Richard A Bartles article 'Players who suit MUDS' was definitely an interesting one. Bartle describes (in a nutshell) that there are four main types of players who play MUDs. These are:
The Killers. The people who go online and slaughter as many unsuspecting victims as possible. These are the aggressive players who if you have ever been unlucky enough to meet on an online game will show you no mercy. Funnily enough I have a couple of friends who play World of Warcraft and fit this category quite nicely.
The Socialisers. The people who see the game as a back-drop and use the online freedom to make friends, chat and discuss like a forum. These are some of the people who make fresh meat for our guys in the first category.
The Achievers. These players like to rack up the points. They exhaust every quest, tutorial, side quest, raid etc to level up, show off their stuff and be the best the game has to offer. Killers can fit into this category if they are feeling bored, how sensitive of them.
Last but certainly not least, the Explorers. Personally sitting on this side of the fence myself, explorers like to make their way from one end of the world to the other, finding the secrets and bounties of unexplored areas. Not without its risks, for sure, but can be very rewarding.
After being discussed in groups, it was decided that this might not necessarily be 100% accurate. I mean players most definitely suit one of these styles but something that personal experience has taught me is that mood plays a vital role in MUDs. With such a vast array of varied possibilities, a player isn't going to stick to one category for too long. I mentioned that I'm more of an explorer, which is true, but I've also had days where I want to play in the shoes of an achiever, just get on with the game and make a place for myself amongst the hundreds of thousands of competing players running past you, all with their individual agendas.
And every single player has an impact on the MUD. Every player is waltzing around enjoying their personal experience of the game, doing their own little thing. This is why it helps to categorise the players and their styles, to break up the immense numbers of what player is doing what in the game. Granted you could probably break these groups down even more, but as a basic means to comprehend whats going on in the MUD it's a great system.
Wednesday, 1 December 2010
The Iteration Process
A very valuable lesson we have been learning in Robs Tuesday morning lectures is the importance of iteration. Iteration is primarily a way of improving ideas and concepts at an early stage, where the risk of things going wrong is practically non-existent. If a fantastic idea is made and progress is made on this it may not be reaching its full potential. If the idea has already been implemented and the game is 6 weeks down the line into being made and it's suddenly realised something doesn't work, then that causes big problems. Lots of wasted time, resources and effort. Yikes. Luckily we're getting into a good habit of finding an idea and iterating rules and gameplay before anything goes wrong.
The same goes for regular and existing games!
For example, one Tuesday morning we learned to play a game called 'Liars Dice' which I (and probably the majority of the class) recognised as the game that Will plays with Davy Jones in the second Pirates of the Caribbean films. The game by itself was alot of fun, I thought. I know one of group mates felt it was too slow and she became bored with it quite quickly. We were set the task of iterating the rules for this game, improving what we could find to be hindering the fun of the game. After some deliberation we came up with a set of rules, which having used, we realised didn't really work as well as we had thought. The beauty of this iteration was that in discovering one of our ideas hadn't worked, we only lost about 10 minutes. Boo hoo. It feels much better to experience the perks of iterating the right way than to lose (as mentioned earlier) time, effort and resources.
Recently it happened again, we were set the task of iterating the rules of a card game called 'War'. With pretty simple mechanics and alot riding on chance, the game can be played amongst a number of people, although we practised in groups of 2. Although the tricky bit came in when one of the instructions in the iterating was to 'add an element of skill'. Well now. This stumped me and my partner, how were we to add skill to a game of chance? We had a few ideas, but nothing that didn't involve the chance card. In the end we had nothing. Nada, zip, zilch. I felt quite defeated, but understood when we heard everyone elses iterations. It seemed like in order to add an element of skill to this game, everyone who participated in sharing their ideas had to change (most of) the game itself. This is completely understandable, it seemed the only way, but in changing it and iterating it to that degree, surely it's not the same game anymore? I mean you can change the rules of a game without changing the game itself right? I need an example. . . .
Ok this took me 3 seconds of staring out of my window into the snow to dream up, so sorry if it's a poor example. In Monopoly, we're going to void the money. Money doesnt exist any more in Monopoly. Instead, everytime a player passes a side of the board (from Go>Jail>Free Parking>GoToJail>Go) they are allowed to choose a property they want to possess. Now we've changed the rules quite significantly, destroying money, the one asset that Monopoly as a game feeds off. BUT, it's still the same game, players still have to get round the board and collect sets of properties before the others etc.
So I'm wondering what's the balance? How much of a game or an idea can you change and iterate until it's something completely different? It seems like quite an important cut-off point, but I can't help but wonder. . .
The same goes for regular and existing games!
