on Game Design

So, you want to become a game designer? Then read this book! Chris Crawford has done an excellent job outlining the issues that game designers face. There's more to game design than game design, and Chris has bare all his experiences for your perusal. I may not agree with a lot of things he wrote, but the issues mentioned in the books are important. These are the issues that game designers face everyday. If you want to be a successful game designer, then read this book. Understand it. Transcend it. More than any other game design book, this is the game design book I recommend because it is relevant, honest, comprehensive, and down-to-earth.

If you are a game designer, then you must have this book, and read it from time to time. If you're thinking to be one, then carefully read this book, and decide whether or not you can weather all the issues of being a game designer. Highly recommended reading.

Dear Mr. Crawford:

This is not to belittle you in any way. I'm just being honest and want of information. I read your book Chris Crawford on Game Design by New Riders press, and I must say that I disagree with a lot of the things you wrote. I have always been disagreeable with all the books I read, but usually I can understand their view after a while, and would accept most of their view as valid, at least at certain occasion, but despite having read your books many times and tried to put it in good view, there's so many things that I disagree, that I finally give up and write to you. You wrote in your book that you give honest opinion that have a tendency to hurt other people when all you want is seeking the truth. I'm seeking the truth, and I hope that you're not offended in anyway, but please enlighten me or maybe this is a case of experience is not the best teacher?

Chapter01: No disagreement there.
Chapter 02:
If you want to write, read! Then again, it has been said if you want to write, write! Just do it and learn along the way. Your first effort will be amateurish, but if you continue to improve then eventually you'll get there. Turning things around, does that mean if you want to read, you must write?

It's hard to play chess, people say. Not really, I countered. But can you win? Well, if you put it that way, I've never beaten Kasparov. Does that mean I don't know how to play chess? :)

How accomplished are you to come up with Tetris? IMO the best game of all time. It transcends any barrier, sex, age, and race!

Too many war games in your examples. I agree Diplomacy is a great game. Whack-a-mole is fun? You must be one of those crazy violent bastards! ;) Actually, a similar kind is Hokuto no Ken (Fist of the North Star). I like that better than Whack-a-Mole, although IT is even more difficult to find!

No FaceBall game? The first person perspective game isn't Doom or CastleWolfenstein 3D, it's some kind of maze game. I saw it on Apple 2, but don't know the name of it.

Dragon's Lair is a good game, but it is too expensive. Had it been priced a quarter instead of 50 cents to a dollar, it would have stand a chance. Another technological flash in a pan is Myst, and hey, so is Pac-Man? All copycat lost their shirt, right?

M.U.L.E. I missed this game the first time, but I later played the game on the emulator. The user interface is terrible! I couldn't stand playing it. It is a good effort for the time, I suppose, but I think you overstated it when you say "the greatest game design of all time."

Balance of Power: Mushroom cloud every time. The longest, I think last 3 sub turns. :( Any rich game play it may have is lost on me.

King's Quest: Hmmm, I wonder why you didn't say Mystery House, their earlier effort?

SimCity: Strange, but I didn't get addicted by this. Every time I played the game, it always ended up Metropolis. Arcologies everywhere. I guess, "Watching the Grass Grow Games" aren't my cup of tea.

What? No Tetris? Pokemon? Where in the world is Carmen Sandiego? Deer Hunter? OK, that last one was bait, but Tetris is certainly a classic and a milestone game?

Chapter 3:

You can't design games if you don't understand play. Of course you can! Poorly, but you can certainly design them! It's like this every time. I want to learn how to play violin, and no, I'm not going to get a teacher. It will be self taught. People told me I'm nuts and will never get anywhere. I persisted. At one point, I told my landlady, "If I don't play it well, you're the one who's going to suffer!" :) After 4 weeks, I found a comfortable way to hold violin. After changing string, my violin sounds a lot better, no longer the tinny sounds it used to make. After 3 months, I played well enough to play all the songs I know and old forgotten songs have been known to pop up on my violin. Then people would up the ante, can I play complicated classical music? Yes. Can I play improvisational? Yes. Can I play as well as Perlman? Bell? Probably not. I don't have their talent. Can violin students play as well as they can?

It got to the point that anything less than best is ignored, and there goes diversity! If you want to complain that current industry lacks creativity, then the least you can do is encourage experimentation, which certainly doesn't help when you say that it is a complex and tricky human behavior.

Your point that child's play is simple is missing the point: A child IS simple. Adults are not. What's play has got to do with it? It is irrelevant!

Play must be safe (p. 31)
I guess Poker isn't a game, then, yet many people can tell you it can be extremely addictive!

Chapter 4:
Sensory Challenge. I once played Asteroid for 6 hours. My reflex was so attuned to the game, than even when I played carelessly, in hoping to end the game quickly, the game still progress nicely. Not until I make a concentrated effort to crash the ship into the asteroid that I finally ended the game. Fun? Well, it's more like meditation on crack! But having experienced that, I'd probably buy the game. Altered States of Consciousness is probably how you put it, but I think it's slightly different than that.

Very good catalog of challenge overall.

I designed a game called "Clairvoyance: the game". You take a deck of card and take turns turning the card over. Points are scored for guessing right. Obviously you make a guess then turn the card over. The more clairvoyance the person is, the higher the score, or is it? Maybe it is testing Statistics (Remembering the previous card uncovered), or Probability (the kinds of cards left) or Pattern/Memory recognition (assuming shuffles are not perfect, and patterns of card present themselves). A very lively presentation of the game can be had by having 2 memory experts cheat and memorize the card sequence beforehand.

