Oh hello there, another formal approach to game design is it i see?

I was given an article last week to read in order to widen my game designers vocabulary and understanding. MDA a formal approach to games design and game reach was the name of the article and it mainly focused about a framework called MDA and explained what this meant.

MDA as explained in the article is a framework put together for game designers that illustrate the way in which the process of game design is mapped out. There are three different stages which describe the development phases, only one of which is in the hands of the designer to change and alter, whereas the other two stages relies solely on these changes and their effect on each other. Each of these stages are called mechanics, dynamics and aesthetics. My understanding from the article is that the Mechanics is the base of the game, then the dynamics of the game relies on how the mechanics interact and that the aesthetic is the feeling which the player feels whilst playing the game, influenced by the previous two stages. And now to the tools, what they are and what they do.

The mechanics of the game is the the only part of the game the designer has full control of, and as soon as it hits the dynamics stages, the designer would be too far into the production. The mechanics is the core of the game, this includes: rules, game bits, players movement, and all the core game mechanics.

Next comes the dynamics of the game, this is the stage when the designer can see the way in which all the rules and mechanics interact with each other to create the most important stage of all. At this stage the designer cannot change the dynamics of the game directly however they can observe the behaviour of the dynamics and if small changes are needed to refine the dynamics, changes to the previous mechanics stage can be implemented thus changing the way the mechanics interact.

And finally the most important stage to a game designer, however it is also the hardest to create and manage accurately; the aesthetics stage. This the stage in which describes the way the player feels emotionally whilst playing the game. It is essentially the way the player feels during play, this is controlled by all the previous elements constructed together to give the final product. At this stage the designer has no control  over the game and in fact it is published and is too far deep into production. This is where the importance of good design comes into play and here is where I will explain why the MDA framework is such an important tool for a designer.

The only stage the designer can completely access with full control is the mechanics stage but their target is to influence the player with emotion and feelings at the final stage. With this in mind it is up to the designer to look at the game design from the other side of the stick but instead of create mechanics for the game to get it to function blindly, but to think about what certain dynamics create a specific emotion. Such as claustrophobia could an emotion you wanted for a game, it would include minimised movement, small spaces, darkness and eerie music. A small quote from the article reiterates this point. "Thinking about the player encourages experience driven design"

From reading this article it has opened my eyes to a new way of designing game by looking from the players point of view. Considering the player before the designer seems to be a logical decision when your goal is to create a game for a player.



Photo acquired from:
http://www.nolithius.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/mda-small.jpg

 

Games Britannia, part 1 of 4 "Dicing with Destiny"

On our most recent critical games studies lecture we were shown part one of a four part series called Games Britannia; a series in which historian Benjamin Woolley shows us the origins of our countries earliest games. At first the show takes us to a quarry in Essex where they had found one of the earliest board games if not the earliest that still remained intact. There were also 13 black and 13 white small pebbles on the board, two of these were in fact smaller and could of resembles a control piece in the game, similar to the king piece in a game of chess. It was nick named The Stanway Game as it was found in Stanway in Essex. Some of the game bits had already played on the board and from this Benjamin Woolley found a game historian from the British Museum and asked him if he could piece together the rules of the game.

Stepping even further back into history, Woolley learns of a game found in many religious cults and beliefs. A game known as Alea Evangelii was supposedly a game that was used as an educational tool to educate followers on the process of life. This game was believed to of been played at 400AD. At first many religions frowned upon playing games, but as the documentary progressed Woolley found that there was a game that was played during church ceremonies. This game was called Nine Men’s Morris and was played quite noticeably in the religious building in the past. It is a game similar to Tic-Tac-Toe where when a player lines up 3 of his stones, then you were allowed to remove one of the opponent’s stones until there is none left. This game is played on a set of 3 squares and so was easily scratched into stone, floors and even ceremonial grave stones. The religions didn't mind this for some reason as nowadays, games are considered bad by religions unless the game actually teaches the players morals and understandings. Particularly if games contain dice/dies, many religions saw the dice as a devils game as you are pretty much relying on chance and luck, which is exactly the opposite of what religions wanted in their games. Saying that though leads me onto why we as human being invented games.

