Gamasutra: The Art & Business of Making Gamesspacer
View All     RSS
October 31, 2014
arrowPress Releases
October 31, 2014
PR Newswire
View All





If you enjoy reading this site, you might also want to check out these UBM Tech sites:


GDC: Jason Rohrer Talks  Diamond Trust 's 'Knowledge Chains'
GDC: Jason Rohrer Talks Diamond Trust's 'Knowledge Chains' Exclusive
March 13, 2010 | By Leigh Alexander




Independent designer Jason Rohrer is one of the gaming industry's few radicals. It makes sense that he fears people will assume his next project, a DS title ostensibly about the diamond trade in Angola, will be a quintessential "serious game," a grave lecture on the brutalities of that business.

"It's not a finger-wagging game at all," a cheerful Rohrer said at GDC, where he introduced Diamond Trust of London as part of the Serious Games Summit. But he recognizes it may seem strange for an indie who's always given away his games -- source code and all -- for download to develop a DS game for Majesco.

Certainly, it's not surprising the accomplished and widely-acclaimed designer has been approached by major publishers before: "I turned down interest from Microsoft in the past for an XBLA game," he says, intimidated by the idea of working with a game that runs on a full-sized television. "It's really scary to fill that screen with a lot of art assets," he adds.

But the DS, with its more compact display and its enormous addressable audience, felt like something he could do, he says. Rohrer was interested in exploring multiplayer experiences like Between, which requires no more and no less than two players.

He also had a particular interest in turn-based strategy, inspired by an interest in German board gaming -- people who don't enjoy video games enjoy playing them with him, whereas they may be more hesitant to share video gaming with him.

That interest of his raises an issue: "If you make turn-based strategy games for multiple players, why are you trying to force them onto computer screens?" He poses. In other words, he's been searching the game design space for something unique that gaming can offer turn-based strategy besides simply scale.

One thing about the screen environment that pen and paper can't offer is a unique view of the world for each player, says Rohrer -- in a board game both individuals are looking at the same world, which makes something like spy mechanics difficult to pull off: "One thing you can't do [with a physical game] is send a spy, unbeknownst to your opponent, into your opponent's secret area," for example. Spy mechanics are really hard to pull off in a board game.

The opportunity for one player to do things that the other is unaware of led Rohrer to explore what he calls "knowledge chains" with Diamond Trust; he defines it as "how one player knows what another player knows about what they know."

Rumors, gossip, the secrets people keep from each other and the assumptions people make about what others are and aren't aware of create social dynamics that fascinate Rohrer. "Every tier that gets added evolves the social dynamic and changes behavior," he says.

His first idea was actually a game about cheating spouses who have to gather evidence to build their divorce case against one another, where neither party knows what transgressions the other had discovered.

Naturally, that concept might not have been such a good fit for the platform. "Majesco rejected the idea because it was too sensitive a subject for the DS market," he says. So in aiming to theme it in a way that wasn't so touchy, he thought about resource-gathering corporate agents whose loyalty was for sale.

Diamond-trading in Africa would be a good setting for this, he reasoned, as it employs the same kind of knowledge mechanics about bribes and counter-bribes.

"This was not going to be a game where there's a bunch of little kids wearing AK47s, making you feel bad about wearing blood diamonds on your finger," he said on his decision not to make a kids' game. It needed an E rating, but he still wanted the kinds of deep mechanics that would appeal to mature players.

Rohrer first built a prototype on paper -- although he wanted to use games to do things that couldn't be done with physical objects, he still developed the underlying prototype on paper.

Throughout the course of testing it that way, he came upon the importance of intransitive relationships that make it difficult to predict what the other person is going to do -- this solved the problem of Rohrer and his wife settling into strategic ruts by settling on strategies that would beat each other no matter what.

In the game design, he achieved this variable factor by creating a penalty for selling too many diamonds at once: the player who sells zero during his turn, for example, can beat the player who sells two -- diamond companies don't like too many diamonds on the market. He avoided creating a straightforward "value computing machine" by taking inspiration from how the system works in real life.


Related Jobs

The Workshop
The Workshop — Marina del Rey, California, United States
[10.31.14]

Programmer
Activision Publishing
Activision Publishing — Santa Monica, California, United States
[10.31.14]

Tools Programmer-Central Team
Vicarious Visions / Activision
Vicarious Visions / Activision — Albany, New York, United States
[10.31.14]

VFX Artist-Vicarious Visions
Magic Leap, Inc.
Magic Leap, Inc. — Wellington, New Zealand
[10.30.14]

Level Designer










Comments


Ian Uniacke
profile image
There used to be a great board game called Scotland Yard that had a similar theme. It was one person playing the bad guy and everyone else playing the cops. The only clue you had to where the bad guy was was by what transit tickets they used (eg train, boat, bus). I can't recall if there was some way to keep the bad guy honest but even if there wasn't, the bad guy was honest in the games we played.



This sounds quite interesting I hope to play it.

Patrick Dugan
profile image
Only in the vacuum of a game does min/max optimization create dominant strategies, in real markets any strategy that is dominant ends up getting crowded and thus loses its edge - at best, sometimes you get 1987 or 1998 or 2008 (lots of 8s).

Jeff Lee
profile image
I had a prof in an mathematical economics class that did research on an idea that sounds awfully similar to the "knowledge chains" idea Rohrer is talking about. Do I know that you know that I know that you know, etc., to the nth degree. Google David Ahn and check out his research.



Anyway, I realize that a lot of what Jason Rohrer does is very reminiscent of classic game theory problems, where you have these basic restrictions and priorities and then have to play them out against competing actors. In other words, game mechanics as a metaphor for life scenarios. The weird thing, then, is that the profundity or thematic punchline of his type of "art" game has likely been summarized somewhere out there in the abstract of some econ grad student's dissertation. Which in turn leads to another question: does the mechanics-as-metaphor technique always boil down to some cold technical point about choices and behavior? And if so, does that really perform the spiritual service that we typically associate with "art"?

clyde marshall
profile image
I'm just disappointed that it's not going to be about divorcing spouses who have to gather information about each other in order to have an advantage during the case. So what if it's offensive, I would think more people would buy it because it is more likely to be applicable to the lives of the DS market than the diamond trade. /I'm/ the one who is offended. I'm offended that Majesco doesn't think that gamers have the courage to deal with real-life stresses in the levity of a simulated circumstance. This is bullshit.


none
 
Comment: