Conflict: The Real Substance of a Story

Gamasutra: What Every Game Developer Needs to Know About Story by John Sutherland

"Story is a universal human experience"

"Story is conflict"

A classical story structure involves:

1) The hero/protagonist

2) His or her world is thrown out of order by an inciting incident.

3) Hero tries to live life normal, but the state of the world makes it too hard.

4) Hero then takes a risk to try to fix the problems stopping him/her to live his normal life. 

5) (This is a reversal) Something new happens, or the hero learns something new which drags him/her further into the problems in the world.

6) Hero takes bigger risks to overcome these problems.

7) (Another reversal) Something drags the hero into a position where he/she must deal with the core of the problem in order to reach whatever it was he or she desires. (ex: saving someone important or living a normal life)

3 Acts is a minimum, and a good goal for a game.

Reversals happen through actions or revelations which changes everything for the protagonist.

A good reversal adds new information to what you already knew, which flips everything upside down.

An example of a good reversal is: You initially had an enemy person or faction, but as the story unfolds, you find out that there is a new enemy which is threatening both you, and your initial enemy. This new information leaves you unsure where the real problem lies.


Another good reversal is where you were tricked into taking a wrong choice due to having limited information. And you have to deal with the consequences once the whole truth unfolds (ex: Metal Gear Solid 1, you activate metal gear yourself)


In the end Your hero has to cause the ending.

***

The Character:

Character is what the hero chooses to do when given particular situations.

A good story must put pressure in the form of difficult decisions on the hero to bring out their character.

The rest of the characters should be designed around the protagonist in order to bring out more of his/her character as well.

The world should be designed to constantly oppose the player.

Whenever something is accomplished by the hero a 'reversal' should come into play to give the hero reason to keep on going.

***

Types of Conflict:

conflicts are expressed with different levels of visuals and speech.

Personal: 

-conflict within the protagonist's head. 

-expressed naturally in novels.

Interpersonal: 

-conflict with another person.

-expressed through speech.

External: 

-conflict with society or the world.

-expressed through visuals and actions.

Usually, external conflict is more ideal for games as it brings out motive for actions you'd find in a game.

Bringing out empathy for the protagonist is easy in games because you are playing as that person.

This raises a new problem though, your ability to make choices (since you act as the protagonist) are limited.

Since the player is in action, unlike in movies, less dialog is needed. Something like a 3 minute action scene that you would find in a movie, can be stretched because as a player you are in action and thus won't get bored.

It is a good practice for games to have the player 'do' the story when possible, and only show it, if it is out of the player's control.

***

Games Need a Writer

Story writer needs to be involved from the beginning of the game but the designer, the artist, the sound creator and the developer all play a part in how well the story is told as well.

***

This has been a very interesting reading as it demonstrates a common structure that as game players we have seen used successfully over and over in the games that we play.

The Royal Game of UR - Assay

The Royal Game of Ur

When the Royal Game of Ur was discovered, the game's rules were not known, thus many people tried to come up with their own versions of how they thought the board suggested that the game would be played.

According to Murray, the first version of the royal game of Ur dates back to 2560 B.C. Four game boards were found in the royal graves of the First Dynsaty among the treasures discovered by Sir Leonard Woolley and his exploration party. There were different variations but the boards only differed in the decoration of the cells. There were different variations but the boards only differed in the decoration of the cells. (H.J.R.Murray, 2000, 19-20)

According to Bell, one of the variations had little discs of shells with red or blue centres set in bitumen which covered the wood. Another more elaborate variation has the board completely covered with an incrustation of shell plaques inlaid with lapis lazuli and red limestone, and is divided by lapis lazuli strips.

This version's game board was 8 by 3 squares as shown in the image below. It was played using four sided dice, with two of their sides having a jewelled corner, and the other two being plain.

Bell's initial suggestion of the rules of the game were that each player had seven tokens and three dice, and players would bet money before the game. Both players' tokens would start off the board and enter onto the tile indicated on the image. When the first player is decided, each player took turns at rolling their 3 dice and were able to get the following scores:

• 3 Jewelled corners up - 5
• 3 Plain corners up - 4
• 2 Plain corners up - 0
• 1 Plain corner up – 1

First a score of five is required to put a counter on the board. Players would then move one of their tokens towards the next special square (every fourth square) based on their rolling score each turn. Once a counter reached the first special square it would next move into the middle line where it risked the chance of being removed from the board by having the opponent landing on the same square. Finally when getting to the end, an exact throw is needed to get a piece off the board.

Bell also says that fifteen hundred years later, another version of the same game was being used by Egyptians. This version had different shaped game pieces and had more middle squares, however it still kept the 'special' squares every 4^th square as seen in the figure below. (R.C.Bell, 1979, 22-25)

Having played this game myself, I wanted to do a few iterations of my own, to try and make it more fun to play.

As I will be mentioning the terms 'Mechanics', 'Dynamics' and 'Aesthetics' in my iteration, I will first give a brief description of their definitions.

Mechanics are the core of the game, they refer to the rules, boundaries and the actual game pieces required to play the game.

Dynamics are the behaviors that may occur during game-play due to the chosen mechanics.

Aesthetics are the desired emotional responses that a game evokes when played.

(Robin Hunicke, Marc LeBlanc and Robert Zubek, [year])

The following is an example of mechanics, dynamics and aesthetics, and their effect on each other in context of the Royal Game of Ur.

