Royal Game of Ur Iterations Essay

Royal Game of Ur

The Royal Game of Ur is an ancient board game that existed long ago, around 3000 B.C and was discovered by an individual known as Sir Leonard Wooley in Mesopotamia, near the city of Ur (Bell, 1979). This game was discovered within the royal tombs of Ur. There are a multitude of different writers, such as Bell, Finkel, Becker and Murray who have done their own research and come up with their own interpretations, and their own discoveries into the Royal Game of Ur.

As Murray states in his book, the Royal Game of Ur is very similar to the ancient egyptian game of Sen't (Murray, 1952) however he also makes the inspection that the shape is very different, whilst the play style is similar. According to Murray, his interpretation as to how the Royal Game of Ur is played goes as follows:

Each game will offer the players a selection of different 'lots' which would signify four different throws. As shown in the picture that has been placed below, the board was made up from 3X8 shape, with two blocks removed on either side to offer the unique shape that is shown. Murray writes about the different pieces that were found, two sets of 'men': one set white with dark spots and one set dark with light spots. Murray suggests that these pieces would take a route that begins at the outer edge of four blocks and then turn into the main straight before heading for the other end of the board and finishing on the rosette piece there. (Murray, 1952)

Image taken from Murray's book, the game boards shape



(Murray, 1952)

Bell offers a more descriptive view of the rulings involved in the Royal Game of Ur. Bell suggests the following rules:

-The first ruling that Bell suggests involves agreeing on a sum that will be in played for in that particular game. This would be given to the winner upon the conclusion of the game.

-Secondly, one player will role one of the given dice and the other player must predict whether a marked or unmarked end will be on top. If the prediction is false, the rolling player will go first and vice versa.

- The third rule found in Bells writings is that both teams will begin off the board, and illustrates the direction of play with the following diagram. As shown in the diagram the players will enter on the larger segment of the board, travel along the outer edge and enter the central passage through the corner. They will then follow the central passage and turn onto the outer edge of the smaller segment before coming off the board. The shaded sections on the diagram below represent rosettes.

The direction of play(Bell, 1979)

-The fourth rule that Bell mentions in his book is in relation to how the player moves around on the board. Each dice is made up of two marked edges. According to Bell, who relates to them as 'jeweled edges', the move system works as follows:
"Three jeweled corners up...5 and another throw
Three plain corners up...4 and another throw
Two plain corners up...0 and another throw
One plain corner up...1 and another throw" (Bell, 1979)

When the game was played within the lecture in order to test it, we did not play it by these rules. Instead we played it with four dice with two painted ends. We played the game with the ability to move on with any roll and then move per the number of painted corners that were pointing up after we rolled the dice compared to Bell's fifth rule, which was that the player could only move a piece onto the board when they successfully rolled a 5.

Bell's sixth rule utilised his 'pool' idea, and whenever a player landed on a marked square, or 'rosette' the opponent was required to pay an amount into the 'pool'. When the game was played within the lecture, we did not utilise a pool and instead utilised the 'rosette' squares as a safe zone, allowing the player to not lose his piece when he is settled on this square. This leads onto Bell's next rule, which is that when a player lands on an opposing piece that piece is removed from play and must be brought back into the game with a roll of 5. As stated before we did not play by this rule. The remaining rules that have been set by Bell include the notion of taking an opponents piece by landing on it, an exact throw is necessary  to get a piece off of the board and the winner is the player who removes all of their pieces from the board first. (Bell, 1979)

If we were to compare the rule set that Bell gives to the description that is written by Finkel (Finkel, 1990) there is a lot more detail put into Finkel's writings. Finkel, using translated tablets from Babylon(referred to as BM in his writings) and another tablet which is considered to be founded from a southern Mesopotamian city known as Uruk(referred to as DLB).
Through the use of these tablets Finkel was able to specify some rules that were not found in Bells writings. These rules include the use of astragals, instead of dice as referenced in Bells writings. Finkel has also given names to the pieces, and they are:
UD.GAL bird
Raven
Rooster
Eagle
Swallow
Through the use of these different pieces, Finkel suggests that they require specific rolls in order to get them to enter the board through a technique he calls 'doubling' (Finkel, 1990) This is better shown in the table below, which also relates the UD.GAL bird as the 'storm bird'.

Table 3.1 as found in Finkels writings. (Finkel,1990)

The differences that are found between the two readings does suggest that there is a difference in the research conducted by the two writers, and also that they have possibly drawn similarities from one another as Finkel references Bell in his writings.

After all of the discussion in relation to the history and how the game is played there is another major component that must be addressed in this Essay. The changes that have been made to the game itself.
The first change that we made was the ability to group together pieces. This offered the chance of 'risk vs reward' (Braithwaite & Schreiber, 2008) because it enabled the player to attempt to finish the game and win faster by getting more pieces to the end at the same time. The risk came from the rule that any number of pieces were able to knock a group of the board, therefore it allowed a player with a single piece to remove a group of five pieces off the board by landing on them. When implementing this rule, it was important to decide how the pieces would be removed and if their was a limit to the number you could group together. We decided against limiting the number and allowing a single piece to take any number because this increases the risk versus reward payoff.

Now we decided to address an issue that came with the rosette pieces. We were playing with a ruleset which enabled invulnerability to any piece that was located on a rosette. To address this we implemented a small rule which limited said invulnerability to a time of three turns. At the end of these three turns it revokes the invulnerability. This time frame was recorded through the use of a counter system  off of the board, with a piece moving along every turn so that the player did not forget. Due to the nature of the rules that we played the game with, every piece entered the board in the same place on any roll; utilising this rule change we implemented, it caused a player to think ahead and not leave his pieces on rosette squares further into the board to attempt to block his opponent due to the risk attached. This rule also, as above works on the risk/reward system but in more of a limited manner because of the risk of losing your pieces after three turns. (Braithwaite & Schreiber, 2008)

A rule that we thought would be an interesting implementation was the ability to block an opponents pieces. This rule worked in conjunction with the ability to group together pieces, offering the option that you would require an equal, or greater, number of pieces to break the block. However, through playtesting this iteration we discovered that late game the player with the least pieces left on the board was at a disadvantage because of the potential that the opponent could succesfully block the player and win the game. This iteration was one that we attempted in good faith that it would go well, but decided against using because of its unbalanced use late game.

From the reading that has been made in regards to the Royal Game of Ur I believe that it is a complicated game that could potentially be explored even further. Through the use of readings by Bell, Finkel and Murray i was able to decide how the game was thought to be played, even though they will often argue or even reference one another in their writings. Iterating the Game of Ur was an interesting experience which allowed different methods to be achieved and attempted in order to improve the quality experience that the game offered us. The iterations, I personally believe, allowed us to further explore the ideas that are found behind the Royal Game of Ur and begin to enjoy this ancient game.

Bibliography
-Bell, R. C. (1979) Board and Table Games from Many Civilizations. Revised
edition
-Brenda Braithwaite & Ian Schreiber (2008) Challenges For Games Designers 'Games Design Atoms' (Charles River Media)
-Finkel, I. L. ed. (2008) Ancient Board Games in Perspective: Papers from the 1990 British Museum
colloquium with additional contributions. London. British Museum Press.
-Murray, H. J. R. (1952) A History of Board Games Other Than Chess. Oxford. Clarendon Press.  

MUDS

This article, titled: 'Hearts, Clubs, Diamonds and Spades: Players who suit MUDS' is an article written by Richard A. Bartle. Bartle explores the notion of MUDS, and the different types of players and how they can influence the world found within the MUDS. Bartle mentions that there are two dimensions found in MUDs and are action vs interaction and world oriented vs player oriented, he continues to explore these topics further into the article.


