creative and try to make something weird work. That is a lot of learning and improving upon.

Additionally, I find that for me to have mastery as the most appealing feature of a game I need to feel very in-control of the decision space that a game presents. I have trouble getting this feeling from real time games. In real time games  there are points where you lack the experience to identify the possible options that are afforded to you or there is a a lack of mechanical skill to execute certain things. I find the former to be a limitation of a game like LoL and the latter to be a limitation of RTSs like Starcraft. The solution to these problems is typically raw practice time. And personally I find practice without conscious learning to be less satisfying. It's still really cool to feel like you have fast aim, or great last hitting timing, or great build timing in in an RTS, I just don't find it as satisfying as actively thinking about choices. Hearthstone is all about your choices and your knowledge.

Hearthstone also affords a feeling of exploration. A feature that I would lump under simulation of experience in my taxonomy, but whatever. The randomness of the game ensures that very often you are thrust onto little islands of terra incognita. Just like it is statistically unlikely that there have ever been two identically ordered random decks of playing cards (52! is a really large number) it is really unlikely that there have ever been two identical games of hearthstone. Which is not to say there aren't far too many stales games of hearthstone (but I am not writing about problems with HS right now) but very often you experience situations that you have never experienced before. One of the joys that games can provide is the ability to generate novelty and HS does that.

Collectible Card Games are the historical skinner's boxes of hard core gaming. Getting random shiny rares is always a great way to feed that random reward addiction. It's often feels like a cheap thrill but the rush of dopamine from micro rewards is undeniable. I think hearthstone manages to provide enough of these pleasant pings without giving the feeling of hollow addiction. You get to open packs with their random goodness but they typically come as a reward for game actions. You get special cards with a fancy aesthetic with some regularity. You get to level up and get micro rewards. But none of these things dominate the experience of the game and so you never feel like your are mindlessly pressing a button just for that mini fix.


A brief aside on what I am missing in Hearthstone 

By far, my biggest gripe with Hearthstone is that there isn't more Hearthstone. Some of that is coming: more cards and more mechanics. But I also want to see more game modes, tournaments, more spectating options (more deck slots) etc.

Then, I would also like to see Hearthstone do better with the two pieces of my game taxonomy I haven't mentioned yet. First, that .5 feature of games: the social aspect. I want more ways to screw around with the game with my friends and more ways to engage with the community. Again, more game modes (tournaments, friendly formats) would go a long way towards this.

Lastly, and this is the least important to me but also seems like the easiest from a design standpoint, I would like to see more flavor/narrative features. As someone with limited WoW experience (played before any expansion and only got to about level 40) I have very little lore knowledge. But I would love to see cards have more varied vocalizations based on the the game boards and game states and I would love to read the flavor text of cards in game. Without knowledge of WoW Hearthstone is a bit light on character.

In summary
Hearthstone rocks and it makes me feel guilty for neglecting other gaming.

I promise me to write about other games soon...

what's in a name

I think the way we understand games suffers from our lack of language for games. Which is a really difficult thing to write about, because ,duh, there is lack of language to use. Try and bear with me here as I haphazardly try to skirt around words like game and player.

Babel babble 

I have a friend who is an investment banker working in the gaming sector. He figures out which casinos, race tracks, and resorts are profitable and worth his bank's money.

Another buddy is an art director for Naughty Dog. He thinks about how to make a consumer feel like the protagonist of a blockbuster movie.

My college roommate had traveled over most of the world and was really into flying in planes. So he spent thousands of dollars and crazy amount of hours setting up flight sim to experience flying commercial jets.

I like to watch (e)sports where a bunch of young guys (mostly guys) try to see who has managed to spend more hours drilling more variations allowing them make optimal decision within an artificial environment tightly constrained by transparent rules .

Technically all of us are engaged with games and gaming. But I would argue that all of these efforts are really more different than they are similar.  I believe that our discussions, marketing, and perhaps even design could be better if we had the language to think about these as distinct efforts.

