This reading should be done before class on Wednesday, September 7th so you’re prepared for class discussion.
Since you’re taking a class on Game Technologies, you should probably know what a game is.
The required reading is Chapter 2 and 3 of Jesse Schell’s The Art of Game Design (book online @ UW library):
- Chapter 1 (pdf) is totally optional – its basically an introduction to the book, and while it sets the tone for the rest of the book, its not essential to this assignment.
- Chapter 2 “The Designer Creates and Experience” (pdf or use links above) is essential for understanding Chapter 3.
- Chapter 3 “The Experience Comes out of a Game” (pdf version) is the main reading for the class discussion, but you need to read Chapter 2 first.
An alternate reading is:
- Jesper Juul. The Game, The Player, The World: Looking for a Heart of Gameness. (online version) (pdf)
Schell is much more long winded, but I like the way he approaches the overall problem better (as trying to create “Experiences”). We’ll read more from Schell later, so getting used to him is worthwhile. If you’re really interested in game design, I’d recommend reading both and thinking about the similarities – they say very similar things, in different ways.
After you have read this, we’ll ask you to do Assignment 3. (Note that Reading 1 is coupled with Assignment 3, yes its confusing).
{ 2 comments }
Deus EX: Human Revolution – Using the Schell reading
Q1. Games are entered willfully.
I would agree that Deus Ex was entered into willfully seeing as I decided to pick up and play the game myself. However, I would disagree that the converse is true. People have different play styles and just because I did not willingly play a game (say it was assigned or I’m playing it for research purposes) doesn’t mean it’s not a game.
Q2. Games have goals.
In Deus Ex there is a definite goal. You are given missions and you must complete them. That said, I’m not sure that this applies to all games. Say, for example, a player plays GTA in the sandbox format. Here there are no set goals for the player to achieve, still, it is a game. Minecraft also falls into this category as the goals are not defined.
Q3. Games have conflict.
Deus Ex does have conflict between the protagonist and antagonist. There is always something for the player to do. Now, in terms of the word “conflict” I’m not sure this necessarily has to be a “You against them” format. Take for example Flower where there is no real conflict UNLESS you consider the loss of your petals to be a conflict.
Q4. Games have rules.
Deus Ex certainly has rules, as, imo, do all games.
Q5. Games can be won and lost.
Deus Ex does have clear win and loss states, however, I’m still unconvinced that all games must. For our purpose, this seems to work for all classic games, however, I’m not sure how well it applies to games such as MMOs. Can you really win a Massive multiplayer online game like WOW? Same for Minecraft’s current build, can you beat Minecraft?
Q6. Games are interactive.
Deus Ex is certainly interactive. This definition, I feel, fits all games and often determines how fun they will be. It’s often very difficult to consider a game fun if it is not interactive.
Q7. Games have challenge.
I feel that this is a more accurate description of what a game is than win loss states. In all games there is some sort of challenge, this is true of the nontraditional games such as MMOs and Minecraft. Deus Ex is no exception.
Q8. Games can create their own internal value.
This is very true. There is no reason to care for a virtual object if there is no value created for them. This applies to in game credits, power ups, and lives. A good example of this is the fact that “Gold farmer” is a profession in some parts of the world. Someone values in game gold enough to pay other people to get it for them.
Q9. Games engage players.
I believe this to be true of good games. However, I would still say that you cannot say something is not a game simply if it does not engage you. FPSs are a good example of this conflict. Some people enjoy first person shooters while others see them as a waste of time. Obviously, this type of game engages some players while not engaging others. I found Deus Ex to be engaging, others may not.
Q10. Games are closed, formal systems.
Curiously, this depends on how you define the game. If you define it simply by the code generated to create a video game, then yes it is a closed formal system. This is also true of board games etc. Now, If you choose to see the societal impacts of the game (how people experience and interact with games) then no, games are not a closed formal system. They are systems that may change depending on the context that they are played in. I would say Deus Ex on the very basic level fits the description simply because it is compiled code that doesn’t change (unless you could dlc etc at which point it is no longer static).
First off, is this a game? Undeniably.
