The Cardinal Rules of Game Design

After many years spent studying games and what makes people like or dislike them, I've found several general rules that seem to draw mass amounts of players to a game (and when absent, seem to drive players away). These rules are the measuring stick whereby I analyze the games I play. Put briefly (or as briefly as possible for me), they are:

1. The primary purpose of the game should include some kind of permanent gain to the player's personal account or character. Players like to see some reward for the hours spent playing games, and permanent increases to their character(s), increases in the amount of money or useful items they have, and/or advancements of storyline or exploration ability are usually decent enough incentives to keep gamers playing. Good Example: Chrono Trigger (SNES) allowed players to start a new game and retain all of the equipment left over from the last time they beat the game, thus allowing the game to be replayed without losing ones accumulated progress. Bad Example: Arcade games like Adventure Island (SNES) forced the player to start over every time they died with no benefit for previous progress, hence their replay value died as soon as they (or a friend) beat the game. (More on this with Rule #5.)

2. Progress should not take so long to acquire that many players give up from boredom, and on the other side, if a game is too easy, beating it takes too little time and effort and the game is quickly forgotten. A well-made game must achieve a good balance of these two extremes. If it takes 10 hours of game play to gain a level, many players will grow bored before they level. If the player is gaining levels every few minutes, it becomes tedious and lacks meaning to the player (because it basically took no effort). A well-designed game must balance the boredom of "grinding", usually by adding other game play elements, with the lackluster feeling of gaining something too easily (usually only a problem in the initial stages of a new character or game, and rarely, if ever, a problem throughout the course of an entire game). Good example: Golden Sun 1 & 2 both used a battle system which allowed the player to level rather quickly while also gaining decent drops from the monsters defeated. Bad Example: Maple Story may be easy to level in during the first stages of the game, but once a player reaches lv. 40 and up, they soon grow bored with grinding, repetitive quests, and the long hours of playing between leveling up.

3. The economic support for the game should not unbalance the game play for non-paying players (where applicable), but it also should not cost so much that a large number of players can't afford it or won't spend that kind of money on a game. Also, items that people pay real money for should be better in most or all ways than their free counterparts in-game. Mostly relating to Free-To-Play MMORPGs, this rule generally covers the game's Donation Shop and how things are priced within it. Donation Shops allow MMORPGs to pay for servers and staff, however, many companies overprice items or make them temporary (which many players seem to dislike), lowering their profits since players often do not buy what they do not like. Example: Maple Story is both a good and bad example in this case because it's Cash Shop has both sides of this rule. They have Cash Shop clothes which, unlike their free in-game counterparts, decay after 90 days and have a very low popularity with many players. Additionally, wearing Cash Shop clothes may earn a player insults and bad reputation in-game from other players who are either envious or assume that their purchasing Cash Shop clothes means they are "just another dumb noob". The Maple Story Cash Shop also has many very reasonably priced permanent items, most notably Gachupon, hair/face/eye changes, and Inventory slot upgrades, which are normally popular among veteran players.

4. Game designers should always consider the audience their game appeals to, and update accordingly. An action game usually appeals to those who like pushing sequences of buttons and reacting quickly. An RPG usually appeals to players who like character depth and storyline. A cute and beautiful MMORPG normally appeals to younger players and their parents, while a dark and violent MMORPG typically appeals to teens and young adults (typically male). Adding content that encourages violence and rude behavior to a cute and beautiful MMORPG typically drives away players, just as restricting language in dark and violent MMORPGs typically drives away their prime demographic of players.

5. A well-made game has a high "replay value" (which means players who have played and/or beaten the game wish to do so again). The best classic games are normally games with high replay value, either for nostalgic reasons unique to the individual player or due to generally good game design incorporating many game paths, endings, characters, etc. Good Example: Pokemon games (such as Diamond, Emerald, LeafGreen, and so on) all have a high replay value due to the large number of Pokemon creatures to capture, raise, breed, and train. Each time you play the game, you can do so with any number of Pokemon, and there is a great diversity in types, teams, strategies, and favorites typically called out by any individual player. Bad Example: Arcade games like Contra 3 and Super Ghouls and Ghosts featured very linear game progression and single characters who started over in the game once all lives were expended. The only replay value was in mastering the controls fully enough to win the game. Once completed, the game was frequently forgotten and replayed only to show off gaming skill to a player's friends.

6. A well-made game incorporates varied playing styles and personalities into the game without favoring one style over another. Well-designed game series have varied titles that all appeal to their target audience but offer unique and interesting game play changes in each title. Players like to personalize everything. Benevolent people often like to heal others, and "tough guys" often like to be strong and independent. Players like to wear their favorite colors, and play the game their own way (as a merchant, warrior, mage, cook, or whatever else a game allows). Good Example: Runescape allows for an extreme variety of players, from craftsmen who make armour, projectiles, potions, and food, to warriors, who can bring down the strongest "baddies" in the game. Any path is a viable option for playing and enjoying the game. Bad Example: Puzzle Pirates allows for very little variability in playing style. One can be a merchant or run a shop, but everyone will tell you (especially on the Free servers) that pillaging is really the only way to get rich. If a player grows tired of pillaging, there is little else they can do to earn a decent income, and unfortunately most other styles of game play (such as shops) require large and continuous amounts of both real and in-game currency.

These rules generally define my criteria for game analysis. Most games I play excel in at least one of these rules but almost always fail in one or more of the others. By studying what does and does not work in games that have already been made, we can learn to make better games in the future.