Feedback How a Game Works

Hey, I made this basic diagram of how a game works.
What do you think? Feedbacks?

My portfolio: https://www.behance.net/LunWoon238814c

Thanks!

 

What's the semantic meaning of the arrows (first question some programmer asked me when I started graphing gameplay theory).

 

Nice diagram! I like the colors and the icons

Content-wise I miss the player's experience. There are some parts of it scattered throughout the graph, like flow, challenge and game loop, but in general, there is no mention of the experience of playing the game, which to me seems odd because it's one of the most important things I use when designing the game: it's the main goal of what you want to achieve (at least, in the process I use). The game only works when it is having an effect on the player, no matter how

I'm sort of lost about what the most important thing is. Mostly because there's this big circle, but it's at the lower half. I usually read left to right, top to bottom, but this flow is interrupted because the biggest thing demands attention.

Also, there's a header about "balance", and this includes some tools on how to balance a game. The game itself doesn't work differently because it was balanced in excel, probably, so it feels a bit out of place in a diagram that shows how a game works.

I really like the effort! I love diagrams and charts and stuff, so thanks for posting it!

 

I like graphs too. But here is my few cents.

In my view Balance should go to Values.
Or at least be bi-directional.

I can not imagine gameplay being detached from challenge.
Challenge is not only about winning condition.
Challenge can be part of rewards, and objectives as well.

Does rules are defined by the game system? Or Game system is to follow the rules?
Whatever rules means.

Isn't that gameplay is most important, from players' standing point?
For me that actually good positioning, as it stands now.

I could probably dragg it into player skill, even tho it probably meant something different.

 

I'll be honest, this diagram is so nonsensical that I'm not sure you're not a driveby troll.

 

I really agree with you on everything.
.
This diagram was made for a presentation of a class at a university. So at the powerpoint, I tried to do it in a way that the students understood better. Really, if analyzing coldly is meaningless, but with verbal help and step-by-step explanation, the students understood.

Yes, definitely. You're completely right.
The idea was to make the students understand that the challenges are there to make it difficult for the player to accomplish the objective. That's why he crosses it.


Thank you so much for responding politely, and helping me give my students a better class.
Sorry for the bad english.

 

@lunwoon238

Just regarding arrows, I think they may impose more confusion than is wort it.
I would leave links at best, but without arrows.
At least you wont impose direction of thinking, what is dependent on what.
But keep relation intact.

 

I know I’m late, but I’m just wondering if the environment that the game takes place in has a role in the experience of the game? Would that be considered independent or part of the gameplay?

For example, from my perspective it wouldn’t make sense to have too much of an open world for a game that is more linear in nature, and vice versa, if you’re trying to give a more open-ended experience, you wouldn’t overly limit what the player can do and where they can go.

I’m trying to up my knowledge on game mechanics so any references or things like that would be great!

 

Incoming opinion alert:

Junk like this why you will spend so long at university and come out dumber and more confused than when you went in.

Just make games. Literally it's simple trial and error process of learning. If you have to talk about theoretical connections between elements of the human experience of playing a game...And it's so damn confusing that you need graphs to understand...Id say you.are dramatically over thinking things.

College is designed to attempt to explain things that are intuitively simple in an analytical way, as if humans are the simplest computers themselves. People literally come out less intelligent and set up.for failure.


If you have an iota of self awareness, sit down and play your favorite game. Watch your emotions while.you.play. bam, right there is all the lesson you.ever need in game design. You can study any of classics as much as you.need.

If you don't have an iota of self awareness, learn how to meditate. There is books. It's another simple thing to do.

For production and technicals, all the knowledge is online and free.

Not personal attack at OP. But college is a scam.


Edit: eh graphs are.fine and useful.for.many things. But trying to graph something as big as "how a game works" seems ridiculous. Cycles of.production in making a game? Sure. Player input feedback loop? Sure. But everything in one graph? I think should be much simpler.graph. like describing what a game is in one sentence.

