     |
 |
 |
 | | | | |
 |
|||
 |
||||||
          |
 |
 |
||||
|
The Importance of Risk in Basic Game Design
The Bifurcated PathLet us assume at last that we are cognizant of risk, that we want to include it as an active element in our game: how do we do so without driving players away? Thus we come to the bifurcated path. In order to have risk we have to setup a reward, but let’s make it a real reward. Instead of the reward being “get to the end” let’s make it “get to the end in X hours of game-play” (there, after all that we don’t even really mind the reward being the end of the game). Now X must actually be variable. Not minutely variable but truly variable. Let’s say, for the sake of having real numbers, the difference between eight hours of game-play and forty. Now that we have our incentive let’s set up a risk. This risk can be any of the risks listed above but let’s use time. Now that your time’s a wager that whole system becomes a lot more fun. We have our risk and our reward; now let’s talk about game-play. The gamer who likes risk, who believes in themselves and their abilities qua the game, can take the short path, trying for that elusive eight hour victory wrought with danger and excitement. Yes they miss out on some of the content of the game, which they have conveniently skipped, but they get the rush of a challenge which tests their finely honed skills to the limit. The true die-hard slow and steady gamer on the other hand will take the forty hour route. While it might not test them to their limits (which is probably something they don’t want from a ‘game’ anyway) they get the experience of enjoying the whole world, soaking up the content at a leisurely pace. If we have designed the game well it will allow players to match the level of risk they want to the appropriate challenge and reward, thus giving each player the experience they desire. Optimally the player will play through game tweaking their risk/reward balance as they play and improve, thus allowing a player the full spectrum from 8 to 40 hours of game-play.[3] A Few Concluding WordsRisk is by no means the only factor in games, but it is a factor in every game. It is important that we be aware of it and that we don’t dismiss it as an element that we can’t control for. Perhaps after careful examination we will conclude that some of our fundamental assumptions are mistaken (does more ‘game-play’ hours really make for a better game)? Perhaps we will find out we were right all along. Either way awareness is really what is at issue here. It is our jobs to design the best games possible and that cannot be done without considering the risk the player faces for losing. But, I will confess, my reasons for writing this article are to some extent selfish. I’ve given you my thoughts and ideas on the subject of risk as best as I am able, now I would like to hear yours. Endnotes[1] For the purposes of this article consider losing to be a binary condition. One is either in the state of having lost or not having lost. Certainly it is interesting to consider the myriad possibilities of a sliding scale losing system, but as such a thing is uncommon in modern games we will discount it for simplicity. [2] Apples to Apples is enjoyable because it is silly and social but neither of these are aspects of the game-play as such. We are here talking about game qua game, thus we must limit ourselves to two factors listed above, risk and challenge. [3] It has been said to me that it is equally valid to make content the wager and have the worse player complete the game in eight hours, getting the “bad ending”, while the good player gets through all 40 hours and gets the best ending. This is debatable. |
|||||||||||||||
Features
Previous
|
|
|