Rules of the Game: Five Further Techniques from Rather Clever Designers 

Sounds like Coroner Simulator gets weird.

I'm at the very beginning of the video and skimming the comments during the intro and I gotta say... this comment? Out of context? Bit odd. Lol

Speaking of Josh Sawyer, I just noticed that at 22:34 the screenshot says, "Welcome to Sierra Madre! This city has a problem with high air pollution." Had to be intentional

Hi, this is Erin! I was searching for an old video and saw how many views this one had so decided to check the comments, haha. Thank you so much for this story! I never would have thought about applying this process to photography but am delighted that it works, and it makes perfect sense! I would be very interested if you've ever written or talked about those side-by-side photos and the questions that got you from one side to the other.

Ironically its a poorly formed question. Validity is about an arguments logical form and is not about the correctness of its conclusion. Its obvious whoever wrote that has never taken an introductory course in logic.

@@Elrog3 You may be surprised to hear that I was a philosophy major (dual major philosophy and electronic media) and did in fact take intro to logic, but you might be reassured that I abhor formal logic specifically because it can be so obtuse about the way that humans actually use language. ;)

@@3sxp Well, isn't that something. I abhor the way people use language. I was an engineering major with a mathematics slant.

It is a very interesting strategic mechanic and I'm baffled that a GDC guest cannot see that, or even straight up say "it is dumb" about it, when it's obviously a stapple of DotA's laning. Sure it's unintuitive and it's very interesting that it's been inherited from W3's engine, but... That doesn't mean it's "dumb". The fact that he also directly correlates "good game design" with "number of players" makes me think that he skipped some steps in his reasoning. Good game design helps with player numbers, but I think it's far from being the most important thing (especially when considering competitive online multiplayer games).

@@Neph0 the tank controls on old survival horror games also add a lot to the challenge and tension. his point is that it's not a core component of the gameplay experience and data shows that the game that got rid of that is more successful while the one that didn't has to deal with re-balancing it every other patch. it's more work for less results. it's what he means by "dumb".

Maybe you already know about it, but he holds a podcast called Designer's Notes where he interviews other well known game designers about what they do, did and how they design. It is an really interesting listen.

Coming back to this three years later, I didn't offer an example of "A game that can be ruined with spoilers where gameplay is an important part of forming the experience"- To name an example now, Outer Wilds is pretty much the key example of a game that could only work as a game but that is, at least to some degree, ruined by streaming. I don't think that hurts its sales value, though; Instead people who get spoiled on it kick themselves, and very vocally tell other people not to get spoiled and to buy it and play it.

Simulator

Yeah its really weird that he made his talk about slamming another game's mechanics. He should just focus on what he's done and not use his time to flame other developers. But maybe he is a mediocre designer and has nothing to really contribute outside of criticizing the work of others.

@@Bloodyshinta1 are you serious?

I think the problem with creep denial is, that it adds a layer of complexity as well as another dexterity skill check for a strategic payoff that may just not really be worth it. To me last hitting and denying is busy work. I played a ton of DotA DESPITE that mechanic. If all you want to do is manipulate the lane strategically, there is probably a ton of alternative ways to implement it, without having it be another skill check. One is already in the game: creep pulls. Just because creep denial in DotA is important and just because you are really good at it using it, doesn't mean it's automatically a good or interesting mechanic that players enjoy. In the case of DotA it's also weirdly unintuitive to .... KILL YOUR OWN MINIONS IN BATTLE. It's just a super ... "gamey" mechanic that doesn't resonate with the flavor or core fantasy two armies clashing. So even if you successfully argued that "creep denial" as a dexterity skill check mechanic is a.) fun and satisfying and b.) strategically meaningful and c.) is the best mechanical solution with the least amount of tedium and player frustration in comparision to any other mechanic that could influence creep equilibrium.... so even IF you successfully argued all that, it's still just a really bad fit for the core of fantastical armies strategically clashing in battle. What lore/narative/flavor justification is there for the radiant side to kill their own creeps? I could see it to some degree for dire side in that "we kill our own guys for any gain" like when past version of Lich could sacrifice own creeps for Mana or clinkz deathpact to eat your own guys in a pinch. I could even see a justification in hero denial in a "wanda kills vision before thanos gets to him way". DotA is still an awesome game and maybe creep denial is somehow the least problematic mechanic to achieve the design goal to have players be able to influence creep equilibrium. I have no idea for example, how League of Legends actually tackles this (or if there even is such a concept of influencing creep equilibrium).