No other species can control projectiles as accurately as human can (p. 53):
I once saw a dolphin make baskets. Can human do it jumping into a pool, dive underwater across the pool, and jump up, bounce the ball into the air with his head and into the basket 10 meters away?

Can you balance a spoon on your nose while turning over? I saw a kid does it on TV, but regular humans can't, yet seals do it no problem.

I believe the challenge that is uniquely humans are that of analysis. Chimpanzee may be involved in some extremely complex problem, but as fist in a cookie jar demonstrate, the art of problem analysis is somewhat beyond them.

Chapter 5:
Mars, Venus, conflict: Games that appeal to women. A very clear example of a game that women like, other than Tetris is illustrated by the fact that my friends wife actually said, Come on, John, let's play! As a game designer, I'm keenly interested in the name of the game. It turns out to be a motorcycle racing game, an activity which she clearly does not pursue.

Emotional conflict wasn't mentioned?

Not in many games, apparently (p. 62) This would involve extra resources consumption, and as most games are late, they aren't incorporated into the game.

Cartoons: Japanese cartoons are sometimes complex, subtle, and unappreciated.

An example of high intensity movie would be The naked gun series. Are you saying they're wrong? I remember watching crazy boys movie when the laughter was non-stop. I was exhausted at the end of the movie, but it certainly was fun.

IMO, there is a way to give measured doses of high intensity experience throughout the length of the game, otherwise, the game will never be completed. I played some unfinished RPG precisely because of that reason. OTOH, Command and Conquer is fun. The first levels of Doom is fun, but by the time I got to the second and third part, the puzzle solving elements of it (which switch does what) turned me off, and I never finished it.

Alternative OS: Amiga OS is still alive. Java OS is still there. Palm OS is still there. BeOS, ok, so I haven't heard much from them, but Linux is prospering, as does Apple OS, which at the latest turn takes on Unix. Windows are getting way too complex and resource intensive. One of these days, a lightweight OS will take over, even if it goes through unconventional channel (i.e. not desktop PC).

Superior product fantasy: Self publish via Internet: MJ Rose story. Marketing: you know women aren't going to game store and you stock your product there!? Talk about suicide! Go to where the customers are, like Deer Hunter. Sell them to department stores or supermarkets. Advertise in women magazines, not computer magazines. Sheesh! Don't you know basic economic principles?
The fact that Balance of Planet sold so well to educational institutions should not be a surprised. It's a wonderful educational tool that is entertaining (edutainment), but it certainly is not a game.

Chapter 6:
CPU and clockspeed? Well, true, but Myst doesn't do a lot of that. In fact, most games now are not measured by their AI, but by their graphics (5,000,000 textured perspective correct polygons per seconds). And the success of GameBoy means that the game doesn't have to be the most advanced possible, just available.

Magic element of computer: I thought it was the ability to look up data instantaneously. ;) Think about it: Most programming projects done involve some kind of database designs. As far as pure processing power is concerned, they are there, but not as common. What is the most exciting part of Doom? Its puzzles? Its graphics? Or its ability to let players play against each other in deathmatch mode? Once you take out code for graphic, doors, and weapons, what crucial processing is left? I fail to see your point.

As far as interactivity with word processor, again, it is their storage capability that is important. Sure you can cut and paste, but you can do that with papers. It is when that data is translated to different format easily that it becomes desirable. Change of margin? Easy. Spell check? Easy. And early spell check, and remargin process was a batch process, not an interactive one like today's word processors.

Just because interactivity is good, doesn't mean its exclusivity is good, and yes, there is such a thing as too much of a good thing. Even poison can be good medicine in proper quantities.

There is a very successful game called Medal of Honor. The selling point isn't interactivity, but realism. OTOH, Falcon 3.0 sells realism and it stinks! The key point here isn't to bring interactivity to the highest level but to give enough interactivity to do the job and not burden the player with unnecessary tasks.

For example, I like Doom. Left, right shoot. Very simple and direct. Quake requires you to aim carefully, and I hate that. Time Splitter allows you to not aim (by using more bullets), yet still allows you that occasional aimed shot (sniper rifle), so that one is best. Are newer games done that way? Some. Apparently game designers still haven't learned the fact that play is fun, but too much accuracy of the real world is not. Let's not put on any interactivity more than necessary. Provide a kiddie version if you must, but provide it!

There's no way Lucas Arts adventure games are more interactive than Infocom's, but Infocom is no more, and Lucas Art lasts longer. By limiting interactivity, this helps focus the game and makes an enjoyable experience.

Low interactivity designs: It annoys the hell out of me that more people prefer checkers than chess, but that's a fact of life. What are you going to do? It's very easy to make chess simpler. Just take out the pieces, and it's instantly simpler. But people don't do that, you know?

VCR games: So, uh, with DVD near instant access, these should be golden, right?

One would think that there should be some small fragment of a market for low interactivity games (p. 84): You answered this yourself. Young children. The reason adults don't do so well on it is because the price is too high for such low value product. When the publisher packaged them together, they sold. Witness the resurgence of old games. Pixelated and simple, but they sold.

I believe it was a design philosophy that lets the player learn the game as they play and to hold the attention of the player quickly. The time cited was anywhere between 30 seconds to 5 minutes. Witness command and conquer. You can actually play the game without reading the manual. The only thing bad about it is that once learning process is done, the game is over. Well, there's deathmatch mode, but I digress.

