Author |
Topic: A new arimaa variant (Read 3108 times) |
|
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender: 
Posts: 5928
|
 |
Re: A new arimaa variant
« Reply #15 on: Jul 26th, 2008, 7:00am » |
 Quote  Modify
|
on Jul 25th, 2008, 8:45pm, mistre wrote:| I hope that you can have an open-mind when you read this and realize that there is even more to game design then you realize. |
|
I'm sorry, Mark. I'm sure there are lots of aspects to game design that I don't know anything about. Also you are right that there are lots of different kinds of games, and that different people will enjoy different things. Also variety has value for variety's sake; something can be good on the basis of being different without being "better".
I think that when I revisited the Board Game Designers' Forum thread, it made me angry all over again. There were self-declared experts asserting that their broad experience with board games was such that they didn't have to play Arimaa to know that it wasn't interesting. When someone stakes out an extreme and unfair position, I guess I am goaded to the opposite extreme, which is also unfair. Play testing isn't irrelevant, but also it isn't the only relevant thing.
I don't think it is just abstract games that need to be fun more than once. For example, there was the Mad Magazine board game, which was not exactly my kind of game in the first place, but my buddy's family bought it and loved it initially. Somewhere between the second and third play, however, the jokes they loved at first started to get old, and the game went on the shelf forever.
That said, I am sure I overdo my scorn for games that don't have replay value. I have to realistically accept that the average boxed game will be played less than a dozen times between the store shelf and the garage sale. In that context it is totally irrelevant whether a game will still be fun on the thousandth play. That's not what is foremost in the minds of game players, so it needn't be foremost in the minds of game designers.
For the first dozen plays especially, it is a part of the enjoyment of a game if the rules and mechanics are interesting in themselves. One thing people enjoy about games is the mind-bending aspect, i.e. the challenge to think in new ways, and the game mechanics can provide this challenge even if the game strategy ultimately does not. A game can be fun to learn how to play, and I shouldn't disparage that positive.
Also the theme can be very important at first, as one can get caught up imagining it really is a space battle, or power struggle in ancient Egypt, or whatever. People have an imagination, and it is arguably a defect of Arimaa that it basically leaves the imagination idling, and instead engages only a small part of who we are as people. I would argue that themes eventually wear out, and even folks who embrace them eventually start to see the skull beneath the skin, but not everyone actively tries for that perspective in the way that I do, and it is good that not everyone is like me.
Since there are different objectives in what a game should be, and different kinds of game that are "good", it is only natural that different approaches to game design should all be "right". It's a common sin to go beyond praising what one likes into the territory of bashing what one doesn't like, and I apologize for having fallen in to it. If the Arimaa variants proposed here don't float my boat, I should just shut up and stay out of the discussion rather than jumping in to say why I think they are likely to be worthless. Why should I rain on anyone's parade? I regret being so negative in my previous post.
Quote:| In my own game design which is kind of like a light-medium eurostyle game - I initially started with too much complexity and have paired it down over time to make the game tighter. This is kind of the opposite approach as Arimaa. I don't think one way is necessarily better or worse than the other, just two different ways to hopefully achieve similar results. |
|
Absolutely. You response proves that I clouded my point about playability with my comments about simplicity. My apologies. While I value simple rules, that is not my primary yardstick. It is more important to me that I can't "bust" a game with a strategy that makes it boring to try to win from then on.
Quote:| I see nothing wrong with a designer "trying to invent a game with interesting rules, unique mechanics, or a cool theme." To me this is what designing is all about. |
|
Interesting rules, unique mechanics, and a cool theme are all positives. They all do matter, and I shouldn't pretend they are irrelevant. The second sentence, however, embodies precisely the sentiment that I was objecting to. "To me this is what designing is all about." (emphasis added) That means that the BGDF critics were perfectly justified. The theme of Arimaa (ranked animals, traps, get a piece across) is taken straight from Shou Dou Qi. The equipment is taken straight from chess, as is the rule that pawns can't move backwards. Freezing and pushing pieces are not from chess or Shou Dou Qi, but those mechanics are well-known from other games. There's nothing new or interesting in the rules of Arimaa, and since that's what game design is all about, we can dismiss it as boring on that basis.
Of course, Arimaa doesn't play like chess or Shou Dou Qi or any other game I know of. But you can't tell from the rules how a game will play.
If I can restate my case less aggressively, let me say that play testing is consistently undervalued by game designers. I don't think it needs to become everyone's primary motivator in the way that it is mine, but I do think most game designers would do themselves a favor to raise its importance.
This is partly just my bias, but it is based on some experience as well. Here's one story I think I haven't told yet: I worked as a clerk at Games of Berkeley for a few months. While I was there a game designer came in with a game that he was trying to promote. He wasn't looking for tips on design; the design was already done. He was just asking questions about how to get a computer version to release at the same time as the boxed version. He had brought a prototype along, and I was curious to play it. After ten to fifteen minutes I proved that the second player had a forced win.
