How to design fun games | James Ernest
Вставка
- Опубліковано 30 лип 2023
- In this episode, I chat with James Ernest about how to make a game that doesn't just work mechanically but is also a lot of fun to play. We talk about how to identify when testers are having fun, the design decisions that create fun experiences, utilizing surprise, and a whole lot more.
You can find James's game design lectures and articles here: crabfragmentlabs.com/lecture-...
And here's that video he mentioned about goats: • Chèvres en équilibre -...
The BGDL site with lots of resources: boardgamedesignlab.com
BGDL podcast: boardgamedesignlab.com/episodes/
BGDL Facebook community: / bgdlcommunity
Gabe's main channel: www.youtube.com/@gabebarrett/...
Find my t-shirts and books here: gamenightoutfitters.com
Find my board games here: bestwith1.com
Find my #1 motivation tool here: 4kweeks.com/?ref=7eAeVqPs
(And be sure to use coupon code GABE to take 5% off your order!)
*All of these links provide revenue for the channel through either direct sales or affiliates. - Ігри
Great talk!
“Engineer a trend to conclusion.” Wise words indeed
I love the quote from Dieter Rams, an Amazing Industrial Designer (Braun) and who was Highly inspiring to Jony Ive (Apple), "Good Design is as little Design as Possible"... I feel it really lines up with Board Game Design as well.
James' explanation of fun as system plus surprise is one of the most helpful and insightful ways ive heard that described. Thank you!
Imagine someone invents chess and then puts it out to play testers. Those testers will play poorly -- like all new chess players invariably do -- and they will have a meh experience. The chess inventor, based on those reactions, will give up on his/her game and a masterpiece won't make it to market.
Great argument have to say,
Could you define what "masterpiece" means to you?
@nib71286 i think in this case, the term "masterpiece" is more relativistic than specific. it's more of a term describing the potential of a game rather than its setting or mechanics, like that there dosnt necessarily need to be a corelation/simularity between game mechanics or design but rather the capability of that game to develop diversity in relation to nuances of different pathway (game strategy) towards achieving a specific goal but still keeping a cohesion so not to make the actions only diverse in randomness
@@kerberosarmory is a masterpiece necessarily perfect, or is it more about percieved respect?
@nib71286 perceived respect definitely, by definition, a game can't be perfect
Acidentally found this an hour after you posted it, I didn’t realize it was so new until I went to see if your book was out! ❤ It’s great! I can’t wait to buy your book
Great episode. I appreciate all of the advice and insight!
i was hooked from the first minute. great talk thanks!
I wanna be James Ernest when I grow up! (fyi, I'll be 50 years old soon)
Understanding MTG well has made learning every other game easy. Everything boils down to core concepts that MTG forces you understand. Even poorly written rule sets become easier to fill in the gap for if you know how MTG works.
so true, and the system is really robust as well. you can insert the stack into a lot of card games and they still work well.
Great interview, thank you! Still Im not sure I agree with your take on game rules ("shorter is better"): If a game has good rules it is fun just to read through them. Long complex rule books can give you a warm experience, just like a good book. And some games have great rules, where reading the rules may even be more fun than playing the actual game.
Great job!
Never give up the mechanics that everyone says are fun! I was working on a game that could basically play the exact same without this tiny tactical element I added to it but everyone says it’s so much fun to pick up the wooden component and stack it so there’s no reason for me to take it out because people enjoy picking up something that has some weight to it.
I've been practicing removing/combining rules and it has been REALLY good for the game. Way less design on certain aspects and removes a bit of clutter.
Great video
Im workin on a simple childrens card game based on building a big sandwich. And it sure was a pain trying to fit the games rules on a single 2.5 inch card.
Sounds like it needs to he much simpler.
My biggest pet peeve is games that tell you they're emulating an experience, and then the game plays nothing like that experience.
Example: A racing game where you're just managing resources the whole time.
Pfft. You'd love my game then. It's a card game about making a big Scooby-Doo style sandwich. And the game play is putting cards with sandwich ingredients on a stack to make a sandwich 🥪
@@arcanineryu slamwich?
@@rileymcphee9429 I went with super sandwich stacker because the goal is to have the biggest sandwich. Slamwich would more imply being loud.
Spite Tokens!
If there is a sense that you built your engine pretty good, but have a few ideas of what to do differently next time, you have a good game. If it is hopeless, the game will gather dust
good
For the Algorithm