I propose (at least for the purposes of this blog) four categories: skinner's box, interactive entertainment, simulation, and mastery games. Hopefully, someone smarter than myself can come up with catchier names.

I don't think the areas are completely mutually exclusive and games usually take elements from a few areas. But, I believe that largely the core value proposition of each game rest in one of these sectors. And a 'game' can only be evaluated on how well it delivers its core value proposition. I also happen to think that games tend to be stronger when they focus on delivering on only one direction.

So to unpack this a bit more. Skinners box is the entertainment that focuses on providing small random reward. Slot machines are a classic example. But so is Candy Crush and a lot of other casual games.

The interactive entertainment category is where the interactivity is a way to tell richer stories. The game aspect allows for a deeper engagement with the content. By controlling the characters the consumer gets to become part of the story. And by giving limited freedom to the consumer, the author can add details trusting the user to curate their own experience.

Simulations allow the user to experience things that they could not experience otherwise. Flying planes or driving trucks. But also walking around fantastical landscapes. Or leading armies or conquering galaxies.

In mastery games the appeal is to learn and to figure out. This is largely competitive games, puzzle games, and the classic player vs environment games like platformers. My bias is showing here. This is what I personally tend to think of as games  (and also the category that appeals to me the most) but thinking about the other categories distinctly helps me appreciate those works on their own merits.

I also think there is a category 4.5 which is basically a chat room. Games like WoW, Second Life and LoL fall in this bucket. This isn't a fifth category because this core value is not something is usually lumped into the singular blob of 'gaming'. I would argue the reason that these are called games is that WoW is exploration/simulation, LoL is about mastery, and Second Life is about Simulation, but none of the games really sell those features as much as they sell the interactivity and social connection.


In summary, by using the game as a blanket term it becomes too easy to judge a story game by a mastery standard or a gambling game by a simulation standard. We end up expecting fish to climb trees. (note, Einstein probably never said the fish quote that I am alluding to)

Braid, Greatness, and Interactive Entertainment

Braid: all lush and pretty

Braid is a promise, a tantalizing window into what could be and should be, but this does not make it great. 'Great' always has an implicit reference frame. I can say that Fargo is a great, that My Name is Red is a great, that the Kandinsky retrospective at the Met in 2009 was great. Consuming these works have been notable experiences in my life, they are Great within my overall cultural context. I can also say that Days of Future Past was a great superhero movie or that Arminn Van Buren puts on a great show. These are great within a niche, a great choice among the options afforded to me.

Braid is the second kind of great. It is a great video game. I wish that Braid wasn't great at all but rather a baseline for what is considered a publishable game. But alas, the state of video games is such that I play Braid as a happy escape from rummaging through indie detritus looking for a worthwhile review to write or a design lesson to learn. Braid is great; it delivers all the things that I thought I wanted from games. The game is a fresh puzzle platformer which relies on time manipulation as a central solution vector. You are able to play back the recent events like a VHS tape going forward and back to find the point where you want to be. Certain features of the level are immune to time manipulation and properly matching up the things that move when you rewind with those that don't is typically the crux of the challenge. This mechanic is well polished with puzzles maintaining an internal logic and are typically not contingent on chancy spacings or other unpredictable variables. The player has the full control to experiment, probe, and edge towards a solution. Braid does these things well, but really it should be unacceptable for a game to do anything less. Having polished mechanics which can be understood and manipulated by the player to achieve goals is the ground zero of games. 

Where Braid attempts to make the leap from great game to great work is with the integration of mechanics into narrative and experience. My belief is that this approach is the only way through which games will get their first masterwork. The idea of Braid is to create a world where the mechanics work to explore the nature of  the author's personal experiences. The game is about learning from ones mistakes, and recapturing a love lost. The mechanic of playing time backwards and forwards is a good way of expressing a way in which many us try to make sense of painful experiences. Going over them, again and again, trying to gain a piece of insight that can give meaning to pain. The reward for solving a puzzle in Braid, having massaged a problem every which way, is just one small (literal) puzzle piece that allows you to see a bit more of the picture of events that transpired. A picture which you slowly assemble at the end of each episode/world. To me this expressive feature of mechanics is the seam through which games can pass into art. 