For example, one Tuesday morning we learned to play a game called 'Liars Dice' which I (and probably the majority of the class) recognised as the game that Will plays with Davy Jones in the second Pirates of the Caribbean films. The game by itself was alot of fun, I thought. I know one of group mates felt it was too slow and she became bored with it quite quickly. We were set the task of iterating the rules for this game, improving what we could find to be hindering the fun of the game. After some deliberation we came up with a set of rules, which having used, we realised didn't really work as well as we had thought. The beauty of this iteration was that in discovering one of our ideas hadn't worked, we only lost about 10 minutes. Boo hoo. It feels much better to experience the perks of iterating the right way than to lose (as mentioned earlier) time, effort and resources.
Recently it happened again, we were set the task of iterating the rules of a card game called 'War'. With pretty simple mechanics and alot riding on chance, the game can be played amongst a number of people, although we practised in groups of 2. Although the tricky bit came in when one of the instructions in the iterating was to 'add an element of skill'. Well now. This stumped me and my partner, how were we to add skill to a game of chance? We had a few ideas, but nothing that didn't involve the chance card. In the end we had nothing. Nada, zip, zilch. I felt quite defeated, but understood when we heard everyone elses iterations. It seemed like in order to add an element of skill to this game, everyone who participated in sharing their ideas had to change (most of) the game itself. This is completely understandable, it seemed the only way, but in changing it and iterating it to that degree, surely it's not the same game anymore? I mean you can change the rules of a game without changing the game itself right? I need an example. . . .
Ok this took me 3 seconds of staring out of my window into the snow to dream up, so sorry if it's a poor example. In Monopoly, we're going to void the money. Money doesnt exist any more in Monopoly. Instead, everytime a player passes a side of the board (from Go>Jail>Free Parking>GoToJail>Go) they are allowed to choose a property they want to possess. Now we've changed the rules quite significantly, destroying money, the one asset that Monopoly as a game feeds off. BUT, it's still the same game, players still have to get round the board and collect sets of properties before the others etc.
So I'm wondering what's the balance? How much of a game or an idea can you change and iterate until it's something completely different? It seems like quite an important cut-off point, but I can't help but wonder. . .
Tuesday, 30 November 2010
Flash Game In Scripting
So I've been thinking alot about this Flash game we're to be making in scripting. It's funny actually, the group project requires us to make a game aimed at 5-7 year olds. The playtech brief assigns us with re-skinning or a quiet re-design of the original Sports wheel game. But with this flash game, anything goes. The possibilities are endless and the prospect of a fully original idea brought to life to be played is so exciting.
So why,
why oh why,
do I spend 2 weeks with a head full of fluff.
It's always the way I guess, an oppurtunity to stretch the creative hamstrings of my mind and my brain doesn't want to work with me on this one. I suppose complete freedom isn't all it's cracked up to be.
However. . .I was recently on a train trapped somewhere between sleep and boredom, with loud music in my ears and a pencil and paper and had some ideas, which I will share with you now.
So I don't know how many people have played Robokill.
(http://www.rocksolidarcade.com/games/robokill/)
It's a great game, with simple mechanics but great artwork and an upgradeable character in an almost RPG style way. I've found myself become increasingly addicted and it would feel great to emulate a similar style game in flash.
To come up with a concept to do this game justice I wanted to stray away from the norm, it's too obvious for zombies or the like, I reckon it would be wasted.
Instead I stared gormlessly out of the train window and contemplated different kinds of conflict, as that is the core of a shoot-em-up kind of game. My mind flew between wizards and sc-fi until it occurred to me that maybe it would be fun to play as the 'bad guy' fighting the 'good guy'. I know it HAS been done, but rarely and I can't think of an example offhand, which strengthens my point.
So what for a concept? Well instead of preventing the apocalypse why can't you play as the one whose causing it? See, this bad guy thing could be alot of fun. Don't get me wrong, it's not going to be a heavy story with lots of complicated mechanics and plenty of choices, it's only a flash game at the end of the day.
But before I reveal the whole idea I will finish some sketches and mock-up art to assist my concepts, I just wanted to blog about something that is relevant, yet, unrequired in a sense.
I know I havent said much, but any input would be great! xD
So why,
why oh why,
do I spend 2 weeks with a head full of fluff.
It's always the way I guess, an oppurtunity to stretch the creative hamstrings of my mind and my brain doesn't want to work with me on this one. I suppose complete freedom isn't all it's cracked up to be.
However. . .I was recently on a train trapped somewhere between sleep and boredom, with loud music in my ears and a pencil and paper and had some ideas, which I will share with you now.
So I don't know how many people have played Robokill.
