Reading: Players who suit MUDs.

For the Week 8 reading (Players who suit MUDs, by Richard Bartle) we we asked to describe how the different styles of player relate to themselves, others and the game world; and how they linked to our own gameplay experiences of online worlds.

Those reading this outside of the institution my take a look at the paper, available here http://tiny.cc/u3nns in an easy to read format.

So, what is a MUD?  It is a Multi-User Domain (or Dungeon, depending on the source).

I'll start by mentioning that I liked this article, as much as others disliked it, the understanding of the initial concept was there; and why wouldn't it be, it was Bartle's.  Though the article is now dated, and can be argued that it has little to no meaning by today's standards, the theory is sound and still shows in modern day online worlds.

Bartle goes on to describe his research of player types and the four things typically enjoyed by players.  They are Achievements within the game context, Exploration of the game world, Socialising with others and Imposition upon players.  In abstract, we get; Achievers, Explorers, Socialisers and Killers.

- Achievers like to set themselves game-related goals, and will set out to achieve them.

- Explorers like to find out as much as they can about the game world and it's mechanics, by means of mapping it's topology and/or experimenting with the world's physics).

- Socialisers like to use the game's communicative facilities, and employ role-playing in context with other players.

- Killers like to use tools within the game world to cause distress/griefing (by means of killing them continually or assaulting them verbally), or in very rare circumstances, help other players.

Players will often drift between all four styles of gameplay, however they will also tend to have a primary style and only switch to another to advance their main interest.

Bartle goes on to discuss in more detail, what dynamics or mechanics drive the different types of players in the game world.

Achievers

Primary Goal - Point gathering, Raising their level.

Secondary Goal - Exploring for treasures, Socialising for hints, Killing to eliminate rivals.

Explorers

Primary Goal - Exposing world mechanics, finding interesting artefacts, seeing how game related things work.

Secondary Goal - Point gathering, Killing to eliminate rivals, Socialising.

Socialisers

Primary Goal - Interested in people, Inter-player relationships, Empathizing/Joking/Entertaining.

Secondary Goal - Exploring to understand discussions, Point scoring for new chat subjects, Killing for futile conversations (very rare).

Killers

Primary Goal - Imposing upon others, Attacking players to kill personae, More distress = more gain.

Secondary Goal - Point scoring to become powerful, Socialising to taunt victims, Exploring to find hidden players.

When thinking (in the modern day) of balancing these players and their styles on a server; when too many players gravitate to one style, the effect can cause player of the other persuasion to leave or change style completely.  Administrators need to maintain a balances relationship between different types of MUD to guarantee that players "feel".

To elaborate further; Achievevers want to ACT upon the world, Explorers want to INTERACT with the world, Socialisers want to INTERACT with players and Killers want to ACT upon the players.  Keeping this balanced is difficult, and can be explained better with the interest graph show below (Please note that this is my interpretation of a poorly displayed graph in the original works).

- Figure (A) is the Point Of Interest and the Axes of the graph represent the source of player's interest in a MUD.  A stable MUD is one in which the four principle styles of player are in equilibrium.

So, how can we change the player type balance, and how will they influence the gameplay.  Making changes towards the PLAYER could be increasing the talk features, but his will reduce the MUD to a mere social chat box.  Making a change to the WORLD could stop the players finding each other entirely, and will reduce Interaction.  Making changes to the INTERACTION could reduce freedom of choice, making the gameplay linear or have a narrative.  Finally, making changes to the ACTION within the game can make it monotonous, creating a 'doing-to' rather than 'doing-with' structure.

Ways to emphasize PLAYERS over the WORLD:

- Add more communication facilities.

- Add more Player-on-Player commands.

- Make Communication easier.

- Decrease the world size.

- Increase connectivity between rooms (Dungeons).

- Maximize the amount of simultaneous players available.

- Restrict building privileges to a select few.

- Reduce the number of Mobiles (Mobs, Enemies, NPC's).

Ways to emphasize the WORLD over PLAYERS:

- Reduce communication facilities to basic commands.