​@@paulszki I think creep denial is least of dota's problem, is creep denial as a core design bad? of course. Creep pulling should be the only way to deny gold and experience. One of the most problematic part of dota is huge turn rates that heroes of newerth fixed by giving everyone a turnrate value of 1 which made HoN smoother and more responsive to player input. Melee carry heroes are still viable HoN unlike in league of legends that removed turnrates all together and now has a problem of range character power creep that riot decided to fixed by giving every melee heroes a dash ability that in turn needed to give range champs have dashes too to not get killed by melee heroes, causing a mobility creep within the game. Dota 2 is very archaic in design but those weird quirks makes kind of balance in a weird chaotic way that I can't describe. Dota should have failed as a game because of those bad design choice but those bad design made it more closer to balance than league of legends could ever dream of. As much as Soren Johnson see the faults of the game but Dota, Dota 2 and LoL are originally made by high school and college students that didn't study game design. I'm just disappointed on how he views a certain mechanic as "bad" and then not explaining further on why it was bad except for the comparisons he made for dota and league. Also I don't get why game devs have a hate boner to dota 2, this the third GDC speaker I watched that mentioned dota on a bad light.

@@jayvillar Hey, thanks for your input. I think people don't dislike DotA as a whole. Even if it's not their preference of game, they will at least respect it. It's okay to point out design flaws, even in great games. I bet even (most of) the current DotA2 developers at valve don't really like creep denial as a mechanic but it's one of those legacy mechanics that for a lot of players is part of the identity of the game. Even if these players may be wrong, what point is there in upsetting an established playerbase. Sot they just accept these limitations and work around them. It's a bit like the yellow opening crawl text in Star Wars Movies. It's an incredibly outdated form of exposition that even the movie makers want to get rid off but can't quite because it would upset a nostalgic portion of the audience for whom a floating yellow text made up of three paragraphs about the movie you're going to watch is somehow essential to the Star Wars experience. When they do have the chance, they skip it (I believe, the opening text crawl is not in Rogue One or Solo)

I mean you can do that in league too by changing how fast you push your lane and by pulling creeps. All while reducing unnecessary mechanics. I’m much more in favor of soft mechanics vs hard ones as it removes bloat.

I had as similar aversion to that part of the talk. Dota might have fewer players, but has (had?) a much more interesting meta. So much of the meta derived from players making discoveries and exploiting them, with those discoveries often being revealed at the international during play, rather than the game being a polished stone that leans almost entirely on rolling buffs and nerfs. I feel like his points make much more sense in single player than they do in MP. Or at least, in a game focused more on new players than on pros. Not every game should be Divekick.

I'm pretty sure he didn't meant to say it doesn't add depth to the game as a whole, he even mentioned that the players gamed this mechanic (which means he acknowledges how it adds a layer of gameplay and strategy to it) in the same ways the baseball players gamed that old rule, which caused the developers of the other mobas to ditch the mechanic and the developers of dota to keep patching it. What he meant is that it doesn't add depth to where they intended the depth to be. It's like the lighting chess pieces on fire argument, it would add a layer of complexity that would change how the game is played, but that would take the focus away from strategy and thoughtful play, not how they wanted chess to be played. Now, on a possible analysis of intentionality, we can say that in the initial dota wc3 mod, the intention was to make a team fighting game, but the developers had wc3 map maker instead of unity. They wanted to make a game where a team of 5v5 fighting off with RPG mechanics, but they had to work around the RTS mechanics of their "engine". If they had unity, would they have the awkward point and click controls that are actually RTS unit orders? Would they have the RTS isometric camera? Would they have the abilities (and RTS base orders) scrambled on the keyboard? All of this wasn't intentional, it was inheritend along with creep denial, which, by the way, would they have creep denial? All of those things added layers of complexity and gameplay to the game, it adds skill for both your brain to strategize upon and your body to be precise and master. But were those skills the skills they wanted to bring to the game? I call it a "possible analysis" because none of us can say what their actual intentions were. Let's think of a different possibility: they actually wanted the RTS controls and RPG progression. Playing is about mastering your hero's abilities, positioning, knowing what items to build, which fights to pick, when to gank, when to split push, how to combo your team abilities, etc. Would they have creep denial if that was the game they weren't confined to wc3 map maker? From a narrative/flavor perspective, it doesn't make sense to kill your own army. From a gameplay perspective, all forms of last hitting are more about resource management than controlling your character and strategizing. At the end of the day we don't know what they actually wanted to make but it's clear that the vast majority of the mechanics were inherited from a completely different game, they weren't intentionally put there. Camp stacking, 6 slot inventories, creep denial... All of these were not just inherited, but things they couldn't even get rid of, they had to build their game around them. To a lot of people, dota was about skillfully controlling your character and outplaying the opposing team. That's where LoL focused, they made spammier abilities and removed micro-ing to let players focus all of their attention to their hero instead of splitting it. Heroes of the storm went further and removed all forms of last hitting. I've heard some games even ditched the RTS camera and controls altogether! Where they the right call? We can't say they made better games, but we can say they made different ones. Dota did the opposite, they embraced those mechanics, and probably because of the competitive nature of the sport, flavor and initial intentions be damned. I think the awkwardness of those inherited mechanics gave dota its identity to a certain degree. Oh, but they still got rid of the scrambled abilities on the keyboard though.

