andrew@home:~$

Archive

About

RSS

The Vibe Manifesto

Recently, I saw a tweet, and I have to say, I vibed with it a lot. I’ve read (well, at least parts of) many books on game design, and over and over again I see the same structure. First we have to talk about why games are so culturally important, and then we have to define “games” while making reference to the other hundred game design books that also define what it means to be a “game”, and finally we start categorizing and classifying games, usually with some implicit bias that some games[1] either aren’t valuable or aren’t “games”.

So, here are a list of things I vibe with:

1. Emergence + Simulation

Emergence through the simulation of simple rules (navier-stokes, rendering equation, game of life, etc) is super dope.

2. Player has between 3-7 choices for any meaningful decision

If you have 1 choice, it’s not a decision. 2 is too simple, too binary. 8 and above are too many for someone to consider at once.

3. Strategy over reflexes[2]

I like to think that I will continue playing and enjoying video games for the rest of my life. It would suck to build kick-ass games, only to be able to really enjoy them for the next 5-10 years because your reflexes are just slightly too slow now to be good at the games you made. It’s not inclusive to build games that heavily rely on reflexes.

4. Games have meanings - they say things

Seems like an obvious thing to say, but games are a form of communication. Games that are aware of what they’re communicating are much more exciting and interesting than those that just use mechanics for fun. Ultimately, games are capable of so many more emotions than the raw feel of fun, and it’s about time game designers started exploring that larger space.

5. Photorealism is bad

Photorealism is a bad style for a video game. The first issue with photorealism is that it doesn’t clarify which objects are interactable and which ones aren’t. Time and time again I have tried to open a door that was just a texture or to break a wooden object that isn’t breakable. Games that use stylistic rendering are less restricted in their use of visual design to guide players.

The second issue is that photorealistic games can’t use powerful techniques to control emotion, like color grading.

Overall, photorealism is a trap for game developers/studios/engines, and it isn’t a target worth aiming for in the first place.

6. Procedural generation is not enough

You cannot make a game interesting by just adding procedural generation. A lot of indies are using procedural generation extensively because it seems to add a lot of potential for new content, but I’m not super impressed. Maybe this is a little hypocritical of me because many of my favorite games (Minecraft, Factorio, Spelunky, the Civilization series, etc.) feature procedural generation prominently. I just think it’s overused and that gamers will appreciate good level design if you give it to them. Even in games that have a lot of procedural generation, the most memorable parts of the experience aren’t the randomly generated ones.

7. Games aren’t meant to be played forever

Partially based off the 6th item, this strange fascination with “forever games” needs to stop. This includes roguelike indies, but also the much more insidious “live-service” games that are a stain on the industry.

Forever games can never have a satisfying conclusion, because they aren’t designed to conclude. There’s no moral, and no place for reflection. Their stories are unchanging and boring, because if the story did fundamentally change you would open yourself to the possibility of the game ending. Forever games don’t care about the player and their life. They are vampires that continually steal time (and money) from their player’s life, making them weaker in the real world. As they become weaker and weaker (less social, less physically fit, poorer) they spend more and more time in the game world rather than in the real world, further perpetuating the cycle.

Good games are designed to be put down, and for the player to return back to the tasks they need to do in the real world. Whether that’s working a job, socializing with friends and family, exercising, and all of the other things that are required to live a full life. Good video games actually enhance those outside activities, because of the lessons taught within the game.

Good games get their players consent. Most games I see do this well for the large things (content warnings and the like) but sometimes they miss it on small things. For example, why do so many games start with a cutscene, before I’ve had the chance to change the settings to my liking? Now I’m sitting here watching this cutscene but all I’m thinking about is how I need to turn motion blur off before it gives me a headache.

9. Design with and for interactivity

Talking about with first, with interactivity means using development tools that allow you to be interactive with the game as it’s running. I really value REPLs and other tools that allow you to modify the game as it’s running. I’ve been looking into adding a LISP interpreter in my game for exactly this reason.

For interactivity comes back to “Emergence + Simulation”, that is I want games to be interaction focused, and not choose-your-own-adventure books. Games are interesting as a medium because of interactivity.

[1] The biggest issue I see with many game definitions is that they exclude “walking-sim” type games like What remains of Edith Finch. The problem is not necessarily that I want to label these interactive experiences with the label of “game”, but more that as a game designer I am interested in the storytelling and mechanics used in this software. In other words, if What remains of Edith Finch isn’t a game then I don’t want to just be a game designer, I want to be an interactive experience designer, which includes and subsumes games. Now, I may exclusively make interactive experiences that also happen to be games, but when studying the art of making games I am still very much interested in interactive experiences that aren’t games, and therefore walking-sims are still part of my game design curriculum.

[2] Fast games aren’t necessarily reflex heavy - it depends on what is required. Older people can play piano because it doesn’t require reflexes, just a level of mobility that (with good health) can be maintained even into old age. It’s more of the “peek around a corner and instantly spot the pixels that constitute the enemy and click on them” sort of reflex that I don’t like.