Animals in the animal kingdom play around with object as do we, but on the human being has the ability to craft the simple act of play into a game which contains rules and structure to challenges ourselves. And why do we do this? Because we get bored! Humans get bored and so turn simple play into games in which we can compete with each other at. Many of the first instances of games began in the East in Asia/India and were brought over and manipulated to our requirements in Britain. Let’s take for example good ol' Snakes and Ladders. It first began as a religious game to teach the Hindu religious families about life and how you will be rewarded at the end for all your hard work. This game consisted of ladders and snakes of temptation however it also did include a different feature that wasn’t adapted for the English version. On several squares there is a moral in which the player may have to wait a turn due to temptation, thus teaching families about the right way of life (in the religious point of view.)

This is all the detailed notes I wrote about part one of the Games Britannia series and so I come to the conclusion that if you are a fan of history or board games or both, then you should try and get this video someplace as I found it extremely interesting.




"Dicing with Destiny" Games Britannia 2009 [TV] BBC4, December.

Zombie creation

Phil Jackson, our design methods lecturer was in this friday, showing us how to ink artwork using Adobe Photoshop CS5. Even though I have much experience in Photoshop I still learnt a thing or two. We were given a blue pencil sketch of Phil's father to attempt to ink over. But here's where I went a bit crazy, I kind of put my own twist on it and painted my zombie in a tux. If you guys were wondering, hes teaching us the basics of Photoshop because we're doing a storyboard for our assessment and need to learn the methods first. Sorry about the picture size guys, I prefer working on large canvases. Hope you guys like the Picture.

Game iterations: Battleships

In this weeks lesson on game design iteration we had to play the game called Battleships and after a game we had to iterate a new rule in order to change the game mechanics to improve the gaming experience. For those of you who do not know what Battleships is (I doubt there are many of you who don't) I will explain the rules of play before I explain the iteration we changed to the game rules.

Each player has two 10x10 square grids each. One to document their own moves/shots and another to track the progress of the opponent.

Each player has a series of 'boats' to place on their grid without over lapping or in a diagonal direction. Throughout all of the game, the player never reveals their grid to the opponent.

Each player has five ships to place on their grid. these are shown below:













Then each player takes turns as they nominate a grid reference to fire too. The opponent then has to say either miss or hit if the player has nominated a square in which one of the opponents ships are on. If the all the squares of a ship is sunk then the opponent has to acknowledge this to the player so they can continue to find the other ships.

Whoever sinks the opponents ships first wins.



Rule iteration change:

After playing the game once keeping to the traditional rules we then was asked to make up another rule to go on top of the existing rules. We were able to add and remove any of the rules currently implemented and so we chose our rule. Our rule was that you were able to lie twice during the game. Once when an opponent hit your ship, and a second time when your opponent missed. However every goes you are allowed to ask the opponent whether they had lied, or not lied. They then have to ask truthfully. Lets say for example my opponent hits my ship and I say that he missed when he really did hit it. He marks on his sheet that he missed whereas I mark he hit. After recklessly firing around the grid they ask if I lied, and i reply with yes. Now, the opponent has to remember their last 3 goes and to which one was a lie? This could be confusing at first but once you're the person who lied and now the opponent is clueless as to where your small 2 square PT boat is. Oh what fun!

Game design tools and vocabulary: Explained in week 3 readings

This week we were given readings from a Doug Church article about game tools as well as a chapter to read in Challenges for Game Designers by Brenda Braithwaite and Ian Schreiber. This chapter was about advising and showing how all games could be broken down into tiny atoms, hence the title of the chapter being Atoms. They focused on design tools used in the making of games and they both had different methods of selecting these tools. So let’s begin and start the dissecting.