If a player's token lands on the opponent's token, the opponent must remove the token off the board. However if a token is on a 'safety' box, the opponent may not land on the same box. These are a couple of mechanics which bring the following dynamics to life:

Players will try to stay on the safety boxes as much as possible to avoid having their tokens knocked off the board and they will move their tokens onto the opponent's tokens when possible to gain an advantage over them. These are dynamics which bring the following aesthetics to life:

The feeling of competition is caused as both players try to maintain an advantage over their opponent and dramatic tension is built whenever an opponent is about to take a roll which may possibly knock one of their tokens off the board.

Having explained the basic definition of mechanics dynamics and aesthetics I will move on to the iterations that I did to the later version of the Royal Game of Ur.

The first iteration was that when a player's token lands on the same box as another token of their own, it will give all tokens in that box increased movement the next time they are moved, and the movement increase is equal to the number of tokens in the same box.

The idea behind this iteration was to allow for more choices. Rolling a four was always the best one could hope for, however with this change players had more meaningful choices to decide on. The dynamic created by this iteration was that players could stack tokens in order to rush ahead as a trade-off for risking having more tokens knocked off if an opponent landed on them.

According to Brenda & Ian, trade-offs are when a player must make a choice to gain something and lose another, none of the choices are entirely right or wrong, but it is up to the player to decide which one to make. Such decisions are important to make the player feel involved. (Brenda Braithwaite & Ian Schreiber, 2008, chap 5-6).

After testing the game, I noticed that the game allowed more chance of landing on an opponent's token, thus the aesthetic of competition was increased, but the game was slowed down as more tokens were being sent back off the board. Due to this, adding inevitability was the next target I wanted to achieve.

In the second iteration I added an additional effect to one of the empty boxes: When a player moves a token onto this square their token would no longer be able to get knocked off the board, thus making its progress inevitable. According to Leblanc, inevitability is important as it adds dramatic tension. Drama is a desired aesthetic in games as it makes them more compelling. (Marc Leblanc, [year], 439-445)

When testing this iteration two things were noticed. This mechanic led to a dynamic where players tried to use the 'un-knockable' tokens to limit their opponents' possible movement. The other thing I noticed was a fatal flaw in the game due to a combination of both the iterations. When trying to get off the board, a 1 was required at the end, however when an 'un-knockable' token stacked up on another token right at the end, the smallest possible movement was a 2. To top it all, the opponent could not knock the tokens off due to the 'un-knockable' effect so whenever a player's tokens end in that position, that player would effectively have lost due to never being able to move those tokens again.

The next iteration was simply done with the intention to fix this flaw. By changing the increased movement mechanic to an optional movement increased, players would be getting even more choice, and would no longer get in a situation where they could no longer move.

Having tested the game using all three iterations, the flaw was fixed however I noticed that no new aesthetics were added to the game due to the changes. The effect of the iterations only empowered the game's original aesthetics.

In the end aesthetics are what matter to players because that is what gets players emotionally invested in a game.

Had I planned the iteration with an aim to add a particular aesthetic from the start, I would have been able to choose the dynamics that can give the desired aesthetics, and then decide on the mechanical changes required to enable those dynamics. I learnt that this is the ideal flow of thinking when designing and iterating games, because even though it is the mechanics that determine the dynamics and in turn, the aesthetics, a designer must first know the desired aesthetic in order to know which dynamics are needed and in turn, which mechanics would enable these mechanics.

Having gone through the process of iterating and assessing the changes the Royal Game of Ur, I feel I have acquired a better understanding of how particular qualities of games are placed together to achieve the end result. I look forward to every chance at researching and iterating existing games as it is through these experiences that I will inevitably improve my skills as a game designer.

Bibliography

H.J.R.Murray, A History of Board-Games Other Than Chess, 2000 , (p.19-20)

R.C.Bell, Board and Table Games From Many Civilizations, 1979, (p. 22-25)

Robin Hunicke, Marc LeBlanc and Robert Zubek, MDA: A Formal Approach to Game Design and Game Research

Brenda Braithwaite & Ian Schreiber, Challenges For Games Designers, 2008, (ch. 5-6)

Marc Leblanc, Tools for Creating Dramatic Game Dynamics, (p. 439-445)

Natural Funativity

The 3 Types of "Fun"

Physical Fun
- Anything that directly threatens our survival automatically commands our full attention. Themes of survival are effective for this reason.

- physical strength and team cooperation based sports are interesting to men. (due to relevance to survival)

- honing our hunting skill is found interesting for the same reason.

- exploration of exotic places or for finding best places for specific resources. Knowledge of our
surroundings is important for survival.

- weapon/tool usage. (for hand/eye co-ordination skills)

- Moving faster has always been an important skill for survival, that is why we find cars and racing interesting.

Social Fun
- Attracting mates (Think mates is referring to both friends as well as the opposite sex)

- social gathering activities (shopping / trading collectibles / chatting / gossiping / information gathering / social-bonding)

- story telling (leaving us with knowledge and moral values)

- Humor is another form of fun. (it relates to survival as a method of telling others that something is harmless)

Mental Fun
- Music and Poetry are patterned sound and words, our minds enjoy perceiving and manipulating the patterns.

- Games like tetris and bejeweled require pattern solving.

- Problem and pattern solving, training our minds to do it faster and efficiently.

***

These types of fun are often blended together in existing games. We find them fun because we evolved through using these skills.

When making games a designer should aim for achieving physical, social and mental fun as it is a reliable method of getting our audience's interest.

