- Publish in one go. I'd written a couple of items about books where I've tried to use the blog as "live notes" while still reading through the book. Having re-read these items, I can see why that's a very bad idea -- the live notes are patchy & stuttering, rather than a flow of logic & prose.
- Don't go back and edit posts. Course leader Josh made it clear on Friday that the journal is meant to show development, and that altering content after publication can cause assessment problems. I've definitely got to resist the temptation to 'tweak', which is a very strong urge.
John King, Games Design development journal
Sunday 30 September 2012
A blog is not the first draft
I'd had to rush the end of my previous post due to time constraints, and it's highlighted (highlit?) a couple of important issues:
Friday 28 September 2012
MA dissertation case study
Course tutor Josh Taylor handed me a copy of an exemplar dissertation by a student who had similar interests to mine, to give me an idea of the scale & format of the work I need to undertake.
The dissertation addresses the question "Does good gameplay have to be a conflict between Ludology and Narratology?" To paraphrase,
The author talks about archetypes for game classification -- taxonomy rears its head again! -- based on whether they mainly use intrinic or extrinsic narrative, and the strength of experience.
Given that strong extrinsic narrative (and minimal gameplay) has its place in developing an emotional experience, this fuels a conclusion that just because the gameplay & story are equally important, the key to interesting game design is not what is combined but how they are combined to create a specific type of experience.
A third category, 'gamification', is created which relates to social & personal gratification. Skylanders is used as an illustration here, where collection of character figures -- an existing hobby, separate to gaming -- forms part of the overall experience and offers an alternative focus. (Compare with marbles or pogs, which also combine gameplay & collection.)
Mechanic-based design is considered, with reference to an article by Kim Charmie of Funstorm Games entitled "Designing around a core mechanic". (Need to check that out for my own research)
The conclusion is that "a game is the sum of its parts".
The dissertation addresses the question "Does good gameplay have to be a conflict between Ludology and Narratology?" To paraphrase,
Ludologists believe that the player should control their adventure;It goes on to delve into intrinic & extrinisic narrative, and uses logic formed from an article about Minecraft to suggest that both elements are equally important.
Narratologists believe that players gain greater enjoyment by playing through an interesting & atmospheric narrative.
Which side of the debate is correct?
The author talks about archetypes for game classification -- taxonomy rears its head again! -- based on whether they mainly use intrinic or extrinsic narrative, and the strength of experience.
Given that strong extrinsic narrative (and minimal gameplay) has its place in developing an emotional experience, this fuels a conclusion that just because the gameplay & story are equally important, the key to interesting game design is not what is combined but how they are combined to create a specific type of experience.
A third category, 'gamification', is created which relates to social & personal gratification. Skylanders is used as an illustration here, where collection of character figures -- an existing hobby, separate to gaming -- forms part of the overall experience and offers an alternative focus. (Compare with marbles or pogs, which also combine gameplay & collection.)
Mechanic-based design is considered, with reference to an article by Kim Charmie of Funstorm Games entitled "Designing around a core mechanic". (Need to check that out for my own research)
The conclusion is that "a game is the sum of its parts".
Taxonomy
As mentioned in the previous post, I'm filling some big gaps in my Game Studies knowledge by carrying out a research exercise into a range of classic games.
My research question for this mini-project is:
Should I include sports? After all, these fit into the wider casual gaming experience that I'm interested in. Given that a fair number of video games have sport-based mechanics -- e.g. Pong = tennis, Beehive Bedlam = shooting, Breakout = squash) -- I can't afford to ignore sports.
I'm not satisfied that any of these are suitable for my purpose, so I'm going to have to design my own taxonomy.
Given that I'm going to have to do a fair bit of brainstorming to generate a game list, I intend starting with a simple (arbitrary) taxonomy, and evolve and change it as necessary. The starting categories will be: board games, puzzle/construction, social, physical/sport.
My research question for this mini-project is:
How are Schell's four elements represented in classic games?Before I start tabulating this, I need to find a taxonomy which organises these games into some kind of structure. An initial glance at a (well-cited) Wikipedia article yields the following:
Schells four elements are:
By classic games I mean games which have stood the (relative) test of time, and are popular within their typical demographic. The selection will be artitrary but aims to cover a wide enough range to produce a useful analysis.
- Mechanics
- Story
- Aesthetics
- Technology
There are four common approaches to general games taxonomy:Reading around these, and looking at a few other examples (including Craig Lindley and Dianne Rees), it's clear that most of these taxonomies are driven by an underlying agenda -- be it educational, sports-themed, or sociological.
