Do cursed problems in game design actually exist?

[NotAI]

https://gdcvault.com/play/1026336/Curse ... ms-in-Game

Do cursed problems in game design really, actually exist?

Or are they really just economic problems? Budget problems or market problems?

Computing machines can have any level of complexity of automated feature recognition and learning and adaptation built in as needed. So as conditional and complex, as the budget permits it. And any amount of content, as the budget permit it. So prima facie computer games may be one of the very few products where unsolvable problems in principle do not exist.

---

Edit. Definition. "An unsolvable design problem", and more specifically, because of "a conflict between core player promises" or "between promised experiences and objectives".

[Derringer]

Since the Atari days employees have taken their budget and spent it on cocaine and prostitutes, if that's considered a 'cursed problem', that was a big thing at both Atari and 3DO.

[J1M]

You should probably include a definition and some examples in the OP. I saw the video years ago, but I can't recall the examples provided. Only that the term was invented as a form of talk title clickbait because the speaker wanted to use the popularity of Harry Potter.

I would say that outside of contrived examples the problem doesn't really exist. The skill of the designers working on a project may create appearances to the contrary.

Keep in mind that game design isn't something worked on in the open. Due to the secretive nature of projects, only a handful of people actually participate in any design process. Without crowdsourcing, the engagement of the best designers in the world, multiple iterative attempts, or a formal proof, calling a problem impossible is really only a reflection on the person making the statement.

[NotAI]

I thought "cursed" was referring to cursed items in fantasy. It's not?

Anyway, edited the OP with the definition but here it is explicated. Trigger warning. Pedantic definition incoming.

Definition. A "cursed" problem is a search among all possible game designs with no solution to be found, for a game design that eliminates all the contradictions between the actual moment to moment gameplay that always results from trying to satisfy two or more core player promises and those player player promises themselves, because these contradictions cannot be avoided. They are inherent. The gameplay that results from trying to combine two or more player experiences cannot produce that combination of experiences. The other way it happens, including a certain kind of gameplay in a game inevitably produces an expectation of a certain kind of overall player experience, but that player experience requires different gameplay. Or both things happen and the game is doubly super ******.

IOW, every game in which a kind of gameplay is possible creates, and cannot avoid creating, the expectation of one or more kinds of overall player experiences. Including achievable ingame goals. Or the players or the designers specifically start with or want that set of player experiences. Or both. And vice versa, every game that produces one or more overall player experiences also produces a certain kind of moment to moment gameplay. And these conflict. Or two or more player experiences conflict. Or both.

[rusty_shackleford]

I fed it into gpt4 and asked for a summary, it gave me this:

The speaker in this talk discusses "cursed problems" in game design. Cursed problems are defined as scenarios where two different promises made to a player cannot both be fulfilled, leading to conflicting goals and, eventually, a less satisfying game experience. The speaker breaks down these problems into two categories: when a player's "experiences" conflict with their "objectives," and when one player's "promises" conflict with another's.

To explain these scenarios, the speaker uses the examples of "The Sims 1" and the board game "Diplomacy." In "The Sims 1," the player can enjoy creating unique stories and building houses (experience), but at the same time, there's a pressure to progress in the Sim's career (objective). In "Diplomacy," the problem arises from the promise of a fair game and the promise that a player can be strategic and win, which can conflict when there's a stalemate or when a player decides to spoil the game.

The speaker also discusses how a game's design can create a conflict of intrinsic goals (creativity, self-expression) and extrinsic goals (progression, leveling up). This can lead to situations where players disregard the aspects of a game that initially drew them in.

The solution to these problems involves making sacrifices and reframing the game, rather than trying to fulfill both promises. The speaker uses the acronym "C.U.R.S.E.D." to outline potential solutions:

1. **Cut** one of the promises.
2. **Underline** one of the promises.
3. **Reframe** the promise.
4. **Split** the game into two.
5. **Exchange** promises with something else.
6. **Distance** from the promise.

Using these strategies may alter the nature of the game but can lead to a more harmonious and enjoyable game experience. The speaker also emphasizes that tackling these "cursed problems" can open up innovative opportunities in game design. However, these solutions may not work for all games, and it's crucial for game designers to understand what sacrifices they're willing to make to improve their games.

The talk concludes with a Q&A session where the speaker further elaborates on how monetization can create cursed problems, the concept of "king making" in games, and how these strategies have been applied in their work.

[J1M]

Thanks, I stand by my statement that the premise is ********.