***

Closing with an interesting quote from Noah Falstein:

" when you really look at not only games, but all human entertainment, you see that at its heart it is all about learning about survival and reproduction and the necessary associated social rules and behaviors. "

MUDs and Player Types

Players Who Suit MUDs

MUD: Multi User Dimension

MUDs need a system which is a (text-based) multi-user virtual world.

Most players agree on 4 methods of getting fun out of their games:

Achievement (Achievers)

- Wanting to achieve game related goals.

- Achievers are proud of their formal status in the game's built-in level hierarchy, and of how short a time they took to reach it.

Exploration (Explorers)

- Explore the world and its physics.

- Explorers are proud of their knowledge of the game's finer points, especially if new players treat them as founts of all knowledge.

Socializing (Socialisers)

- Using communication.
- Socialisers are proud of their friendships, their contacts and their influence.

Imposition (Killers)

- Having an impact on others.
- Killers are proud of their reputation and of their oft-practiced fighting skills.

The writer argues that most people fit mostly into one of the 4 types, and mainly uses the other types only if needed or if it helps with their preferred type.

I would have to strongly disagree here as I do a bit of everything, not because I need to but because I want to, however it is true that I do focus more on some rather than others.

Player Interests

           Acting
Player     +     World
        Interacting

Player vs World & Acting vs Interacting

Player: Social elements. (Small world enhances this)
World: Exploration. (Large world enhances this)

Acting: Free action.
Interacting: Actions are limited to what options are given.

Player focus is all about communication, but "when all sense of elsewhere-presence is lost, you no longer have a MUD."

According to the writer, the following are the methods that can be used to increase or reduce the desired player types:

To increase the number of achievers:

• reduce the number of killers, but not by too much.
• if killer numbers are high, increase the number of
  explorers.

To decrease the number of achievers:

• increase the number of killers.
• if killer numbers are low, reduce the number of
  explorers.

To increase the number of explorers:

• increase the number of explorers.

To decrease the number of explorers:

• massively increase the number of killers.

To increase the number of socialisers:

• slightly decrease the number of killers.
• increase the number of socialisers.

To decrease the number of socialisers:

• slightly increase the number of killers.
• massively increase the number of achievers.
• massively decrease the number of achievers.
• decrease the number of socialisers.

To increase the number of killers:

• increase the number of achievers.
• massively decrease the number of explorers.
• increase the number of socialisers.

To decrease the number of killers

• decrease the number of achievers.
• massively increase the number of explorers.
• decrease the number of socialisers

A MUD can't focus on just 1 player type, but must focus on and try to balance all four to be rightfully called a MUD.



***

This is a very biased reading against "killers", it seems the writer may have had a rough gaming experience in a player killing environment.

The "killers" that he speaks of do exist, however I believe he is only referring to a small share of this player type. I do not believe it is true that most "killers" gain their fun out of causing distress to other people.

My opinion is based on other similar readings to this which were a lot less biased.

Also, a lot of statements used didn't quite click with my experiences while playing online. However times may have changed, and I'm trying to understand MUDs in the context of my MMO knowledge, so I could possibly be off.

3 Types of Segmentation

Segmentation of gameplay describes how a game is broken down into smaller or shorter units of gameplay.


3 Types of Segmentation:

• Temporal Segmentation

Limiting player action within the game with turns and real time.
Used for temporal co-ordination and as a temporal resource.

• Spacial Segmentation

The virtual space broken down into sub-locations such as: levels, maps, and worlds.

In referencing a strong sense of spatial segmentation, it is important that the player perceives he or she is participating in a virtual space larger than its onscreen representation and that this space is traversed in parts.

Levels are evident the through discontinuity in gameplay, they represent different locations.

Checkpoints break down locations into sub locations which can be used as a progression alternative to levels, without discontinuity.

• Challenge Segmentation

Sub-units of gameplay which contain challenge.

Challenge segmentation comes in forms of boss challenges, puzzles, and waves.

Waves suggest an intended increase in difficulty to the player.

Puzzles add challenge to a game, without making the player encounter enemy characters. Puzzles often must be solved to progress to the next puzzle.

Boss segments spike the challenge in the game as they require more effort and new strategies to overcome.

Bonus stages refers to a phase in the game where the player can't lose.

***

I feel there was too much focus on labeling segments of games, as opposed to when how or why to use these segmentation types.

Space of Possibility and Pacing in Casual Game Design

Casual Games Definition (according to Marcos Venturelli):

Casual games can be played without having to learn how to play them right away and offer gameplay which can be interrupted at any time without consequences. Complexity can still be added later on.

The human brain is goal driven, we automatically try to turn the game into routine as we play, to make the game easy, which in turn can lead to the game becoming boring.

Space of possibility: This refers to the amount of options and choices are allowed within the game's system.

A simple game is easy to get into, but will be solved by our brains quickly and therefor becomes boring quickly.

A game with a larger space of possibility will take long to master, meaning it stays entertaining for longer, however players might be frustrated due to not knowing how to play properly.


There should be minimal use of tutorials in a casual game, this should happen as the game progresses in order to keep the player from investing big amounts of time learning instead of playing.

Ideally the game starts simple with minimal space of possibility, and consistently builds up by adding or replacing mechanics, keeping the player happy because s/he is hardly interrupted from the game, and yet, patterns are always being added while they play, to prevent them from getting bored.