Bartle begins the article by discussing a survey he carried out with 15 top level players involved in a popular MUD at the time. Through this survey he came to the conclusion of finding 4 different categories which all of the players opinions seemed to belong to:


1. Achievement within the game context
This is the notion of setting up goals within the game universe and setting out to complete them. If we relate this to previous readings it can be associated with Doug Churchs article about Formal Abstract Design Tools, because by setting themselves goals the players are offering themselves an intention to continue playing the game. Bartle labels these players as achievers.


2.Exploration of the world
This is the idea that the players would like to explore the entire game world and discover its breadth and depth. This ties in with Church's article in the terms of intention and narrative, because players will want to push forward and discover more about the game world whilst also discovering the story behind it. Bartle labels these characters as explorers.


3. Socializing with others
This, along with the fourth category, ties in with Church's article in relation to cooperation and conflict in video games. Socializing with others relates to the idea of using the games communication facilities to have a conversation and interact with other players. Bartle labels these players as socializers.


4.Imposition upon others
As is known in MUDs, these are the trolls, griefers and annoying people that are found in games. Occasionally there will be a good person who will attempt to help other players, but the majority of the time they utilize the game system in order to antagonize the other players. Bartle labels these characters as killers.


He then continues to relate the stereotypes with a decks different suites: Achievers are diamonds. Explorers are Spades. Socialisers are Hearts and Killers are spades. These different types are often crossed into and no player is clear cut into a specific section, however, players will tend to have a 'regular' pattern when gaming and will often fall back into it if they are not attempting anything.


Bartle begins to go into more detail about each of these stereotypes:


Achievers

Always aiming to gain the maximum amount of treasure, points or maximising their level. These players will explore to discover new treasures or areas to gain more levels. They may socialise to discuss new methods of maximising their points and they may kill their rivals or people who interfere with their achieving.


Explorers

Explorers devote themselves to discovering the hidden machinations of the game, discovering its bugs and tend to only gather points when necessary to continue exploring, the same with killing and socialising.


Socialisers

Socialisers utilise the game as a backdrop and spend more time interacting with the players, communicating amongst themselves. Socialisers avoid killing and only tend to explore and gain points in order to access more levels of communication, or to get into the 'loop' about what everyone is talking about.


Killers

As the name suggests, these types of players enjoy killing others. They often do this for satisfaction in order to cause aggravation in other players. These players will often explore and gain points in order to find more entertaining methods of killing people, yet tend to avoid socialising unless it is to further taunt and antagonise a target.


The MUD itself can change what type of players are found within its midst, an example would be Star Wars: The Old Republic. This game is very story focused and offers many hidden objects to be found by exploring. However, there are also different servers for different types of players. This helps keep the types of players segregated, allowing less frustration from those not wishing to be disturbed by killers(PVE servers) and offering a place for players to actively attempt to kill each other(PVP servers.)

There is a balance between the players, if there is more of one type then there could be a decline in the others. As Bartle states, an admin would need to try and ensure the 'balance' but this is up to them how it is achieved and how they would like their MUD to 'feel'.


Below there is a graph that Bartle uses in his article in order to further explain the interests of each player type.

                                                                  ACTING  

                                     Killers                          |                                   Achievers

                                                                         |

                                                                         |

                                                                         | 

                                                                         |

                                                                         |

                          PLAYERS -------------------+------------------- WORLD

                                                                         |

                                                                         |

                                                                         |

                                                                         |

                                                                         |

                                    Socialisers                     |                                     Explorers 

                                                              INTERACTING

Following the Graph above, it allows us to show how each player archetype would act in a MUD.

1.Achievers
Achievers are ACTING within the WORLD, immersing themselves within the game world. They do not care much for sharing it with other players.

2. Explorers
Explorers are INTERACTING within the WORLD, they explore the entire world in its entirety, exploring its depth and breadth. They could easily reach the top, but choose not to.

3. Socialisers
Socialisers simply use the game as a backdrop and INTERACT with the PLAYERS. Socialisers enjoy getting to know the other players and care little for playing the game in the same depth as other types of players.

4.Killers
Killers are often ACTING with PLAYERS. They enjoy performing acts towards other players, often without their consent. Killers have to achieve in order to prove their superiority over the other players.




In MUDS it is possible to modify the MUD to suit one of the extremes on the above graph, however by moving towards one extreme it can ruin a part of the other.


If you are making a MUD more oriented toward PLAYERS, then you would need to provide more sources of communication, this will make the game less of a MUD and more of a chatroom.


If you are making a MUD more oriented towards the WORLD, then you need to add a bigger world, and create a world where people may rarely meet. This could alienate the Socialisers, because they would not be able to find anyone to socialise with.


If you are making a MUD more oriented towards ACTING, then you will be introducing tasks that are constantly repetitive and boring for the players.
If you are making a MUD more oriented towards INTERACTING, then it involves restricting a players freedom so that they are able to only take a specific path. This causes the player to be watching the game more than playing.

There are debates that compare MUDS as either social or gamelike. These means that games either operate below the 'x-axis' if they are more social, as is stated in the article, or above the axis in regards to being gamelike. The article compares the two arguements and also shows how a MUD can be considered both, such as a gamelike MUD having socialisers, or a social MUD having killers.

The different player types often interact with one another, as is shown below:


Achievers vs Achievers.

Achievers are often very competetive towards one another. They will often work together and do not need encouraging to start playing a new MUD


Achievers vs Explorers.

Achievers do not regard Explorers in high regard. They treat high level explorers in good regard though because they often know what to do.


Achievers vs Socialisers. 

Achievers tolerate socialisers, they are often used as the 'gossip' of the competition but otherwise they are not needed.


Achievers vs Killers. Achievers dont like Killers. They believe that killers are necessary but do not like the way that they act within MUDs



Explorers Vs Explorers
Explorers hold good explorers in great respect, but are merciless to bad ones. One of the worst things a fellow explorer can do is to give out incorrect information, believing it to be true. Other than that, explorers thrive on telling one another their latest discoveries, and generally get along very well.


Explorers Vs Socialisers
Explorers consider socialisers to be people whom they can impress, but who are otherwise pretty well unimportant. Unless they can appreciate the explorer's talents, they're not really worth spending time with.


Explorers Vs Killers
Explorers often have a grudging respect for killers, but they do find their behaviour wearisome. It's just so annoying to be close to finishing setting up something when a killer comes along and attacks you. On the other hand, many killers do know their trade well, and are quite prepared to discuss the finer details of it with explorers. Sometimes, an explorer may try attacking other players as an exercise, and they can be extremely effective at it.


Socialisers Vs Achievers Socialisers like achievers, because they provide the running soap opera about which the socialisers can converse. Without such a framework, there is no uniting cause to bring socialisers together (at least not initially). Note that socialisers don't particularly enjoy talking to achievers (not unless they can get them to open up, which is very difficult); they do, however, enjoy talking about them. A cynic might suggest that the relationship between socialisers and achievers is similar to that between women and men.


Socialisers Vs Explorers Socialisers generally consider explorers to be sad characters who are desperately in need of a life. Both groups like to talk, but rarely about the same things, and if they do get together it's usually because the explorer wants to sound erudite and the socialiser has nothing better to do at the time.
The number of explorers in a MUD has no effect on the number of socialisers.


Socialisers Vs Socialisers
A case of positive feedback: socialisers can talk to one another on any subject for hours on end, and come back later for more. The key factor is whether there is an open topic of conversation: in a game-like environment, the MUD itself provides the context for discussion, whether it be the goings-on of other players or the feeble attempts of a socialiser to try playing it; in a non-game environment, some other subject is usually required to structure conversations, either within the software of the MUD itself (eg. building) or without it (eg. "This is a support MUD for the victims of cancer"). Note that this kind of subject-setting is only required as a form of ice-breaker: once socialisers have acquired friends, they'll invariably find other things that they can talk about.