Branch points: Lots of games use this, including Resident Evil series and most RPGs. Are you saying they're bad?

Of course, it is possible to take low interactivity concept too far. Troll Tales for one. I kept looking for left, right, and choose, instead of only choose and move to the next option. :)

Data intensity: Word processor. Process intensity: Encryption. This contradict your earlier idea that word processor mainly a process intensive program as opposed to data intensive program. Cut and paste is simply moving bytes, after all.

table specifying every possible result (p. 90), No, but I can imagine some tables holding some key result that would greatly simplify the calculations, not that I know how the calculations are done, but this is rather common.

the amount of data can be increased if the amount of process is concomitantly raised (p.91) Concomitantly? Fancy word that I assume means accordingly. Anyway, I think you're talking about sequential reasoning, here. A data oriented challenge would be more in-line with pattern recognition. Which is better for human players? Earlier you argued sequential is good for computer but bad for player.

Process intensity is difficult to understand and implement: Well, read my statement above. So, what do you suggest to those game designers who are poor sequential thinker? Give up? Isn't this claim simply says I'm good at sequential reasoning, and therefore this is the best way to do things?

Chapter 7:
yesterday's big hit with a few minor embellishments. Sure. If you market to the same people, that's what you do. If you have a completely different product, then market appropriately. My own Human Resources Stories, which is meticulously researched, fails spectacularly because the audience hates change. What do you expect?

Mario games are still recognizable as a direct descendant of the original Space Panic (p.94). Hmmm, Mario Cart? Mario Paint? Mario RPG? Mario Party? Are you saying that RidgeRacer cannot look like a car racing game? Are you serious or kidding?

Waterworld probably wouldn't flop if the cost of making it didn't ballooned so much. Titanic may be successful, but ask James Cameron and he'll tell you he got nothing out of it. And some otherwise cleverly scripted movie fails. Furthermore, Hollywood is moving away from TripleA movies and back to budget movies, those costing less than $25 million dollars. So the statement that Hollywood is gutsy isn't really accurate. Hit them with a few losses, and they shrink like any other business.

I like your discussions about creativity. Then again, books aren't the goddess you proclaimed it to. Try looking up keeping and raising Polymita Picta (Cuban Land Snail) and you'll be hard pressed to find it in your local bookstore.

Speaking of unanswered questions: Assuming you can see thru an animal, can you locate its stomach? The excessively long time I spent looking at Jellyfish fails to give me the answer. I still don't know where the mouth, stomach are.

We accommodate ourselves too willingly to poorly designed software (p.102) And if you're not, you'd be driven insane by them. Ever since I studied good user interface design, I went bonkers seeing how many programs have poorly designed interface, dammit. If ignorance of the evils of the world will bring peace of mind, then ignorance is bliss.

The politics of innovation:
Ask Donald Trump. Why would you want to give money to a loser who fired a good and honest accountant? Because he now knows better, is how he puts it, but really what he does is telling people he can give what people want for the price they're willing to pay. I.e. A Lexus for the price of a Hyundai. Moon for the price of mud. Emperor's clothes for the price of, well, you get the idea.

If you can convince people that the program will sell, everything else doesn't matter. It can be the worst dreg or the most brilliant, creative thing there is, people will invest their money in it. But knowing that these people don't know what good is, how can you expect to them to invest in your product? Where's the market? In this case, you'd better be investing your own dimes and market it yourself. After all, no one pushes your product harder than you.

As a note to this, YOU could have pushed your Erazmatazz product harder, by including a chapter in the book, for example. You don't market, and the product failed. What do you expect?

Chapter 8

Ah, quick to criticize, aren't we? In my experience, though, a lot of criticism is caused by the complainer not taking time to fully understand the issues involved, and when the issues are fully explained, not one of them has apologized to me afterwards, so it's not really a pleasant experience.

Obsession with cosmetics. Michael Caine said it best. He would not bother looking at the rushes because the tailors are looking at how wonderful the clothes are. Make up artists are looking at how wonderful the mascaras or lipstick are. Lighting technicians are looking at how wonderful the shadows are, etc, etc. Each specialist is looking at its own specialty with interest. Even the actors are merely looking at how good their acting are. The only opinion worth noting is that of the director's, and the only one that counts, for he is concerned with the harmony of the movie. So, when you complain about eye-candy, doesn't mean you're right or wrong, but merely means that you are NOT a graphic artist.

1. To further gameplay. Ah, yes, but the fact that some people enjoy good graphics doesn't mean that the graphic can be merely competent. No excuse for lousy graphic, you see, but unfortunately beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. In other words, who are you to judge!?

Textbook experiment (p.110): I must disagree with your assessment. I don't see Shrek has BETTER story than Final Fantasy. What is true is that Shrek's story is geared toward more common audience. With its cartoon violence and fairy tale setting, it is easier to make everything connects to the audience. Final Fantasy's story, however, is more sophisticated. There's a lot of undercurrent tension and mysterious aura, which tend not to excite the audience growing up on cartoon violence. Had it been a live action movie, well acted with famous actors, the movie would have only been mildly successful. Something like an art-house movie. Unfortunately, the acting skill of the animators are so obviously sub-par. I kept wishing the movie be live acted, instead. A fairer comparison would be Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, which is computer graphic and live action combined. It features original story and setting. It didn't do too well, either. Are you going to say it is because the cosmetic quality? Acting? Or is it nothing more than limited audience for sophisticated movie? After all, children can drag their parents to see Shrek, but parents can't do the same with Final Fantasy.