***

I think the methods used to hook players at the start, and keep them hooked by adding complexity are very effective for new players, however from my experience, these games tend to have a drawback: Bad replay value.

When replaying a game, after knowing all of the game's complexity, it is very frustrating being limited to basic mechanics at the start. I think the solution to this problem is to create a different type of gameplay such as a skirmish mode, in strategy games, where players can continue playing, using the full knowledge they have gained, in a balanced, repeatable scenario.

Having considered this reading, it seems digital games have an advantage over non digital games.

Since all the learning required must be done before playing a non digital game, these games suffer the inevitability of  being too simple in the long run or too complex at the start.

Chance and Skill

Chance

One of the reasons chance is used in games is to make them playable by a wider audience, only hardcore players would want to play a purely skill based game.

The amount of strategy(skill) and chance used in a game depend on the designer's desired dynamics.

If a player can know all the possibilities in a game, it would make the game solvable. This means the player can know all the steps to take in order to reach a certain victory or tie, thus removing uncertainty from the game.

As discussed last week, a game without uncertainty loses its dramatic tension, which in turn stops compelling players to reach its goal.

The random element can be used to make the game unpredictable in order to retain uncertainty. It can also keep less skilled players interested longer as the game will give them more chance to win against a superior player due to luck.

The random element adds variety to a game because with each play through, players will have to react to a new situation. Randomness increases replay value for this reason.

Randomness on its own can be entertaining, as a key point of a game is about to be resolved by a single random outcome, a lot of dramatic tension is created.

(Unrelated note: Some dice have 100 sides...)

***

Random elements can be introduced in games using several different elements, such as: Dice, Cards, Pseudo-Random Numbers and Hidden Information.

Dice
When using dice to get a random number, you get an even chance to get any of the numbers, however when using multiple dice and adding their numbers, it is more likely that the value will be in the middle of the possible range. (Using 2D6, you can only get 1 combination that adds up to 2, but you can get 2 combinations that add up to 3, and 3 combinations for 4, etc...)

Die rolls will not influence future rolls such as drawing cards from a deck would.

Cards
Cards can be drawn from a deck to get a random draw chance, they can be put face down to be used as hidden information, and can be shuffled to randomize their order. Although, for each known card drawn from a deck of cards, the odds for drawing one of the rest of the cards changes. Smart players are able to keep count of the odds to gain an advantage.

Pseudo-Random Numbers
Pretend-Random numbers generated using a computer algorithm, often based on the computer clock. Though the numbers aren't truly random, the players will normally have no idea which number is most likely going to turn up.

Hidden Information
While hidden information doesn't have to be random for all players, it still creates uncertainty as players will not know what they are dealing with until the information is revealed.

In strategy games: One may build some defenses instead of generate more resources in fear that the enemy MAY be building an attack.

In card games: One may not play a certain move in fear that his or her opponent may counter it with one of the cards they are holding.

***

Games which are entirely based on luck are often children games or gambling games.

These games are all about creating dramatic tension and resolving it with a random element. While gamblers have money in play, it is easy to maintain dramatic tension, as for children games, they are quite easily amused by seeing the random elements play out.

***

Skill

This term refers to player actions and decisions which will affect the game state and eventually its outcome.

Skill is what brings us back to a game because we want to master its patterns and become better at it. Replaying a skill based game will keep increasing your odds due to the knowledge you build.

Designers want players to be constantly making decisions in order to get them into a state called "flow". At this point players are emotionally invested in the game.

Sometimes games have obvious choices, which make the choices pointless to begin with. However these obvious choices can make sense if a time constraint or some other sort of pressure is added. (Such as left clicking your opponent's character's head to get a head shot in an fps)

This converts the skill required from the game from strategic to twitch skill.

Meaningless decisions are generally pointless, but sometimes they can trick the players into thinking they chose something meaningful, at least for the first play-through.

Blind decisions can be meaningful but aren't interesting because there is no reasoning behind them.

Trade Offs
This is when a player must make a choice to gain something and lose another, none of the choices are entirely right or wrong, but it is up to the player to decide which one to make. A problem to trade offs would be if one of the choices is obviously better, however, a well balanced game will keep these decisions interesting.

Dilemmas are similar to trade offs but offer more drama as both decisions have a negative effect for the player. (Ex: give all your hard earned gold and equipment to kidnappers, or lose the chance to save a party member that was kidnapped by them.)

Risk vs reward trade offs are a means of giving all players meaningful choices, the bigger the risk, the greater the reward, but when should one choose the big risk or the smaller one?

When players are ahead in a game they should maintain their strong position by going for safe decisions, whereas the players who are behind must take bigger risks in order to have a chance to catch up to the leading players. This way both players are making balanced meaningful choices.

Personal Note: I find this would be a very interesting feature in player vs player MMORPGs enviroments. Low level players should be given more motive to fight against high level players. I have yet to see an MMORPG where the skilled player is motivated to seek out stronger opponents... aside from bragging rights that is.

Auctioning is a mechanic that allows players to bid an amount of currency in order to gain something valuable to them. This can be done in several different mechanics such as:

Secret bids where the players aren't aware of each other's bids and the highest bid wins.
Instant buyouts where the players have to ability to get the item for a set price.
Permanent bids (made this up myself) where any bid made is paid and cannot be taken back, regardless of who actually wins.

Purchases and Auctions are important mechanics that give players choices, thus making the game feel more personal. Naturally this will only apply if the purchases I make will have an actual effect on the game.