Socialisers Vs Killers
This is perhaps the most fractious relationship between player group types. The hatred that some socialisers bear for killers admits no bounds. Partly, this is the killers' own fault: they go out of their way to rid MUDs of namby-pamby socialisers who wouldn't know a weapon if one came up and hit them (an activity that killers are only too happy to demonstrate), and they will generally hassle socialisers at every opportunity simply because it's so easy to get them annoyed. However, the main reason that socialisers tend to despise killers is that they have completely antisocial motives, whereas socialisers have (or like to think they have) a much more friendly and helpful attitude to life. The fact that many socialisers take attacks on their personae personally only compounds their distaste for killers.

Killers Vs Achievers

Killers regard achievers as their natural prey. Achievers are good fighters (because they've learned the necessary skills against mobiles), but they're not quite as good as killers, who are more specialised. This gives the "thrill of the chase" which many killers enjoy - an achiever may actually be able to escape, but will usually succumb at some stage, assuming they don't see sense and quit first.


Killers Vs Explorers Killers tend to leave explorers alone. Not only can explorers be formidable fighters (with many obscure, unexpected tactics at their disposal), but they often don't fret about being attacked - a fact which is very frustrating for killers.


Killers Vs Socialisers
Killers regard socialisers with undisguised glee. It's not that socialisers are in any way a challenge, as usually they will be pushovers in combat; rather, socialisers feel a dreadful hurt when attacked (especially if it results in the loss of their persona), and it is this which killers enjoy about it.


Killers Vs Killers
Killers try not to cross the paths of other killers, except in pre-organised challenge matches. Part of the psychology of killers seems to be that they wish to be viewed as somehow superior to other players; being killed by a killer in open play would undermine their reputation, and therefore they avoid risking it (compare Killers v Explorers).

If i was to attempt to relate to this article then I would bring my attention to more modern versions of MUDs, commonly known as MMOs. Within these MMOs i would classify myself as part Achiever and part Explorer. By using this article I am able to relate because I personally dislike the types of players who would go around causing grief, and are often related to 'trolls'. 

I enjoyed reading this article because of the above reasons and it allowed me to discover what type of player I am classified as.

Chance and Skill

Chance
Brathwaite mentions in the opening section of the 5th chapter that 'Most games contain at least some factors that are random or not repeatable'. This statement is clear because it offers the idea that most games will factor in chance to entertain the players.

There are many roles that chance is used for in games, such as:

Delaying solvability
This is the idea that it prevents the player from solving the game, or preventing a single player from being able to win every time the game is played. The idea that chance will prevent players from mastering a game for a longer period of time compared to a game that lacks chance.

Making play 'competitive' for all players
Strong players will beat weak players in pure strategy games. Introducing chance into these games allows a weaker player the chance to beat the stronger player because it becomes more luck based. This allows a higher chance of victory to all players and when a player can blame luck it lessens their chance of being upset about losing.

Increasing variety
If a game lacks chance and randomness, then the players will always begin the game in the same method. By introducing variety it forces players to adapt to the new situations each time they play.

Dramatic Moments
Introducing chance into a strategy game helps create dramatic tension. Tension is created by risk, if a player is making a strategic move that is based on chance the risk could be high and this causes the tension to rise. Tension rises in proportion to the amount of risk.

Decision Making
The player will make the obvious decisions if they can see the outcome. Random factors can offer more strategic choices and allows the player to make more complicated and compelling choices

Mechanics
Dice
Dice are the staple of random mechanics. Utilising dice allows for a random number to be created. However, as more dice are used a 'bell curve' is created and this reduces the random number as numbers located in the middle of the spectrum become more likely to show up. By using dice with more faces, this probability is reduced and the randomness is increased.

Cards
You can randomise the order of cards by shuffling the collection of cards. Cards can work in conjunction with hidden information by hiding your own cards from your opponents and by revealing cards it can change the probability of other cards appearing.

Number Generators
These are technically not random, so they are known as pseudo-random number generators. Players need to be careful because some generators will favor numbers over others.

Hidden Information
The idea of hiding information from certain players allows the information to appear random to the players who are unable to view the information. Hidden information can lead to a player becoming frustrated and leaving the game because they find understanding it more difficult.

There are other bits such as a deidrel, which functions like a 1d4; a spinner which behaves like a dice and tiles to offer a similar randomness to a deck of cards.

Brathwaite mentions in the book that 'All Randomness Is Not Created Equal'. This statement shows that the idea of chance and random is different and unequal in different games. For example, the chance found in Poker is different to the chance found in Chess.

There are two types of games that are purely random, these two types of games are Children's Games, and Gambling.
These games both utilise chance in order to allow more people to play them. Children's games give the illusion of skill to children whilst gambling offers everyone a chance at winning.

Skill
Strategy is a returning point for many games. Players will often return to games in order to learn the necessary patterns and in doing so offers them entertainment whilst they also become more skilled at the game.

There are many reasons to implement skill into games. A good game uses skill to give interesting decisions and the success of those decisions is the players skill. Good games reward this skill with immediate feedback. This allows the player to continue thinking about what to do next and this helps immerse him in the game, or as Brathwaite says in the book: the 'magic circle'. This magic circle relates to 'flow', a type of game state.

These decisions are a sign of a good game and there are multiple types of decisions:

Obvious Decisions
These are decisions that you would take no matter what, such as taking the queen if their is no repurcussions in chess. These choices are often made because they are the optimum choice and there is no point making any other choice. These choices can be automated, such as reloading a gun or recovering stamina.

Meaningless Decisions.
These are decisions in which the responses have no different outcomes on the game. These are boring decisions because they do not affect the game state. There is a different outcome for this in which the player perceives that their meaningless decision  is making a change to the game state, when in fact it is not.

Blind Decisions
Decisions that are made without any information regarding the decision. These types of decisions affect the game state however, without information, the outcome is completely random. These decisions are made better if the player is offered with more information, but not the entirety of information.

Tradeoffs
Tradeoffs are decisions that a player must make when they are unable to accomplish all of the available goals.  There is no right or wrong with these decisions and that makes them more interesting.

Dilemmas
A type of tradeoff that only has a negative outcome for the player.

Risk versus Reward Tradeoff
A type of tradeoff which involves a situation with different levels of risk, yet multiple outcomes.

Frequency or Anticipation of Decisions
Developers need to think about the number of decisions that a player needs to make in a game and how often they need to be made. The quality of a game depends on the frequency of decisions that are being made. Decisions are not always frequent but there is often a build up towards the situation, by building tension for example.

Strategy and Tactics
Strategy is the term given to when a player is deciding what to do in the long run whilst tactics is more for short run. These terms are also related to macro and micro management respectively. Tradeoffs are good for strategy whilst twitch skill is more related to tactics.

Mechanics of Skill
Tradeoff mechanics
Auctions
There are multiple types of auctions, they typically involve betting resources in order to earn another item or resource.

Open Auction
A type of auction in which the participants can call out bids whenever they want until noone makes another bid.

Sequential Auction
The same as an Open Auction but there is a specific order in which the bidding is done.

Silent Auction
Ever players makes their bid at the same time, but in secret.

Fixed Price Auction
The item is set at a fixed price, and the first player to accept wins.

Dutch Auction
The item starts at a high price but begins to drop over time.

Reverse Auction
An auction in which the players bid to prevent a negative effect happening to them.

Purchases
The ability to buy items or equipment or actions. The choices come from the limited currency and the urgency of purchasing that item or equipment, because it may not be available later on.

Limited Use Abilities
Allows players to break the standard rules of the game in specific ways. These are limited and are only used once or twice, offering a limited advantage. The choice comes in using the ability at specific times.

