Three Years
Back from Poland

A Game Isn't a Series of Interesting Decisions

Rant_small Sometimes, a particular statement is heard so often that people begin to believe in the underlying claim without question. One such problematic assertion is the oft repeated Sid Meier misquote “a game is a series of interesting decisions”. Either this statement is in error, or it refers to a particular subset of games, because it categorically does not apply to everything that we call a game.

Game designers, and people interested in games in general, often like to draw upon this definition (which I’m reasonably certain Mr. Meier did not intend to be used in this way) as if it could be used for reliable guidance. For instance, the April edition of Game Developer magazine has an article by Soren Johnson which notes in passing “A game design is a collection of interesting decisions, and the “stuff” in the game is there not just to fill space but to let you execute decisions.” Soren’s conclusion is fine – but his assumption about what constitutes a game design draws on the Meier misquote and seems to predicate it. “After all,” he notes later in the piece, “strategy games are the original games. Humans first discovered gameplay with backgammon and chess and go...” Sure – provided “gameplay” means “the play of strategy games”.

In fact, what constitutes “the original games” depends upon what you define as games – consider, for instance, what “the original games” would be if you consider (as many people do) a sport to be a kind of game and not (as many other people do) a category disjunct from ‘games’: challenges involving running, throwing spears and similar athletic feats predate the oldest strategy game by millennia. (I might be inclined to go further and suggest the oldest game is Chase, which predates humanity and is probably at least 100 million years old if not older, but then I have a very open definition of what constitutes a game.) There is nothing wrong with Soren’s article – which, after all, is about strategy games – but it is a helpful indicator of how canonical the Meier misquote has become.

In the past, I have attempted to refute this particular definition by pointing to games like Snakes and Ladders and Beggar My Neighbour/Strip Jack Naked which include no decisions but which are still considered games, but this is open to the criticism (as has been raised in the comments here in the past) that these are simple games intended for children. However, I believe that my objection becomes crystal clear when one considers Guitar Hero (or any similar game) – these rhythm action games do not rely upon a series of interesting decisions, for the most part they have no decisions of any kind! You are being challenged to perform a sequence of actions, and judgement does not form a part of this play at all. The success of Guitar Hero hopefully makes it clear not only that a game need not be a series of interesting decisions, but that thinking about games in these terms narrows one’s assumptions of what a game could be, and thus artificially limits the potentiality of game design.

Throughout this piece, I’ve referred to the proposition in question as a misquote; I have reason to believe that the original Sid Meier quote was closer to “a good game is a series of interesting choices” (if anyone can attribute this to a source, please let me know in the comments!) Sid wasn’t trying to define what constitutes a game at all – he was making a claim about what made for a good game. Unsurprisingly, given that Mr. Meier is an acknowledged master at making strategy games, his comment makes most sense when applied to this limited domain. But outside of games of strategy, it is utterly misleading for game designers (or anyone else for that matter!) to think in such narrow terms.

I believe the videogames industry has an ongoing problem, in that a large proportion of the people who influence the game design process prefer Strategic play to other kinds of play. But as the audience for games has exploded into the mass market, strategy games (and other forms of Strategic play, such as adventure games) have become niche titles, with even the most popular titles selling no more than a few million units at most, while games with a wider appeal can rack up more than ten million units (as Dr Kawashima’s Brain Training, GTA: San Andreas, Guitar Hero and The Sims all demonstrate in wildly different ways).

A good strategy game may well be a series of interesting decisions – but a good game is something that meets the play needs of its audience. If you want to make games for the new videogames market, you’d better start striving to understand just what those diverse play needs might involve.


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Mirosurabu: I'll avoid a detailed response to this as I'm working on some material directly relating to game definitions and it would be better to just wait for that to come along. I'm sure we'll have some great arguments when it does. :)

In brief, I do think that the decision aesthetic expressed in Meier's quote could equally be considered a problem aesthetic (and it might, as you intimate, take more under its fence in this way). But this is one among many aesthetics at work in this space and there is no express reason to favour this one.

I agree with your commentary on detective films (and novels), though - these aren't problem solving in the same way that problem-focussed games tend to be. That said, they utilise the same parts of the brain. The big difference between them is that the experience of narrative-focussed detective stories is not one of overcoming the problems precisely because the solution is ultimately given to you - which is why detective novels have a *much* bigger audience than adventure games: they are easier! :)

Thanks for commenting!

I have to confess I didn't read through it all, but I think this article at Gamasutra is relevant - at least to the first half of the discussion.

Great discussion in any case. :-)

Thanks for the link! Interesting to see Meier defending the definition (given that he didn't originally make this remark in this form). Meier's formula will make an appearance in this week's installment of the "Implicit Game Aesthetics" serial (part 2). :)

Thanks again!

Apart from the great discussion here, I think "a game is a series of interesting choices" perfectly reflects Sid Meier's design philosophy. I can only think of how the tech-tree in CIV always comes at you to make a choice, I mean the way the choice is being posed at you even feels somehow Meierish. In Sim Golf otoh, you were always provided with at least 3 options in regard to how to lay the golf-track, that is, what golfer types it would support etc. I think when it comes to choice, his games have been always great, and I'd even go so far that it is related to the way he organizes his program architecture.

Altugi: I agree - it wonderfully expresses Meier's approach to game design. What I would say nowadays is it encapsulates his aesthetic of play - and this is a game aesthetic that has a great many admirers.

Best wishes!

I feel like this article doesn't really make a point. I think the author is misinterpreting the meaning of the quote. It's really quite simple in my opinion: When you interact with a game, you get to make decisions, regardless of what the mechanics are that allow you to do so... hopefully those decisions are interesting and lead to more interesting decisions/outcomes as the game goes on. It's a matter of feeling impactful in your ability to alter the experience. That's it. I believe this carries over to pretty much any genre you can think of.

Hi Dan,
This is an old piece, dating from 2008 (nine years ago now!) but it sits in an interesting spot between my earlier player satisfaction models and Implicit Game Aesthetics, which moves the discussion about definitions of 'game' along substantially. The point this piece makes actually foreshadows Implicit Game Aesthetics: that when people take "a game is a series of interesting decisions" as a guide they are being moved by a specific aesthetic value for play.

Clearly, your aesthetic values for play line up with Sid Meier... and you value agency, hence "feeling impactful in your ability to alter the experience." You claim this applies to any genre - but as this piece challenges, how does this apply to rhythm action games, in which no decisions are presented at all? How does it apply to Snakes and Ladders (Chutes and Ladders if you're in the US)? How does it apply to Progress Quest?

This was written for Corvus' Blogs of the Round Table as a firestarter (a post to start a discussion), hence the 'Rant' icon in the top left. But the argument being made here is sound, and gets substantially expanded in Implicit Game Aesthetics. If you fancy exploring the argument further, I'd suggest you take a look at the serial.

Thanks for stopping by!


Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)