Doom's shadow: I always turn up the lighting. I find it annoying to not be able to see the monster I'm shooting at. Considering how pixelated the monsters are, I don't think Doom is my favorite game, one that I still play, because of the graphic. And I probably would hate it if piles of dead monsters would slow me down.

Cosmetic realism: I think you missed slapstick comedy. It works, even if exploding objects are ridiculously large. The ending episode of SledgeHammer features a nuclear explosion. Yet, it's still funny, and I for one, don't mind if the characters survive unscathed with only minor singe.

Little onscreen violence: It's still violent. And I actually cringe at Shrek's casual violence. This is clearly violence of violence sake, and it's wrong. There's no reason why a frog and snake should be violently abused. When even GI Joe prevents enemy's death on-screen, these animal abuses are just sickening. And just to play devil's advocate, how does Reservoir Dogs a failure in any way?

Reason 2: To show off superior graphic capability. Actually, I think it is more accurate to say to show off Graphic Artist's skill. Like your reason#3.

Reason#3: To show off programming skill. And why not? You're complaining the programmer is too good? What are you going to do? Lay off the programmer because "We're at the point where all the programming is done and it's now Graphic Artist people to show off their stuff?"

Reason#4: When's the last time you see an award winning website consisting of 100% text? You want some awards, you have to play the judges. You want some buyers, you have to play customers. How can you show gameplay on the box on the shelves? You can't! So you do it with fancy graphic! Ergo, it's not a design decision, it's a marketing decision!

Reason#5: Metal gear is so full of it. Players delight in finding them. So what?

Agree about subtraction in design process. Civilization: I think it is a wargame for the rest of us. A more successful version than yours. How about Command and Conquer? What's your formula? Rock-Scissor-Paper?

King Arthur game: I think you responded poorly. You should have asked for more specifics. Halo was originally an RTS, but later morphed into FPS. Uh, is there something wrong with that? I forgot whether it was Half-Life or Unreal that was basically ad-libbing the whole way through, but whichever way it is, is fine as long as it is handled properly. This is the difference between a paint engineer and a paint pusher, a fact you should appreciate if you ever in any kind of management position.

Storyboard. Well, what do you expect? You give someone an interactive storyboard, and people will say, "Oh, great! (sarcasm) Another Myst wannabe!"

GOTO: Hah! I didn't expect this one! "C doesn't have GOTO!" "Thank you Mr. Crawford, we'll be contacting you." The phone never ring. --Human Resources Stories.

Over-reliance on tools. You know, I'm getting pretty tired of these "Too much medicine" kind of claims. You have good, valid points, but I certainly dislike the way you frame it.

Weapons: shoot forward and backwards simultaneously. This is obviously a bad idea and if someone brought it up, I will shoot it down immediately. What a waste of ammo! And you're more likely to shoot your teammate, anyway! An exploding force field would be better.

Damage greater at longer range. Talk about counter intuitive. I don't think you can pull it off unless with magic. The only example I've seen is StarWars game where you knock a bunch of stormtroopers like bowling pins with a bounty hunter's weapon. That particular weapon is too powerful and therefore rarely used.

Weapons that build up to full strength. Are you crazy? Just about any alien energy weapon does that! There's plenty of examples of this, I'm surprised your technical advisor (Greg Costikyan, I believe) didn't tell you this!

Monsters: Boggy monsters. Well, a monster that hurts you either by poisoning you or make you lose a lot of blood can slow you down until you find a cure. That requires that the player be slowed down, and rather a pain to PLAY. I never think any game that realistic is any fun to play.

Monster that bounces up and down three times then explodes: Duke Nukem 3D.

Barrel Shaped monster: Star Wars's Destructor Droid. BTW, in today's game, impossible to kill is a mistake. Almost impossible is just right.

Chapter 9:

The statement "Going to college will teach you how to learn" is oft repeated, but never substantiated. Just because college is called the higher learning doesn't mean that it is! Personally, I learned how to learn while I was in high school. Not from a class, mind you, but of my own effort. School does NOT teach you how to learn. As proof: in a class of 50 students, the number of student I consider knows what's going on is 2 or 3. Another 2 or 3 somewhat knows what's going on. The rest are just clueless, mindless drone.

Your discussion of 2 cultures is interesting, but it is because to be an accredited school, the school must follow lesson plans dictated by the school board. School board is in favor of specialization. A solution to this problem may be doubling your major, but it will entail 30% more coursework than normal. Apparently, Europe doesn't have this handicap.

My own personal opinion is that if college doesn't teach me everyday skills that I need, then why in the world do I want to spend tens of thousands of dollars and a few years of my life, when self taught is not only faster and cheaper, but also more comprehensive? I can relate to you the enormous challenge I faced when I decided to self-taught violin, but I won't bore you.

Books:
Guns, Germs, and Steel. Boring.

Six Easy pieces and six not-so-easy pieces. I couldn't understand what's going on. If all you want is learn physic, High school physic textbook is better. I do like his other books, You Must Be Joking, Mr. Feynman and What Do You Care What Other People Think?

Missing from the collection: How to Read a Book.

Shakespeare: Rather confusing. Hard to read. Maybe seeing it in play is better, but I doubt it.

Walden, nice book, but I don't see the significance.

