Hey, I made this basic diagram of how a game works.
What do you think? Feedbacks?
My portfolio: https://www.behance.net/LunWoon238814c
Thanks!
Whatâs the semantic meaning of the arrows (first question some programmer asked me when I started graphing gameplay theory).
4 Likes
Nice diagram! I like the colors and the icons 
Content-wise I miss the playerâs experience. There are some parts of it scattered throughout the graph, like flow, challenge and game loop, but in general, there is no mention of the experience of playing the game, which to me seems odd because itâs one of the most important things I use when designing the game: itâs the main goal of what you want to achieve (at least, in the process I use). The game only works when it is having an effect on the player, no matter how
Iâm sort of lost about what the most important thing is. Mostly because thereâs this big circle, but itâs at the lower half. I usually read left to right, top to bottom, but this flow is interrupted because the biggest thing demands attention.
Also, thereâs a header about âbalanceâ, and this includes some tools on how to balance a game. The game itself doesnât work differently because it was balanced in excel, probably, so it feels a bit out of place in a diagram that shows how a game works.
I really like the effort! I love diagrams and charts and stuff, so thanks for posting it!
I like graphs too. But here is my few cents.
In my view Balance should go to Values.
Or at least be bi-directional.
I can not imagine gameplay being detached from challenge.
Challenge is not only about winning condition.
Challenge can be part of rewards, and objectives as well.
Does rules are defined by the game system? Or Game system is to follow the rules?
Whatever rules means.
Isnât that gameplay is most important, from playersâ standing point?
For me that actually good positioning, as it stands now.
I could probably dragg it into player skill, even tho it probably meant something different.
Iâll be honest, this diagram is so nonsensical that Iâm not sure youâre not a driveby troll.
6 Likes
I really agree with you on everything.
.
This diagram was made for a presentation of a class at a university. So at the powerpoint, I tried to do it in a way that the students understood better. Really, if analyzing coldly is meaningless, but with verbal help and step-by-step explanation, the students understood.
Yes, definitely. Youâre completely right.
The idea was to make the students understand that the challenges are there to make it difficult for the player to accomplish the objective. Thatâs why he crosses it.
Thank you so much for responding politely, and helping me give my students a better class.
Sorry for the bad english.
2 Likes
Just regarding arrows, I think they may impose more confusion than is wort it.
I would leave links at best, but without arrows.
At least you wont impose direction of thinking, what is dependent on what.
But keep relation intact.
3 Likes
I know Iâm late, but Iâm just wondering if the environment that the game takes place in has a role in the experience of the game? Would that be considered independent or part of the gameplay?
For example, from my perspective it wouldnât make sense to have too much of an open world for a game that is more linear in nature, and vice versa, if youâre trying to give a more open-ended experience, you wouldnât overly limit what the player can do and where they can go.
Iâm trying to up my knowledge on game mechanics so any references or things like that would be great!
Incoming opinion alert:
Junk like this why you will spend so long at university and come out dumber and more confused than when you went in.
Just make games. Literally itâs simple trial and error process of learning. If you have to talk about theoretical connections between elements of the human experience of playing a gameâŚAnd itâs so damn confusing that you need graphs to understandâŚId say you.are dramatically over thinking things.
College is designed to attempt to explain things that are intuitively simple in an analytical way, as if humans are the simplest computers themselves. People literally come out less intelligent and set up.for failure.
If you have an iota of self awareness, sit down and play your favorite game. Watch your emotions while.you.play. bam, right there is all the lesson you.ever need in game design. You can study any of classics as much as you.need.
If you donât have an iota of self awareness, learn how to meditate. There is books. Itâs another simple thing to do.
For production and technicals, all the knowledge is online and free.
Not personal attack at OP. But college is a scam.
Edit: eh graphs are.fine and useful.for.many things. But trying to graph something as big as âhow a game worksâ seems ridiculous. Cycles of.production in making a game? Sure. Player input feedback loop? Sure. But everything in one graph? I think should be much simpler.graph. like describing what a game is in one sentence.