Doug Church really emphasises in his article the lack of technical and precise language used within the game industry, specifically in the design of objects and assets. After explaining the way in which most people analyse work by saying "oh that was fun" or "I don’t know, it wasn't that fun" he expresses his desire for the need of a structured framework for a design vocabulary around the basis of designing games. The fact that many people analyse assets of game design like this doesn’t really give the designer much information about what or how they have done something wrong, sure they get a very basic idea that its wrong, but not a precise enough amount of detail that they can set it straight, hence the need for a specific system.

The framework he has come up with was FADT (Formal Abstract Design Tools.) Here is the broken down phrase explained: 'Formal,' criticise and define items and be able to explain this to somebody else; 'abstract,' to explain an array of new and fresh ideas around the whole subject; 'design,' as well, we're designers after all and 'tools,' as this is the actual framework we will be creating. The first tools he explained in depth with so far was; intention and perceivable consequence. But to break it done into a blog post I have simplified these:

Intention: Giving the player a feeling of intention and progress into the game by letting them act on their own plans as they understand with your game world.

Perceivable consequence: Giving the player the ability to assess the situation of an event easily and so that they can learn from their mistakes and not feel cheated by the game in any way.

After reading this article I really began to appreciate the vocabulary and tools Church suggested. The feeling of being able to see what went wrong when you attempted a move on an enemy and it was unsuccessful really does get the player more involved into the game especially when you can see what went wrong and apply that observation to the rest of the game world. However the chapter from Challenges for Game Designers broke games down into even smaller and easier digestible atoms of information, so let’s have a look at that shall we?

Instead of breaking the games down into tools of what designers use to create a game and to make the player feel absorbed, here they (Brenda Braithwaite and Ian Schreiber) break games in general into simple tools that the designers can use to create the finished product. Here they give all these terms very simple names; however they still define complicated issues. These were the definitions mentioned inside the chapter:

Game state: A collection of all the relevant game data that may change during play. The chapter gives poker for example; the game state would be each players hand and chips, the size of the pot, whose turn is it to bet, who has folded on the current hand, which cards are in the deck and in what order. Basically it is every bit of information the game needs to operate.

Game view: Is the area of the game the player can see and interact with. In a game of draughts, the game view would be the board, the pieces and that’s all. None of the information is hidden from the player, however in battleships; the game view is vastly different.

Game space: This is the whole game area in general.

Avatar: This is the object that represents the player digitally

Game bits: This is the category for all the games pieces such as dice, cards, and counters. All the physical objects that make the game

Game mechanics: To explain this simply, this is the game rules and how the player interacts with the rules to complete the game. E.g. how when you land on a snake on snakes and ladders, you MUST go down to the bottom of the snake. There are no exceptions.

Game dynamics: This explains the pattern of play that occurs after implementing the game mechanics. They explain in this book that a game such as Risk and Civilization are highly involved with territorial acquisition.

Goals: Many games have one ultimate goal, and that is to win. However some games have separate goals that are used to submerge and absorb players into the game world by getting them to slay beasts and receive a reward afterwards.

Theme: This is a general definition for: what’s the game about? Battleships is about you, a captain of a fleet of ships, hunting down enemy ships pretty much blind. Snakes and ladders is about reaching space 100 and avoiding the snakes.

Both the article by Doug Church and the Challenges for Game Designers book describes this vocabulary used to create a more structured game design phrase. However I personally feel that although Doug Church was attempting to make sense and increase the amount of precise accurate vocabulary, his attempt actually made the words more ambiguous to me. However that’s my own opinion. He did however point out tools in Mario 64 on Nintendo 64 that got me really thinking in terms of how games are designed more thoroughly. All in all I actually preferred Braithwaite and Schreiber’s vocabulary of game design. Simple and straight to the point, theres no need to complicate things.

New game definitions, Ludus, paidea and others...

In our last weeks lecture with Eddie Duggan we looked at how we could define video games in different terms. We were also given a section ofa book called Videogames by James Newman. In this particular blog post I will be looking at chapter 2: “What is a videogame? Rules, puzzles and simulations” In this chapter he describes the main categories of games as: paidea, ludus, agon, alea, ilinx and mimicry.

