Thank you all for attending. Here are the unstructured notes for those who couldn’t make it. I’ve bolded the key points.
Panel
Paul Stephanouk - Design Director of Candy Crush. Previously EA, Zynga, Bossfight, Schell Games, Big Huge Games. 20 years experience building and running creative teams.
Kelly Tran - Game Design Professor researching games and players. PhD in learning and tech. Personal Twitch - Group Twitch - Website
Jon Radoff - CEO Beamable. Previously Disruptor Beam. Entrepreneur, game designer, metaverse builder. Founder of Game Industry Club on Clubhouse.
Xelnath - Game Designer World of Warcraft, League of Legends, Ori and the Will of the Wisps, Snackpass Tochi. Founder Game Design Skill.
Kristina Drzaic - Narrative Director and Game Designer. Previously Halo, Bioshock, Bioshock Infinite, Galak-Z, Twitch, Amazon Game Studios.
Rob Manuel - Content strategist, media producer, indie game curator. Previously G4, Gametrailers, Geek and Sundry, Amazon Studios, Indie Megabooth.
Mohamed Abdel Khalik - Co-Founder Karnak Studios, Creators of The Daily Tut webcomic and Game Director on Tut Trials, an upcoming high action 3D platformer. Currently fundraising.
Notes
Nintendo has systems in place where if the player fails several times they can use an invincibility mechanism or level skip to allow them to progress.
This might create problems as the skill ceiling in the levels gets harder so players end up getting frustrated as they enter the cycle of skipping the assessment so they don’t improve their ability causing them to skip through many levels.
Designers have been experimenting with letting players impose the challenge on themselves by having them choose their own difficulty by mixing and matching the separate elements the make up the overall difficulty choice such as with Halo Skulls.
Many players don’t enjoy these systems as they create a sense of anxiety.
Baba Is You is a great example where the difficulty is emergent from the gameplay.
Designers want to set a challenge for the players that they overcome it so that they become good at that.
In tabletop narrative design people experience the story onetime. No options to go back and replay stuff.
Tabletop design needs to focus on initial high difficulty to not drive the hardcore players away and then reduce difficulty overtime so it adapts as players get stuck.
This is similar to multiplayer difficulty setting through skill based match making.
Is health and damage a bandaid solution or should designers create newer mechanics to stop players from brute forcing their way through the boss?
An example is to design these mechanics in new optional bosses so that player expectations are not challenged. This is harder to pull off due to the multidisciplinary production process of making a game.
Designers must constantly question why they are adding difficulty and what they’re giving to the players. Is it just more game?
Mario party minigames get harder as time goes on creating a challenge for everyone playing ensuring that the game doesn’t drag on. This also creates tension and balances the skill ceiling between players.
Another example for this is rubberbanding in Mario Kart. Players in the back acquire stronger items to help balance between player skill ceiling.
Handicap mode in fighting games also balances the skill ceiling between players but such a system doesn’t incentivize players to actually get better at the game.
An argument for is that is by giving players a chance to compete it bumps them up enough to try out new things.
Zone of proximal development. A concept that for humans to learn, they must work at the edge of their capacity.
Designers debate on whether or not the matchmaking AI should set the player up with a counter matchup if they keep winning online.
Theory of flow - Players should be in the middle between winning and losing and not having a streak in either.
Winning constantly doesn’t feel challenging which creates boredom.
Losing constantly is frustrating and doesn’t feel good.