Monday, January 16, 2017

Day 66: FotLC through the 113 lenses from The Art of Game Design

Day 66 - Lens 92: The Lens of Inner Contradiction
A Good game cannot contain properties that defeat the games very purpose. To remove those contradictory qualities, ask yourself these questions:

What is the purpose of my game?
I think there are three levels of purpose to the game.

  1. The game exists to simulate a real time competitive territory control struggle. 
  2. The game exists to be a fun engaging blend of strategy and social interaction.
  3. The game exists to make a political and moral statement.


What are the purposes of each subsystem in my game?
Movement is intended to remove randomness, and make road placement as much about controlling others movement as enabling your own.

Base placement and control are intended to make it important to acquire hold onto territory but expensive to do so.

Challenges are intended to provide interesting and meaningful interactions with other players. To give mechanical teeth to your diplomatic behavior.

Recruiting is intended to both limit resource generation and to provide a timer for the game.

The City heads are intended to provide an end game... I don't know if they are necessary. They provide some points but you could also just have the last recruited citizen cause the challenge for the city.

Is there anything at all in my game that contradicts these purposes?
Mostly no... I kind of think that the Taking Heads endgame section does not add to any of the purposes of the other parts, though it does add to the third purpose of the game.

If so, how can I change that?
I don't know if I should remove it. I kind of feel like having some playthroughs where people play without it and then with it and answer the question of whether it felt like it added to the flow of the game are needed.