1. Games are entered willfully.
Mass Effect 2 is certainly a game I purchased on my own, without anyone forcing me to play it. Further, the player has voluntary control over Commander Shepard, their avatar in the game world. I received no financial compensation or “benefit”, to borrow from academic consent forms, as a result of playing this game.
2. Games have goals.
Mass Effect 2 has macro- and micro-level goals. The overall macro goal of the entire game is to build a team and lead a potential suicide mission to stop the Collectors, an agent of the Reapers (the big baddies of the Mass Effect series). The micro-level goals apply to a specific game mechanic or a specific mission—for example, the goal of the planet mining mini-game is to gather enough resources to build ship and equipment upgrades, while the . Further, the game has social goals—the current mission’s practical goal might be to eliminate an adversary or to protect a family member, but the social goal of completing the mission is to earn the loyalty of a squad member.
3. Games have conflict.
Of course, it seems like half the galaxy wants Shepard dead (or would prefer if Shepard had stayed dead…). There are internal conflicts, too, that apply to character relationships and even the player’s direct experience of the game. The game features memorable moments of inter-character conflict where Shepard’s decision results in the loss of a squad member’s loyalty. Further, the game has an ethics mechanic—Paragon/Renegade—that forces the player to define their experience and effectively live with a tough decision they make. This projection of moral conflict onto the player is an effective tool that makes the game a truly visceral and personal experience for each player, if only in what seems like a small detail (that’s up for debate, I think).
4. Games have rules.
From ammunition and fuel limits to experience points, physical boundaries, maneuvering limits (Shepard can’t jump!), Mass Effect 2 enforces several core mechanics, though in a flexible way, to the point that the player has a high degree of freedom when exploring the world through these rules.
5. Games can be won and lost.
In two ways, in fact—not only can Shepard die in a mission (or fail to satisfy some condition, resulting in a “Critical Mission Failure”), but if the player makes poor enough decisions throughout the entire game, Shepard may actually die during the suicide mission at the end. According to the developers, this prevents the player from importing their Shepard and his or her choices into Mass Effect 3, bringing a uniquely decisive end to the player’s character. Of course, Shepard can also survive the end mission with his entire squad intact. The player can otherwise “win” the game with any other combination of surviving squadmates.
6. Games are interactive.
With the exception of cutscenes, the player has full control of Shepard’s movement, actions and decisions. Furthermore, the environments within the game feature stores, non-player characters and other non-static objects.
7. Games have challenge.
Combat in Mass Effect 2 is certainly a challenge—in particular, I have really enjoyed my in-progress playthrough on the hardest difficulty level because it forces me to consider tactics, positioning, and all sorts of other factors that, if left neglected, will assuredly result in character death. Also, to return to a comment on Mass Effect 1, there are pivotal decisions in the game that challenge the player’s sense of justice, and may leave them wondering if they made the right choice.
8. Games can create their own internal value.
Mass Effect 2’s character development and relationship system gives players a reason to emotionally invest in the experience. Further, like any good story, movie or piece of writing, the themes of Mass Effect 2, such as xenophobia, ends and means, and loyalty, offer the player a chance to consider moral issues, learn “life lessons”, and gain insight into themselves and their own human experience outside the game.
9. Games engage players.
One need only visit the Bioware Social forums to see how passionate players are about Mass Effect. Many people devote their time and thought to discussing these games as games themselves, as works of art, as social commentary, and so much more. The satisfyingly flexible designs behind the combat, navigation, relationship and conversation systems in the game drive this engagement.
10. Games are closed, formal systems.
With regards to Schell’s idea of being “mentally in the game”, it’s entirely possible (encouraged, even) to make decisions in Mass Effect 2 that no sane or otherwise charitable human being would make in real life. You can be a badass, a saint, or somewhere in between, and you can completely divorce your Shepard character and his/her decisions from your own personality if you so choose. Meanwhile, the game’s various mechanics are clearly inter-related—while the planet mining mini-game may be distasteful for some, its purpose can be made very clear when the player loses a third of their squad on the way to the final mission, simply because they didn’t mine enough resources to adequately upgrade their ship. There are rules with interrelated consequences in this system, and each piece has a purpose in the whole.
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 1 trackback }