Game Design #102: Game Feel (Reloaded)

 My last post on 'game feel' was, on reading it again, a bit of a mess. I didn't orientate folk, link my points, or summarize it properly. Although the comments as usual were interesting and useful I don't think I was clear at all. So rather than add to the wall of text I'm back to attack the topic differently..

Game Feel: Intangible Feeling based on Tangible Elements

Game Feel is an intangible sensation when interacting with videogames. They use words like "immersive world" and "weighty gunplay." I'm relating this theory to tabletop wargames.

Game feel is made up of several tangible elements, such as:

input (how you control the game; i.e. moves you can make, dice, templates, measuring/movement rulers, available choices)

response (how game responds to your actions i.e. lethality of shooting)

aesthetics (visual details - like cool minis and terrain)

metaphor (how game mechanics suit the theme; i.e. Infinity has lethal sci fi shootouts, MESBG has strong focus on heroic actions)

A game should be fun and engaging even if some elements are removed. I.e. I used to play Battlefleet Gothic and Blood Bowl with tokens not minis and had fun - I felt like I was steering a slow ponderous spaceship or footy team regardless - so they had good game feel even when you remove the aesthetic element. A game should be fun if you just plonk down the minis and fight a 1-off game without a fancy narrative campaign to "carry" it.

I'd say game feel is something which can be somewhat objective "Infinity is lethal shooting, reactive and reliant on cover - about making the best of bad choices" which we can probably agree on, but is ultimately mostly opinion: "Warmaster is the only game that makes me feel like a general"

TL:DR The main point I am making is: we can have intangible feelings about a game as to how immersive, engaging and satisfying it is, but these intangibles are made up of several rather more concrete game elements. The exact categories don't interest me that much. 

Point 1: Design Elements - We have Preferences

So games are made up of several design elements which combine to give this rather intangible, vague game feel.

-They can be physical (the minis, terrain, even the dice you use - in the last post I described the feel of 'swingy d20s, sterile d10s, satisfying buckets of d6s, weird d4 non-dice)

-They can be game mechanics (aka rules) such as saving throws, or reaction mechanics.

We as gamers can have strong obvious preferences towards these. While it can be hard to define and explain your feelings towards a game (which can be a bit vague and will differ from person to person) we can usually easily explain WHY we don't like particular mechanics or physical elements;
"The minis suck"  "I hate using d20s and rolling low" "Saving throws add drama"  "IGOUGO seems silly sitting around while the enemy flawlessly executes their moves".

TL:DR While overall game feel is a bit vague and intangible, the individual physical elements (dice, minis etc) and non-physical elements aka game mechanics (be it activation, rolling high vs low, etc) are much easier to explain. We usually have clear preferences.

Point 2: Our Preferences in Game Elements are not Always Best Practice

We sometimes conflate "I like this" with "this is the best" - or worse - "this is the only way." I hate recording in games such as tracking hitpoints or writing orders. But sometimes it may be a good choice. Reaction mechanics may be cool but they don't belong in every game. Sometimes we need to use a d10, d12 or bigger, not a d6: even if we don't like the other dice. Napoleonics are boring and samey for some; others hate anything sci fi. Sometimes rolling low is the only way to guarantee a consistent dice mechanic across a game. Not every game can be made without measurements. Games don't need to reinvent the wheel with unique mechanics to be fun/tactically interesting. 

Some design elements are objective: lots of special rules/rules exceptions or modifiers are harder to remember than a few. Limiting models to 180 vision does mean more decisions than allowing models 360 vision at all times. But most are preferences.

I enjoy saving throws but usually they are kinda a repetitious, needless extra roll which can "undo" damage. Why roll for damage if you're going to roll another, extra roll to undo it? Saving throws are objectively, needless extra rolls which slow the game (and probably frustrate some!)

TL:DR We often have strong preferences in game elements - what we enjoy. However they are in most cases subjective and are not the best - or only - solution available.

