I need a ruler

Very good news for us: our game for our assignment rocks. After sitting down for a long playtest over the last few days, we have come to two conclusions:

1. Our game is a lot of fun
2. Our game is incredibly well balanced (so far)

My job has been to focus on the mechanics side of the design document for our game. This has caused me to be thinking quite a lot about rules and rule design. The trend for the modern game seems to be supplying rules without... supplying rules. The classic example is GTA3. The sandbox game. Freedom to "do whatever you want".

This has made me think a lot about a rule structure for any games I design in the future. The GTA "model" has been incredibly popular, reinforced by the industry's desperate longing for the release of the fourth game next week. So on a deeper level, what IS the rule structure for this game? Are they clearly defined? Why do people enjoy it so much?

Really, this model is just a loosely enforced critical path. That's what people are feeling freedom from. Underneath this, however, is a much more intricate rule system. Don't die is a big one. Killing will usually result in netting in some good cash. The developers haven't needed to spell most of these out for players though. The rule system is a lot more implicit, and I believe if they were a lot more spelled out it wouldn't be nearly as fun.

Games of yore had rule sets which were entirely explicitly defined. Games like Monopoly, Super Mario, Zork. And these were still fun. These newer implied rule sets usually take place in adventure games. Perhaps players find exploring their boundaries in the game a motivation for playing these sorts of games.

Implied rules sell. There is obviously a yearning in the market for exploratory constraints in gameplay. Thinking on this, here are two of the implications on rules I could think of for the mech game I mentioned in a much earlier post:

1. Multiple ways to exploit the natural physics system - players are wanting more and more freedom in rules of motion. So I'd consider flight, supersonic motion, teleportation. These would need to be constantly made available without great announcement and enhanced during the game to continue to push the player to explore the boundaries of the game.
   
2. The removal of the boundaries between walking around and combat - making these functions available all the time, rather than "switching into a combat area". Usually if you're around friendly units, your combat abilities are negated. What if "friendly fire was turned on", so to speak? Rules defining what can and can't be destroyed may be completely opened up.
3. A severe but subtle reward and penalty system. Obviously, the sandbox idea doesn't throw the game into complete anarchy. Players need to see these rules enforced in some way. Since we are aiming for the implicit rule structure, instead of giving the player immediate feedback for every action, there should also be some sort of longer term effect initiated.
   

I realise this would make a game that would probably sell extremely well. However, I may not find these design decisions particularly fun myself. I never really did get into GTA - one reason being I found this open-endedness not necessarily enjoyable. But, this is a big industry. Games companies are businesses looking to earn revenue, not to create products that it can only sell to its staff. That said, I think explicit rule systems have great merit. Perhaps I'll discuss this in my next post.