What a hilarious and inspiring talk! All these exercises seem like a super fun way to learn game design. What a blast school would be if all studying was done in a more hands-on way instead of sitting still, listening quietly for hours.
The royal game of ur which precedes backgammon and that he alluded to is 5000 years old. backgammon came along after a few centuries after the royal game of ur.
The best combination of numbers would be 555411 or any other ordering. Out of 4332 possible combinations, including different ordering of the same numbers, these win 2874 times. At least that's based on my calculations.
Unfortunately this assumes that you are facing randomly generated dice - but of course you are not. Other players designed those dice. From a game theory standpoint, this is a rock-paper-scissors situation.
@@Orlandofurioso95 However, any player-designed die is going to fall within those 4332 possible dice (I'm trusting the number is accurate). Remember, there is a strict limit on what the sides can add up to. This inherently limits the sides to be a finite combination. So it is absolutely possible to compute the odds of a die winning against all theoretically possible die designs. And remember, each player is designing their die without any knowledge of what the other players are doing. Without any info, you have to just make something that has the highest overall odds of winning. All of that being said, there are still dice that can beat this one easily. For example, a 666300 will beat the 555411 die around 55% of the time. You can keep doing this to beat the previous die, but I guarantee you'll eventually get to a die that loses to the 555411 die. This problem does inherently lead towards that rock-paper-scissors situation you mentioned provided that iteration is allowed. But in a vacuum, with no information available, it's also possible to construct a die that has the highest chance of being successful.
I think you either want your d10 in shields or weapons, and probably the d6 in the other slot. I don't have any math to prove it yet, but that's my first impression.
I strongly discourage instructors to make lessons and workshops a competition. It's unnecessary and only reinforces conflict between people. If you are motivated primarily by competition, I would strongly encourage you to look inward and try to understand why you feel that way.
I disagree, this sounds great. Some people (myself included), learn better through competition and action than they do sitting passively and listening to someone else speak. You might want to look outward and try to understand that others learn in different ways than you do.
except when the workshop is about creating fun games? I get what you mean but games are the exception, competition isnt a negative thing in games when fun is the focus
How does any of this apply to a racing game or fighting game? How does it apply to a game with no goal like Minecraft or Dwarf Fortress? I'm sure ya man has answers but I can't see it and he doesn't explain well. This is fine for traditional style games but what about games that can only work on computers?
I wouldn't say that the games you mentioned never have a goal. Surely some form of goal persists - in Minecraft to kill the Ender Dragon and survive past that, in DF is for your settlement to thrive and survive (not counting Adventure Mode). As much as these aren't finite goals, they are something to go after. Even if in the end you won't even be able to achieve the goal fully or never know exactly about it (you don't know about the Ender Dragon unless you encounter it or heard about it). The point here is there are many goals along the way like surviving the day/night/season, building a safe home, crafting better equipment, exploring new places, etc. I think in the end the goals (especially in video games) may change along the way, especially in very complicated story lines (see how your goal can change in most of RPGs) or as the game progresses, but the main premise stays the same - you have a goal and you make decisions to avoid obstacles to reach it. If a new one appears after you get it, the process starts anew with new variables (different gear, characters, stats, environment, etc).
It teaches you how humans derive pleasure from trading resources, and when you think about it, every game revolves around resources, even if they're abstract. For instance, in a racing game, speed is a resource, and tire grip is a resource, and their relationship is inverse (you cannot corner at high speeds because you lose grip and spin out). In a combat flight simulator like War Thunder, altitude is a resource - one that can be traded for speed, which is advantageous in a dogfight, hence you want to climb whenever you're not in combat to "gather" altitude to later convert to speed when you need to catch up to an enemy. Every digital game can be thought of this way, since they're all inherently just about adding up/subtracting from integers and floats. When you think of it like that, the rest of the theory becomes much more broadly applicable.
@Andrew J I just can't agree that viewing all kinds of video games in these discrete steps will be useful for certain game designs. Take a game like Street Fighter or Forza, boil it down into a traditional game you can play with physical medium, off the computer, and you have two very, very different experiences that may even challenge different abilities. Please don't misunderstand, I'm not trying to say this talk isn't useful or insightful, it surely is. I'm just saying I don't think it's appropriate for all styles of games and that this approach may limit your design space.
Game Design and Video Game Design are totally different fields of study as he mentioned. Video games have a lot more nuance and dividing sub goals and paths which makes a huge flow chart compared to more traditional games
I've seen this whole talk like 5 times now, it's fantastic as a blueprint
4:04 "Pencil never crashes" ⭐
25:11 "One of the most important lessons about obstacles: It's about HELPING the players and not hindering them.."
What a hilarious and inspiring talk! All these exercises seem like a super fun way to learn game design. What a blast school would be if all studying was done in a more hands-on way instead of sitting still, listening quietly for hours.
Gamification! Totally agree! You might be interested in reading Gamification by Design!
Which is not. But then again you don't seem very intelligent.