[Lich]

Fake problem manufactured to make a catchy title

[rusty_shackleford]

most GDC talks after ~2014 or so are completely worthless

[General Reign]

No. Most problems are caused by the designers and publishers attempting to make realistic graphics instead of using all that power to make MORE GOOD ****. I prefer the Dwarf Fortress style of design which might be a little overboard but more should try it. Anyway the answer is no but what do I know I am not a programmer?

[NotAI]

Yep, most budget these days goes into graphics, and specifically, cinematics. Because models and textures themselves are not too expensive.

So into youtube & rumble let's plays.

It's a brilliant business strategy, as you can imagine.

Edit. In other words, most budget these days is spent on marketing, specifically, things that generate grassroots marketing, in case the implication was not clear... Which means, from one perspective, it really is a brilliant business strategy.

[2factorauth]

There arent. Its just a question of genres. Its a tension between something like simulationism and gamism. Or storyfaggotry and gameplay.
Its a tradeoff that cant be compromised on - they are othogonal. So you get genres. Simple.

[WhiteShark]

There arent. Its just a question of genres. Its a tension between something like simulationism and gamism. Or storyfaggotry and gameplay.
Its a tradeoff that cant be compromised on - they are othogonal. So you get genres. Simple.

Isn't exactly this that they are calling a 'cursed problem'? At any rate, I agree. In fact, I think the biggest fundamental problem of the RPG genre is the conflict between simulationism and gamism, and I further think that only roguelikes manage to overcome it, though I suppose that means it's not truly a 'cursed problem' since it can be solved.

[somerandomdude]

I think part of the problem is that we've gotten to the point where a game that's simpler and well executed mechanically and presentation wise is better than the game where developers try to reinvent the wheel, and fail miserably at it. It's honestly pretty shocking that a room full of very smart people with huge budgets still can't seem to figure out what makes a game good, and in many ways they overthink it. A good analogy IMO would be like comparing it to food. A dish that's simple yet well executed is more palatable than a dish where someone tried to mix too many different types of spices together + ended up overcooking it at the same time. I see this happen far too often in gaming, IMHO.

[Norfleet]

Do cursed problems in game design really, actually exist?

Yes, they absolutely exist. You can't combine "persistent world", "territory development and control" and "MMO", for instance. This results in a game where all the territory is taken over by the first-comers and there is nothing left for anyone else to join. You can't make this work without violating one of these premises: If you declare a winner/reset the world, you've violated world persistence. If you forcibly open the territories up to new players, you've violated the territorial control aspect. If you simply allow the game to become limited and lock any new players effectively out of this game, you've violated the MMO aspect. There is no real way to reconcile these points against each other. It can never work. This is why every "MMORTS" or the like become either a match/round-based game, remains small in scope, or inevitably simply degenerates and dies as players stop coming to this game (or at least the game mode).

[NotAI]

Side comment: FPSRTS like the great Battlezone 1 & Battlezone 2 before EA ate the studio that made that actually were great.

Re: MMORTS: I recall a couple of games tried that and did fail, indeed, because they allowed players to build only on land that can be claimed. Of course, early players claimed almost every single inch of land first. Then built a little and left. Later players couldn't use the build button. Though that might just be bad design.

[2factorauth]

Isn't exactly this that they are calling a 'cursed problem'?

Isn't exactly this that they are calling a 'cursed problem'?

didnt watch, must have misunderstood
i thought they wax lyrical about something ********

[Norfleet]

Side comment: FPSRTS like the great Battlezone 1 & Battlezone 2 before EA ate the studio that made that actually were great.

FPSRTS isn't cursed in any way, though. There's no fundamental conflict between the premises of either.

Re: MMORTS: I recall a couple of games tried that and did fail, indeed, because they allowed players to build only on land that can be claimed. Of course, early players claimed almost every single inch of land first. Then built a little and left. Later players couldn't use the build button. Though that might just be bad design.

It's both. Consider the possibilities:

1. There is infinite land, but no way to dispossess anyone of land. Why are we fighting again? Also, I'd hate to be the server, because that means your server database will grow unbounded and fast. The basic RTS premise is thus violated. The only reason to ever attack anyone is just to grief them.

2. Players can be dispossessed of land: The first movers will have a HUGE advantage and easily dispossess any newcomers of land. The MMO premise becomes violated because new players are effectively locked out.

3. The game resets either when someone wins, or when the game times out. The persistence of the world is violated.

Thus you see how these core concepts are irreconcilable. You can't make a persistent world MMORTS without breaking one of the core premises.