Quote:| I will attest that it is much much harder to playtest and balance games for multiple players then it is for 2-player games as you run into all kinds of problems such as runaway leaders, kingmaking, and turtling to name a few. |
|
I agree. On the one hand, abstract strategy games have to deal with a more absolute cliff in being played out, so insuring replay value is touchy in a more extreme way. On the other hand, there are more different ways for multi-player games to be busted, so it is harder to make one than can never be busted, and will be fun to play forever. To my mind this just means that both kinds of game require playtesting, playtesting, and more playtesting.
I haven't seen any of your games, Mark, so I'm not trying to say that they aren't going to be fun on the hundredth play. Maybe they are. Moreover, even if they are "only" fun for twenty plays, that doesn't mean they aren't good games, or that they won't some day be best-selling games. The criterion to make it into my personal Hall of Fame is not everyone's criterion, nor should it be.
Although my personal preference is extreme, and I don't want to be forcing it on everyone, I'm not the only one who thinks game designers as a group pay too much attention to rules/theme/mechanics and too little attention to replay value. For example, you can read in this interview with Z-Man that his bias is totally different than mine, because he tends to prefer themed games to abstracts and he praises wargames with lots of complexity and rules. Nevertheless, when he is asked here what advice he has for game designers, he says nothing about theme, nothing about complexity, nothing about mechanics. Instead he says
Quote:| Know what's out there and do something different. Research your game, playtest it to death and with some groups who are not your friends or related to you. Research the companies you wish to present the game to, etc. Write a good proposal but don't include the lines "my friends/family love this game and ask me to play it with them all the time." Keep playtesting. And finally, don't give up if you really believe in it. |
|
He basically says six things, and three of them are playtesting-related. Do you think maybe he gets a lot of submissions that (in his mind) haven't been adequately playtested? 
|
| « Last Edit: Jul 26th, 2008, 7:09pm by Fritzlein » |
 IP Logged |
|
|
|
PMertens
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #692
Gender:
Posts: 437
|
|
Re: A new arimaa variant
« Reply #16 on: Jul 26th, 2008, 7:09am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jul 25th, 2008, 8:45pm, mistre wrote:
For me, variety is the spice of life. |
|
You are not married, are you ?
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
omar
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #2
Gender:
Posts: 1003
|
|
Re: A new arimaa variant
« Reply #17 on: Jul 26th, 2008, 4:32pm » |
Quote Modify
|
I think I just got lucky. I am definitely not a genius; just look at all the blunders I make even in my postal games 
But definitely play testing is the key to making a good game. I don't think it takes genius to come up with a good game; I think it's more about persistence and luck.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
mistre
Forum Guru
Gender:
Posts: 553
|
|
Re: A new arimaa variant
« Reply #18 on: Jul 27th, 2008, 1:09pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jul 26th, 2008, 7:00am, Fritzlein wrote:
That said, I am sure I overdo my scorn for games that don't have replay value. I have to realistically accept that the average boxed game will be played less than a dozen times between the store shelf and the garage sale. In that context it is totally irrelevant whether a game will still be fun on the thousandth play. That's not what is foremost in the minds of game players, so it needn't be foremost in the minds of game designers. |
|
I would definitely agree with your statements here. Many amateur game designers (designers who are kind of delving into game design as a hobby, like myself, are foremost trying to design games that work, are fun, and can't be broken). While replayability is always a concern of mine, you can't really start with making a game infinitely replayable before addressing the other issues. Many many games, even some of the best ones, will fall short of this lofty goal. And like you said, that fact is irrelevant to the game industry as a whole. There are some many different games to play, that it can't be expected that someone would want to play your game and your game only until they wore it out and didn't want to play it ever again. Designers and publishers are much more concerned with just getting noticed in the first place with all of the competition. Having said that, you definitely don't want to design a game that is fun once or twice or even 5 times and then it is either solved or just no fun anymore. I would hope that all game designers could elevate their design skills and playtest enough to avoid that scenario.
Another way to make a game "fun" and not solvable, is to introduce a healthy dose of randomness and risk taking. This can also lead to replayability as players can expect some surprises from the game and have to adjust what they do. But going too far into luck territory could make it feel like the game is playing you and not you playing the game and there are no interesting decisions to make therefore making the game boring for another reason. There is a fine line to draw here.
on Jul 26th, 2008, 7:00am, Fritzlein wrote:
There's nothing new or interesting in the rules of Arimaa, and since that's what game design is all about, we can dismiss it as boring on that basis. |
|
This is an interesting point, because for the most part, I don't like or seek out abstract games in general. I am not really that big of a fan of Chess. I played Go a couple of times and it just didn't appeal to me. I tend to find abstracts either boring or lacking in flavor. Maybe I haven't actually tried enough different abstracts to form that opinion, but I have it none the less. So what attracted me to try Arimaa? First off, the game was free, there was a way to play online, and I was looking for a game to play during my lunch breaks at work. I didn't want something that was going to be too involved, I just wanted something quick that I could finish in one sitting.