(http://www.rocksolidarcade.com/games/robokill/)
It's a great game, with simple mechanics but great artwork and an upgradeable character in an almost RPG style way. I've found myself become increasingly addicted and it would feel great to emulate a similar style game in flash.
To come up with a concept to do this game justice I wanted to stray away from the norm, it's too obvious for zombies or the like, I reckon it would be wasted.
Instead I stared gormlessly out of the train window and contemplated different kinds of conflict, as that is the core of a shoot-em-up kind of game. My mind flew between wizards and sc-fi until it occurred to me that maybe it would be fun to play as the 'bad guy' fighting the 'good guy'. I know it HAS been done, but rarely and I can't think of an example offhand, which strengthens my point.
So what for a concept? Well instead of preventing the apocalypse why can't you play as the one whose causing it? See, this bad guy thing could be alot of fun. Don't get me wrong, it's not going to be a heavy story with lots of complicated mechanics and plenty of choices, it's only a flash game at the end of the day.
But before I reveal the whole idea I will finish some sketches and mock-up art to assist my concepts, I just wanted to blog about something that is relevant, yet, unrequired in a sense.
I know I havent said much, but any input would be great! xD
Costikyan : I have no words I must design
'A game is an interactive structure of endogenous meaning that requires players to struggle towards goals'
Firstly, what a great quote. To those who agree, it can sum up what a game is in a sentence, which as budding young games designers we are already learning is incredibly challenging.
Costikyan explores the definition of games by categorising certain elements, such as the ones italicised in the quote.
He firstly mentions 'Interactive', which by his definition in the article means that the state of the gameplay can change, due to choices or decisions made by the player, something you might not find in a puzzle. He uses Monopoly as an example this but I will choose another game; Scrabble.
I choose Scrabble because the gamestate is in constant change, all down to the players decisions, what letters to place, where to place them. This practically gurantees a different outcome for every single game you play when you think about the letters the players are given randomly, the places that they can put the letters, the amount of words in the english language. . .It goes on and on.
Structure is also mentioned, defined by Costikyan as being the way a game is played by the players under the same rules and restrictions. A game without rules or boundaries cannot work as the player would not be limited in their means to win, severely damaging the purpose behind the whole game.
Endogenous meaning refers to how value is interpreted inside a game and in the real world. For example, if a player from World of Warcraft goes on a raid and collects some rare weapons and armour, physically this means nothing. The player cannot touch the items, cannot merit their existence in the real world, yet in the game it might make them that much stronger, make their character amazing. . .but only in the game world.
Struggle is mentioned and is compulsory in giving a game some character. To win a game in one move is no fun, so struggle is enforced to pose an obstacle that the player must overcome in order to achieve their goals.
Which brings us to goals! Goals are the reason behind games. What does the player get out of all this struggle and interaction? Where is the player heading with the decisions they've made? And ultimately, what is the player achieving. This is dependant on the game being played, but the concept remains the same.
So according to each definition, the original quote stands to reason. I agree with Costikyan and once again respect his ability to answer the question, "What is a game?".
Firstly, what a great quote. To those who agree, it can sum up what a game is in a sentence, which as budding young games designers we are already learning is incredibly challenging.
Costikyan explores the definition of games by categorising certain elements, such as the ones italicised in the quote.
He firstly mentions 'Interactive', which by his definition in the article means that the state of the gameplay can change, due to choices or decisions made by the player, something you might not find in a puzzle. He uses Monopoly as an example this but I will choose another game; Scrabble.
I choose Scrabble because the gamestate is in constant change, all down to the players decisions, what letters to place, where to place them. This practically gurantees a different outcome for every single game you play when you think about the letters the players are given randomly, the places that they can put the letters, the amount of words in the english language. . .It goes on and on.
Structure is also mentioned, defined by Costikyan as being the way a game is played by the players under the same rules and restrictions. A game without rules or boundaries cannot work as the player would not be limited in their means to win, severely damaging the purpose behind the whole game.
Endogenous meaning refers to how value is interpreted inside a game and in the real world. For example, if a player from World of Warcraft goes on a raid and collects some rare weapons and armour, physically this means nothing. The player cannot touch the items, cannot merit their existence in the real world, yet in the game it might make them that much stronger, make their character amazing. . .but only in the game world.
Struggle is mentioned and is compulsory in giving a game some character. To win a game in one move is no fun, so struggle is enforced to pose an obstacle that the player must overcome in order to achieve their goals.
Which brings us to goals! Goals are the reason behind games. What does the player get out of all this struggle and interaction? Where is the player heading with the decisions they've made? And ultimately, what is the player achieving. This is dependant on the game being played, but the concept remains the same.