Dynamic Limited Use Abilities
Varying strengths of abilities based on time, location or other factors the decision can change strategically. Offers a choice as to when to use the abilities.

Explicit Choices
Choices with clear results. The choice comes in which path to follow.

Limited Actions
Having a limited choice of which actions, or which characters to follow.

Trading and Negotiation
Choices involving alliances, choices to trade items and offer advantages to other players or to offer them bad deals and to betray them. These choices can affect late game because the players will be more reluctant to trust you.

Strategic Evaluations
Developers need to understand how a player will go through their game when considering skill and strategy. Questions such as 'do players care when other players are taking their turn?' or 'Are players making long term plans?' or 'Are there multiple strategies for multiple games?' come into play and the developer must deal with these appropriately. The developer would need to find a way to immerse the player into the game so that they will want to stay with it for the length of the game. Developers need to attempt to persuade their players into planning ahead for the game, in order to gain an advantage and they would need to persuade the players to be finding multiple strategies for solving the game.

Bluff

In this session we played a game called Bluff, in order to explore the idea of creating dramatic tension.

Bluff is a game which involves rolling 5 dice and then hiding them from the other players. By hiding the dice it offers the uncertainty of what each player has rolled and this helps create drama. Each round a player will lose a dice and as more dice are lost to the middle of the table the inevitability of the game is revealed as less and less dice are in play, revealing how close to the end it is. The hiding of the dice can be related to the idea of having a fog of war, the information shown to the player is limited in the beginning but can increase as more dice are lost from other players, whilst getting smaller when the player loses their own dice.

By retaining more dice than your opponents it offers a more tactical advantage, a form of positive feedback. This feedback can help a player retain their advantage.

The main dramatic idea behind this game is from the secrecy and deception that is revealed when a player places their bid. The idea of challenging a bid also contributes towards the drama because the player may not want to risk their own dice, however the player must raise the bid and this can also increase the risk.

We decided to iterate the game without changing the rules. To begin with we decided to completely hide the hidden information, such as how many dice are in play. These caused the players who were not keeping count to be at a loss as to how many dice are in play, compared to the players who chose to keep track.

This was the only iteration made because it enabled the game to play out with a larger amount of uncertainty, and also hid the inevitability to an extent because the players were unable to see how many pieces were left in the middle.

In regards to dramatic tension, I believe that I understand how dynamics can be manipulated in order to show off the aesthetic notion of inevitability and uncertainty.

Tools For Creating Dramatic Game Dynamics

This weeks reading focuses on the idea of creating a dramatic game and how a designer will go about this. The main question and focus when reading this article involve the actual mechanics that are used and how they work.

This article mentions Mechanics, Dynamics and Aesthetics. These terms have already been covered in the previous reading which was focused on these tools and what they are used for. The article uses this framework and poses three questions:

How does drama function as an aesthetic of play?
What kinds of game dynamics can evoke drama?
From what kinds of mechanics do these dynamics emerge?

The article begins by focusing upon the aesthetics and, as stated before in the article, begins to work backwards from the aesthetics. This means that the writer, LeBlanc, decides that the aesthetics are the first part of games design. In relation to the aesthetics, LeBlanc, mentions creating an aesthetic model in order to give proportion to how the drama is going to be made in the game. Below is an example of this aesthetic model.


http://www.education.com/study-help/article/plot-conflict-resolution/

The idea behind the above diagram is that the drama will rise along with the Rising Action and then peak at the climax, before subsiding during the Falling Action. The idea behind the dramatic tension is that it is impossible to gauge how much tension there will be. The diagram shows where the general idea for tension will be located and so the game can be designed accordingly.

LeBlanc continues by displaying the importance of dramatic arcs and how they can influence the attention of an audience, giving them a moment that will capture their attention and be more remembered than other parts of the product.
LeBlanc mentions that there are two factors for dramatic tension:
Uncertainty: or the idea that the outcome is unknown
Inevitability: The idea that the outcome is being approached and will happen regardless of what is done.

LeBlanc discusses that these two points must work together in order to fashion the tension of a game because they co-exist and improve the aesthetic experience of the player.

Next, LeBlanc begins to discuss the dynamic aspect of creating tension and drama. He discusses how uncertainty and inevitability are independent of one another and are brought on by game dynamics. He begins discussing uncertainty, and how in a game the designer has the choice of using force or illusion to create uncertainty. Force is the idea that the designer manipulates the game state to always be close, or prevent the game from becoming inevitable. Illusion is to change the way that players perceive the game state so that the game appears closer than it is. These two methods have pure techniques and also techniques that mix the two together. LeBlanc continues to discuss methods of showing uncertainty and these include: Feedback, escalation, fog of war, hidden energy and many more.
The article relates uncertainty to feedback systems through the use of positive and negative feedback. Positive feedback is the idea of dispelling the uncertainty by moving the game forward. Negative feedback is a type of feedback that attempts to keep the game as close as possible, helping to re-create a balance.
Escalation is the idea that the score of the game will increase as the game goes on at faster speeds.
Hidden energy is the idea that each players have a set amount of hidden resources in the game, which allows each player to be uncertain about what the other players have.
Fog of war is a tool that gives the players a limited field of vision. This hides the other players and information in the game state, adding to the uncertainty of what is found in the game.


He continues to discuss the sources of inevitability and relates inevitability to asking the question 'when will it end' and relates it to a ticking clock. This analogy is made through the idea that as time runs out the urgency of the player will increase as they aim to get more done. This analogy of time can be adjusted depending on the game, such as information in Clue, or game space in SSX.  Creating inevitability in a game is to simply create the idea that the game will end soon, and the players are aware of this.

The above goes over the idea of using uncertainty and inevitability as a part of the MDA framework in order to create dramatic tension in games. The balance that is required from the two different types of methods is important because otherwise it can rob the players of their reasons to continue playing the game and cause them to become bored. As to my belief on the above, i believe that it is a good follow on from the MDA reading that I have previously done and will help me to better form my ability at creating games in the future.

Creating an RTS

In this session we were set the task to create an RTS. This task was based around the reading describing MDA, Mechanics, Dynamics and Aesthetics.

To begin with we created a broken game based around the use of simultaneous showing of card choices. The players could select to Move, Move and Turn, Turn, and Shoot. With the inclusion of obstacles this method of play led to players camping in spot and preventing a successful outcome because players will not want to leave their safe camp spot.

We moved away from this and deciding to attempt to implement the aesthetic of challenge into the game. Our method of doing this was to implement a squad system into the game and have each player utilise the following troops:

A - Soldier - 6hp, 3 range
B - Sniper - 4hp, 7 range
C - Medic - 5hp, 2 range, half damage, AOE heal
D - Air - 7hp, 3 range, jumps over cover.

After implementing the troop types we played a game. However we discovered that this simply dragged out gameplay for longer because we had kept the original movement rules.
After making the above discovery we removed the multiple troops and implemented a 3-card system. The players were able to make a choice of up to 3 cards to play for their turn. This system allowed the players to maximise their movement and helped speed up the game.
After adding in this movement system we created a goal for the players to strive for in hopes that they will aim for it and improve the action found in the game.

The above implementations were all made in order to base the game around the idea of MDA. We believe that were were able to accomplish our goal of creating a challenging game and also implemented the ideas of frustration and expression. The mechanics were constantly changed as we play tested and iterated the game and this also helped us discover the difference that a few mechanics can do to a game. We discovered it was simple to create a game and base it around MDA, however we found the idea of making a RTS board game challenging and were unable to create a fun working game.

Iterating Snakes and Ladders

Snakes and Ladders is a simple board game that is based around getting from start to finish. The game introduces snakes and ladders as the obstacles that must be overcome by the players in order to progress.

