Really enjoyed this article! This concept reminds me a lot of "Flow" in games. This idea that a game should put the player in a state of flow so that difficulty isn't too hard or too easy. I think the two ideas are actually very similar. What I can't figure out is whether flow is a tool for SGET or if SGET is a tool for flow. I'm leaning towards the latter: you can use staggered goals in order to promote and drive flow in games. Curious of your thoughts!
Thanks! I hadn't thought about it through this lens. I usually think about flow as coming from an appropriate level of 'challenge' or difficulty - but I can see that this could be a part of an overall effort to maintain a flow state. Thanks for the different perspective!
I'm wondering if you're critical of archetypal engine builders --let's take Dominion's base game for example-- where there is a pivot in the game into buying VP and, critically, where that VP doesn't lead you into the next goal, or where it even slows your momentum overall. "Classic" deckbuilding (where the card goes into your discard instead of your hand) has a delayed momentum to begin with in that you may not see the fruits of your labor for a couple turns, but then the final (second?) act of the game is players mostly just running the engine they've built. They're essentially comparing how well those engines run against each other at this point, but no more of this momentum you're speaking of is being put into the system.
I guess my question overall is if you think Dominion's base game, for example, would be more fun if the building and momentum continued through the end of the game. Is the SGET hypothesis that it objectively makes for a more fun experience (in any game with an engine element) the more that it's used?
Thanks for the comment Matt! I'm not sure if Dominion really falls into this framework, as there's no real long-term goal that you're accumulating resources for. This tends to be more applicable to games with 'contracts' or items that you need to save up for to claim.
I do feel that the 'pivot' in Dominion does slow it down and make the end game feel different than the rest of the game. But I think it's mitigated by (A) You should generally pick up a Province whenever you can and (B) it's relatively easy to see when the end is coming.
I think Splendor might be a more interesting 'pivot' example where you are accumulating resources for goals. You often will have chips left over after making a purchase, but in general, as much as I love Splendor, it does have that feeling that you start over again after each purchase (somewhat mitigated by you gaining a bonus for the future usually).
Really enjoyed this article! This concept reminds me a lot of "Flow" in games. This idea that a game should put the player in a state of flow so that difficulty isn't too hard or too easy. I think the two ideas are actually very similar. What I can't figure out is whether flow is a tool for SGET or if SGET is a tool for flow. I'm leaning towards the latter: you can use staggered goals in order to promote and drive flow in games. Curious of your thoughts!
Thanks! I hadn't thought about it through this lens. I usually think about flow as coming from an appropriate level of 'challenge' or difficulty - but I can see that this could be a part of an overall effort to maintain a flow state. Thanks for the different perspective!
Interesting read as always Geoff.
I'm wondering if you're critical of archetypal engine builders --let's take Dominion's base game for example-- where there is a pivot in the game into buying VP and, critically, where that VP doesn't lead you into the next goal, or where it even slows your momentum overall. "Classic" deckbuilding (where the card goes into your discard instead of your hand) has a delayed momentum to begin with in that you may not see the fruits of your labor for a couple turns, but then the final (second?) act of the game is players mostly just running the engine they've built. They're essentially comparing how well those engines run against each other at this point, but no more of this momentum you're speaking of is being put into the system.
I guess my question overall is if you think Dominion's base game, for example, would be more fun if the building and momentum continued through the end of the game. Is the SGET hypothesis that it objectively makes for a more fun experience (in any game with an engine element) the more that it's used?
Thanks for the comment Matt! I'm not sure if Dominion really falls into this framework, as there's no real long-term goal that you're accumulating resources for. This tends to be more applicable to games with 'contracts' or items that you need to save up for to claim.
I do feel that the 'pivot' in Dominion does slow it down and make the end game feel different than the rest of the game. But I think it's mitigated by (A) You should generally pick up a Province whenever you can and (B) it's relatively easy to see when the end is coming.
I think Splendor might be a more interesting 'pivot' example where you are accumulating resources for goals. You often will have chips left over after making a purchase, but in general, as much as I love Splendor, it does have that feeling that you start over again after each purchase (somewhat mitigated by you gaining a bonus for the future usually).