So I suppose in chess, there is really only one subsystem, the “piece moving loop”, which you identified here. The game has lots of predefined elements and even semi-authored tendencies (e4 d5 opening), but these aren’t arcs/loops because they’re not really subsystems of the player experience, if that makes any sense.

I still think there are definition attacks you could make against the distinction. e.g. How would you classify a quicktime event sequence? There are a lot of subsystems/sub-experiences in game that mix the concepts of feedback-driven system and predefined output quite freely. That’s not to say I don’t think there’s a lot of truth in what Danc wrote. Just that, as in all game design theories, we find caveats in this one. And I like stressing theories to see if they hold up, just for funsies.

By the way, thanks for dropping by.

Tynan, I think you’re trying to break things down into pieces that are too small. The loop/arc only deals with the interaction of playing a game, not with the individual pieces that are included in the game. Every loop or arc must consist of a model, an action, a system, and feedback. A king in chess is neither a loop nor an arc, because it is only a small part of the interaction.

Model: Based on what you know of the game, “if I move the king here, it will be safe.”
Action: Move the king to that spot.
System: Each chess piece has a rule about where it can move. Based on those rules, a bishop can move to a place that puts you in check.
Feedback: The other player puts you in check, and says “check”. This is feedback that you probably didn’t make the right move.
Model: Incorporate that new information to see if you can move somewhere better on this next turn.
Etc.

That’s a loop, because it feeds back into itself. (It wasn’t authored, either, because it’s up to the player(s) to determine what the outcome will be.) Loops/arcs in L4D could be broken down like this as well, but it would be a much longer example, due to of all of the overlapping elements involved.

Let me know if that made no sense at all. And hopefully, I’m accurately representing Dan’s ideas. Good luck!

-JR

It’s hard to understand how people are absorbing the content that you put out. I honestly have no idea how many people read this site.

Anyways, thanks and best wishes.

Also disappointed to find out you, Gaynor and LeBreton have left Irrational Games. I was looking forward to seeing all your work in BioShock Infinite. Good luck with the book, Tynan; I look forward to reading it.

Okay. This is interesting. So we’re splitting a game into pieces and calling them loops or arcs. I’m trying to do this in my head and coming up with difficulties. Take a look.

What is the role of the authored limits or tendencies of a dynamic system? e.g. Chess tends to play out with a certain pacing, and the same kinds of things tend to happen. They’re not arcs because they’re not written down event by event. Yet at the same time these patterns of repeated similar situations in the possibility space are authored in through the design of the system.

As another example, Left 4 Dead is a pretty systems-heavy game, but the situations it tends to generate almost always fall into the same few categories (survivor down, needs help, etc). Yet, those situations are never actually written down anywhere. Where are the loops and arcs?

Another thing I’m having trouble on: the representational layer. The king is chess is called a king. The marine in SC2 is called a marine and looks like a marine, even though he’s just a circle with numbers attached. Where are the loops and arcs? Is the king’s abstract entity a loop, while the king’s representation and name is an arc?

I’m sitting here trying to break games apart according to these pieces and finding it difficult. Not saying it’s impossible, of course. Perhaps I just suck at it.

What would really help crystallize this is a detailed breakdown of a nontrivial game into loop/arc pieces. Left 4 Dead would be a good challenge case, I think.

Three semi-random comments sparked by your thoughts. :-)

1) You can indeed define a spectrum based off the ratio of loops / arcs in a particular work. However, that often isn’t the most fruitful usage. Instead, think of them as ingredient or components that can be mixed and matched. Component/Inventor thinking vs Categorization/Curator thinking. How are the arcs used and to what purpose? How do the loops work in a particular project? Are the arcs necessary? How might you close them? How might you make them evergreen? This goes far beyond a simple categorization tool. In the end categories are often overly broad and do little to bring a specific game to life.

2) The reason I introduced religion is because loops and arcs are common structures throughout human activities. Games are one activity where one can spot loops, but it is by no means the only one. You are completely right that you can look at almost any interactive experience.

3) I don’t know if I’d consider games as things that ‘spit out experiences’. That’s a very media-centric view of games that I don’t really subscribe to. That is indeed one result, but not necessarily the only goal for games. A game can also be a tool that lets players learn, experiment or build social bonds. Experiences result from this, but then again experiences result from any interaction with the world. You could just as easily claim that a car spits out experiences, but that is not its only utility.

All the best,
Danc.

People play single-player games until:

1. they feel they is nothing else to master or that they can’t improve anymore
2. they feel that further improvement is boring

But even in multiplayer games, skill ceiling might not be enough. Sprinting, for example, isn’t consider deep (or even fun) even though there is a lot to master.

Is Tetris a bottomless single-player game? (If so, that would be wonderfully ironic, since the entire game is ABOUT the bottom of a well. :)

The Decision Tree: Wide trees = more decisions, deep trees = more situations. Complexity is proportional to the size of your tree, and in most cases, the skill ceiling should be proportional to complexity.

Fundamental Limits: First, no matter how big your trees, there are clearly a set of moves that are the “best” moves. Your game is only as complex as the subtree of viable actions. Second, you can only offer so many decisions before it becomes overwhelming for a player; big trees = analysis paralysis.

SHMUPs and Go in the context of trees: SHMUPS = wide trees, clearly optimal actions, the good actions are physically hard to do. Go = deep tree, with an equally large viable tree.

Stretching the Complexity Budget:Ultimately, there’s a limit on your complexity based on the kind of game you’re making. How do we build the most interesting tree for the player? Some ideas:
Bad Choices: You need bad choices in a game (otherwise, how can you have better players). Make the most out of the bad choices added:
- bad choices should also be good choices in other situations
- the consequence of bad choices show up deeper in the tree.
- bad choices appear to be locally optimal
- bad choices should be rewarding (i.e. taunt kills)
Randomization:
- Randomizing the situation: forces players to both correctly identify their situation and understand the viable response. Can be employed both in the initial phases as well as during the game (L4D)
- Randomizing results: Obscures viable decisions, as they still may lead to a non-viable result. Increases the types of situations that will occur.
Situation Dynamics:
- Counters: The presence of counters increase the value of information. Counters encourage people who can analyze an opponents play. Counters will make your viable tree smaller. Counters force cycles of counters
- Hidden Information: Allows for deception and opponent reading
- Team Coordination: Will increase the frustration level
- Prisoner’s Dilemma: If cooperation is a choice, betrayal should be viable.