This is brilliant! Now I wanna make a physical game and scrap my video game ;)
Why not do both? Play board games and you'll learn amazing design.
Depends if you wanna make money, lol. Lot more money in video games.
Fantastic talk, full of inspirational ideas. Seriously, you had me at popup books, haha! :D
At 42:00 he explains Monolopy Go in 2012. Amazing 😅
One of the best from GDC.
The royal game of ur which precedes backgammon and that he alluded to is 5000 years old. backgammon came along after a few centuries after the royal game of ur.
Very good talk! thank you a lot for sharing this! ill learn it and then try to teach it too :-)
这个视频虽然干货不多，但是给了我很多启发！
The best combination of numbers would be 555411
or any other ordering. Out of 4332 possible combinations, including different ordering of the same numbers, these win 2874 times. At least that's based on my calculations.
Unfortunately this assumes that you are facing randomly generated dice - but of course you are not. Other players designed those dice. From a game theory standpoint, this is a rock-paper-scissors situation.
@@Orlandofurioso95 However, any player-designed die is going to fall within those 4332 possible dice (I'm trusting the number is accurate). Remember, there is a strict limit on what the sides can add up to. This inherently limits the sides to be a finite combination. So it is absolutely possible to compute the odds of a die winning against all theoretically possible die designs. And remember, each player is designing their die without any knowledge of what the other players are doing. Without any info, you have to just make something that has the highest overall odds of winning.
All of that being said, there are still dice that can beat this one easily. For example, a 666300 will beat the 555411 die around 55% of the time. You can keep doing this to beat the previous die, but I guarantee you'll eventually get to a die that loses to the 555411 die. This problem does inherently lead towards that rock-paper-scissors situation you mentioned provided that iteration is allowed. But in a vacuum, with no information available, it's also possible to construct a die that has the highest chance of being successful.
This is an amazing talk!
Shields are better, though...
I think you either want your d10 in shields or weapons, and probably the d6 in the other slot. I don't have any math to prove it yet, but that's my first impression.
if all studying was done in a more hands-on
I strongly discourage instructors to make lessons and workshops a competition. It's unnecessary and only reinforces conflict between people. If you are motivated primarily by competition, I would strongly encourage you to look inward and try to understand why you feel that way.
I disagree, this sounds great.
Some people (myself included), learn better through competition and action than they do sitting passively and listening to someone else speak.
You might want to look outward and try to understand that others learn in different ways than you do.
except when the workshop is about creating fun games? I get what you mean but games are the exception, competition isnt a negative thing in games when fun is the focus
How does any of this apply to a racing game or fighting game? How does it apply to a game with no goal like Minecraft or Dwarf Fortress? I'm sure ya man has answers but I can't see it and he doesn't explain well. This is fine for traditional style games but what about games that can only work on computers?
I wouldn't say that the games you mentioned never have a goal. Surely some form of goal persists - in Minecraft to kill the Ender Dragon and survive past that, in DF is for your settlement to thrive and survive (not counting Adventure Mode). As much as these aren't finite goals, they are something to go after. Even if in the end you won't even be able to achieve the goal fully or never know exactly about it (you don't know about the Ender Dragon unless you encounter it or heard about it). The point here is there are many goals along the way like surviving the day/night/season, building a safe home, crafting better equipment, exploring new places, etc.
I think in the end the goals (especially in video games) may change along the way, especially in very complicated story lines (see how your goal can change in most of RPGs) or as the game progresses, but the main premise stays the same - you have a goal and you make decisions to avoid obstacles to reach it. If a new one appears after you get it, the process starts anew with new variables (different gear, characters, stats, environment, etc).
It teaches you how humans derive pleasure from trading resources, and when you think about it, every game revolves around resources, even if they're abstract. For instance, in a racing game, speed is a resource, and tire grip is a resource, and their relationship is inverse (you cannot corner at high speeds because you lose grip and spin out). In a combat flight simulator like War Thunder, altitude is a resource - one that can be traded for speed, which is advantageous in a dogfight, hence you want to climb whenever you're not in combat to "gather" altitude to later convert to speed when you need to catch up to an enemy.
Every digital game can be thought of this way, since they're all inherently just about adding up/subtracting from integers and floats. When you think of it like that, the rest of the theory becomes much more broadly applicable.
@Andrew J I just can't agree that viewing all kinds of video games in these discrete steps will be useful for certain game designs. Take a game like Street Fighter or Forza, boil it down into a traditional game you can play with physical medium, off the computer, and you have two very, very different experiences that may even challenge different abilities.
Please don't misunderstand, I'm not trying to say this talk isn't useful or insightful, it surely is. I'm just saying I don't think it's appropriate for all styles of games and that this approach may limit your design space.
Mine craft has goals, and always has. Just cos they’re open ended doesn’t mean they aren’t therr
Game Design and Video Game Design are totally different fields of study as he mentioned. Video games have a lot more nuance and dividing sub goals and paths which makes a huge flow chart compared to more traditional games
Such a helpful video, super easy to understand each code and what they do #mediaartsbcc