Game theory: What does it mean for a game to be fun to lose.

[Amnykon]

I’ve been thinking of leading a few discussions on game theory. Here is the first one:

During an interview with Donald X, the creator of Dominion, he said "An example of an overall [game design] philosophy would be, it has to be fun to lose."(https://dominionstrategy.com/2012/12/20/interview-with-donald-x-vaccarino-part-i-boardgame-design/)

What do you think it mean for a game to be fun to lose?

 

[Klumpen]

I’ve been thinking of leading a few discussions on game theory. Here is the first one:

During an interview with Donald X, the creator of Dominion, he said "An example of an overall [game design] philosophy would be, it has to be fun to lose."(https://dominionstrategy.com/2012/12/20/interview-with-donald-x-vaccarino-part-i-boardgame-design/)

What do you think it mean for a game to be fun to lose?

I think it's a sign that the gameplay is fun and it's not one of those abusive pat-on-the-back achievement hunting games that make so many millions these days by exploiting low self-esteem and addiction predisposition.
As so often there's also a Southpark episode about it: http://www.southpark.de/alle-episoden/s18e06-freemium-gibts-nicht-umsonst

I think current AAA games that have a strong focus on achievements and a truckload of expensive DLCs fall into this category.

 

[ptitSeb]

Achievement, IMO, are a way to make game easy to win for casual player, but still offering a challenge for hardcore player.
Like all system, it can of course be use to just make more money...

A game is great if is fun to loose? I don't know. At least if you are not bothered to much to loose and start again yeah...
But I also guess it depend on the type of game.
For example, Tetris... you end up loosing at some point... So it's fine to loose... Same for infinite runner...
But for a story-driven game, you can be bothered loosing, as you'll probably have to redo and redo and redo the same part...

 

[Yoyobuae]

But for a story-driven game, you can be bothered loosing, as you'll probably have to redo and redo and redo the same part...

Depending on the game, it can make it more exciting actually.

If the gameplay itself is engaging, then it doesn't matter having to redo the same parts some number of times, the player is still enjoying it. In fact, having the threat of loosing always there makes the whole experience all the more exciting. And when the player finally makes it thru, the victory all the more enjoyable.

But, it depends a lot on the game. Because if the game gets boring quick then having to redo parts would make it even more boring.

 

[Caine]

For example, Tetris... you end up loosing at some point... So it's fine to loose...

Not entirely true. Your port of Heboris for example is a Tetris variant with a clearly defined ending. Yet, it is still fine to lose it.

While I agree with you on what Achievements should be, in reality the majority are not achievements at all, just milestones in the game. Like all the crappy "finished level x" achievements.

I would say that if a game has enjoyable gameplay, then losing should not be bad.
In fact, personally I would even agree with the stronger statement that a game which you never lose is a bad game.

 

[ZXDunny]

I find it irritating when you can only get certain achievements though purchasing DLC or whatever with real cash. At that point, the game usually gets uninstalled.

 

[Amnykon]

As this is a discussion on how to develop games, I guess I should have asked
"What qualities in a game makes it fun to lose?"

I think it's a sign that the gameplay is fun and it's not one of those abusive pat-on-the-back achievement hunting games that make so many millions these days by exploiting low self-esteem and addiction predisposition.
As so often there's also a Southpark episode about it: http://www.southpark.de/alle-episoden/s18e06-freemium-gibts-nicht-umsonst

I think current AAA games that have a strong focus on achievements and a truckload of expensive DLCs fall into this category.

I agree the focus should be on the gameplay, not simply mindlessly grinding for some random reward. If the game play is fun, it doesn't really matter if you win or lose.

Achievement, IMO, are a way to make game easy to win for casual player, but still offering a challenge for hardcore player.
Like all system, it can of course be use to just make more money...

A game is great if is fun to loose? I don't know. At least if you are not bothered to much to loose and start again yeah...
But I also guess it depend on the type of game.
For example, Tetris... you end up loosing at some point... So it's fine to loose... Same for infinite runner...
But for a story-driven game, you can be bothered loosing, as you'll probably have to redo and redo and redo the same part...

Interesting. If a game is a challenge to a wide variety of players with different skill level, it will be more fun. What is your feeling about handicapping a player who is more experienced?

 

[Klumpen]

If the gameplay itself is engaging, then it doesn't matter having to redo the same parts some number of times, the player is still enjoying it. In fact, having the threat of loosing always there makes the whole experience all the more exciting. And when the player finally makes it thru, the victory all the more enjoyable.

Imho Diablo 2 did it right by integrating a "hardcore" mode with permadeath. Many people only played this mode while I didn't even once.
What I hate about some games is that there only is a hardcore mode and nothing else.

 

[ElPoco]

Being fun to lose is a key aspect for boardgames.
Usually, boardgames are meant for multiple players and only one of these players will win. If it's only fun to win, this means that only a minority of the players will have fun playing the game.
So a good boardgame has to be fun no matter if you win or lose.

This applies less to single-player (or cooperative) videogames where you don't care if only the player win and all the IA characters lose. However, some games still pull it off by not being goal-centered: Crusader Kings II doesn't really have victory conditions. You play until the end of the simulated period and then you get a score. You can set some goals to yourself, but that's it. You'll have fun having interesting stories, not necessarily by achieving something. This opens up interesting aspects like being able to choose sub-optimal choices just to see where it leads, or because it feels more fun this way, without feeling that it will hold you back and prevent you from reaching your goal.