- Have fewer Player-on-Player interactions.

- Make building facilities easier and more intuitive.

- Maximize the size of the world.

- Use only rational room connections.

- Grant building facilities to many.

- Massively increase the amount of Mobiles.

Ways to emphasize the INTERACTING over ACTING:

- Have help facilities produce vague information.

- Produce cryptic hints for players that are stuck.

- Maximize the effects of commands available.

- Lower the rewards for achievements.

- Have a shallow Level/Class system.

- Create amusing responses for amusing commands.

- Edit room descriptions for a consistent atmosphere.

- Limit the number of commands available in an area.

- Have lots of small, easily solvable puzzles.

- Allow builders to add new commands.

Ways to emphasize ACTING over the INTERACTING:

- Provide a game manual.

- Include auto-map facilities.

- Include auto-log facilities.

- Raise the rewards for achievements.

- Have an extensive Level/Class system.

- Make commands available everywhere.

- Create large, time-consuming puzzles.

- Have many commands available relating to fights.

- Allow building only by top-quality builders.

These strategies can be combine to encourage or discourage different styles of play.

To conclude, this article is vastly outdated by today's standards, but Bartle was the first to explore the theory and balance of multi-player worlds.  Do I agree with it?  Yes, despite many of my fellow students criticisms of the article, this still relates to modern day multi-player worlds even if just the theory behind them.

Reading: Casual Game Design.

For our Week 7 reading (Space of Possibility and Pacing in Casual Game Design, by Marcos Venturelli) we were asked to describe the design components that Venturelli believes are important for the creation of casual games, and how can they work together to provide a space for great user experiences.

  Venturelli describes casual games as those you can Pick up and Play, the sort of games that are enjoyed in small bursts and which the player won't be penalized in some way by interrupting the game play.  He goes on to describe Pacing, the way in which casual games are given a rhythm, and which the different parts of the system are put into motion.  Pacing is also used to create Relaxation, Tension and Repetition.

 We also have "Related Concepts", these are four concepts relating to pacing, they are; Movement Impetus, Tension, Threat and Tempo.  These four elements happen inside the lower arch of pacing (that of a level or specific play session), and the upper arch of pacing, that represents the long-term relation between the player and the game, and how much time they invest before becoming bored or frustrated and abandoning play.

  

As you can see above, all the lower arches of pacing are contained within the upper arch.

- Tension (This is the perceived danger that a player might become the weakest side of the conflict).   Aesthetic resources such as graphics and sound can be used to increased the tension, but not the threat.

- Threat (This is the actual power of the opposing forces on the conflict, the system itself or other players).    Threat is generated on the level of game mechanics, existing as the power struggle tips in favour of the system or player(s) opponents. 

- Movement Impetus (This is the will or power of the player to move forward through a level, it determines how willing the player is to making advancement decisions).

- Tempo (This is the intensity of play, the time between each significant decision made by the player).

  I refer to the term Analysis Paralysis in relation to Movement Impetus.  Analysis Paralysis refers to over-analyzing (or over-thinking) a situation, so that a decision or action is never taken, in effect paralyzing the outcome.  A decision can be treated as over-complicated, with too many detailed options, so that a choice is never made, rather than try something and change if a major problem arises. A person might be seeking the optimal or "perfect" solution upfront, and fear making any decision which could lead to erroneous results, when on the way to a better solution (Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analysis_paralysis).

  Moving on further, the Space of Possibility is related to Tempo.  If space is small, and the game solvable, choice is limited and the player(s) bore.  To design a game is to design a space of possibility, it is the creation of a structure that will play out in complex and unpredictable ways, a space of possible action that players explore as they take part in the game.  If a player is forced to take action within within a system without feeling that they have assessed all the possible actions or outcomes for that game state, they are likely to become frustrated.  Giving players more things to choose from increases the Tempo of the game.

Seen in the figure above, as the space of possibility increases, tempo also increases.  Higher tempo generates a lower player impetus.