Three example approaches are listed which are specific to computer games:
- Categories — physical requirements, structure, skills
- Understanding — group by strategies (target, wall games, striking object, invasion, etc.)
- Core content — by form (movement skills, tactics, educational results)
- Developmental — low-level, complex, etc.
Finally, there is the more mathematical Game Theory approach:
- Eric Solomon — simulations, abstract, sports; sub-classify by number of players
- Andre Wright — educational, sports, sensorimotor (action/shooting/driving), strategy, other.
- Funk & Buchman — general (no fighting or destruction), educational/puzzle, fantasy violence, human violence, non-violent sports, violent sports.
- Symmetric or asymmetric (i.e. dependent on personality); sequential or simultaneous; perfect or imperfect information; whether it’s determinate (i.e. luck or strategy).
Should I include sports? After all, these fit into the wider casual gaming experience that I'm interested in. Given that a fair number of video games have sport-based mechanics -- e.g. Pong = tennis, Beehive Bedlam = shooting, Breakout = squash) -- I can't afford to ignore sports.
I'm not satisfied that any of these are suitable for my purpose, so I'm going to have to design my own taxonomy.
Given that I'm going to have to do a fair bit of brainstorming to generate a game list, I intend starting with a simple (arbitrary) taxonomy, and evolve and change it as necessary. The starting categories will be: board games, puzzle/construction, social, physical/sport.
Thursday 27 September 2012
Art of Game Design (part 1) Mindset
A commentary on key points from on The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses by Jesse Schell:
Classic games are classic because they have stood the test of time. They have a charm -- something hammered by Josh Taylor as a major factor for success -- and are usually simple. (I say usually, because there are exceptions, like Monopoly, Chess or Poker)
Classic does not necessarily mean popular. The simple, ancient Chinese board game 'Go' is a pretty niche game (even in East Asia, where it is played by fewer than 3% of the population according to Wikipedia), but it is considered a classic because of the devotion of players over a few thousand years.
Action plan: Draw up a list of simple games and analyse them to find patterns. This had been done many times by others, but -- as mentioned in the previous post -- the act of analysis will yield far more than looking at a model drawn up by somebody else. This may be re-inventing the wheel, but you don't get to be good at making wheels by just looking at other people's wheels!
Schell talks about confidence, but I feel I've already got that covered. I also feel pretty reassured that I tick all 20 points in his list of 'skills a game designer needs', including listening.
Action plan: Based on the analysis above, design a simple game (doesn't have to be a computer game). Test it and listen to feedback from self & others. Reflect & learn.
As Schell points out, it's not easy to gauge an experience because it's a personal thing. He warns against introspection & personal experience, because it can lead to false conclusions. That's where the 'listening' becomes critical (especially non-interference when listening).
To avoid paralysis by analysis, he suggests a two-pass approach, where you have the experience and then repeat it to analyse it. That makes perfect sense.
The main essence is the first thing to home in on: what is the primary experience? When bouncing on a Space Hopper, the primary experience is bounciness. Even when the rider moves on to the fun of the challenge of travelling from A to B, the bounciness will be the main thing they remember.
Hmm. This is an interesting one. Schell argues that 'surprise is a crucial part of entertainment', without fully justifying this. He then skips through a comment on 'fun', and wanders through definitions of 'play'.
I suspect that the notion of 'fun' is a critical one, and it links very strongly with the 'charm' of a game. This definitely needs further research.
Action plan: When testing the game (above), ask people to feed back on which bits were 'fun'.
Goals, conflict, rules & win/lose
I need to use this when carrying out the analysis mentioned earlier. For the forementioned Space Hopper, the goal is to get from A to B (the specifics of which aren't too important, so long as it's fun); the conflict comes from the fact that it doesn't do quite what you want (but is controllable, i.e. rules) and you can win or lose by achieving the goal.
Most importantly, the balance between winning & losing is enough to maintain an interest in trying again.
Schell introduces a term: endogenous -- "caused by factors inside a system". (Does this tie back to game mechanics?) If a player is immersed in a game then they focus on factors that are important within the game world, rather than the real world.
Problem solving
Puzzles are the epitomy of this concept. There needs to be a challenge, and it need to present the player with a reason for playing the game -- which will not be just to solve a problem, but to have fun doing it.
