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.

Reading: Tools for Creating Dramatic Game Dynamics.

What are those mechanics and how do they work?

  Well, Mechanics are the necessary pieces we need to play the game, whatever that game may be, the rules, the venue, the equipment, etc.  If we think of that game as a system, the mechanics are the complete description of that system.

  So to create a dramatic game, and it's dynamics, we need something called a dramatic arc, this is the aesthetic model for drama.  This is the rising and falling of a well-told story, the central conflict of the narrative creates tension that accumulates as the story builds to a climax, and dissipates as the conflict is resolved.

  As tools for formalizing our own design objectives, aesthetic models can help us know when we have achieved them, and if we're headed in the right direction.  We give each experience/or aesthetic pleasure it's own aesthetic model. So, dramatic tension is our level of emotional investment in the story's conflict, be that the concern, apprehension or the urgency to see the story's outcome.  When using Drama as an aesthetic, the dramatic arc is the aesthetic model for stories, and how those stories convey emotional content.

  Moving on to Dramatic tension, it consists of two elements, they are Uncertainty and Inevitability.  We use Uncertainty to create the sense that the outcome of an action, or the story, is unknown.  We use Inevitability to create the sense that the resolution to the conflict is coming.  Dramatic tension relies on both of these things to work together, neither are sufficient on their own.  The game's Uncertainty and it's Inevitability are evoked by different systems and mechanics, and are use to create and ongoing sense that the game/story/contest is coming to a close.

  Another way of manipulating the player or the reader is to use Force and Illusion, we can use Force to create dynamic tension by manipulating the state of the game/story itself.  Illusion however, is used to manipulate the player's perception so the game seems closer to an end that it is.  All of these things are used to create Feedback systems, which if used in a positive or negative way can affect how a player achieves a goal or is hindered during a game.

  These systems are complex and use four functions to achieve the desired effect.  We have the Game State, Scoring Function, Controller and the Game Mechanical Bias.

- Game State  The complete of the game at any particular moment.
- Scoring Function  Sensor of the feedback system (The rules of the game, who is winning, by how much, etc).
- Mechanical Bias  The activator of the feedback system (The rule that gives contestants advantages over eachother).
- Controller  The comparator of the feedback system (The rule that chooses which player receives the Mechanic Bias, based on the Scoring Function).

  So, what types of feedback are there and how do they affect the game and/or the player?  We have Negative feedback as a source of uncertainty and Positive feedback as an aid to Denouement.

- Negative feedback (as a source of uncertainty) depends of the player's perception that the outcome is unknown, be it tied scores, etc.

- Positive feedback (as an aid to denouement) is a way to dispel any uncertainty and create finality and closure of the story.  Positive feedback systems, provide a mechanism for breaking the equilibrium (balance) and moving the game forward.

I'm going to go ahead and list a few more types of feedback, or rather, other sources of uncertainty. They are...

- Pseudo-Feedback (Creating dynamics with a negative illusion, or the perception of another feedback system).
- Escalation (A mechanic in which score changes faster and faster over the course of a game).
- Hidden Energy (Creates dynamic uncertainty by manipulating the player's incomplete understanding of the game's 'true' score).
- Fog of War (Simulates limitations of the game character's ability to perceive the world around them).
- Decelerator (An obstacle or mechanic that slows down player's late in the game to change it's pace).
- Cashing Out (The score is set to zero).

  Lastly, I'll move onto the main source of dramatic inevitability, the proverbial 'Ticking Clock', which is the drawing to an end of the story or game, whether it be by a score, laps, time left, etc.

Task: Games Britannia - Dicing With Destiny.

  I recently watched a TV programme (I know, old-school) called Games Britannia, in which the presenter Benjamin Woolley explores popular games in Britain from the Iron age to present day, and unravels the cultural and social history behind the games we play today.

  The programme starts with Woolley describing an archaeological dig where a grave was found, the body was buried on top of a pre-set game board and other ancient relics we now know as Alea Evangelii.  The body found in this grave must have been of some importance to this great find, the creator perhaps, or a means for divination?

  We then move on to the works of Dr. Irving Finkel, the Curator of the British Museum (at time of broadcast) whom goes on to talk about the possible rules of the game, which are still only speculated.  The board is 19x19 squares (as seen below) and one player will have more pieces than the other.

So, let's go into the basic premise of game play... 

- The Black Player takes the first turn of the game.
- A player must move one piece on a turn.
- If a player cannot move one piece they lose a turn.

Movement
- Pieces move orthogonally any number of intersections.
- No piece can move onto or through an occupied intersection.
- The King is the only piece that can move onto or through the Castle.
- The King is the only piece that can move onto or through the Citadels.