I found that these terms will become very useful as I become a game designer in the coming years to help use specialist terms and precise description in my analysis of other works as well as my own. So what do these words mean I hear you ask? Here are the most basic terms for each of them that he mentions in this chapter:

Paidea - Gaming just for pleasure

Ludus – Is a game constrained by rules and has an outcome (winning or losing)

Agon – Competitive game play

Alea – Randomness/change involved in-game

Ilinx – Movement

Mimicry – Simulation, role-play etc.

I will go more into depth with paidea and ludus now to show you an example. Paidea is a term given to a game when the main objective of the game is not clear, if there is any at all. The whole idea of the game is that the player is free from rules and can do whatever they please. The game will not have a solid framework in which the player would have to follow and. This flexibility of the game having no goals or rules leaves the whole game limited to the limitations of the imagination of the player. I personally find that these games are one of my favourite genres, as being a game designer, creativity is a must and being given the ability to go mad with some software is just my idea of a game. I mentioned earlier in one of my blog posts about Greg Costikyans views on games. In this article Costikyan mentions that Will Wright, the SimCity designer, talks about his product not being a game, but an “industrial toy.” This feeling is also shared by James Newman as he mentions SimCity as an example of a paidea game. Another example game which is described by this word is a game called The Powder Game. It was a game that was released many years ago on the Dan-Ball website and has since been deleted. It is a game that has no rules at all; it has no goals and no objectives. The player is given a menu with a choice of many materials such as gun powder, magma, stone and many others. There is a blank canvas in which they can construct anything they so desire. This game also has a physics mechanic inside as some objects obey the laws of gravity and some do not. There is only one limitation to this game and that is that there can only be a certain amount of pixels placed in the game, but I would imagine this is so the game runs as smooth as possible.  This game however does dip its toes into other definitions that James Newman talks about. Mimicry is when there is a factor of simulation involved, and seeing as this game mimics that of the materials of ‘real life’ this can also be considered. The fact that many games can be adapted with very simple changes to fit many different definitions is a sign of a good game, an adaptive game.

Ludus is a term given to a game which has rules and goals weaved into the framework of the game. This player has to follow these rules in order to eventually be rewarded with an outcome; this could be either winning or losing. One of the first examples of a rule constrained game would be the original game of Tron. A character controls a light bicycle that draws a path that remains until the end of the round, the first person to crash into either yours or the enemy’s path or even the wall loses.  It is a very simple concept for a game but it contains rules that must be stuck too or else the player will not receive the desired outcome (to win). Even though the rules are minimal, this game is a ludus game due to the constraints placed upon the player as the game begins. No touching walls, no touching any paths including your own, you can only use arrow keys for movement and first to die losing a round. This game is however even more adaptive than the last mentioned. The fact the game relies on player movement puts this game under the ilinx category as well as the agon category due to the fact that it’s a two player game and whenever a game has a second player, there is a competitive edge. This is because as humans, we have a tendency to change anything into a competition and to be the best out of the best. This is often the case, and the smallest things can often become competitions. But anyway I’m going off track here…

These exceptional topical description words will now be incorporated into my analysis of future topics and games. The fact that one game can consist of many different types of definitions leads me to want to use these useful descriptive words to construct a more structured and selective piece of writing and analysis.

Tom Sharman

If any of you guys (especially Ed) would like to try this Powder Game then here is a link:

The Powder Game

Greg Costikyan's theory as to the definiton of a 'game'

Greg Costikyan Wrote a famous article in 1994 about defining a game as a whole and since then the article has been been revisited and has been changed dramatically since, although the main concepts and ideas still remain. After reading this article I have been asked to explain my thoughts as to how much I support the quote from Costikyan that:

'A game is an interactivestructure of endogenous meaning that requires players to struggle towards goals'
                                                                             Greg Costikyan (2004:24)

So Buckle up, I will TRY to keep this brief, I have 5 pages of notes, I cant promise anything.