What kept me coming back to Arimaa? Well, for an abstract game it has more flavor than most and it is visually appealing. The bot ladder was a fun challenge to start, but then playing human postal games and participating in the community through tournaments and this forum was also satisfying. And then there is the gameplay. Arimaa is equally deep and intuitive. I don't know of ANY other game approaching it's level of strategy. But also it is fun. The positions on the board are ever changing from move to move, but there is an enough of a theme and variety in the pieces to make it approachable and not cryptic like I feel some other abstracts can be. Arimaa has style.
I generally don't have the penchant for playing the same game over and over again. What tends to happen is that the game is either too complex/takes too long to play to enjoy on a regular basis or it lacks replay value. I also have a limited amount of time to play games face-to-face. But the fact of the matter is this - when I play Arimaa, I am NOT playing the same game over and over again! It always turns out different even after over 1,000 plays!
Going back to your original point that there is nothing interesting or new to Arimaa's rules - well, to me, they were interesting and new! So I can't really say that my statement was flawed at least coming from my perspective.
on Jul 26th, 2008, 7:00am, Fritzlein wrote:
He basically says six things, and three of them are playtesting-related. Do you think maybe he gets a lot of submissions that (in his mind) haven't been adequately playtested? |
|
And one of them was mine . I had playtested my game quite a bit up to the point, but I think I rushed it by sending it to Zman when I did. But on the other hand, he gave me some great feedback that helped me to see something that I didn't see before which enabled me to drastically improve the game. So without his feedback, I may not be at the point where I am today with the game. I think the tough thing for amateur game designers is getting quality playtesting, and playtesting amongst friends is not really that helpful as they are too kind. Big design companies do extensive playtesting in house which is something beyond the reach of the amateur game designer. But still I plug along, making every effort to get my game playtested enough before I attempt to send it to another publisher.
|
| « Last Edit: Jul 27th, 2008, 1:13pm by mistre » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender:
Posts: 5928
|
|
Re: A new arimaa variant
« Reply #19 on: Jul 27th, 2008, 2:22pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Mistre, I think your list of what attracted you to Arimaa is very illuminating. How could anyone know beforehand that Arimaa is a great game? But one does know that it is available for free on-line, one can play the first game through quickly, and the board looks nice. First impressions are very important for drawing a crowd.
I think I would call the bot ladder medium-term impression. For many games, I will never find out whether they are deep or not, because I can't find someone of my own level to play. The always-available, gradually-more-difficult opponents are a huge bonus for getting to know a game. This is where folks realize that there is more than one way to win Arimaa, and more than one way to lose. Apart from the interface, I think the bot ladder has been the most important factor in new-player retention.
I rave about Arimaa because it is still interesting after a thousand plays, but no one is ever going to play it that much without initial attraction and intermediate payoffs. Perhaps Omar was somewhat lucky that Arimaa has turned out to be so deep, because even his extensive playtesting couldn't have insured that, but building this great game site was all hard work, and that's what built a big enough community to verify Arimaa's depth.
I'm somewhat afraid that you are unusual in thinking Arimaa is nifty just from the rules. I'm afraid it will look boring at first glance to most people, and that the first impression will hold back Arimaa's wider acceptance when it is published for sale. If we can just get people playing, though, we have plenty of evidence that it is addictive and doesn't "run out" of variety in any obvious way.
Maybe the wisest thing after all is to focus on first impressions, because otherwise one doesn't get a chance to make a second impression. What do I know?
It sounds like you have the persistence Omar refers to as necessary for game design; I hope you also get the luck.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Werner
Forum Senior Member
Gender:
Posts: 26
|
|
Re: A new arimaa variant
« Reply #20 on: Dec 2nd, 2008, 1:36am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jul 18th, 2008, 11:29am, mistre wrote:Sounds intriguing - kind of like moving traps.
|
|
"Moving trap" seems more challenging (and interesting) to manoeuver for players.
|
|
IP Logged |
\
|
|
|
pallab
Forum Full Member
Arimaa player #1589
Gender:
Posts: 19
|
|
Re: A new arimaa variant
« Reply #21 on: Dec 9th, 2008, 5:34pm » |
Quote Modify
|
If any of you interested in trying out some arimaa variant, the best place to start with is Game Courier at chess variant web site http://play.chessvariants.org/pbm/index.html. Using game courier one can customize the board as per their wish and can play a large of class of board and strategy games.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
omar
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #2
Gender:
Posts: 1003
|
|
Re: A new arimaa variant
« Reply #22 on: Dec 10th, 2008, 8:18am » |
Quote Modify
|
If anyone is interested in making an Arimaa variant publicly available, please send me a message through the contact form. Since this has never been done before, I'll probably need to get more info from you about the variant and pass it on to the patent attorney to see what he advices.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
|
Home
Help
Search
Members
Login
Register
Reply
Notify of replies
Send Topic
Print