  Player impetus is kept constant throughout the upper arch, providing the sensation that it is impossible to stop playing, combined with the relation between threat and tension and creating an optimum challenge, the players can reach a state of "Flow" (as described in an earlier post).

  Venturelli concludes before his case studies by mentioning replacing mechanics to keep the player(s) enticed instead of adding new ones and making the games over-complex.  The idea of a casual game is that the player doesn't see the complexity.  We can player mechanics and change the game world, we can also use a core mechanic break, which is a change in the pace by adding a bonus level for instance.  By adding something like a bonus level, we change the pattern in which the game plays and the way our minds process it, therefore new patterns mean more game play, which further entice the player(s).

  Venturelli has written a very concise article that I think anyone should read to grasp how a casual game is created and how they keep us "addicted" to them.  He makes a good point of breaking it down into the base concepts, producing an almost ideal list for designers to work from.

Reading: Chance & Skill.

So, for our Week 6 reading (Challenges for Games Designers - Chapters 5 & 6) we were asked to describe why Chance and Skill are important in games, and what sort of tools can we use to set them in play.

  I'll start with Chance, using chance to determine certain elements of our game can keep it fresh, and stop the game becoming quickly solvable like Tic-Tac-Toe for example, where you can quickly figure out the winning moves and continue to win every game.  Chance prevents us from mastering the game, it also keeps players interested for longer, and the feeling of defeat can be lessened by just blaming bad luck.

  By adding chance we can increase the variety of experiences for the player, and increase the replay value of the game.  Also, the tension created by adding chance to our games increases in proportion to how much a player has riding on the results of the game.  Poker, is a good example of this because it uses chance and the more a player bets on the hand, the bigger the tension created.

  To create chance in our games, there are several tools (or mechanics) we can use to do this.  Those items being Dice, Cards, Random Number Generators, Hidden Information, Spinners, Game Bits (Tiles, Coin Flipping, etc).

- Dice (An individual roll has a probability of producing certain numbers, not a certainty and previous rolls will never influence future rolls).
- Cards (These are versatile game elements, they can be used as resources, weapons, information, etc).
- Hidden Information (Much like the Fog of War in my previous posts, and used in games like Go Fish and Rock-Paper-Scissors).

  I'll move on to Skill now, we can use Skill/Strategy to keep players coming back to games because there are many more ways to win or to lose, the winning strategy and skill is dependant on the player and not chance.  We also find that utilizing skill in games, the player is rewarded with immediate feedback, like in Chess, you're either taking a piece, or dwelling over the fact that your move has opened up the opportunity for loss.

  To utilize skill in games, and not leave things to chance, we have many mechanics at our disposal.  Such as Trade-off's, Dilemmas, Risk vs Reward Trade-off's, etc.

- Trade-off (When a player doesn't have enough of a certain resource to accomplish their goals).
- Dilemma (Similar to a trade-off, this occurs when all choices will affect the player in some way).
- Risk vs Reward Trade-off (This is when a player faces a situation with multiple outcomes, but with differing levels of risk).
- Grand Strategy (Achieving an ultimate long term goal).
- Prisoners Dilemma (Outlined below).

  I'll move onto something that thoroughly interested me, the Prisoner's Dilemma.  We were given a solid example of this, with the game show Golden Balls.  The final challenge of the show is where the contestants have a chance to win, lose or split £100k.  The challenge, however, with judging your opponent on a psychological level.  Each player was given 2 choices, each one was either Steal or Split.  If one player chose to Split, and the other chose to Steal, the "thief would take £100k and the other would take nothing.  On the other hand, if both players we're to Split, they would both go away with £50k each.  Lastly, if both chose to Steal, each would go home with nothing (Please correct this if I'm mistaken).

  To list a small amount of Trade-off mechanics before I conclude, we have Auctions, Purchasing, Limited Use Special Abilities, Explicit Choices, Limited Actions, Trading & Negotiation, etc.

  I enjoyed this read, mainly because when I look at a game now, I'm not looking at the aesthetics but I'm finding the core mechanics, and figuring out how best they work with the game itself.