Limited Actions are similar to how purchases work. Instead of spending your currency, you are spending your actions (such as special abilities or movement points).

***

Summary

From my experience, both chance and skill are important to make good games, as a designer you get to choose how much of each to add to the game in order to achieve the dynamics you are aiming for.

When reflecting upon this reading, I can understand how true this is by using myself as an example.
- I can't stand games highly based on chance, because I don't feel involved.
- I can't stand games which only highly skill based, because they nearly always play out the same way, and the victor never changes.

When you put both elements together to the right degree however, a game is formed which much wider audiences can enjoy.

Until recently, I was under the impression that chance should be avoided when possible, and that it is a lazy designer's mechanic.

In our first week, when we were to design a game, I tried to come up with a simple game idea that was purely skill based, and I found out it takes a lot of effort to create one with unpredictable game play, and it required that I'd go into a lot of detail and create several mechanics.

My solution to this back then was to ditch my original idea and go for a much simpler twitch skill based game (Alpha Pigeon). Had I known better I could have just simplified the original game by using a random chance mechanic, thus solving the predictability of the game.

Tools for Creating Dramatic Game Dynamics

Drama is one type of fun which can be found in games.

If we cannot cannot create drama, as it is created in movies and books, we create circumstances from which drama will emerge.

The central conflict of a narrative builds up dramatic tension until the story reaches its climax, where tension dissipates as the conflict is resolved.

Dramatic tension is the player's emotional investment in the story's conflict.

Uncertainty and Inevitability are the 2 important factors of dramatic tension.

- Uncertainty is created by making the game feel "close". (A close game is a good game)
- Inevitability is created through a metaphorical ticking clock.

In trading card games such as magic the gathering, dramatic tension is built with every passing turn as resources get added to play. The number of resources determines how effective a player's turn can be. The longer the game drags out, the more likely it is for one player to finish off the other.

Negative feedback - Game mechanics try to keep the game close, by giving boosts to the losing players in order to keep the pressure on the winning player and keep uncertainty in the game.

Positive feedback - Enlarging the advantage of the winning player, in order to push the game towards the end.

Hidden energy can be described as a trump card. As players do not fully know the state in which their opponents are in, the feeling of uncertainty persists through the entire game, keeping the leading player under pressure.

Fog of war is used in strategy games to create uncertainty (although skilled players will often remove this uncertainty by scouting their opponents)

Resetting the score during a game also creates uncertainty. An example of this is when a game is played in a series of matches or duels, where each match has no effect on the following matches, but the number of matches won decide who the victor is.

Non-Renewable resources are a method of creating inevitability (such as limited gold in warcraft, and drawing cards from a deck)

The inevitability must be seen by the player, as its purpose is to cause pressure. (A hidden timer fails to add dramatic inevitability to a game)

* * *

The part I like most from this reading was the reference to magic the gathering. Initially I was in the mindset that dramatic tension had to revolve around a story, but with the example of this card game, I could understand dynamics I had never fully grasped while actually playing the game.

As a game drags on, turns becomes more and more dramatic due to the increase in resources players gain each turn, thus adding the chance for a table-turning strategy to take place.

As a player I have noticed the game starts on a relaxed note, simply shifting the advantage towards either side, but as the game progresses, decisions start to have a major impact on whether the player would win or lose the duel.

What I am curious about, though it is rather irrelevant is; did the creators of the game actually plan for this dramatic tension to build up in such a way or way they lucky and instinctively created it this way?

Notes on: Mechanics Dynamics and Aesthetics

Mechanics, Dynamics and Aesthetics (MDAs) are used to "bridge the gap between game design and development, game criticism, and technical game research."


"Mechanics describes the particular components of the
game, at the level of data representation and algorithms.

Dynamics describes the run-time behavior of the
mechanics acting on player inputs and each other's
outputs over time.

Aesthetics describes the desirable emotional responses
evoked in the player, when she interacts with the game
system. "

"From the designer's perspective, the mechanics give rise to
dynamic system behavior, which in turn leads to particular
aesthetic experiences. From the player's perspective,
aesthetics set the tone, which is born out in observable
dynamics and eventually, operable mechanics.  "


Taxonomy: using vocabulary to describe in detail.

The following is an example of taxonomy for aesthetics:


Sensation -  sense-pleasure
Fantasy -  make-believe
Narrative - drama
Challenge - obstacle course
Fellowship - social framework
Discovery - uncharted territory
Expression - self-discovery (leaving a mark on the game)
Submission - pastime
Competition - comparing skill

A designer must use specific dynamics to achieve the intended aesthetics;

- pressure and opponent play are examples of dynamics that can be used to create a challenging aesthetic.

Dynamic models: models which show the flow of game play, leading to how the game is won.

Mechanics are the rules, which allow certain player dynamics using those rules, to create the intended aesthetic feel for players.

A good example to explain mechanics and dynamics is a game of poker, where the mechanic of having cards which your opponent cannot see, allows the dynamics of bluffing about your hand (since knowing the cards you hold gives you a guess on your odds of win). If there was no mechanic to have cards hidden from your opponent, then bluffing wouldn't be a possible dynamic.


Conclusion

Basically, what I understand after reading this article is that, the game is created by building the mechanics, and is enjoyed by appreciating the aesthetics. To know how and which mechanics to build, we must first know the aesthetics we want to achieve, which in turn suggests the dynamics required and then mechanics are built with those dynamics in mind.