When discussing snakes and ladders we came to the conclusion that there is no intention within the game because of the random dice roles and there is no choice for the player. Due to this lack of choice there was also no perceivable consequence, or the players were able to see the consequences but because of the random nature of the game they were not able to stop them happening. Also Snakes and Ladders does not have a story, which we have also thought about.

Firstly we decided to offer the player a choice when playing. This choice was the ability to choose whether they will climb the ladders. If the player wants to take the ladder they must roll a 4 or above in order to climb the ladder. If the player does not roll the successful number then they will miss their next go. This allowed the choice to the player, with a visible consequence if they choose to take the risk.

The second iteration we made incorporated the same rule as above, however we implemented it with the snakes. The player must go down the snake unless they are able to roll a 5 or a 6. This is a method of being safe, with the player able to save themselves from a near game-losing move.

The third iteration we made was an improvement upon the rule above, in which we made it so you must halve your next roll if you fall down a snake. This penalty can work in a players favor if, for example, they roll a number and half of it reaches a ladder. This rule was to make a more dangerous penalty for falling down the snakes.

The fourth iteration we made was from taking inspiration from the royal game of ur. We utilised 5 pieces instead of 1 and decided that the pieces are able to pair up and form groups. These groups were able to block spaces on the board and prevent any group of less pieces to pass. This method felt unbalanced before because the players were able to block their opponent by grouping all five of their pieces together. This issue was addressed by taking inspiration from Spanish Ludo; if a player rolls a number that matches the number of pieces in a group then that group must lose a piece to move forward that number of spaces.

With the above iterations we began to decide upon the story. We decided that we will base our game upon Indiana Jones. With this story we came to the conclusion that the two groups are Indiana Jones and his companions against a group of Nazis. Using this story we have been able to decide that the board can be updated to show off the stories theme, for example we could include pitfall traps or change the design of the snakes and ladders to show off the story and theme more.

Following this session I understand the idea of including Intention, Perceivable Consequence and Story into a game in order to make it more interesting to play. This was a very good follow-up session to the reading that has been done following the article of Doug Church.

Challenges for Games Designers, Chapter 2

Game Design Atoms

This chapter of Challenges for Games Designers compares the topic of game design to chemistry, likening the two types of studies as similar. The chapter explains that to a novice designer it is difficult to decide where to start with your designing, and then goes on to explain that if you look at the design as a 'collection of atoms' it becomes clearer.

Firstly in the chapter it begins to discuss game states and game views. The chapter explains that what is going on in the game, or the things that can change in the game, is the game state. As explained, the game state can be very simple, as akin to chess where only the location of the pieces and information regarding the previous mood is shown. A more complex game state, for example, could be considered in Madden because the game must keep a record of the location of every player and every move that has and can be made. The other side of the chapter relates to the game views. The game view is what is currently being seen by the player, another simple example is chess because the game state is the game view as the information is public and can be seen by both players. A more complex game view is shown in RTS games because of the fog of war disguising the moves of your opponent/s. And the final topic that this section covers is the game space, which is the area upon which the game is played, a chess board or possibly an MMO realm.

The chapter moves on from the topics above and begins to focus instead on parts that are found within the game view. These pieces are parts such as the avatars and game bits. This section also focuses on the players, saying that a game would be nothing without players. This statement is true, because a game cannot be played if their are no players. These players are very often represented in video games by avatars. Avatar is valid for both digital and non-digital games, however the description in relation to a non-digital game is often less consistent than that of a digital game, with the avatar often being called a 'pawn' or 'token'. The avatar is how the player is represented in the game. In some games there is no avatar, such as poker in which the player represents himself or RTS games in which there is no single character to represent the player.
The avatar differs from the game bits that are given with board games. These include cards, dice, army pieces, resources and other little bits that are required to play the game. The term for game bits in relation to digital games is 'art assets' and 'objects' or by their general terms such as NPC, Monster, Item and so forth. The avatar and game bits are all a part of the current game state, and are shown in the game space.

Following the above, the chapter begins to discuss the importance of games mechanics. Game mechanics are the 'rules' of the game, or how a part of the game works. The game mechanics are about the possibilities that are opened up through the use of different mechanics and how they are used. In a way that affects the above, taken from the book 'mechanics are the rules that act upon the players, avatars and game bits, game state and game views, and describe all of the ways to change the game state' The mechanics affect the entire game, and can completely change how it is played. There are different classes of game mechanics such as:
Setup: The rules that are set up for when the game starts.
Victory Conditions: The rules that are set up on how the game is won, this is not always used in open ended games because they require players to create their own goals in order to win.
Progression of Play: The rules that decide how the players will interact with the game, such as using dice or other methods.
Player Actions: Often called 'verbs', this describes the actions that a player can perform while playing the game and how it affects the game.
Definitions of game view(s): The mechanics that decide on what information is given to the players during gameplay.

These ideas all combine in order to form the main mechanics of the game, allowing for a large combination of different mechanics in order to create a good game.

Following the mechanics is the dynamics of the game. The dynamics are the pattern of play that is introduced through the mechanics of the game. A common example is race to the end games. These games are all the same dynamic, however they all utilise slightly different mechanics in order to vary the gameplay and make the game unique and interesting.

The mechanics and dynamics could be considered the under-layers of the game, above this layer is the goals. These goals are the milestones, the victory conditions, the sign of improval, the sign of progression and many more. Games have many varied goals and they can differ between genres as well as games. These goals are often considered after the mechanics and dynamics have been decided, so that the goals can make the most use of the mechanics and dynamics.

Theme is another important aspect to games. The theme is not important to the gameplay, it is not necessary to know that mario is about a plumber looking for the princess in order to play the game. Theme is used to describe what the game is about and is often shown in the form of narrative, colour, characters or other methods. The theme is often very far apart from the mechanics, however if the correct mechanics are fitted with the correct theme, a good example being the 'Portal' games, then the game can feel more complete.

There is no specific order when it comes to designing a game. All of the above need to be completed and a game can end up being based around a single topic. The mechanics could be decided first and therefore the rest of the game is built to be based around those mechanics, or the same could be said about theme; or the dynamics; or even the type of avatar that the player is using. Once again the order is determined by the designer and no one else.

When all of the above processes are put together a game can be made. However, the trick to being a games designer is to constantly use them in order to create a game. The idea of experimentation comes into play in regards to the design process, create and then test before iterating. Iteration, as discovered in other posts, if the key to becoming a successful games designer and is a limitless process that can help fashion even the greatest games.

Concept Design: Loglines

The idea of loglines is to offer a simple and short description of your game in order to easily pitch your idea and contribute towards the appeal of the idea.

The basis behind loglines is that they must show off different things about your game. These things are the Setup, Type of game, Obstacles and the Goal.

Setup relates towards what the player needs to do in the game, such as leading armies, collecting resources, destroying aliens and many more. This incorporates what the main mechanic of the game will be.

Type of game relates towards the genre of the game, is it a strategy? is it an RPG? this topic is used to help establish the genre and could contribute towards deciding how the main mechanics are going to be implemented.

Obstacles is the obstructions and challenges that the player is going to face in the game. This can include the other players, enemies in the game or even the puzzles that have been put into the game. This helps show the audience what kind of challenges the player will need to overcome when playing the game.

Goal. This is self explanatory. It is simply the win condition of the game, how to finish, or what you need to accomplish. This sets the end-game up before the player has even begun their game.

Utilising these four points, I decided to come up with 4 different loglines for the game idea that I am doing for my concept design module. We were given a 30 word limit when coming up with our loglines and the ideas below all fit below that threshold:

1st
Develop your hero, craft your alliances, defeat your enemies, hunt for riches, glory and fame in your quest to kill the dragon!
This was my first idea and was done before any assistance was given. 

2nd
Embark upon your heroes quest to hunt the dragon! Claim your glory, loot your riches and forge alliances to discover your destiny in the magical land of Ithelios.
This idea was decided after having a talk with Phil about how to improve upon my logline, as were the ones below.