Homer: Read some of it, but I think Ramayana is a good substitute. Mahabharata, Bharata Yuda, and Five Pandawans, I think.

Socratic Dialog. Rather wordy. Poetics, ditto. Meditations, ditto.

I wonder why Sun Tzu Art of War isn't included? It is concise, practical, and IMO, more relevant than the Origin of Species.

The Art of Comic Books: Regarding comics, there's Sequential Art by Will Eisner. I wonder why that is not mentioned?

Koyaanisqatsi: I'm not sure whether the clip I saw was it, but if it is, then IMO, any movie that has no plot, character, dialog has no story. Random scenes? It may stimulate the mind, but I have better things to do.

Code Complete: I actually bought the book. A careful perusal of it makes me realize that I already have all the knowledge contained in the book. I gave it away as prize for my Quicksort comp. The competition is interesting in that it proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that 99.9% of computer programmers out there don't know quicksort. There are only 6 successful entries, and none of them gave me the optimum solution. The number of whiny babies includes, surprisingly enough, experienced professional computer programmers. No wonder we have Millennium Bug and Dot-Com meltdown!

The Art of Computer Programming: I gave up after 5 pages. Learning and using obsolete computer programming language is one thing. Learning a computer language without a computer is something else. I never found Algorithms wanting, so that's what I use.

Exercises: Observe (p. 138)

This is interesting that you think observation is good skill, but you fail to mention Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. Sherlock Holmes notwithstanding, his Lost Word is very interesting, also. It is scientific yet entertaining, serious yet with humor, and it has incredible setting, character and story construction.

Chapter 10:
Galilean Relativity: Interesting idea, but how are you going to issue orders? Without self autonomy, it is trivial for any general to destroy stifled armies, waiting for orders. The game then becomes who can be better in hunting faraway armies. Rather boring, don't you think?

Napoleonic Cavalry: Fog of war. WarCraft 2, I believe has it. I hate it.

Napoleon in Space: KDE has a game like this. Your spaceship travels at the speed of light. You concentrate your ships to attack a planet. You have to calculate where the ships are and how many turns it will take to get there. I think I like the Colors game better. Never did play that space game much. Too much calculation and guesswork to be fun.

Attack of the Cellular Automata: Oh, great. Here's a game of LIFE, and you turn it into a WAR game. What's wrong with you? I actually designed a game using such a rule, but I have none of this bomber and whatnot. Defense does enjoy a great advantage, as you pointed out, but I solved it by merely limiting the resource unit count. Hence, the more efficient player will win the game. Very simple rules, and can be easily implemented in a weekend or two. I may implement a simplistic version of it someday, but it will have no AI. My analysis of it convinced me that it is as difficult to do as a Go game. I'm not that good.

Volkerwanderung: the player's identity is so diffuse. I think this will be an Art House game. Very limited appeal. Who wants to win a war and lose identity? Alexander the Great makes a compelling case.

Third World Dictator. I'm not going to do this, but maybe Will Wright is interested. :)

Lies: I like playing card version better. Only a hard-core logician like you would think of Visi-Lie. Then again, I may be misunderstanding your description.

Spies: I think chase scenes can be nicely integrated. Explosions can be in form of booby traps, which provides an interesting diversion. A board game, rpg, or FPS would be viable medium for this.

Wheels of Commerce Most successful financial simulation I've seen is nowhere as sophisticated as yours. Maybe there's a reason for it.

Corporate Politics: Isn't there a system to do this backstabbing already? Brutus?

Evolution: Greg Costikyan mentioned this also. I don't think this is viable. Creatures sells nowhere near Black and White. There's a good reason for it. Then again, maybe Will Wright wants to do it. :)

Self-Modifying Game: I once designed Calvin Ball the Game. I decided that in honor of Bill Waterson, I abandon the project. :)

Mooser-Gooser: I think this is misguided. If I am tasked with connecting a parent with his/her child, then I would say, build a chat room. Drawing program. Shared application. Web Cam. The result would be something like Microsoft NetMeeting. As far as a game is concerned, well, you'll think of something. :)

However, Mooser-Gooser would be a terrible game. The sticking point would be that the child would be responsible to play by ordering Moose around. This is no fun for the child, especially if he has to coordinate his play with the parent. Children explore. They don't solve problems. Let the child explore where he wants and the parent be a guardian angel who helps guard the child and make him safe. I'm not saying that game will sell better than the other, but it will be more in-line with children behavior. I gleamed this by reading a camping article where the parents willfully surrender all the planning to the kids. They have fun, and a very relaxing time. Not at all like adults do it.

Chapter 11
I find it bothersome that you compare so much storytelling to Hollywood. I guess everything does go to the movies eventually, but there are other venues as well, not exclusively Hollywood.

Interactive story telling needs thousands of verbs (p.166). I disagree. What Lucas Art game features music as interface? How about Troll Tales? Monkey Island series is successful without overabundance of verbs. In fact, the focus is on problem solving, which is good. To say that Interactive Fiction needs thousands of verbs is to say that RPG needs hundreds of monsters. I disagree. Too much of <insert favorite element here> is not a good thing.

Chapter 12:

MMORPG: A good thing. Glorified chatrooms they may be, but they are still a good thing. Better to socialize on-line than to play alone with an inflatable doll, eh? Chess chat rooms? Bring them on!