Well first of all I totally agree with Costikyan , the fact that the 'struggle' incorperated into the structure of the game in fact give the game its excitement and playability and also one major factor that game designers specifically want is re-playability. One term or metaphor Costikyan used in this article is 'plastic games,' games which can mold certain characteristics of play in order to become a struggle in many degrees. A puzzle is a game which mostly is just a challenge, this challenge being completed can either rely heavily on your mathematics skills, knowledge skills or even borderline to the games definition, your motor skills. Puzzles are considered to be static as they have a logic structure with a set outcome which depends on you completing the puzzle with the set rules, however a game is an adaptive structure which can change depending on the player interactions. This is now the showings of a struggle and that a costikyan explains that games have puzzles incorporated into them, they are often just harder to see when you're subconsciously affixed to the game. Here's a game example which has a typical puzzle element inside it:
A wave of zombies are slowly coming after you (I know, so cliche) and you have a certain amount time to wipe them out before they eat you for breakfast. Now seeing as they would be coming from all directions gives you the puzzle element. If I move my position to here and then time my grenade a few seconds after i could wipe out several of them in one go. This is the puzzle element of the game, you the player have to consciously pick the right moment out of however many seconds you have to then earn a collateral kill ending the round quicker. These small calculations occur through many, many games and I would arguably support this instance that most 'regular' games have many puzzle elements to them.

Interactive and structure tie all of the main elements of a game down into the finally package. The way a board game is structured can be fixed due to the nature of a board being square or how many spaces it has, BUT being a player of the board game, they can collectively or if you're a cheat and do this solo, not take all rules into account or any at all. This is usually the case that the players of a board game can structure their own struggles to create a more pleasurable experience, lets for example take Monopoly by Parker Brothers. I know many people who in fact take the chance and community chest cards that cause you to pay the bank for every single property with a structure on them to the bank. It creates mass struggle between players and personally to me I find it a game maker/breaker card. The harsh reality that all that empire you have worked for has to be destroyed and paid for, but hey that's life and it shows that the structure and the interaction with the game instructions can create a a variable degree of struggle.

This interaction of structure can be be very limited in digital games and the fact that game structure is pretty much fixed in a digital game. The most simple structure in a game is the factor of the choice of difficulty level in games. They can be chosen and set and can limit the amount of struggle that can be experienced for the player or players. Interaction between the player sometimes having a choice between the amount of struggle they experience can have it positive effect on notorious games. A game called DOOM for example it known for its extremities when it comes to level difficulties, it quite frankly 'sorts the men from the boys' and serious gamers see this as a huge boost to the urge to want to play and replay a game, however the satisfying feeling when you finish the game on the hardest difficulty with a super fast time can drive the player to want to replay and challenge friends. This struggle is created by the drive of us being human being to be successful and compete with each other. Which brings me onto goals and the fact that goals create struggle, and without goals, a game gets boring, pretty quickly.

Goals I feel are needed in every game in order to captivate a player and to extend into the nature of a human being. The fact human beings are competitive and enjoy a challenge is a factor that game designers have picked up a lot recently. With the introduction of multiplayer games and the way goals can be achieved together as well makes this day and age finally catch up to the board game multiplayer experience. This being said this instance of challenge and struggle is a factor that keeps people playing, a game that Costikyan mentions quite often is the game Simcity, although it does not come with any goals whatsoever or any challenges and the fact that it has become successful is due to the fact that humans can become creative or destructive and its ability to 'survive' the games library of the world is down to the creativity and imagination of human beings.

This leads me on to explaining that these challenges and goals give the game purpose, and most importantly the player to desire to play the games. These challenges, struggles and goals are endogenous as they are designed by humans for humans. People can do as much research as they like as to what us as casual or serious gamers enjoy doing, and that's being challenged, some may like being defeated time and time again just to be rewarded with the credits screen, whereas some player just want to be become immersed during their tea break in order to forget about their day and problems. This is why I feel that Costikyans definition of a game precisely hits the nail on the head.

Tom Sharman

'A game is an interactivestructure of endogenous meaning that requires players to struggle towards goals'
                                                                                   Greg Costikyan (2004:24) 

If anyone wants to view these treasures of articles, both variations are below.

Link to original the 1994 article

Link to revisited version of the article (2002)

Out with the old, in with the new!

