Games Britannia: Parts 2 & 3

During one of Eddie's lesson we managed to finish the BBC4 series of 'Games Brittania'. This post is to follow on from my first, referring to Part 1.

 The same as Part one, Part 2 is presented by Benjamin Wooley. Part two focuses on how this game was influenced by America to promote the 'American dream' and how it was made as an instrument of moral and political instruction.
Wooley went on to explain the success of 'Monopoly', the best selling board game ever made. Exploring the background of Monopoly, Wooley revealed the game was invented in America but was influenced by the English board game 'The game of landlords'.

Again, Part 3 is presented by Benjamin Wooley. However this episode takes a different approach as it looks at the evolution of gaming from board games to video games. One of the largest contributions to the evolution was the release and success of the Playstation 1. Wooley then goes on to look at the development of the games themselves, for example how it became possible for players to make decisions within a game and how the players began to have an effect on the path of the story, for example Grand Theft Auto.

Overall the series has provided me with a better insight into the background of the most popular board games ever made. Other information about the evolution or board games to video games I already knew, but it was still interesting to watch all of compiled together.

'La Decima Vittima'

During one of Eddie's lessons we watched a film called 'La decima vittima'. The idea of this film comes close to others I have seen before. Whilst watching this I often found a close relation to the film 'Battle Royale', this is due to the plot being based around a selection of players having to fight for survival for one reason or another. In th ecase of 'La decima vittima' players are fighting for money, $1million to be precise. Along with money, winners would become seen as a national hero, playing a large part for character driven by their egos. The reason for the hunt is to prevent war within humanity by tempting violent people to partake, removing the temptation to become violent in public.

 I really enjoyed watching the film and seeing how the story panned out. I also found parts humorous due to the exaggeration of events. This film is a good example of how people cannot resist the temptation of playing a game, even if it risks putting themselves in danger or harming others. 

Players who suit MUDS

We were set the task of reading Richard Bartle's article called 'Players who suit MUDS'. First of all I suppose I better explain what a 'MUD' is, it stands for Multi-User Domain/Dungeon, depending on the source.

Richard Bartle goes on to describe his research of the different player types. There are four main types of player that he refers to and describes in detail. These are Achievers, Explorers, Socialisers and Killers.

-Achievers: like to set themselves game-related goals and then start working on reaching them.
-Explorers: like to find out as much as they can about the game world and mechanics through exploration.
-Socialisers: like to use the games communicative facilities to communicate with other players to progress.
-Killers: like to use too from within the game to destroy things, causing distress to other players.

Players tend not to stick to one player type and they often drift between them to find one they prefer, this is there experience of playing the game.

Changing the balance:
If the number of each player type changes and becomes unbalanced, it is very likely it will have a negative affect on the game. for example, if the number of socialisers is decreased, it may mean the number of explorers and achievers will also decrease because  they will not be able to get as much information to help them reach new areas or new goals. On the other hand, the number of killers is likely to increase due to socialisers being easy prey.

Overall after reading this article I can see that some of his ideas are a bit out dated, but overall Richard Bartle covers some really good points about the different players types. The most interesting part for me is the balance of player types and how changing the number of a certain type can have a huge affect on the all the others.

Space of Possibility and Pacing in Casual Game Design

For this week we read an article about PopCap games. This article referenced the Spacing and Pacing within designing a casual game.

First of all I thought I would define what the article believes a 'casual game' is. "Casual Game = games that generally involve less complicated game controls and overall complexity in terms of game play or investment required to get through the game."
Because of this definition I can see that casual games are not necessarily of smaller complexity.

PopCap games are very popular due to their pick up and play appeal. The majority of their games make it possible for any player of any level of skill to compete when playing. The complexity of the games is often hidden from the players. The popularity of the games is also affected by the accessibility being very easy and varied.

Pacing: 
Crafting the players experience.

• Relaxation
• Tension
• Repetition

- Movement Impetuous:

This is and aspect that pushes the player to move on in a level rather than waiting around.

- Tension:

This refers to perceived danger.  It creates illusions for the player without changing the basic mechanics of the game.

- Threat: 

This is where the design has actual power and changes the mechanics of the game to create real danger.

- Tempo
This refers to the time that is taken between each significant decision that the player makes.