 Point 3: Game Feel can be greater or less than the sum of their parts

I enjoy MESBG although I feel its game mechanics are in general, distinctly average - aka 20 year old streamlined 40K:

Strong aesthetic and lore

Average (simple) input - 6" moves, 24" shooting, roll high on d6 - vanilla as it gets

Output centres on heroic actions and melee for decisive action

Good metaphor - game emphasizes heroic combat of movies

So the game is mechanically unremarkable but has very good metaphor - matching gameplay to strong aesthetic/lore.

Infinity the Game has strong aesthetic and metaphor - with very complex input (vertical learning curve) and output that emphasizes either (a) stay in cover (b) use a cool gadget (c) die fast. 

Again, the elements don't have to follow videogame 'game-feel' convention - but I'm using them for consistency. I also really like the term 'metaphor' - how the gameplay of a game matches its theme/fluff. I've actually identified metaphor recently without having a word for it.

Sometimes a game can be very strong in one or two elements which overrides deficiencies elsewhere.

40K/Warhammer has a very strong aesthetic - visuals, lore etc.  I think 40K has pretty weak metaphor in parts - space marines are just +1 humans where in the lore they are terrifying one-man armies who can throw a grenade so hard it will cause more damage than the explosion itself, and the input/output gameplay is pretty meh in terms of tactics etc.

In fact I'd say aesthetic is VERY important (see link above) - there seems to be an increase in games that recognize this - very strong lore, a cool campaign, amazing kitbashed grimdark minis - but not much actual gameplay attached? I.e. super-simple, almost nonexistent 'rules' but strong aesthetic. I remember one post I pretty much describe the rules of The Doomed to someone in comments and they think I'm winding them up.  I think an interesting test of "is this a good game or is it just relying on the theme/aesthetic/fluff" is would you play the game with just tokens rather than minis? (i.e. if you removed the aesthetic element, would the game itself still be fun?) Is this game fun without the campaign?

Other times, a game has great game-feel (to us) while using mechanics we personally dislike. Perhaps the mechanics merely "do the job" - contributing suitably to the overall feel of the game even if we don't enjoy them/think them optimal. Or perhaps they just don't 'get in the way' of us enjoying other, stronger aspects of the game such as the aesthetics.

TL:DR Sometimes game can be more than the some of its parts - probably because a strength in one area compensating for other elements. Or while we may personally dislike a game element, it still 'does its job' in contributing to the overall 'game feel.' You can enjoy a game which is universally recognized as "clunky" or has individual mechanics you dislike. 'Game feel' can transcend individual elements.

SUMMARY

1. Games can have a 'feel' which is fairly intangible - satisfaction, immersion can be quite subjective. "I felt like a general" "The game feels like a fast paced shootout where you watch angles" If you can remove elements and it is still good (say playing with tokens rather than minis) it has good 'game feel.'

2. This hard-to-define 'feeling' is created by several elements (input/output/aesthetic/metaphor etc*). *The individual definitions don't matter as I stole them from videogame design.

3. We have clear preferences on individual physical elements (dice, minis etc) and game mechanics

4. Sometimes these preferences are not most efficient or most tactical. Or the only option. "I like this best" is fine - "This is the best and only solution" - less fine.

5. Sometimes a game 'feels' great despite defying our preferences or even objective analysis . Perhaps it is so strong in one area (aesthetics, lore, for example) it glosses over weakness.

Identifying game feel and elements

 Where I am going next?: Some games have a strong "game feel" but dated mechanics, or maybe a poor link between lore and gameplay. There seems to be a strong nostalgic push back towards Necromunda, Mordhiem, Battlefleet Gothic etc - even in my out of the way part of the world. I reckon every game designer has started with 'making a better 40K.'  If we can identify:

a) games we like (do they have elements that we dislike? i..e games we like "in spite" of x and y)

b) what is the 'game feel' we enjoyed

c) what are the individual elements that contribute to game feel

d) are there poor mechanics/game elements we can 'swap out' with better

...then we can replicate (or even improve) the game-feel of favourite games, transfer the game-feel of one game to another, or even align game-feel more with the lore/enhance realism (aka improve metaphor).

Last post I asked "what games do you enjoy - why?" which was pretty vague. If you think about a favourite game in terms of points a) to d) it may be a bit easier....