Licensed Games:
ET was a reworked game? So, the game will bomb whether or not it is an ET game, right? The reason why ET drained the industry isn't that the game sucks, but that Atari executive lost touch with reality. In any case, Tartan Army enjoys a profitable license. Build the game, AND THEN hunt for license, not the other way around.

New Input Device:
Brainwave headband. This is currently used to treat Attention Deficit Disorder.

Exercise Cycle: I saw a few of these in arcade games. Never felt inclined to try it.

Force Feedback: Good for simulation, but I fail to see other uses. Vibration is cheaper and has more utility.

Eyeball Tracker: I prefer Nintendo Power Glove, and Sony's Eyetoy!

Microphone: Sony Eyetoy is a better device. There's an adventure game called Lifeline which uses microphone for input, but my reaction to it is "I'm not buying the game unless I can use joypad to play the game." Eyetoy, however, is instant hit whatever the game, but especially good for party game. Good for exercise, too! Nintendogs has augmented gameplay with microphone input.

The Sims:
Never played it. I don't feel like playing it. But I guess there's a lot of people who like it. I'd be very interested in seeing the demographic info on this game. Is it a family game? Older crowd? Girl gamers? Very interesting conclusions can be had by analyzing the demographics. Actually, I did play it on GameBoy Advance. Feels like too much work at the end.

Short-term Thinker:
Since when does Hollywood provide long term investment? Their investment is limited to here's a camera and editing suite. Go make a movie! type of thing.

Never heard a supermarket (low margin industry) makes long term investment either. Entertainment, in general doesn't make such commitment.

Hollywood doesn't make decisions based on rational basis. They make one based on politics. Read Dawn Steel's They Can Kill You, But They Can't Eat You for an insider view of it.

Everybody's a Game Designer. (p.180):
anybody should be able to design games, right? WRONG!
I hate it when people say that to play chess you have to spent lots of time studying and years of practice to become a good chess player. It didn't take me all that long. Certainly, I'm no expert (2000+ rating), but even at 1500, I'm a good player and can beat most people I play. Plus, I NEVER study openings. Most of my openings are rather bad, but I can still win in the endgame. It makes a more interesting game to play than one that I play perfectly.

Of course, anybody can design games. Doesn't mean they can make a living at it, but of course anybody can design one, or two, or three. Ask Sid Sackson, or read his book, A Gamut of Games.

ignorance of game design was a strength (p.181) Sounds like something Roberta Williams would say. I believe Sierra-OnLine was a very successful company.

John Carmack 99% programming and 1% game design: Sounds like something Thomas Edison would say, and I believe General Electric is a very successful company. Reading the book Making of Doom shows that John Carmack is not ignorant of game design issues either.

Hollywood envy: Actually, people will bring their experiences from old medium to new ones. If Hollywood people are the one investing in this entertainment industry, then it will be like Hollywood. If stodgy old men are investing, then you'd have stodgy old games. No surprise there.

Young Males: I think bored housewives are making an entry here. but don't quote me on that. :)

Sleaze: Since when sex doesn't sell? As long as they are selling sick gag jokes, sex will sell. No surprise there.

reinforcing the cycle: (p.186) I believe Deer Hunter broke out of it without too much money.:)

Chapter 13: Tanktics:
I was wondering if the new one is based on your design. I guess not. BTW, can you think of any reason why I can't sell computer games in padded envelope in today's market?

Lesson 29: Never build a technology and then go looking for a game to fit it. (p. 206) As I understand it, that's exactly what John Carmack did with Quake, and it was hugely successful. When John Romero tried your advice with Daikatana, he failed miserably. Greg Costikyan claimed that he can make a game out of rubber band and some paper clips. I would further say that I can make a game out or rubber bands OR paper clips. :) Give me some playing cards, and I can make some games, too. :)

Chapter 15: Wizard

So that's how Atari display work. I was wondering about it.

You never said where the bullet goes if the player shoots at hidden monster. At 2K, though, I believe that the bullet will go to the monster. This provides direction. The heart beat thumps will provide the distance. The fact that the monster is invisible means nothing as I have direction and distance. Am I wrong?

You couldn't cram a multiply/divide library into the game (p.226) and yet you use multiply code in your algorithm. Speaking of which, your solution is extremely confusing and I find it easier to design a multiply/divide algorithm instead. It's easy!

Let's say you want to multiply 5 by 7. 5 is 101 and 7 is 111. So, we have 7*1 + 7*4 = 7+28=35. In binary form that's
111 + 11100 = 100011. We skip adding 1110 because the second bit is zero. So, by shifting and addition, we have achieved multiplication.

Division is a little bit more complex, as there's comparison to be put in there. Let's use your example 27 divided by 10. 27 is 11011. 10 is 1010. First we shifted 10 until it is greater than 27 or 101000. Then we shift it back.
Value >27? Bit Accumulate

101000  Y  0  0
10100  N  1  10100
1010  Y  0  10100
101  N  1  11001
10  N  1  11011
1  Y  0  11011

How long did it take me to come up with this? A few hours. I'm sure you can implement this algorithm quickly in assembly as it is nothing more than shift, comparison, and addition. And as I understand it, the running time is extremely consistent, and should be quicker since it doesn't use multiply, merely shifting.

(p.232) I'm not sure you achieved hidden movement goal, but never having seen Wizard in action, I'll take your word for it.