 

In terms of game dev, I don't think college can provide anything resealable. At least if teaches, how to search for information I am fine with it. But as with any other profession, making game comes with practice. And indeed I agree, is not just about writing a game. But having long playing game experience. I think business college would be more suitable for game developers instead, to be honest. Programming, or 2D/3D graphics can be self-thought relatively easily and as mentioned, nearly for free.

I simply can not imagine anyone coming out of collage and become good game developer.
All that knowledge should be already gained from past experience, playing games anyway.
That besides whole programming topic, and psychology, and marketing, and all technicals, and ...


Regarding graphs, I appreciate graph for academic purpose, even if I can not see universal solutions to be able exists. Is just too many variations and games structures of them self. Weather graph is good, or not is additional matter. But at least it gives references point, in which future directions research should be continued, to convey desired message.

Sometimes to get small, need to get big.

And if graphs leaves more questions than answers, maybe indeed would be better to simplified, or even stick to few bullet points.

 

That graph is bad obviously, it mean nothing, at best it's a visual support to pass down knowledge as a map, but that graph is totally bad in isolation.

But that's the problem, game design currently is pretty much filled of vague concept that don't really apply in practice, as they tend to corner to genre (i'm not thinking about traditional genre, but mode of play) rather than free people. However abstract thinking is very important, if anything it exposes student to it. Which will allow the brightest to go beyond the limitation of the curriculum.

A good curiculum don't have to have each element good, as much as it need to expose the students to various problem they wouldn't do on their own, in fact I have seen awfully vague course bringing the best of student, because the order of operation forces them to confront one problem at a time, the scramble to make sense of the idea of the course actually made them solve it on their own. College is also great to meet like minded people all thinking about the same thing differently in a context that encourage it. You can discover a lot like that.

Also college is free where I live, you can attend course even if you aren't registered (can't have a diploma or have teacher look at your work). Hardly a scam.

The problem when you learn on your own is that you tend to get narrow on specific stuff (but with potential to go deep) unless you are an open minded person.

 

Draw something on the board. It will make you look smarter in the eyes of others.


That graph is beyond awfully abstract.

 

My vote for most misleading element goes to "Core Loop".

 

How do we know you're not a sitting duck troll?

In relation to the topic: what the OP has created is not a graph in any technical sense. He's created a diagram quite the difference.

As someone had said the arrows need semantic meaning too. I don't think there's any mathematical analysis that can be done on this diagram... there's nothing to optimize or analyze other than for us to read it and interpret.

 

It's not just the arrows. Why are there three balls labelled secondary mechanics and four for tertiary? They're already pluralized. Why are secondary and tertiary mechanics separated? Mechanics are already rules, so why is rules there? What's the hell is macro/micro gameplay? Why does excel need to be mentioned when attached to spreadsheet already? What about games like Minecraft that do not have a win or defeat condition? Why is challenge just off to the side in most of its own little world? What's the difference between a game loop and a core loop?

Like, even with the terms and relationships clearly outlined, this really doesn't make a lick of sense. It's absolute gibberish.

 

I agree that as a tool, this graph is not useful.

That said, the graph itself is super pretty. And it does list a lot of stuff games should have.

The chart itself is top notch as a work of 'art', but agree w everyone else that its not actually useful in terms of thinking about game design.

I do disagree though that thinking about game design analytically is bad, the problem isn't analytical thinking, the problem is that this graph is not actually analytical, its just a weird visual taxonomy. This is the kind of graph you see in a sociology class, not a hard science. The arrows don't have real meaning, the categorization is arbitrary, etc.

 

Nah sociology diagram are rigorous, if you don't have a shot professor that just wing it.

 

I typed "sociology diagram" into google, here are some of the first hits:

Spoiler

Sorry dude, sociology is really not very rigorous.

The only social science I would consider rigorous is linguistics, and I'm not actually sure how linguistics is categorized.

 

Try typing game design diagram, heck probably even game architecture