(Though the article starts a bit too complicated) I found it interesting as it explains how a game can be seen from both the player's and the creator's point of view. It is nice to have a solid "system" that shows a flow from how the game is built, towards to what it is intended to achieve.

I am starting to believe that when designing a game, the first thing a designer needs to consider is the aesthetics he or she wants to achieve, as that is what the players experience from their game.

Design Tools... A designer's own language?

"most important tools are the ones that empower players to make their own decisions"

...


Pretty much all game creating teams have evolved through the experience of past games and technologies.

Game designer's role is to put together all the required skills to make a game, such as programming, music, art etc... to turn the data into a game.

Doug church argues we, game designers need our own set of technical words, just like other professions.

What he seems to mean, is that we need to be more constructive rather than just saying a game is fun or not fun, and a special vocabulary would help us do this.

Using every tool available (ie: every mechanic) in a single game would cause conflicts to the game, the right tools need to be chosen for each job.

Giving players simple controls is great because players will feel like they understand what they are controlling. And then complexity is added to the things that can be achieved by using the simple controls.

It is important that the player understands what is going on the the game. If the player fails he/she should figure out what went wrong due intuition. 

FADT definition: Formal Abstract Design Tools

A couple of FADTs:
- Intention, motivating and allowing players to build their own plans in order to achieve things in the game.
- Perceivable Consequence, the game reacts to the players' actions to show the result of their attempts.
- Story, can be predefined narrative by the designer or created while the game is played by the player. The point is to motivate the player forward towards the game's completion.

A consequence to a player's action isn't appreciated by the player if they didn't really decide to take that action.

An extreme example would be, picking one of 2 paths, one results in defeat, and the other one, victory. But the player didn't really get to choose where to go beyond a random guess.

While removing control from how the player can affect the game and the story takes some fun away from the game, it can be very helpful to allow the designer to created a much richer story for the game.

A personal view I have on where a clear contrast is seen regarding this is in the generic Japanese RPG, and the generic Western RPG.

J-RPGs tend to cut down on choices and decisions which have perceivable consequences, in order to build a very linear but very rich narrative.

on the other hand, W-RPGs, often lack that level of storytelling, but give the players satisfaction by letting them make their own decisions and experience the consequences for what the players themselves chose.

"SquareSoft games are, essentially, storybooks. But to turn the page, you have to win in combat. "As a fan I really liked this quote, as it is a perfect way to define the game.

Games Britannia: “Dicing with Destiny”

Watching Games Britannia Part 1. “Dicing with Destiny”, made me realize games have been common amongst, and important to humans ever since ancient times.

As was mentioned, this is because humans, unlike animals, suffer from a unique weakness; which is 'getting bored'. Thus games were always useful, as they are today, to keep people occupied and entertained, even though they mostly meant wasting one's time whine gaining nothing from it.

Some games were made made only for high class people and were later released to the public. It doesn't seem like we kept this tradition though, as now most games are aimed for the general public.

Games were also seen as spiritual objects in the past. This could be seen as snake and ladders had no goal beyond 'enlightening' the player. Another example was where a high class person was found buried with a game having pieces laid out - as if they're telling  a story related to the person's life.

The simpler (in terms of playability) of ancient games seem to have survived the times and made it all the way to our time. Games such as snakes and ladders, and connect four or o x o, which had their original ideas created back in ancient times, are still commonly sold or played nowadays. Complex games were found too, however it seems like only the simpler games made it through to today.


On another note, something that I found amusing was that the element of randomness in games (through the use of dice) eventually led to Gambling, and thus, the dice were seen as evil.

Design Iterations & Simplicity vs Complexity

Today, we worked on making iterations to the game battleship (which I have a strong dislike for) in hope to try to make it more fun, and I thought it would be interesting to actually log in sequence the steps we took to turn this simple dull game into something we actually enjoyed playing.

At first we played the game in its normal state to identify what was boring about it.

We noted the game was slow paced, it was taking quite long to finish, and I was enjoying the moments where my opponent hit my ships, because even though I would lose, I was happy that the game was getting closer to an end.

Another problem is that, while the player has some decisions, the only meaningful ones are "where do I think he won't shoot?" and "where do I think my opponent placed his ships?". Beyond this simple "psychological" element, it is just a game of luck with not much satisfaction for achieving its goal.

The first problem we addressed was, giving the player more options, which in turn will also speed up the game. We did this by giving the players an option of either firing at a single tile, or choosing to use a sensor on a 3 by 3 area of tiles to discover whether there are any ships (as the other player would need to say "ships are or are not detected". Basically trading the chance to deal damage to a ship, in exchange for a much greater chance of discovering the location of enemy ships.

This did indeed make the game more fast paced as we intended, although the decisions were still not meaningful enough. Once players get used to the game they will realize it is always wiser to use the radar when the ship locations are unknown, and fire a normal shot when the location is known,

In our attempt to add more choices we decided that instead of 5 pre-set ships, the players would get a 12 blocks each from which they could build ships by doing straight lines using a minimum of 2 blocks per ship.

We quickly spotted what the problem would be however, it is obvious several small ships will be harder to find than a few big ships, so now we needed motivation for players to make their ships bigger.

For each 2 blocks used beyond the minimum 2 required to build a ship, the player gets an additional "ammo" per turn. This means if I build a 2 block ship I gain no bonus ammo, for a 4 block ship I would get 1 bonus ammo, for 6 blocks I get 2 bonus ammo, and so on.