It's not a baseball talk, I didn't get the terminology but got the idea, especially with the MOBA examples. Unless you didn't mean ''baseball talk'' as if that's what the whole presentation is about, assumed so cause these presentations are called talks, I agree it could've been explained better, but otherwise it's a good demonstration.

Remember, they host the "world series", so we ought to all know about it 😜

Las Vegas was the one to improve 3 and bring it back closer to the franchise.

Just mod all the way!

I presume that's an argument on the basis 'because it destroys immersion', because otherwise you're on the very dodgy ground that the ability to kill children in a game is a desirable thing. Nevertheless I would argue that a total immersive game is a pipe dream, at least at the level of technology we're at, and picking on the children issue is pretty daft and perverse. Currently video games fall short of immersion on all kinds of levels. A game could only become totally immersive if it simulates 'life' flawlessly, in which case its arguably no longer a game. The comment could also be taken to imply that any restriction of the player's freedom could destroy immersion, and is 'wrong'. But a game without any kind of 'rules' would similarly be no game at all. Even 'reality' has rules. You can tamper with some of them, but tampering with them all would result in a primal chaos. No laws of physics=no universe=no morality=no life. It therefore becomes a matter of which rules are most condusive to life/good game play; in other words, a practical and moral argument. On that basis, the death of children in a game doesn't seem something necessary.

There is no value in complexity. There is value in depth. Complexity often takes away from depth. It s VERY important that a player, at any given time, knows all the choices he can make AND the EXACT effects they will have on everything. The ONLY unknown should be what the competitors are doing. This is why games like chess and go still have larger skill gaps than other things. Game designers are often confusing complexity with depth and forgetting what depth requires. Things should be as simple as possible anyway. If a given rule or action doesn't exist for a specific purpose it should be cut. Complexity for the sake of it is bad.

@@wylie2835 You are absolutely right, except creep denying adds depth, not only complexity (if you are implying the contrary).

He's saying that having to do something else that requires skill, in order to secure a play, doesn't necessarily increase the complexity of the game in a MEANINGFUL way. Like playing chess with half the pieces on fire. It distracts and ultimately detracts from what you're trying to accomplish.

I agree, the guy is a fool. Standing there being like "Hey, I got the ultimate solution, why not just remove creep denying in Dota, lul", like the devs of Dota never thought about it before. There is a reason why they didn't remove it even after all those years. Then he brings up that chart that LoL has more revenue and thinks creep denying/ riots philosophy about analyzing the old dota mod is a huge factor... instead of I dunno, art style and character design do not appeal to everyone, game is harder, Riot has a PR and marketing team, League came out first, Riot is far better at supporting the community.

@@niclasbelrra You might notice i never said anything about creep. Just making a note about the difference between depth and complexity. As OP doesn't seem to understand. Idk why the fuck words are being put into my mouth. Are you insecure about your feelings over whatever the hell game OP is on about?