Schells asks "How can my game generate new problems so that players keep coming back?" That's a tough one, because the nature of 'new problems' is difficult to define. Take Tetris for example: the problems stay the same in format, but the newness comes from a need to adapt to speed & movement restrictions.
To be continued...
To study game design principles, look at the simplest games
Classic games are classic because they have stood the test of time. They have a charm -- something hammered by Josh Taylor as a major factor for success -- and are usually simple. (I say usually, because there are exceptions, like Monopoly, Chess or Poker)
Classic does not necessarily mean popular. The simple, ancient Chinese board game 'Go' is a pretty niche game (even in East Asia, where it is played by fewer than 3% of the population according to Wikipedia), but it is considered a classic because of the devotion of players over a few thousand years.
Action plan: Draw up a list of simple games and analyse them to find patterns. This had been done many times by others, but -- as mentioned in the previous post -- the act of analysis will yield far more than looking at a model drawn up by somebody else. This may be re-inventing the wheel, but you don't get to be good at making wheels by just looking at other people's wheels!
You learn to be a game designer by designing games
Schell talks about confidence, but I feel I've already got that covered. I also feel pretty reassured that I tick all 20 points in his list of 'skills a game designer needs', including listening.
Action plan: Based on the analysis above, design a simple game (doesn't have to be a computer game). Test it and listen to feedback from self & others. Reflect & learn.
Game design is about creating an experience; the game is NOT the experience
As Schell points out, it's not easy to gauge an experience because it's a personal thing. He warns against introspection & personal experience, because it can lead to false conclusions. That's where the 'listening' becomes critical (especially non-interference when listening).
To avoid paralysis by analysis, he suggests a two-pass approach, where you have the experience and then repeat it to analyse it. That makes perfect sense.
The main essence is the first thing to home in on: what is the primary experience? When bouncing on a Space Hopper, the primary experience is bounciness. Even when the rider moves on to the fun of the challenge of travelling from A to B, the bounciness will be the main thing they remember.
Surprise & fun
Hmm. This is an interesting one. Schell argues that 'surprise is a crucial part of entertainment', without fully justifying this. He then skips through a comment on 'fun', and wanders through definitions of 'play'.
I suspect that the notion of 'fun' is a critical one, and it links very strongly with the 'charm' of a game. This definitely needs further research.
Action plan: When testing the game (above), ask people to feed back on which bits were 'fun'.
Goals, conflict, rules & win/lose
I need to use this when carrying out the analysis mentioned earlier. For the forementioned Space Hopper, the goal is to get from A to B (the specifics of which aren't too important, so long as it's fun); the conflict comes from the fact that it doesn't do quite what you want (but is controllable, i.e. rules) and you can win or lose by achieving the goal.
Most importantly, the balance between winning & losing is enough to maintain an interest in trying again.
Schell introduces a term: endogenous -- "caused by factors inside a system". (Does this tie back to game mechanics?) If a player is immersed in a game then they focus on factors that are important within the game world, rather than the real world.
Problem solving
Puzzles are the epitomy of this concept. There needs to be a challenge, and it need to present the player with a reason for playing the game -- which will not be just to solve a problem, but to have fun doing it.
Schells asks "How can my game generate new problems so that players keep coming back?" That's a tough one, because the nature of 'new problems' is difficult to define. Take Tetris for example: the problems stay the same in format, but the newness comes from a need to adapt to speed & movement restrictions.
To be continued...
Tuesday 25 September 2012
Jesse Schell keynote
This week I've been ploughing my way through the book The Art of Game Design by Jesse Schell, following a recommendation by my course tutor. Before I post something about the book itself, I thought I'd discuss a keynote speech I found that Schell gave to the 2009 Game Developers Conference. The main things I've grasped from it are:
This suggests to me that a good designer will deliberately manipulate this effect to ensure that the player does less conscious thinking about the game, and acts more at the subconscious level.
I believe that the experience is a separate issue to this. The higher level can still be worked on, even when the experience drops. (For example, in a new wave of slower Bejeweled icons, the player may start formulating a strategy in advance for dealing with the faster stage.)
The act of analysis is more important than terminology.Well, I certainly agree with that!
Games have four elements: technology, aesthetics (best left to artists), game mechanics and story. A theme unifies the elements, and the subconscious mind does most of the design work.This echoes what I learned last week, regarding Ludology vs. Narrative and the view that game mechanics drive the instric story. It's interesting to see Schell suggest that this forms part of the design process (rather than just the player's experience).