Chapter 16:
User friendliness is very important. This was driven home early in my career. Actually, my programming class. I have a funny story, but it's not important. The fact is, the greatest tool isn't the one that is most powerful, but one that is dependable, reliable, robust, and does its job well, regardless screwing up by the users. Easy to say, but hard to do. This is why I hate NT. It crashes once a week and had to undergo preventive reboot procedure. 3DMax, at least the early version, is worse, crashing every 45 minutes. Things are better now, I suppose, but as long as people are buying features instead of reliability, I don't see a solution to this. My beef is that the software industry covers their rear by stipulating that software purchases are non-refundable once opened. Needless to say, I don't buy software anymore.

Chapter 17: Scram:

It appears that Scram is an excellent project for a graphic artist to do. Simple game play, gorgeous graphics, and a good edutainment title. What's not to like?

Cursor may be uncommon at the time, but player graphics are not. You could have use a little Bob the Mechanic character as cursor and move that around. As far as identifying what things to click on, you can provide some animation, or a flag somewhere. If this isn't clear enough, a simple example in the manual should clear it up, so I don't see why you felt compelled to use jumping cursor as opposed to sliding cursor. Furthermore, I don't see why you couldn't redo the graphic to accommodate jumping cursor better. A simple shuffling of the elements can do it.

BTW, if you have the formula for this, I'd be interested. I may decide to rebuild this game using modern graphic. Just the basic formula, don't need the whole enchilada.

Chapter 18: Eastern Front 1941.
I read your article on it on creative computing, I believe. Wonderful stuff. The smooth scrolling map technology is available in modern device, such as GameBoyAdvance. Any thought of rebuilding the game there?

The AI and line detection routing is interesting, but I discovered a generic purpose pattern recognition for wargames strategy. I probably should write it down somewhere, but not now.

Chapter 19: Gossip.

I read your description, and while I have no problem with the spring system, I have trouble finding out the player's purpose. I simply don't see a reason why a player would want to gossip around.

I designed a similar system, but I gave the players goal. My game was a dating game where you have a popular guy and popular girl, and they may not like each other! So the popular guy will chase his girl, while other girl tries to sabotage the process. Ditto for the opposite sex. Of course, if the popular guy falls for the popular girl and vice versa, then it will make for some lively competition and game! I'm surprised you didn't mention this very social game, but then again Gossip isn't too popular, but as you say, it is but a simple stepping stone.

Stupid interns are one thing. Stupid but obnoxious interns are another. Sometimes I meet stupid but obnoxious professional, too.

Chapter 20: Excalibur
Symphonic quality requires a generalist world view. On the other hand, stubborn game testing with various people can definitely help! It has been said that Command and Conquer with its very diverse units requires some mind boggling testing. Whether that's true or not, I don't know, but I do know either the designer is a genius or they did some horrendous beta testing. What I lack in smart, I make up with hard work. That kind of thing. :)

Chapter 21: Balance of Power. Always get the mushroom. The longest one was 3 subturns. The game play is linear. I don't do that too well. If the conflict escalation is divided over subsequent turns with other issues being discussed at the same time, I may have a chance, or even enjoyed it. As it is, as soon as the other side increases the challenge, I would counter challenge and get the mushroom. Didn't any of your beta players ran into that problem? Or maybe I just didn't experiment enough?

chapter 22: to hell with grids
Oh, I thought you'd adopt miniature rules. Whatever works, I guess.

No floating point processors. Fixed point system, maybe?

Chapter 23: siboot

Regular rock-scissors-paper is boring because it's completely arbitrary. Strangely enough, when Yahoo! came up with its IMEnvironment, a chat system, it has just such a game. I played against my brother and someone on the Internet. Both times, I won decisively. I felt like I knew, telepathically what the other person would play. My 80% hits over several games means that luck is highly improbable. Just an aberrant data, I guess, but I do believe in ESP (telepathy) due to personal experience.

No other game boasted as many significant innovations as Siboot (p.336).
I disagree. Intransitive combat relationships-Ancient Art of war (p.323). Inverse parser-Troll Tales or Mickey's Space Adventure. Working language of interaction- Infocom, and uh, Adventure. Dream Combat-OK, the dream bit is original, but combat? Hardly. Information Economy-Don't know about this. Balance of Power don't have it? General purpose deal making-General purpose? Well, ok. But how do I know yours is general purpose and not limited to Siboot? Dynamic emotional relationships among character-Gossip?

This was the first computer game with characters who were emotionally real. (p.337) That sounds familiar as with Racter. Eliza has some genuine emotional, too. Modern example could be Chessmaster with its different personalities. Yes, chess have emotion! Not very noticeable if you don't play lots of games, but it's there.

Lesson 65: Limit yourself to one major innovation per game. Of course, a lot of people would disagree with that. One innovation: too derivative. 3 innovations: too novel, feeling weird. 2 innovations: uniquely original.

Chapter 24: Guns and Butter
ModemWars was a flop because it didn't promise rich play, fairly or not, and tying up phone lines is not welcomed. This was at a time where dual phone line is not common.

Civilization: I always hated the defense bonus a city would enjoy. It's pretty darn near impossible to attack a city successfully. I don't think I ever manage to do that.

The most effective algorithm would minimize the total lengths of all spokes. (p.344). I disagree. Consider a square with ABCD as points. The spokes would be AB, BC, and CD. AD will not be connected since you have connection through BC! Therefore, it is invalid. Your alternate route is based on angle. I don't believe it is the correct solution either. Certainly, if two cities were in a line, you wouldn't want to create 2 spokes to them, but connect to the nearer one only. However, there are problems with angles that I discarded it almost immediately.