3rd
Begin your humble journey. From simple origins claim your place in legend as you embark upon your heroic quest to slay the dragon. Magic, riches and greatness await you!
This and the 2nd logline are my preferred choices.

4th
The dragon threatens your home. Venture forth to discover your destiny. Craft alliances, discover magic, destroy your enemies, hunt for riches and establish your rightful place in legend.

That was all the ideas that were developed after a lecture on loglines. After performing this exercise and only developing 4 ideas that I was happy with, it is easy to see how difficult it can be to develop multiple ideas on how to quickly describe your game in a small number of words.

I Have No Words & I Must Design

'A game is an interactive structure of endogenous meaning that requires players to struggle towards goals'

The above quote is covered within the article by Greg Costikyan, I have no words and I must design: towards a critical vocabulary for game. Within the article Costikyan goes into more detail about specific terms that are found within the quote, the ones that are italicized.

To begin with Costikyan talks about the term gameplay  in his article and how it cannot be used as a term, and instead must be broken down into different terms. Specifically, these terms that Costikyan breaks gameplay into are the same ones that are italicized in the quote above.

The first section that Costikyan delves into is the subject of interaction, and the different methods of interaction that are available in games. This includes discussing the idea of puzzles not being games because of the interaction included in them. As Costikyan states in his article :'"Games", by contrast, are not static, but change with the players actions'. This quote gives off the idea that what makes a game interactive is the notion that the actions of the player change the state of the game, such as by choosing a certain option in a conversation changes which way you go. This change in the game state is how the player is interacting with the game.

Costikyan improves upon the notion of interaction by adding the concept of goals to his vocabulary. When discussing goals he mentions that for something to be interactive it must have a purpose, and this is where he introduces goals. Goals are often input into a game, such as objectives and rules, that must be achieved to win the game. Other games are not as simple and allow the player to create their own goals, allowing for another level of interaction from the player. This concept was input in Sim City, having no real method of winning it allowed players to create their own win conditions for the game and work towards them.
By implementing their own goals, the players were able to enjoy their game experience more and interact with the game on a deeper level than by being forced into a goal.

In reference to goals, Costikyan also mentions struggle. Struggle can mean having to go against another player in a multiplayer game, or against an obstacle that is placed into the game in order to add a level of difficulty. This struggle is incorporated into games in order to make them challenging. Costikyan mentions the idea that players play games for the challenge and they do not want to play games that are easy to win, whilsty also not wanting impossible games. The difficulty of a game is what keeps players trying to achieve victory, and attain their goals.

Once Costikyan has delved into the topic of struggling, he diverts onto the topic of structure. The idea of rules, regulations and algorithms. The structure of a game is what keeps the players on track, knowing what they are needing to do in order to play the game. This idea is related to a childrens game, mentioning how little structure a childs game has until it breaks down when two players do not agree on the rules. This contrasts with wargames for instance which have a strict set of rules and goals that cannot be easily changed when playing the game.

The following topic is endogenous meaning, this phrase means: ' caused by factions within the system or organism'. In simpler terms, endogenous meaning in gaming means that the game will create its own meaning. This term is important in RPGs such as Skyrim, because the meaning could be different for each player depending on their play style. Another example, one that Costikyan uses in the article, is that of monopoly. Within the game of monopoly, the money given to you has real value and is used for multiple ingame transactions, whereas at a real shop monopoly money is worthless. This is an example of the game creating its own meaning.

The above paragraphs explain about the quote given at the beginning of the article, and in my own words i consider the quote to mean the following:
By game the quote is referencing all of the above and more. An interactive structure takes into account that the player will be changing the set up of the game and its rules and regulations through his/her interaction with the game and changing the game state as they progress. As covered above, endogenous references the notion that the meaning is created within the game itself and not outside of it. Finally struggle is the idea that the player will be fighting against the games difficulty in order to achieve his/her goals and earn what he considers the victory point of the game.

Iterating Battleships

• What challenges do the players face, what actions do they take to overcome them?

In battleships, the main challenge arises when attempting to discover where the opponents ships are located. This can become frantic if you are losing the game and they are close to finding your last ship. The only method a player has to overcome this is in the method of placement with the ships, or by tactically placing your shots in order to discover the locations of the opponents ships faster.

• how do players affect each other?

Players affect each other by calling out the shots. The main struggle that is found in battleships is the other players choices as to where they will shoot. This choice can change the number of ships you have or narrow down the locations in which you will choose to shoot.

• is the game perceived by the players as fair?

I believe battleships is a brutally fair game which incorporates chance and skill into discovering your opponents ships whilst also having to combat the opponents chances of hitting your own ships.

• is the game re-playable? if so why?

The game is re-playable because it allows you to reorder your pieces in a near infinite combinations and allows you to work on strategies at discovering your opponents ships. The game would be replayed more as a tool of fun than as a dedicated game.

• what is the games intended audience?

I believe that the audience of the game is not dedicated gamers similar to those found on a PC or console. The age is very diverse and varied, such as children and adults alike would play this game for fun. Also their are variations of the game that can affect the audience, such as Battleshots in which the ships are made up of alcoholic drinks in shot glasses would be for an audience of over 18's.

• what is the core of the game, second by second, minute by minute, the things you do over and over, that represent the 'fun' part?

The core mechanic of the game involves defeating your opponent by shooting his ships. The main mechanic that helps add tension and the ability to enjoy the game is by taking random shots at your opponents board in order to hit and sink their ships.

When playing Battleships we incorporated two changes into the game. Our first iteration was to incorporate a bonus shot when a ship is sunk, this shot can be taken or stockpiled for later use. This helps add an extra chance to discover where the opponents ship is located or perhaps use the extra shot to quickly sink an opponents ship when it is found.

Our second iteration was to incorporate new shapes of ships, with an inclusion of the original ship shapes, which enabled more variety to the strategic placement of the ships for the players. With the use of more varied types of ships it forces players to rethink their strategies for attacking, especially when one of the new ship designs consists of three blocks in a triangle formation.

In conclusion, this session has enabled me to discover how simple it can be to change original games and include my own rules and iterations and also focus on how the core mechanics can be changed when necessary to change the way the game is played out.

Paida, Ludus, Agon, Mimicry, Alea and Ilinx

There are many methods involved when defining what is and what isn't a game. Many different writers have explored this situation, such as Roger Caillois, James Newman, Katie Salem and Eric Zimmerman. Each of these individuals have tried their hand at writing and expressing their beliefs on what defines a game and consequently the following terms have been brought to light:

Paida or the idea of 'Free Play'. This can range through different games that do not require set up rules to be played, this could include many childrens games because they do not involve rules and instead are made up on the spot. A good example of a game is a childrens footrace, because they may not set up rules other than that the first person to reach a point is the winner.

Ludus is the opposite, it is the 'Rule oriented play'. This is any game that has a pre-arranged rule set that must be followed to play the game. This differs from Paida because the rules are changeable in Paida and do not affect the outcome of the game, whereas if the rules are changed in Ludus games then it becomes a different game entirely. A good contrasting example to the child's footrace is a 100m sprint. The 100m sprint has a set up track that the racers must follow, they must stay within their confined spot and so forth. This is an example of how a Paida game can be converted into a Ludus game.

The above are two general terms for describing games that can be further broken down. They further expand  upon these terms with the further classification of Agon, Mimicry, Alea and Linux.

Agon is the idea of a game based around competition and would apply to the above example of footraces well, because both forms of races involve competition regardless of the competitors or scenario.

Mimicry is the idea of a game based around simulating a real life environment. This includes the obvious simulator games, such as train, plane, farm and more simulator games.