Capturing a basic piece:
- A piece can only be captured on the enemy's turn by the enemy piece moved on that turn.
- A piece is captured by an enemy piece when it becomes surrounded on two opposite sides by adjacent enemy pieces.
- The King cannot be one of the pieces used in the capturing of an enemy piece.

Capturing the King happens:
- If the King becomes surrounded on all four sides by enemy pieces.
- If the King becomes surrounded on three sides by enemy pieces when positioned on the edge of the game board.

End of the game:
- The Black Player wins the game if the King is captured.
- The White Player wins the game if the King sails to a corner.

  Woolley then goes on to investigate other ancient games that we know as modern games, Such as Chess, Ludo and Snakes & Ladders to name a few.  These games originally came from India and were modified in such a way to remove the spiritual aspect and lean more towards sales and feasibility.

  In all, I enjoyed learning that the games I grew up with were originally spiritual games played many moons ago, I look forward to watching another episode.

Task: Bibliography.

  After finally being introduced to the library system and how to access copious amounts of information across a number of institutes, we were set the task of creating a short bibliography, including two books, two journal articles and two contributions to books.  You'll find this below; on a similar note, Zotero is stupid when it comes to Google Chrome, so this could go drastically wrong.

Moock, C., 2007. Essential ActionScript 3.0 1st ed., Adobe Dev Library.

Rosenzweig, G., 2011. ActionScript 3.0 Game Programming University 2nd ed., QUE.

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

Weinstein, A.M., 2010. Computer and Video Game Addiction—A Comparison between Game Users and Non-Game Users. American Journal of Drug & Alcohol Abuse, 36(5), pp.268-276.

Caillois, R. 2006. "The Definition of Play. The Classification of Games". Salen. K and Zimmermann.E. The Game Design Reader: A Rules of Play Anthology. London. 122-155.

Jenkins, H. 2006. "Complete Freedom of Movement: Video Games as Gendered Play Space". Salen. K and Zimmermann.E. The Game Design Reader: A Rules of Play Anthology. London. 330-363.

I'm hoping the final two contributions are correct, took a while to fathom the procedure and find the contributions themselves.

Reading: M.D.A. Framework.

  What is it?  MDA (Mechanics, Dynamics & Aesthetics) is a formal approach to understanding games and bridges the gap between the design & development and the criticism & technical research.  There are distinct components to the MDA and they are:

- Mechanics (The components of the game, at a level of data representation and algorithms.)
- Dynamics (The run-time behaviour of the mechanics acting on player input and output.)
- Aesthetics (The desirable emotional responses in the player, when interacting with the game system.)

  When creating a game, designers must consider interdependencies carefully before implementing changes to the design, and decisions about the data, it's representation and methodology will all shape the final game play.  Interaction between the coded subsystems can create complex, dynamic and often unpredictable behaviour.

  Games are more like artefacts than media, the content of a game is it's behaviour and as a designer, the mechanics give rise to dynamic system behaviour leading to aesthetic experiences.  However, as a player, aesthetics set the tone, which is born out of the dynamics and mechanics of the game.  When working with games, we must consider the perspectives of the player and the designer, it helps observe how small changes can have a large impact and considering the player encourages experience-driven design as opposed to feature-driven design.

Aesthetics, what makes a game fun?

- Sensation (Game as Sense-pleasure)
- Fantasy (Game as Make-believe)
- Narrative (Game as Drama)
- Challenge (Game as Obstacle-course)
- Fellowship (Game as Social framework)
- Discovery (Game as Uncharted territory)
- Expression (Game as Self-discovery)
- Submission (Game as a past-time)

Games pursue multiple aesthetic goals in varying degrees.  Simple changes in the aesthetic requirements of a game will introduce mechanical changes to it's "AI" on many levels, however there are no "AI" mechanics as such, intelligence comes from the interaction of "AI" logic with game logic.

Dynamics, creating the aesthetic experience

  We design games based on how we want our player to emotionally feel when playing it, so if I wanted the game to be challenging, I would create a mechanic such as a time limit and opposition.  If I wanted to add fellowship to this, now challenging, game I have a mechanic of allowing players to exchange information and use tactics if within a team.

  Expression can come from dynamics allowing players to "leave their mark" with achievements, high scores, monetary gain, etc.

  Dramatic tension can come from dynamics that try to create or encourage a rising tension or escalating an event within the game, and the mechanics which are various actions, behaviours and control mechanisms given to the player within the game context are invoked.

To conclude, when designing a game, it is important to think about how you want your player to feel and react before setting mechanics and dynamics in stone, we must create the mechanics from the emotional responses we want the player to have.