Spacing:

• If the spacing in game is limited then the choices a player can make are limited. Due to this the game can become prone to being easily solvable and this can induce boredom.
• However if the spacing is too large then the game play will be slowed. Therefore the game may become boring. With too many choices for the player then there is not enough movement impetuous.

Layering mechanics:

When a new mechanic is shown to the player, they use the new mechanic to progress, rather than continuing with the old mechanics. For example new upgrades, weapons, enemies, maps.

From doing this reading I know have a better understanding of the way designers can affect the players movement within the game by restricting their choices as well as increasing the number of decisions. I have also gained a better understanding in the way designers can directly and indirectly affect the mechanics of the game to put pressure on the player. 

Chance and skill

Last friday we read an article about chance and skill in games. We then discussed what each of the these do to the game experience for a player.

Why chance?:

• Chance offers opportunities for people of different skill levels to win.
• Chance offers more ways to win.
• Chance prevents absolute mastery.
• Chance is very good for adding drama.
• Chance means you cant always rely on the same strategy to mean the same outcome.
• Chance increases the replayability
• Chance makes the game more competetive.

Enhancing decision making:
The essence of most games is the decisions players make. Players of a game with no chance mean they know all the information and know the exact outcome of every decision they make. Therefore some of these decisions are not exciting.

Mechanics of chance:

• Dice
• Cards
• Random number genration
• Fog of War
• Hidden information

Elements of skill:
A good game is a series of interesting decisions. The success of decisions - whether mental or physical reaction- is a measure of skill.
good games also reward them with  immediate and obvious feedback for the decisions they make.

If a game is pure skill it can become boring and doesnt reward those players who are more skilled than others. They can sometimes be seen as unfair.

Blind decisions:
this is where you are asked to make a decision without you having any information on it. This will mean you are unaware of the consequences and also eliminates control.

Obvious decisions:
These are mostly things that should be automated as they are pointless options that dont need to be provided to the player.

Tradeoffs:
This is where there is no right or wrong answer. Just tactics.

-Tradeoff mechanics:

• Auctions - makes a fair way for players to gain an advantage.

Tools for Creating Dramatic Game Ideas

As games designers we must assure that our game will be dramatic, even when we don't have direct control over the narrative, a narrative that isn't scripted in advance, but emerges from the events of the game.

All drama originates from conflict and this conflict comes from contest.
We can only guide players towards this drama due to the lack of control we have. We have to make the players makes the decisions we want so they feel in control but the tension is still arisen.
To help enhance the drama within games, we have to add elements of uncertainty.

Uncertainty:
Making sure the outcome is unknown
- Force : Actually manipulating the game state directly.

• Positive feedback loops: A denoument --> reward to the reader.
• Negative feedback: Draws players together.

-Illusion : manipulating the player perception of the game state without actually changing it.

• Hidden energy: deceiving the player by thinking they're ahead when both players have the same bonus.
• Fog of war: You can only strategise over what you can actually see.
• Escalation: Increasing the drama coming to a climax towards the end.
• Declaration: Making competition to look closer than it actually is.
• Cashing out: A way to level out the competition by reducing the lead. 

Inevitability:
the sense that the contest is moving forward toward resolution.
This is used to show the game is drawing to a close.

Creating Bibliography

The task set was for us to experiment with 'Zotero' by creating a bibliography. I didn't have any luck with Zotero because the computer I was using was not very good and is just odd. However I had a look at the Harvard Referencing System to help me with typing up. So technically I haven't completed the task but I did the best that was available to me at the time.
Here is my attempt at doing so:


-Rosenweig, G. (2011) ActionScript 3.0, Game Programming University, 2nd Ed., Que.


-Koster, R. (2005) Theory of Fun for Game Design., Paraglyph Press.






-Salen, K. Zimmerman, E. (2006) The games design reader: A Rules of Play Anthology. MIT Press


-Peters, J. & Miller, B., 2011. Common Sense Game Design: Steal These Ideas 1st ed., A K Peters/CRC Press.






-Knowledge Quest. (2011) USING VIDEO GAMES TO EMBRACE INQUIRY: learning for life through fun. 40 (1): 66-69


-Turner, M.C., 2006. GAMES PEOPLE PLAY. Black Enterprise, 36(10), p.53.