Still the best example of video games as art

Where Braid does not live up to its potential is that it tries to tell rather than share. As a player I am being shown the pain the author endured. And, if I am so inclined, I can make the effort to relate the ideas that he is presenting to my own life. But within a game I want to personally experience the loss, the need for answers, and the pain of trying to make sense. The only place where the creator leans on narration is in describing the pain of losing a love and the struggle this creates. This is delivered through a series of text boxes which fail to engage the player. The narrative goal does not effect my experience and so I don't care. The big lesson for me is that a great game has to go beyond a tightly crafted rule set, a great game has to do all its work communicate within the realm of player experience. This is why a good game of chess can evoke the feeling of battle and of sparring. Or a game of Catan can make you feel like a Machiavellian Ruler while arguing over sheep. Experiences stemming from design subsume all theme and style. 

Specifically in Braid, the author wanted to tell me about his experience instead of bringing me along to feel it with him. I would have liked to have seen the player lose something in game, and not be told that he lost it, but feel it being lost. Specifically a mechanic, a rule, a power or something that I truly valued in experiencing the game world being taken from me. Then my struggle with the puzzles would have been an echo of the creator struggling with his past. 

I think Braid is in fact a high mark for games because of its ambition and commitment to ideas. But while offering a tantalizing peek at the potential of the medium it demonstrates how difficult it is to create an resonant experience for the player while keeping tight control over the path which the player can take. I suspect that while a Braid-like game that transcends its niche will come,  the first great work of gaming will come from an openly experiential direction. 

Taki Tori 2+: a chicken without a home

So cute, yet so lost and pointless

It is my belief that a tight and coherent rule set is essential for worthwhile interactive entertainment. The beauty of games - digital and otherwise - is that they create  worlds where complexity, objectives, and laws can be set to anything. For these worlds to be satisfying the player needs to be able to interact with them in a meaningful way. Beyond the rules, the world itself has to be a place where the player wants to spend their time. The world needs to peak their desire to explore, to master, or to understand. Typically I find the former task is the key stumbling block of most games. Sometimes both pieces - mechanics and setting - are a problem. But, the failure of Toki Tori 2+, surprised me with being a peculiar kind of world building failure. 

Toki Tori 2+ is smartly done game. It is part of the proud platformer tradition. The art is charming. There is a fresh conceit of the player character being under-powered (basically the Hodor of the baby chick world) unable to even jump. Instead of typical mechanics the player has to depend on calling friendly creatures towards themselves or shoving the critters away. The puzzles increment smartly with new mechanics introduced slowly and multiple variations of each mechanic explored. 

And yet, the game is not fun. Me not having fun is hardly a cause for alarm as I am a hateful and joyless creature. But I also have trouble imagining a better adjustment human enjoying this game. For the strange place where Toki Tori 2+ fails is in defining an audience - the sort of people that might want to spend time interacting with this smartly constructed world. The game is too simple and dull for the PG-13+ crowd and and too finicky for the Y crowd.  

The puzzles are very straightforward - never did a I look at a situation and wonder what it is that is expected of me. Yet executing the solution can be quite finicky with precise timings and spacing that the player can't intuit. There is never a penalty for getting a puzzle wrong as all the elements reset and death is hardly an impediment thanks to frequent check points.Those with somewhat formed pre-frontal cortexes will alternate boredom with brief bouts of frustration. Those precious ones with still growing logic centers will get frustrated as their actions can result in highly variant results which make it difficult to make sense of cause and effect. 

If only the chicken knew who it was trying to make friends with. 

Overall: It took me a little while before I realized I hated it. 5/10