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.
Wednesday, 31 October 2012
Friday, 26 October 2012
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...?
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.
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.
Thursday, 25 October 2012
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 reļ¬nement, 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.
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.
Wednesday, 24 October 2012
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.
Wednesday, 17 October 2012
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)