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...