This suggests to me that a good designer will deliberately manipulate this effect to ensure that the player does less conscious thinking about the game, and acts more at the subconscious level.
Iteration makes for better games. Good experiences go up & down.Hmm ... I'm not convinced that it's as simple as that. Years of work in education (and also a few too many viewings of Teletubbies) have persuaded me that iteration is important in learning processes, but there's a risk that it can become boring. Like driving a car, once the skills have been learned they become automatic, and a higher level of challenge is needed. Certainly warrants further investigation.
I believe that the experience is a separate issue to this. The higher level can still be worked on, even when the experience drops. (For example, in a new wave of slower Bejeweled icons, the player may start formulating a strategy in advance for dealing with the faster stage.)
You need to know who the player isI presume this means a psychographic profile (rather than demographic) focusing on their personality, interests and lifestyle. That's certainly a very major factor in directing games for a market of people who play in a casual manner.
There are only 6 kinds of game mechanics: space, Objects, Actions, Rules, Skill and Chance.Woah! This sounds like something very BIG AND IMPORTANT. I'll look into it properly in a later post. Until then, on with the book.
Saturday 22 September 2012
Ludology vs. Narrative
Had a nice mini-lecture yeterday from Josh on the ludology vs. narratology debate in Game Studies. (Filled a big gap in my knowledge, and made me realise that I need to
do some time in the library getting up-to-speed on this kind of thing.)
He emphasised the fact that casual gaming often relies on simple game mechanics, and that it's his opinion that the intrinsic narrative is more important than extrinsic narrative. This was illustrated by a game design using a clockwork robot, where the gameplay was heavily altered by the robot winding down.
After identifying that the majority of successful casual-play games are likley to be found on devices like the iPad, Josh kicked in with his second point that games need to have charm.
This charm can link in with the mechanics (e.g. springs are much nicer than invisible forces) or the desire to play (which was illustrated by examples like Lego, space hopper, Airfix, Raleigh Chopper, etc., and how nostalgia-laden parents are the main purchasers of expensive games -- what he called the James May effect).
This has given me a good starting point. I'm going to go away and cogitate a bit (and hit the 24-hour library).
He emphasised the fact that casual gaming often relies on simple game mechanics, and that it's his opinion that the intrinsic narrative is more important than extrinsic narrative. This was illustrated by a game design using a clockwork robot, where the gameplay was heavily altered by the robot winding down.
After identifying that the majority of successful casual-play games are likley to be found on devices like the iPad, Josh kicked in with his second point that games need to have charm.
This charm can link in with the mechanics (e.g. springs are much nicer than invisible forces) or the desire to play (which was illustrated by examples like Lego, space hopper, Airfix, Raleigh Chopper, etc., and how nostalgia-laden parents are the main purchasers of expensive games -- what he called the James May effect).
This has given me a good starting point. I'm going to go away and cogitate a bit (and hit the 24-hour library).
Friday 21 September 2012
Too blank a canvas
Still stuck for ideas, I started brainstorming today looking for a theme for my research.
The starting point was based on the notion "too blank a canvas". As a lecturer, I teach wide range of disciplines related to Games Design -- leaving me a jack of all trades, master of none. My first aim is to find an area which I'd like to focus on.
A quick glance at a fellow MA student's 3D modelling specialist work made me realise that there are a number of areas where the jump to bleeding edge would be too substantial at this stage. So, I threw a few ideas down on paper:
My initial emphasis had been casual, mobile gaming (with the emphasis on 'casual' and the other emphasis on the comma). Over the last week, though, I'd been feeling too pressured by my paid work (which is moving more towards mobile development) and wanted to make sure that I don't get pushed into a corner.
After a quick break I started to meander off into a specific game idea (which definitely deserves further development), based around the need to evacuate a building at high speed, making split-second decisions and dealing with debris & stuff like flickering lighting. Essentially a cross between Mirror's Edge (with less Parkour) and Pakoon 2.Many.
Course Leader (and all-round legendary super-genius) Josh Taylor hit the nail on the head quickly: I'm a one-man development team. I may not be able to compete with the likes of DICE but I can use the range of skills to my advantage...
The starting point was based on the notion "too blank a canvas". As a lecturer, I teach wide range of disciplines related to Games Design -- leaving me a jack of all trades, master of none. My first aim is to find an area which I'd like to focus on.