So according to each definition, the original quote stands to reason. I agree with Costikyan and once again respect his ability to answer the question, "What is a game?".
Saturday, 23 October 2010
Paidea&Ludus (With a note to Salen and Zimmerman)
Right. Before I start blogging my opinions on Paidea and Ludus I need to get something off my chest, for it has been bothering me since I read it.
Salen and Zimmerman. Where do you get off excluding RPG's as games? I looked it up. You state (and I quote) :
"A game is a system in which players engage in artifical conflict, defined by rules, that results in a quantifiable outcome."
"A puzzle is a specific type of game since there's only 1 correct answer. An RPG doesn't have a quantifiable outcome."
"Quantifiable Outcome: Games have a quantifiable goal or outcome. At the conclusion of a game, a player has either won or lost or received some kind of numerical score.A quantifiable outcome is what usually distinguishes a game from less formal play activities.
To say RPG's don't have a quantifiable outcome, to me, is wrong. Whether it is a quest or a storyline the outcome is written, ready for the player to achieve whatever goal is relevant to his struggle. Puzzle elements are found in how the player decides to overcome problems and achieve said goal but this is really a two state dilemma. The player wins or loses. Achieves the goal, or does NOT achieve the goal. I feel quite passionate about RPG's, Oblivion and Fallout 3 (the best games in the world ever) and also a recovered World of Warcraft player. In Fallout 3 different quest oppurtunities are thrown at you constantly, and no, of course I did not do every single one. But if you follow the storyline through to the end, the game is over. And when I checked my friends has a pretty similar experience of the storyline in the sense that, you know, the game finished. What's that Salen and Zimmerman? You say "At the conclusion of a game, a player has either won or lost. . "
Stop contradicting yourself. RPG's so are games. The best kind too.
Anyway!
So Paidea = Play for pleasure (effectively)
Ludus = More constrained by rules, with a clear outcome
I would have to pick a game like the Sims for an example of paidea. After many hours wasted on such a game it seems apparent very quickly that there is no set goals to achieve. If the player wants, he/she can build houses, families, neighbours etc, sheerly for the fun of it. Goals can be set and acheived but only if the player strives for it, as there is always the oppurtunity to make your sim better. The trick is that this becomes increasingly difficult as you play, in order to be the best you have to find a perfect balance so as to keep your sim happy, sociable yet work hard and have the necessary requirements to advance in whatever field you've chosen for them. As this game can be played to a purpose (but only at the players discression) , or just to cause some mayhem as is the way usually between sims players, it is in my opinion that this game suits the idea of paidea perfectly.
Now a good example of Ludus would probably be a game such as Worms, or worms 3d. Much less room for a player to make free-willed decisions. The player is given their team of worms and weapons, plonked onto a map and the battle commences. Although the player has a wide variety of ways, strategies and whatnot to win the battle, the game will always end with a loser and a winner.The game is restricted by these rules and outcomes but it does not hinder the gameplay. It does however mean the player cannot necessarily advance in a way that they see fit as at the end of the day, they are playing as worms. For the restraints, rules and regulations of the game this is why I have chosen it as an example Ludus.
Salen and Zimmerman. Where do you get off excluding RPG's as games? I looked it up. You state (and I quote) :
"A game is a system in which players engage in artifical conflict, defined by rules, that results in a quantifiable outcome."
"A puzzle is a specific type of game since there's only 1 correct answer. An RPG doesn't have a quantifiable outcome."
"Quantifiable Outcome: Games have a quantifiable goal or outcome. At the conclusion of a game, a player has either won or lost or received some kind of numerical score.A quantifiable outcome is what usually distinguishes a game from less formal play activities.
To say RPG's don't have a quantifiable outcome, to me, is wrong. Whether it is a quest or a storyline the outcome is written, ready for the player to achieve whatever goal is relevant to his struggle. Puzzle elements are found in how the player decides to overcome problems and achieve said goal but this is really a two state dilemma. The player wins or loses. Achieves the goal, or does NOT achieve the goal. I feel quite passionate about RPG's, Oblivion and Fallout 3 (the best games in the world ever) and also a recovered World of Warcraft player. In Fallout 3 different quest oppurtunities are thrown at you constantly, and no, of course I did not do every single one. But if you follow the storyline through to the end, the game is over. And when I checked my friends has a pretty similar experience of the storyline in the sense that, you know, the game finished. What's that Salen and Zimmerman? You say "At the conclusion of a game, a player has either won or lost. . "
Stop contradicting yourself. RPG's so are games. The best kind too.
Anyway!