3 Likes
In terms of game dev, I donât think college can provide anything resealable. At least if teaches, how to search for information I am fine with it. But as with any other profession, making game comes with practice. And indeed I agree, is not just about writing a game. But having long playing game experience. I think business college would be more suitable for game developers instead, to be honest. Programming, or 2D/3D graphics can be self-thought relatively easily and as mentioned, nearly for free.
I simply can not imagine anyone coming out of collage and become good game developer.
All that knowledge should be already gained from past experience, playing games anyway.
That besides whole programming topic, and psychology, and marketing, and all technicals, and âŚ
Regarding graphs, I appreciate graph for academic purpose, even if I can not see universal solutions to be able exists. Is just too many variations and games structures of them self. Weather graph is good, or not is additional matter. But at least it gives references point, in which future directions research should be continued, to convey desired message.
Sometimes to get small, need to get big.
And if graphs leaves more questions than answers, maybe indeed would be better to simplified, or even stick to few bullet points.
1 Like
That graph is bad obviously, it mean nothing, at best itâs a visual support to pass down knowledge as a map, but that graph is totally bad in isolation.
But thatâs the problem, game design currently is pretty much filled of vague concept that donât really apply in practice, as they tend to corner to genre (iâm not thinking about traditional genre, but mode of play) rather than free people. However abstract thinking is very important, if anything it exposes student to it. Which will allow the brightest to go beyond the limitation of the curriculum.
A good curiculum donât have to have each element good, as much as it need to expose the students to various problem they wouldnât do on their own, in fact I have seen awfully vague course bringing the best of student, because the order of operation forces them to confront one problem at a time, the scramble to make sense of the idea of the course actually made them solve it on their own. College is also great to meet like minded people all thinking about the same thing differently in a context that encourage it. You can discover a lot like that.
Also college is free where I live, you can attend course even if you arenât registered (canât have a diploma or have teacher look at your work). Hardly a scam.
The problem when you learn on your own is that you tend to get narrow on specific stuff (but with potential to go deep) unless you are an open minded person.
1 Like
2 Likes
Draw something on the board. It will make you look smarter in the eyes of others.
That graph is beyond awfully abstract.
My vote for most misleading element goes to âCore Loopâ.
How do we know youâre not a sitting duck troll? 
In relation to the topic: what the OP has created is not a graph in any technical sense. Heâs created a diagram quite the difference.
As someone had said the arrows need semantic meaning too. I donât think thereâs any mathematical analysis that can be done on this diagram⌠thereâs nothing to optimize or analyze other than for us to read it and interpret.
Itâs not just the arrows. Why are there three balls labelled secondary mechanics and four for tertiary? Theyâre already pluralized. Why are secondary and tertiary mechanics separated? Mechanics are already rules, so why is rules there? Whatâs the hell is macro/micro gameplay? Why does excel need to be mentioned when attached to spreadsheet already? What about games like Minecraft that do not have a win or defeat condition? Why is challenge just off to the side in most of its own little world? Whatâs the difference between a game loop and a core loop?
Like, even with the terms and relationships clearly outlined, this really doesnât make a lick of sense. Itâs absolute gibberish.
1 Like
I agree that as a tool, this graph is not useful.
That said, the graph itself is super pretty. And it does list a lot of stuff games should have.
The chart itself is top notch as a work of âartâ, but agree w everyone else that its not actually useful in terms of thinking about game design.
I do disagree though that thinking about game design analytically is bad, the problem isnât analytical thinking, the problem is that this graph is not actually analytical, its just a weird visual taxonomy. This is the kind of graph you see in a sociology class, not a hard science. The arrows donât have real meaning, the categorization is arbitrary, etc.
1 Like
Nah sociology diagram are rigorous, if you donât have a shot professor that just wing it.
I typed âsociology diagramâ into google, here are some of the first hits:
Sorry dude, sociology is really not very rigorous.
The only social science I would consider rigorous is linguistics, and Iâm not actually sure how linguistics is categorized.
Try typing game design diagram, heck probably even game architecture