This way the player finally has a meaningful choice: "Do I want to spread small ships around to be difficult to sink? or shall I make a massive ship which will be easy to sink once found, but get a lot of fire power in return?"

For the sake of balancing and for the game to make sense, we upped the cost of using a sensor to 2 ammo instead of 1, and made the bonus ammo given by each particular ship get lost for the rest of the game, once it sinks.

Finally we played the game, and for the first time we were actually enjoying it as we felt more involved with the game, and the victory condition felt more meaningful.

A question comes to my mind after all of this though: Even though this more complex version of battleship is more fun once you learn the rules, would it have been as successful as the original battleship game?

Simplicity makes a game easy to get into, complexity scares players away before they give it a chance.

On the other hand, simplicity makes for poor replay value, and gets boring quickly, while this added complexity would keep the player entertained for a much longer duration.

In the end what is the balance between simplicity and complexity? The answer would be easier in computer games, as complexity can be added on top of simplicity as you progress deeper into the game, but in board games, this never seems to happen.

So what should a game designer plan for board games? Is it worth taking the risk of making your game complex in order to make it more enjoyable in the long run...?

Why is this game fun? (The Unknown Element)

I will begin by describing the background for the context of this story;


I currently am living in a 6 room flat in Athena hall where I get to share a common "kitchen/living" area with the other 5.

So I walked into the kitchen today, and I find 2 of my flat mates playing this card game "shit-head".

This game is very chance/luck driven, and once you grasp its rules, any player would pretty much act the same way with any given hand.

Personally, when the victory in a game is achieved without inputting any skill beyond knowing the rules, I am demotivated from playing it, as it will not have a meaning beyond "hey, I got lucky this time."

Seeing as my flat mates have been playing this game quite often lately, I thought, okay there is something in it that they find entertaining in the game, what am I not seeing?

So I asked, "why do you like this game so much?"

It took me a while to fish out the proper answer from them while they gave me weird looks for my persistence, since "because we're bored" and "because we played this game a lot last year" aren't what makes the game fun.

But then the final response was "because you don't know what the face down cards will be".

Though this unknown element does not entertain me as much, it is quite clear that it is a variable fun factor for different people. The unknown has been used in several games and in gambling, and tends to make a game addictive.

I can give a couple of examples where randomness is used successfully to get players hooked to a game.

1) In MMORPGs, random loot and drop chance. - you know something has a small chance of dropping something valuable, the fact that you might get that valuable item, even though the odds are small, you keep taking that chance over and over just because curiosity pushes you towards knowing whether it will drop or not next time.

2) In scratch to win tickets, and slot machines. You actually know the odds are against you for winning (ie: making a profit), and still the player/gambler will keep trying their luck, just because who knows they might still win a very big amount next time and make up for all their losses.

Personally being less tempted to the unknown, it is situations like this one where my friends were playing shit-head, that convince me:

A lot of players, the ones I will be making games for, love this unknown factor, even though I don't, and it would be wise of me to add it into my games if I want them to be more of a success.

Notes on: What defines a game?

The writer is overusing the word puzzle, tactics and strategy is a puzzle according to him.

Puzzle is static, game is interactive. this means your decisions in a puzzle don't change it, but your decisions in a game change the game.

Games without a forced goal are referred to as toys, and just like toys, the player can use the toy to create a game. Just as I could use toy soldier figurines to create a table top strategy game, you can do the same with 'paidea' games; be creative and set goals for yourself. What other point is there to play with a toy without a goal? That's like using colours without the intention of drawing something.

There is no thrill of victory without a struggle to reach it.

It is funny that it comes naturally to us to act like the goal is very important when playing a game even though it is meaningless, and when someone starts not caring about achieving the goal, it ruins the point of the game. That's why a game like poker with is so popular though, the money in the middle will make sure everyone will always care about whether they win or lose.

A game's definition is: an interactive structure of endogenous meaning that requires players to struggle toward a goal.

This means: a game which changes based on your decisions, and uses in game 'things' such as currencies and items that the player owns, which have no real value in the real world. On top of this, it will provide a reasonably challenging goal for the player to try to achieve.

compelling games – provide goals, create endogenous meanings, establish a structure, make sure you make the player struggle.

Factors of a Game Pleasure:
Sensation - visuals, sounds, muscle pleasure
Fantasy - letting your mind wander to something you know isn't real (like taking part in war)
Narrative - The story of the game
Challenge - A well balanced struggle to reach the goal
Fellowship - A community, which players get used to and get attached to
Discovery - Revealing hidden information, or accessing something previously not accessible as you go through the game. Also, new cards and card combinations in card games, or new builds in rpg games.
Expression - Being able to express yourself, by showing your name, the way you talk, the way you look, and the way you act. (expressing it to yourself in single player, or to others in group play such as poker)
Masochism - Submitting yourself by the game's rules so you can enjoy the struggle. (not sure how this is fun, although it is required in order to have fun while playing)

Game design is ultimately a process of iterative refinement, continuous adjustment during testing.

I am a game designer, I need to learn to listen.

I know most people probably tried to say "I am a game designer" out loud while emphasizing certain words from the phrase... but really, don't do it when you live with other people, it just makes things awkward for you!

The point of that phrase is to make yourself believe anyone has what it takes to start doing game design, and that is true, because personally it is natural for me to create games, simply to have fun. Creating games does not always mean creating a fully working computer game with high end graphics, it all starts from making a set of rule-sets that you can play along in order to have fun, whether you're alone or with someone else.