Alea is the idea of a game based around chance. This can include games such as tetris, which would offer you random pieces from a pool or even games that are centered around gambling, such as blackjack or roulette.

Ilinx is the final topic and is related to games based around the idea of movement, horizontal and vertical. This can also apply to a game such as racing, because it involves moving but can be extended to most sports such as football, skiing, driving and many more.

These classifications can be mixed and combined, allowing a game to fall under more than one category at a time. Examples can include games such as:

Black and White. You could argue that Black and White is a Ludus and Paida game at the same time, with elements of Agon and Ilinx. Black and White can match this topics because there is a multiplayer free for all mode and also a story, which you can choose not to progress and instead sit back and enjoy your island. It matches Agon because of the multiplayer aspect and Ilinx because of the unique hand movement that the game is known for. In some aspects it also represents some form of Mimicry because you are simulating the idea of playing 'God'.

FIFA games are clearly Ilinx and Agon, often incorporating mimicry into the mix as well. FIFA is a ludus game that allows a player to compete in a game of football using a team they choose/create. This is how FIFA manages to combine all of the elements.

When dicussing gambling it offers a large number of Ludus games that combine Agon and Alea, due to the players competing against one another and also having to deal with the random factor that is introduced in every game (e.g. roulette, deck of cards etc.)

There are games that result in pure parts of each section and a good example of a pure mimicry game is the Sim City. Sim City does not have an ending or a specific rule set, thus it is a Paida game. This game allows you to completely build and then tear down your city before rebuilding it again as you see fit. You are also able to set your own rules and restrictions to make it a more challenging or enjoyable game.

In the beginning, There is the Designer

I began to read the first chapter of Jesse Schell's book: 'The Art of Game Design A Book of Lenses' and I have enjoyed reading it.

The chapter begins by discussing confidence and a lack of fear in the designer, in order to succeed within the industry. Utilising a method of self motivation as one of the opening paragraphs sets how the rest of the chapter will pan out, in an unformal 'im talking to you' method. My favourite line on the first few paragraphs is 'Some of the greatest inventions have only come from people who only succeeded because they were too dumb to know what they were doing was impossible' This single sentence insults many people in history, while also complimenting them. The chapter then continues to insult the reader in a positive sense, putting down the reader by admitting they will fail in design. But that is shown to be a sense of purpose, using failure as a tool in order to fuel the success of becoming a designer. This sense of trial and error is pushed upon as a necessary tool to become a successful games designer and I agree, learning from mistakes and using these lessons at a later date in future projects is the only way to progress as a better designer.

The chapter continues by listing multiple skills, over a spread of nearly two pages, that are needed for a games designer; these skills vary from Animation to Creative Writing, and Economics to Visual Arts. This list is broad and varied, with some obvious additions and others not so clear to the reader. The paragraph even mentions more skills and that noone is able to know all of them, however it also mentions that by knowing the majority and being comfortable with them you will improve as a games designer.

The following section within the chapter mentions the single most important skill that a Games designer requires: Listening. The chapter continues to mention this skill and engages the reader with a mention to how listening can be developed in a method of even deeper listening, utilising a story that involves body language and deeper meanings.

There are five types of listening, as stated in this chapter of the book and they are as follows:

The first is listening to the Team, ensuring that the team has a good spectrum of skills and opinions that can be mixed together in order to form a good team and create a good game.
The second is to listen to the Audience, they are the gamers who will be playing the game and therefore the ultimate goal of game design and making is to make the gamers happy.
The third is to listen to the Game,  a more vague form of listening, this involves listening to how the game runs and deciding if it is ok or not; not disimilar to a mechanic and a car engine, to quote the book.
The fourth type is to listen to the Client, the moneybags, the provider, the sponsor, or pretty much the person paying for the game to be made. If the game is not what they want, when they want it they may choose to stop paying for the game.
The fifth and final type is to listen to your Self, this is an important type because it involves working within yourself, and discovering exactly what it is you want.

 The chapter concludes with a talk about gifts. Gifts are split into two types, Innate and Major. The Innate gifts are natural talent in an action, such as piano or designing a game. The major gift is to love your line of work, and to enjoy what you are creating. What is the point of entering a long career line without any interest in the career itself? Without this love of the work you will never be able to use all of the minor skills you may posess to their full potential and then create good games.
This chapter has been an enjoyable, and fascinating, read which introduces many ideas that I belive will be necessary to know as a games designer.

I have decided to end this post in a similar manner to the chapter.

I am a games designer.
I am a games designer.
I am a games designer.
I am a games designer.

Peace out.

What is a Video Game? Rules, Puzzles and Simulations

This post is going to be outlining my notes and opinions based on the second chapter of James Newman's book 'Videogames'. The chapter is entitled 'What is a Video Game? Rules, Puzzles and Simulations', hence the title of this blogpost.

The chapter begins by asking what a 'videogame' is, then explaining that it is difficult to classify the term'videogame' because of the varied approach to 'videogames'. The chapter continues to discuss the study of 'videogames' to other forms of media such as film and television, asking if 'videogames' are a continuation of such media and whether this will help in the classification of the 'videogame'.
This statement partially explains the mystery behind classifying 'videogames' as is described as difficult within the chapter. Furthermore, the concept of genre is passed over briefly in the chapter as being described as a tool to help classify 'videogames' in a way that makes it easier to identify with them. This method has, as stated in the chapter, become so widely used that it is often overlooked or considered natural. These terms relate to such labels as 'Action and Adventure', 'Shoot-'em-up' and more. This term apparently came into use in early gaming magazines, around the 1980's, and is now a commonly used term in the industry.
Another method of classification that is brought to light in this chapter is a method created by Geoff Howland utilises five different characteristics to help classify 'videogames', however this method is too vague to offer any suitable classification, below is an overview of this method.
Utilising the different elements from a 'videogame' it allows the game to be classified, the elements are:

Graphics; this is the use of visual effects and assets to classify the game. Includes 3D and 2D objects and all characteristics that the character will see.
Sound; this is what the player will hear, any sound effects or music that is played by the game.
Interface; Anything that the player must interact with in order to play the game, this can include graphics that must be selected or gameplay controls.
Gameplay; In my own opinion it is difficult to assess a 'videogame' solely on its gameplay, however the chapter references this as how 'fun' the game is to play, how immersive and the length of the playability.
Story; An important aspect of 'videogames' in my own opinion, this represents the information given before the game starts, information gained during gameplay and information about the characters.

Also, as stated in the chapter, many magazines have begun to utilise the name of the designers as a method of categorising games when they have been released. An example of which includes Metal Gear Solid, being introduced as a 'Hideo Kojima game'. This method is used with major game titles because there is a belief that the designer carries a sign of merit, or a symbol that the game will be part of the designers 'legacy', for want of a better word. This method of labelling is often the downfall of games in the modern industry, a game that carries the title of a legendary developer will be weighed down with expectations to appear very similar, if not identical, to a previous game in said developers designs. Another idea behind this is that it is a method of attempting to relate video games to other forms of media, such as film.

If there is to be more classification found it can be made through the use of coin-op versus home gaming. As mentioned in the chapter these are two varied methods of gaming. The coin-op is required to earn money repeatedly, therefore offering much shorter and harder sessions than you would find on a home system. Another difference between the two is the interface, coin-op games often use specialised equipment, such as a light gun, or perhaps a mock-setup of a car seat whilst at home you would be gaming with a joystick and keyboard. Another difference between the two set ups is the atmosphere of the location, where at home you will mostly be alone or with friends, a coin-op game is played with a sense of public display and you are often being viewed by strangers as they observe your gaming.