A quick glance at a fellow MA student's 3D modelling specialist work made me realise that there are a number of areas where the jump to bleeding edge would be too substantial at this stage. So, I threw a few ideas down on paper:
My initial emphasis had been casual, mobile gaming (with the emphasis on 'casual' and the other emphasis on the comma). Over the last week, though, I'd been feeling too pressured by my paid work (which is moving more towards mobile development) and wanted to make sure that I don't get pushed into a corner.
After a quick break I started to meander off into a specific game idea (which definitely deserves further development), based around the need to evacuate a building at high speed, making split-second decisions and dealing with debris & stuff like flickering lighting. Essentially a cross between Mirror's Edge (with less Parkour) and Pakoon 2.Many.
Course Leader (and all-round legendary super-genius) Josh Taylor hit the nail on the head quickly: I'm a one-man development team. I may not be able to compete with the likes of DICE but I can use the range of skills to my advantage...
Sunday 16 September 2012
Research questions
As an engineering graduate I'm unfamiliar with the techniques used by students of design, so I'm having to catch up quickly with the methodology and specific meaning of terms.
I've been getting prepared by starting on some of the books on the Design Research reading list. The first one I've looked-at, Research Methods by Andrew Richards, emphasises the need to:
At this early stage my all-important question has yet to be formed. However, I have learned two important things:
I've been getting prepared by starting on some of the books on the Design Research reading list. The first one I've looked-at, Research Methods by Andrew Richards, emphasises the need to:
- Base research around a question. The researcher needs to ask a question, which must be answered.
- Refine the question into a precise tool. Boundaries must be set, otherwise the exercise becomes too large.
At this early stage my all-important question has yet to be formed. However, I have learned two important things:
- Research at this level uses very specific terminology. For example, I'm expected to understand the difference between 'effect' and 'impact'. These two were synonymous for me until today, and I need to start becoming familiar with such distinctions. In addition to reading, I shall be picking the brains of old friends who have studied previously at this level.
- I need to think much more in terms of questions and answers. I'm must more used to problems & solutions, so this will present a challenge. Problems tend to have innate questions (e.g. "what caused the circuit to blow?") so I'm going to have to start showing more initiative in developing the right kind of questions.
Saturday 15 September 2012
Welcome
I'm John King and this is my MA Games Design development journal.
This blog will show the evolution of the major theme for my project work, focusing on the research and experimentation which occurs during this process. I'll also be using it as a dumping ground for indirectly related projects, which will appear in the "Other Pages" section.
For my first act of wanton design I've gone for a 'retro' theme for the blog, taking inspiration from the old Sinclair ZX81 upon which I wrote my first computer games (30 years ago — ouch!)
The title also derives from that same period. In addition to referencing popular 2000 AD comic character Strontium Dog, the name was selected to invoke the kind of dark, sci-fi nuclear-conspiracy imagery where you can feel that something sinister is glowing green around the corner. (Blimey, it's getting like a JG Ballard novel in here.)
The top logo was created on Photoshop: the textured plastic case was created from scratch, using noise filters and overlapping gradient masks; the embossed lettering uses various bevel & shadow effects from different angles, with some subtle white outer glow to simulate dust trapped in crevices.
For the blog itself, the rounded white boxes and colour scheme (black, white, red and grey) continue Rick Dickinson's Bauhaus-inspired ZX81 styling. As a final touch, the archive is renamed 'History'.
This blog will show the evolution of the major theme for my project work, focusing on the research and experimentation which occurs during this process. I'll also be using it as a dumping ground for indirectly related projects, which will appear in the "Other Pages" section.
For my first act of wanton design I've gone for a 'retro' theme for the blog, taking inspiration from the old Sinclair ZX81 upon which I wrote my first computer games (30 years ago — ouch!)The title also derives from that same period. In addition to referencing popular 2000 AD comic character Strontium Dog, the name was selected to invoke the kind of dark, sci-fi nuclear-conspiracy imagery where you can feel that something sinister is glowing green around the corner. (Blimey, it's getting like a JG Ballard novel in here.)
The top logo was created on Photoshop: the textured plastic case was created from scratch, using noise filters and overlapping gradient masks; the embossed lettering uses various bevel & shadow effects from different angles, with some subtle white outer glow to simulate dust trapped in crevices.
For the blog itself, the rounded white boxes and colour scheme (black, white, red and grey) continue Rick Dickinson's Bauhaus-inspired ZX81 styling. As a final touch, the archive is renamed 'History'.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)