There is a surprisingly long list of skills which are important for us game designers as mentioned in Jesse Schell (2008)  In The Beginning There Is The Game Designer in The Art Of Game Design A Book Of Lenses. This shows clearly that there is always room for improvement if we wished to get better at it, by acquiring both technical skills as well as social skills.

The emphasis in this chapter however, was on the most important skill: Listening. This is a skill we all have to learn, and it isn't as easy as it sounds. As designers we are proud of our creations and we want to show it off, but it is our nature to defend it when anyone says anything negative about it.

I experienced this in rob's game making sessions actually, where someone gave some negative feedback about my game which I didn't agree with, and so I tried to argue why it isn't bad when what I really should have done is to LISTEN to the player's opinion and think how I can make the game better based on those opinions. While it does sound easy, it is a really hard thing to do.

Different types of gameplay (Defining Games)

Game-play is made of two words, each with their own definitions: game and play.

Play generally refers to simply doing something which is fun or that you find entertaining while game on the other hand implies that rules are being set to the way you should be playing.

The two definitions seems to fit pretty well to the game types "paidea" and "ludus" mentioned in 'Videogames'  by Newman J. respectively.

Paidea games are "play" oriented, allowing the player to have fun in whichever way they wish and Ludus games set rules for players who will be trying to reach a specific goal.

Two games that quickly come to mind could be used as a good example to differentiate two.

1) Need for speed, during a race you have one goal; that is to drive along the track and get through the finish line first to win the race. The rules and victory condition are clearly set, making this a good example for ludus.

2) Grand Theft Auto games, while free roaming, you are able to enjoy a drive with several different cars of your choice, at any speed of your choice, while following, or not following the law. On top of that you are able to go on foot, and simply listen to what the people are talking about. If you look at this game only from this aspect it would be a perfect example for paidea. Naturally, if you look at the entire game, you would see that the player is also able to follow a storyline with missions.

What I've noticed is that the bigger, popular games nowadays will often try to contain some of both elements of ludus and paidea in order to get the interest of as many different player types as possible.

-

In Newman's book (mentioned above), there are four game categories mentioned, to try to separate each game from another.

These types are: agon (competition), alea (chance), ilinx (movement), mimicry (simulation/roleplay).

All the games I can think of will fall under these categories, however some games tend to fit under more than one of the categories. Two extreme examples for these are:

- Transport Tycoon: A simulation game where you have no specific goal or win condition, other than making a successful transport based business using any method that you wish... bus transport, ships, planes, or trains to carry passengers or materials from one point to another. I consider this game to be a paidea game, under the mimicry category for these reasons.

- World of Warcraft: An online game designed to get everyone's attention, built to have at least something for everyone. Funnily enough, this is reflected through the different categories it falls into... as it actually falls in each of them. Agon is introduced through player vs player features and ranking systems. Alea is also in place when seeing several game mechanics which rely on chance such as critical strikes, and rare loot. Although Ilinx isn't a big factor of the game, it is also taking place through the use of several different mounts and movement on land, in air and under the sea. Finally mimicry being the main category for the game, as the player takes the role of his/her character in game, gets better at the game along with his/her character, and can basically experience a whole new life through the character's experiences. Similarly to grand theft auto, this game can be considered both paidea, as the players are free to do anything they want, (and I actually know a friend whose aim was to buy diamonds, and another one who spends her time talking with critters). However, as the player moves to a specific part of the game, such as a dungeon, the gameplay changes to ludus, as several rules and a specific goal are introduced.

Probably any type of combination of categories can be found in between these two extremes, although it seems most games are designed with as many categories as possible in order to appeal to a wider audience.

Gaming Interview

This is the first time I'll be doing a blog, and I'll be filling this up with random questions and answers.

What is the title of the book of the last fiction book you have read?

The book was called inheritance, it is the last book in the collection of Eragon. Personally I was not too impressed by this book as I was expecting more to happen, considering how long the plot had been building up to the final moment.

What is the title of the last book (non fiction)  that you have read?

I am not much of a reader, so I'm embarrassed to say, I don't remember any non fiction books that I've read recently. Unless the rulebook of WoW trading card game counts as one.

What is the last live performance you attended?

I haven't recently attended any live performances, the only one that I can remember is a Maltese band (because I'm from malta) singing during a beer festival.

What is the last movie that you saw?

The movie was called Jackass 3.5, it was kind of funny, but all in all, I didn't like it, I don't like watching people hurting themselves for entertainment. I wasn't the one who picked the movie though, and it's still better than the one they picked before that... "Dead Girl" ... Worst movie I've ever seen.

How often do you read a newspaper?

Almost never. I simply don't read newspapers unless I'm looking for a job. I tend to get the important information from friends, without having to go through the rest of the news.

Which art gallery / museum / exhibition did you last visit?

I've not had any opportunities to visit any art exhibitions as a group. It's not something that I would do on my own. The last I've seen was during secondary school... quite a while back.

How many hours a week do you spend playing video games?

Let's put it this way, I tend to spend a lot of my free time at home playing games. But university has had a big impact on the said free time, so I've gone from ~10 hours a day to ~10 hours a week.

How many hours a week do you spend playing games which aren't video games?

Previously, none at all, however now that I'm surrounded by many gamers in this course I'm doing at least 3 to 4 hours every Wednesday, and trying to add to that when possible. After so many hours looking at our computer screens, it's refreshing to change my gaming style and non-digital games tend to be more social as well.