 

[Yoyobuae]

As this is a discussion on how to develop games, I guess I should have asked
"What qualities in a game makes it fun to lose?"

When the player still has a realistic expectation of winning.

If the player doesn't think he can win, then it is frustrating. If the player obviously sees he will win easily then it is boring. It's a balance in between the two which makes it fun to loose.

The learning curve is also important. It is expected that the player will become better during the course of the game, so the challenges need to be set according to the expected player skill at each point of the game.

 

[iprice]

There was a BomberMan game (possibly all of them - I only recell playing one or two) that I played years ago, where if you died you got to sit outside the play-arena and throw bombs.

 

[Wrath Of Khan]

Halo was fun to lose- marveling at the A.I and all the different combinations of things that sprang from it. The A.I could kill you in such an inventive manner that you would just smile and swear to get him next time. The various weapons, vehicles and enemies all interconnected such that some new occurrence could still happen even after hundreds of hours of game-play.

 

[Askarus]

Super Mario 3D Land.

It was the easiest Mario Game I've ever played. It was a mere joke.
It was the first time dor me to be really happy when I lost my first life.

 

[Caine]

Halo was fun to lose- marveling at the A.I and all the different combinations of things that sprang from it.

Amazing how experiences can differ so much. For me, Halo was one of the most bland and boring shooters I've ever played.

 

[_jr_]

Fun to lose means that even losing rewards the player (e.g. with a cutscene or some interesting information) and doesn't force her to do something that isn't fun (e.g. by having saves or interesting levels with replay value). But all of this is highly subjective, I think.

 

[Neelix]

I find that the multiple endings approach (each with it's own unique content) seems to work well. I spent quite a lot of time playing through the DS game "999" multiple times so I could see all the different endings.

-Neelix

 

[Amnykon]

Being fun to lose is a key aspect for boardgames.
Usually, boardgames are meant for multiple players and only one of these players will win. If it's only fun to win, this means that only a minority of the players will have fun playing the game.
So a good boardgame has to be fun no matter if you win or lose.

This applies less to single-player (or cooperative) videogames where you don't care if only the player win and all the IA characters lose.

I agree most board games are PvP and most videogames are PvE. I also agree that my question mainly refers to PvP games, but being fun to lose is a key aspect for videogames just as much as board games, especially PvP games.

However, some games still pull it off by not being goal-centered: Crusader Kings II doesn't really have victory conditions. You play until the end of the simulated period and then you get a score. You can set some goals to yourself, but that's it. You'll have fun having interesting stories, not necessarily by achieving something. This opens up interesting aspects like being able to choose sub-optimal choices just to see where it leads, or because it feels more fun this way, without feeling that it will hold you back and prevent you from reaching your goal.

Not having winners or losers… that somewhat goes around the question… I like this kind of thinking.

When the player still has a realistic expectation of winning.

If the player doesn't think he can win, then it is frustrating. If the player obviously sees he will win easily then it is boring. It's a balance in between the two which makes it fun to loose.

The learning curve is also important. It is expected that the player will become better during the course of the game, so the challenges need to be set according to the expected player skill at each point of the game.

Once a game outcome is determined, the game must end quickly. This is probably the largest flaw of monopoly. In a board game I am making similar to final fantasy tactics, I modified the end game condition from killing all opponent’s units to just killing their leader for this very reason. As I side benefit, this also increased the uncertainty of who is winning.

Fun to lose means that even losing rewards the player (e.g. with a cutscene or some interesting information) and doesn't force her to do something that isn't fun (e.g. by having saves or interesting levels with replay value). But all of this is highly subjective, I think.

Reminds me of crystal castles
When you die, it provides a door to warp to the level you were on last time you played. It also provided a hint on how to warp there if you can’t use the door (usually jump at a specific spot).

 

[Christoph.Krn]

This topic got me thinking, do any games exist where losing is a necessary step for winning? Think destructor-based programming. I don't remember any...

 

[Klumpen]

This topic got me thinking, do any games exist where losing is a necessary step for winning? Think destructor-based programming. I don't remember any...

Grandia 2, first encounter with Millenia.
It took me ages to figure this out since I survived quite long against her and there was a bug where losing resulted in "game over" if you actually tried beating her (which is impossible btw since she has infinite HP in this battle) so you have to just stand there and let her hit you. -.-
Mega Man X, first encounter with this armored violet dude.

I think there were some more JRPGs that had this mechanic.

 

[comradekingu]

A game that kills you because you did wrong, at a point where you feel it, is a great game.

Game-mechanics, fairness and challenge is important. A game that doesn't break you and teach you something new, reveal something about itself and you in the process, is a boring game.

It's the same game-mind as with sports, when you are dead tired, the will to continue arises stronger than ever before.

Modern games are too afraid to kill the player, and try to prevent death at the cost of breaking the 4th wall and ruining the challenge.

It used to be that you just walked in on some unavoidable death, because the game-designer thought yes, you die here, because this is new, you don't know this area. Unpredictably fun.