Just got a great deal on one of the brand new generation of Wacom Bamboo's Pen and Touch. All for a bargain price as well. £74.99 - Free postage (3-5days)

Got a call from one of the customer service guys from Micro Anvika to confirm my address when earlier in the week I emailed the website telling them to update their pictures as the gallery still showed the old model of Bamboo (CTH-460). Whereas the specifications and product code were of the new generation (CTH-470K.) The guy heard about this from his team and colleagues that some customer noticed this (me) and they offered next day delivery for free just because I spotted a misleading error in their website design. FANTASTIC NEWS!



So now I have a brand new graphics tablet flying to my door at break neck speed for a price that's cheapest on the internet to replace my aging Wacom Volito 2. Poor old thing is useless.

Not to mention the fantastic range of sleeves to keep this baby all protected as I commute into uni everyday. <= Check this out. Its colour coded as well. If any of you would like the link for the brand new range a Bamboo's which are the cheapest on the internet and for free delivery then check this link out. The best deal I've found, and seeing as its nearly £20 cheaper than off the Wacom website. You can hardly go wrong, even if your a first time buyer for a graphics tablet. The picture of the actual product is the 9th picture, so don't get mislead by the other pictures, they explained to me that they "were included to demonstrate the power and features the tablet has."

Link to cheapest New generation of Wacom Bamboo Pen and Touch

Enjoy guys =D

I know that when you start a blog you're meant to describe yourself and make yourself seem interesting to the whole world and so im going to ask a few questions to myself in the style of an interview to give a general idea of what I do outside of game designing.

What fiction book are you currently reading?
I am currently indulging myself into the vast series of Halo books and I am currently reading The Flood by Eric Nylund.

What non-fiction book are you currently reading?
I have just begun to read the ginormous book called Dave Perry on Game Design: A brainstorming Toolbox. Its really inspiring the way he uses small activities in order to inspire you to create a cluster of ideas.

What was the last live performance you have seen?
The last live performance I saw was In London and it was a show called Stomp. If you guys dont know what it is its about a bunch of people creating music with everyday object to create a complex and pleasent piece. They use broomsticks, matchboxes, pipes and various other items. It was very entertaining and I would recommend anyone go see that show.

What was the last film you saw?
The most recent film I saw was Cowboys and Aliens (2011) and it was pretty much a terrible film. Theres a reason why there hasn't been a mixture of cowboys and aliens in a film before, because it just doesnt work. This film proves that, and hopefully there will never be another film involving cowboys from the 1880's and aliens from the vast future again.

How often do I read the newspaper?
Not often but as I work in a petrol station that sells newspapers infront of the counter, I can pretty much read the headlines whenever I want. But to be honest most of my news updates come from online, as it is just relatively easier to sift through most of the garbage in the papers anyway. That being said, theres also heaps or unwanted garbage online too!

The last art gallery/exhibition/museum you went too?
The most recent exhibition I went too was the Eurogamer Expo in London 2011. Was pretty amazing the fact that you queue all day to play some game for 5 minutes and then you get booted off, literally. But one of my most favourite places I have recently been too was The National gallery in London. What an inspiration to become a traditional artist it is too! Although Walking around the Tate Modern 10 minutes before definitely helped. The comparison between the two means the National Gallery wins hands down. Most of the exhibitions in the Tate just dont even compare to the pure amount of effort that went into their final pieces. Literally breath taking artwork, I am yet to be stunned since.

How many hours a week do I spend playing video games?
About 2-3 hours a day maximum, more on weekends I must admit but truthfully about 21 hours a week, maximum!

How many hours a week do you spend playing games which are not digital?
In all fairness its just so much easier to pick up a controller and play a board game online which has instant multiplayer campabilities. No 'clearing' up the board after you have lost and been nominated to clear up for being the total loser. I just find board games to be that one step behind video games. BUT that being said, everyone loves cracking out a board game during the christmas holidays with the whole family. It just brings families closer together, or if you own a hotel on Mayfair, then maybe not...

Tom Sharman, signing off...