So Paidea = Play for pleasure (effectively)
Ludus = More constrained by rules, with a clear outcome
I would have to pick a game like the Sims for an example of paidea. After many hours wasted on such a game it seems apparent very quickly that there is no set goals to achieve. If the player wants, he/she can build houses, families, neighbours etc, sheerly for the fun of it. Goals can be set and acheived but only if the player strives for it, as there is always the oppurtunity to make your sim better. The trick is that this becomes increasingly difficult as you play, in order to be the best you have to find a perfect balance so as to keep your sim happy, sociable yet work hard and have the necessary requirements to advance in whatever field you've chosen for them. As this game can be played to a purpose (but only at the players discression) , or just to cause some mayhem as is the way usually between sims players, it is in my opinion that this game suits the idea of paidea perfectly.
Now a good example of Ludus would probably be a game such as Worms, or worms 3d. Much less room for a player to make free-willed decisions. The player is given their team of worms and weapons, plonked onto a map and the battle commences. Although the player has a wide variety of ways, strategies and whatnot to win the battle, the game will always end with a loser and a winner.The game is restricted by these rules and outcomes but it does not hinder the gameplay. It does however mean the player cannot necessarily advance in a way that they see fit as at the end of the day, they are playing as worms. For the restraints, rules and regulations of the game this is why I have chosen it as an example Ludus.
Wednesday, 6 October 2010
Interview with Rob
What is the title of the last fiction book you read?
What is the last live performance (music, drama or dance) you attended?
What is the title of the last film you watched in the cinema?
In the cinema. . .I think it must have been the third installment of Twilight. Not too shabby, I must admit. Some techniques used in the special effects blew me away, it has to be said. The storyline wasn't too painful either. Team Jacob :P
How often do you read a newspaper?
Not at all. I'll read it if it's there, but it's not my first choice of reading material.
Which art gallery/museum/exhibition did you last visit?
The island I came from but two weeks ago doesn't offer a variety of museums, but it would have been a walk-through tour of the black houses. Homes to many who were literally forced (in the most brutal sense of the word) to leave their homes to make room for sheep in the highlands and islands. It is always fascinating considering the age of some of these buildings, the doorways still being only being 5 feet tall etc.
How many hours a week do you spend playing video games?
Due to the cross country move to get to Ipswich I had to leave my Xbox 360 at home, which is only slightly heartbreaking. It would be considerably more were I able to bring it with me. On my laptop I often play online games with friends, but only a couple of hours at a time, maybe only 4-5 hours a week.
How many hours a week do you spend playing games other than video games?
I think about games more than I play them, which is the same for any kind of game. I have recently learned about more card games, as they are (or appear to be) far more sociable than most video games. Yet only a few hours a week in total I can claim to play these games. I would love to grab a copy of Monopoly, Scrabble, Wizard or Boggle.
I don't read so many books nowadays. It was probably Harry Potter, lovely books with alot of imagination and debateable plagiarism. But all in all, a very enjoyable read with some hardcore moments (in my mind :P) I have started reading a book about Bill Hicks, a comedian I find raw and exciting, with some views about the world that I beleive should be widely considered all round...
What is the last live performance (music, drama or dance) you attended?
It was the fantastic Lady Gaga. Mind blowing and theatric. More like a theatre production than a concert, after experiencing it you really appreciate the work she puts in. 5 stars :]
What is the title of the last film you watched in the cinema?
In the cinema. . .I think it must have been the third installment of Twilight. Not too shabby, I must admit. Some techniques used in the special effects blew me away, it has to be said. The storyline wasn't too painful either. Team Jacob :P
How often do you read a newspaper?
Not at all. I'll read it if it's there, but it's not my first choice of reading material.
Which art gallery/museum/exhibition did you last visit?
The island I came from but two weeks ago doesn't offer a variety of museums, but it would have been a walk-through tour of the black houses. Homes to many who were literally forced (in the most brutal sense of the word) to leave their homes to make room for sheep in the highlands and islands. It is always fascinating considering the age of some of these buildings, the doorways still being only being 5 feet tall etc.
How many hours a week do you spend playing video games?
Due to the cross country move to get to Ipswich I had to leave my Xbox 360 at home, which is only slightly heartbreaking. It would be considerably more were I able to bring it with me. On my laptop I often play online games with friends, but only a couple of hours at a time, maybe only 4-5 hours a week.
How many hours a week do you spend playing games other than video games?
I think about games more than I play them, which is the same for any kind of game. I have recently learned about more card games, as they are (or appear to be) far more sociable than most video games. Yet only a few hours a week in total I can claim to play these games. I would love to grab a copy of Monopoly, Scrabble, Wizard or Boggle.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)