FYI: to minimize total length, you can find the shortest distance between 2 points. Then you find nearest point to the connection. Repeat until done. The cycle count would be 62*2 + 61*3 + 60*4 + … + 1*63.

My solution basically asks the question: "Suppose you want to go from one city to another, would you use existing road, or would it be better to blaze a new road?" This, in effect, economizes the spokes without insisting of theoretical perfect solution, but practical one. The solution I got was simplicity itself and very easy to implement. It is also pure without any blemishes that plagued your angle solution.

First I would pick a city to start, then I ask the question, which cities are nearest to this city, enough to blaze a trail to? I could have sorted the cities according to distance, but the solution I have basically pick out a random city, and then drawing a line through the city perpendicular to the original city. All the cities that are across the line away from the original city cannot possibly be considered near. Keep repeating this, and what's left are the original city and its neighbors. No fuss, no muss. It is quick, too, as it is a divide and conquer algorithm.

Building provinces is trickier. You said it's easy to do by connecting the midpoints of the spokes. But that's not true! If that's all you did, you have holes everywhere! You have to consider the center of the midpoints of the spoke, as well. The end result is a Vignere diagram. And I don't see what's wrong with it being polygonal, but regarding art, it is in the eyes of the beholder. I probably wouldn't erase the spokes connecting the cities. Drawing a line through the mountain is perfectly acceptable to me! This way, you don't have to squint if the provinces border is very tiny. I also would omit the ocean, since there's no naval unit whatsoever, and I'd probably make the map a wrap-around one, just to make things interesting.

Naming Names: Nice description of Markov Chain.

The Economic System: Sounds to me that all these optimizing can be automated.

Alliances: The overall level of distrust built up so high that nobody would trust anybody enough to form an alliance. (p.355) I wonder why it didn't occur to you the simple solution of decaying factor. You can attack this problem in two ways. First, you can say "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" and provide a positive trust as long as they don't attack. Second, you can reduce the distrust level by providing a normalizing system, by subtracting everything by the minimum value, for example. And if you are any more clever, you can program the AI to consider allying with the enemy, but the simple solution would work well enough, I imagine.

Gabriel (p.361) appeared for 3 paragraphs. Eliminating him won't make any difference and probably would be more coherent. I consider this a mistake, and I made such mistake early in my writing work. At least, I consider this minimal form intrusion a mistake.

Hmmm. Tuning the game would take more than 3 months, if I read your chapter correctly. I could be wrong. I guess we'll never know. Unless that is, you'd be willing to rebuild the game for modern game system.

Chapter 25: Balance of Planet.
I think this is a very good game to have, or rather a very good edutainment software. You best sell this to schools and other educational institutions. You mentioned possible upgrade. Assuming you'll sell 10,000 copies, can you do it and still make profit?

Chapter 26: Patton strike back.
Anti Piracy: And I thought Chris Crawford was an idiot, who couldn't code a solid program. Silly me!

Marketing point: Would Patton Strikes Back be successful as Battle of the Bulge? I think so. There's a reason why Sid Meier worked on a Gettysburg game, even though from gaming point of view, the battle of Gettysburg would be disjointed and not much fun.

Too late to save wargaming from the afficiandos. (p.421) Command and Conquer did it. Of course, they have to do Dune series first, and it's hard, but they succeeded eventually and RTS gaming is born.

Chapter 27: I was hoping to see Erasmatazz discussed. Hasn't it been 10 years? What happened?

The face in Erasmatron is terrible! Have you considered hiring a good artist?

Hint system: Used them in Chess. Always lost the game. Never trusted them.

Chapter 28:
Music from printers: I saw a demo on that once on TV. Forgot what it is, though. It's been a very long time!

Early multiplayer game: My first exposure of it was Diplomacy. No idea what it was all about when it was shown to me, though.

Getting a job: Tried to get a job at Lockheed. They never did respond. I wonder why?

Alan Kay: I don't know his work much. It appears that he designed Object Oriented programming system. Unfortunately, there's too much OO emphasis on it right now. Talking with one of these OO evangelists is just like talking to Java evangelist: Too much hype, and not enough practical usage. Just as well, I designed my own OO system using plain old C.

Bill Carris. Pity. I hope I don't turn out like him. But if job search went out for months, I'd make a demo, you know?

Dragon Speech: They let you in with a sword? Security must be lax in those days! :)

CGDC: So that's what happened. I was wondering why the fees are so ridiculously high. Couldn't you give away the extra money as grants? Lots of interesting art projects are done through grants. IGDA is an alternative, but I fail to see any benefit in joining them.

This has been a very long book review. It is my habit to pick out errors and mistakes of a book writer. Usually, though, I can see how the writers make their statement, but not this book. I tried to pick out Ernest Adams book, too, but I couldn't get many errors out of it. I noticed that he only make generic statements, so maybe that's why. Please don't take this as insult, as I do think you're one of the better person out there. However, I have no respect regarding experience whatsoever, so if you start saying you younguns don't know what it's like, then I'm not interested.

Walking 12 miles through snow to work each day is impossible. Walking a good pace at 3 mph means 8 hours walking, 8 hours working, and 8 hours sleeping/eating. Skiing maybe, but not walking. Then again, we're talking California. Even though I've seen frozen desert in New Mexico, it's not an everyday occurrence and therefore must conclude that it is nothing more than your (lame) attempt at humor. :)

Sorry to be so long, but I just had to get this out of my mind.