Difference between revisions of "Strategic Knowledge"

Revision as of 19:55, 25 May 2011

Knowledge based on game elements, rules, possible actions, or evaluation functions of games without regards to specific game states.

This pattern is a still a stub.

Many games are easier to win if players have information about how the actions and events work, even though it is not necessarily required to be able to play. When this information is usable for all game sessions of the same game, the information is Strategic Knowledge about the game.

Examples

The locations of power-ups and pick-ups in first-person shooter deathmatches are essential knowledge for players to successfully compete against each other.

The knowledge of long sequences of combos in fighting games such as the Tekken or Dead or Alive series are Strategic Knowledge to players, even if they may not have the skill to successfully perform them.

Using the pattern

Basically any information about how a game is designed can be seen as Strategic Knowledge but a distinction can be made between the knowledge which can be learned in terms directly based upon the diegetic presentation and that which depends on the underlying structures of the game design.

Knowledge about Game Worlds can relate to their composition or what one can do within them.

All Strategic Locations, including but not limited to places with Environmental Effects, Chargers, Choke Points, Controllers, Goal Points, Inaccessible Areas, Installations, Resource Locations, Safe Havens, Self-Service Kiosks, and Spawn Points, are potential Strategic Knowledge in games.

Examples of Strategic Knowledge related to actions within Game Worlds include the Achilles' Heels and Vulnerabilities of Enemies towards specific Weapons, how to efficiently make use of the Asymmetric Abilities of Units, Combos that are initially unknown due to being Hidden Rules, the requirements and possibilities of Crafting, and how Combos or Emergent Gameplay can arise from Construction.

The knowledge about the correct values of goals consists mainly of knowing the Tradeoff values between various Resources,Rewards, and Penalties. This can be used to influence choices in Selectable Sets of Goals and Hierarchies of Goals, and knowing when to strive for Transfer of Control or what areas to try and achieve Area Control over. In cases of Unknown Goals, knowing what Predefined Goals exist is Strategic Knowledge in itself.

Examples of Strategic Knowledge related to information about actions are how to perform Combos, what

enemies have, and what places are most important to Guard. Knowing the likelihood of events and actions mainly consists of knowing all the possible Predictable Consequences in games or the probabilities of Dice and other randomizers in games with high degrees of Randomness. The easiest knowledge in these cases are predetermined Ultra-Powerful Events such as Moveable Tiles or Shrinking Game Worlds. Knowledge of the exact effects of Damage or Delayed Effects, and the Tradeoffs between Risk/Reward choices (especially in Betting) are also part of these types of Strategic Knowledge.

A typical way of letting players acquire Strategic Knowledge is through Game State Overviews, Cut Scenes, Experimenting, or being Spectators to games played by others. This becomes easier when the information presented is Perfect Information and, in the case of Spectators, requires that the information is Public Information.

Can Be Instantiated By

Diegetically Outstanding Features, Fixed Distributions, Predictable Consequences, Randomness, Thematic Consistency, Zero-Player Games

Combos together with Heterogeneous Game Element Ownership

Can Be Modulated By

Evolving Rule Sets, Multiplayer Games Stimulated Planning,

can be used to create knowledge-based Meta Games.

Since having information that others do not, Hidden Rules that can be discovered during gameplay are always a possible source for Strategic Knowledge.

Diegetic Aspects

Interface Aspects

Narrative Aspects

A simple way to intentionally convey Strategic Knowledge in games is through the use of Cutscenes since players cannot risk be distracted by gameplay while the information expressing the knowledge is presented.

Consequences

That at least one player understand and enact the rules of a game is a requirement for Self-Facilitated Games to be played, and due to this Strategic Knowledge is a prerequisite for these types of games. The possibility of developing Strategic Knowledge allows players to have gives Empowerment in relation to a game, and if it can successfully be applied to actions performed it can translate to having Game Mastery. As a specific example, Strategic Knowledge related to Strategic Locations can help Game World Navigation and winning Races. It can also create Stimulated Planning in game design both during and before gameplay in the form of Strategic Planning, but also Internal Conflicts since players may be better away of the Risk/Reward structures that exist.

The possibility to have Strategic Knowledge about a game allows several types of Extra-Game Actions: extracting and Memorizing that knowledge, and communicating the knowledge between players either as Extra-Game Information within game sessions or Trans-Game Information outside game sessions. While this Social Interaction can take place within single game sessions for Multiplayer Games, it can occur before and after games in both these and Single-Player Games (players in two concurrent Single-Player Games can also exchange information also but this is not within the same game session). Games with Evolving Rule Sets, e.g. Magic: The Gathering or CityVille, provide a special case here since it may be a Red Queen Dilemma for players to keep up with the increasing knowledge available.

The possibility of making use of Strategic Knowledge learned during a game session provides Replayability as long as Exaggerated Perception of Influence or Further Player Improvement Potential also exists - otherwise it is likely to work against Exaggerated Perception of Influence, Luck, and Replayability. Related to this is the fact that Strategic Knowledge is difficult to combine with Surprises since the information known through the pattern is consistent between all game instances.

Relations

Can Instantiate

Empowerment, Extra-Game Actions, Game Mastery, Internal Conflicts, Memorizing, Self-Facilitated Games, Social Interaction, Stimulated Planning, Strategic Planning, Trans-Game Information

with Evolving Rule Sets

Red Queen Dilemma

with Exaggerated Perception of Influence or Further Player Improvement Potential

Replayability

Can Modulate

Risk/Reward

with Strategic Locations

Game World Navigation, Races

Can Be Instantiated By

Crafting, Cutscenes, Diegetically Outstanding Features, Fixed Distributions, Hidden Rules, Predictable Consequences, Randomness, Strategic Locations, Thematic Consistency, Zero-Player Games

Asymmetric Abilities together with Units

Combos together with Construction or Heterogeneous Game Element Ownership

Construction together with Emergent Gameplay

Weapons together with Achilles' Heels or Vulnerabilities

Can Be Modulated By

Evolving Rule Sets, Multiplayer Games, Stimulated Planning

Possible Closure Effects

-

Potentially Conflicting With

Exaggerated Perception of Influence, Luck, Replayability, Surprises

History

An updated version of the pattern Strategic Knowledge that was part of the original collection in the book Patterns in Game Design^[1].

References

1. ↑ Björk, S. & Holopainen, J. (2004) Patterns in Game Design. Charles River Media. ISBN1-58450-354-8.

Acknowledgements

-