The chapter also brushes on what a video game isnt, and slightly causes a contradiction with an earlier statement. A statement made by Rollings and Morris is that:
a game is not:
        a bunch of cool features
        a lot of fancy graphics
        a series of challenging puzzles
        an intriguing setting and story

This statement contradicts the classification method stated earlier by Geoff Howland, who described that games are classified based on the majority of these features. I believe that what Rollings and Morris are trying to get across is that individual sections as found in this least alone do not make a video game. My belief is that a video game utilises all of these features collaberatively in order to function as the interactive artwork that modern gamers have found to enjoy.

The chapter continues to ask the question: 'Why do players play?'
It begins to explain the different reasons that gamers may take when deciding the kind of games that they would like to engage in. One such reason is  a statement made by Rouse, who believes that:

Players expect: A challenge
                          Immersion
                         To do, not watch

These reasons, when thought about carefully, are true. A player will not feel stimulated to play a game if there is no interaction. Likewise he will not feel the need to interact with an easy game that does not challenge him. Also, notably important in RPG games, the player needs to become immersed in the world and feel like he is making a difference with his choices.
Non-interactive cutscenes, or 'movie sequences' can ruin a gamers immersion. I do not disbelieve that the immersion of a gamer is an important factor, however; I heartily disagree with this statement because, although a game is an immersive experience and I would enjoy playing instead of watching, I believe that cutscenes are a necessary evil in a video game because they are needed to help progress the games story, or to show off necessary sequences. Not always are they good for the game itself, however they often offer the player backstory, or reasoning into the actions that will be made into the game. The change in viewpoint, or character, or backdrop does not bother me as long as the cutscene is there for a reason, and not just for the sake of being a cutscene.
The chapter continues to discuss the immersive experience of 'being there' in the game and relates the concentration of the player to the game and how games designers try to keep that and not to 'detach' the player from their experience.

The chapter begins to talk about rules in videogames and 'ludology', or the study of games and play and how poorly developed it is. The chapter discusses how gaming is voluntary and offers its own rewards, thus encouraging players to seek them out. However it could be argued that gaming is not voluntary, such as being forced to play in order to repeat a certain task that is repeatedly failed. An idea that the key to this is the rules that bind and constrict a game. There is the notion that to 'play' is to be free and unrestricted, whilst a 'game' follows rules and conventions.

There are two terms that are used in relation to rules found in games, these are paidea and ludus, which are simple and complex rules respectively, as stated by Piaget. More research claims that playing does in fact have a ruleset, as set by Daniel Vidart and finally Frasca suggests that the difference between play and game is the outcome, because there is victory and defeat in games whilst not in play.
This new ruleset based upon victory also redefines paidea and ludus. Paidea is an activity that has no objective and is performed for pleasure, whilst ludus is an activity that follows a ruleset with the players aiming for a victory or defeat.
The chapter continues to discuss these topics in relation to video games, relating Paidea to Sim city and The Sims, whilst also insinuation that you are able to create your own ludus whilst playing, creating your own rules and goals. In relation to a gaming world, the chapter explains that whilst many of these worlds have restrictions and goals, they leave it up to the player on their method of reaching this goals and thus cause a mix of the two terms. The idea that this notion of discovering the methods of reaching the goals and discovering the rules is the appeal of some games is brought to the readers attention and then the chapter imposes that players may either purchase new games or impose new ludus rules to help enrich their experience.

The chapter suggests there are 4 different types of games:
Agon: Where competition is dominant
Alea: Where change and randomness are dominant
Ilinx: Where pleasure is derived from movement
Mimicry: Games based around mimicry, simulation and roleplaying.

This types are not exclusive, they are able to work together in different methods in order to create a game. An example could be a game that is Agon and Ilinx using racing cars as the method of competition and movement.
The chapter then goes onto discussing puzzle games and their methods of solving. The discussion as to puzzle games having a single solution is brought up, allowing the arguement as to whether Tetris is a puzzle game or not to be delivered. The chapter continues to talk about how puzzle games can introduce different mechanics and ludus rules to enhance the experience and keep gamers interested, instead of having linear paths of repetition.
The chapter mentions that playing a game is to interact with the apparatus that works beneath or behind the game, therefore the underlying mechanics. This is then expanded by mentioning that games offer the choice of how to interact with this apparatus and interact within the boundaries of the rules set.
The chapter states that 'Games are interactive because the actions of the player play a part in determining the events in the game'. This statement relates to how interactivity affects games. As stated before, gamers enjoy being immersed into the game and therefore they want to be able to interact with the game on a high level, therefore changing many aspects of how the narrative and game will pan out. Other comments include that it is the introduction of more ludus rules that define how a game is interactive, or how interactivity is what differs a video game from a static puzzle.

The chapter ends off on another question which states 'So what is a video game?' and leaves a quote by Frasca:

any forms of computer-based entertainment software, either textual or image-based, using any electronic platform such as personal computers or consoles and involving one or multiple players in a physical or network environment.

For me to finish off this blogpost I should give my opinion on what a videogame is, based on what ive read and experienced over this text. In my views a video game is an interactive computer based software, I claim for it to be computer based because otherwise it would become a board game. I believe that this software is created in order to entertain the target consumer, AKA gamers and allow them to immerse themselves in a fabricated world which is set up using a limited number of restrictions that still allow a gamer to engage in paidea. This paidea is then left open for a gamer to implement their own ludus rules into the game, therefore affecting how the final product will play. The games will then, beyond all of this apparatus that is 'under the hood', enjoy the game world that is created through a combination of graphics, sounds, mechanics, interfaces and narratives.

I personally enjoy playing games and believe that there is no classification. A videogame is what you want it to be, be that good or bad, exciting or boring or even a memorable experience. They are there to be enjoyed and played. So game on.

The Beginning

This post is going to be my simply introduction. My name is Daniel Sparrow, I am an 18 year old student who lives at home in Felixstowe and I am studying video games design at University Campus Suffolk. This blog is going to end up getting filled with information I have found interesting that involves video games and the course I am on.
To begin with I have been told to write about this simple Q&A that has been given to us by Edd, in order to enable us to start up our blog. The honor of being my interviewer was given to Jason Fury, and below are the questions and their related answers:

The Questions
1. What is the title of a fiction book that you are currently reading or have finished reading?
Recently I have finished reading a book called 'The Kings Bastard'. The book is centered around a single royal family and has its themes set in royal intrigue, politics, betrayal, deception and magic. I enjoyed reading the book and getting immersed into the world that the author had created.

2. What is the title of a non-fiction book that you are currently reading or have finished reading?
I am currently reading Challenges for games designers; non-digital exercises for video game designers by Brenda Braithwaite. I enjoy how this book implements non-digital game challenges into digital game development and hope to continue enjoying the book. 

C. What was the last live performance that you went to?
The last live performance I was at was to see a band called We Are the In Crowd. The performance was located at the Waterfront in Norwich. I was at the performance with my Dad, step-mother and step-brother.

IV. What is the title of the last film you saw at the Cinema?
The last movie that I watched was Taken 2. I saw the movie in Hull with my girlfriend and her Uni mates. The film is the sequel to Taken and I greatly enjoyed the re-developed characters and their interactions in this film.

Five. How often do you read a newspaper?
 I neglect the news at the best of times, but whenever I do read news it is often over the internet through ads and such.

Sixth. Which art gallery/ museum/ exhibition did you last go to?
The last(and probably most awesome) exhibition i went to was Eurogamer at Earls Court in London. I got to play multiple games at this exhibition and make many of my non-uni classmates jealous.

7. How many hours a week do you spend playing video games?
The answer to this question can vary depending on the time of year but I will average it at around 30 hours.

VIII. How many hours do you spend playing games other than video games?
More recently this number has increased because of interest in card games such as Munchkin, and board games such as Pandemic. I would say this number varies between 5-10 hours a week.

And there we have the answers to the interview that shows off a little about me. I hope this blog becomes enjoyable for all as I hope it will be for me.