Or find someone else who can be critical…
October 29th, 2010
My twin brother is the vice president of the Game Developers Club at Adelaide University. Just recently he gave a presentation titled Meaningful Play to his peers and further posted the presentation up on Youtube. After watching his presentation, I buzzed him an email reviewing his theory on game design (which nicely falls into the first part of the presentation, below). You can watch the presentation here, here and here in its 23 minute entirety. For now though I have included the first part of the video and my response to it.
Firstly, I think it is dangerous to use a subjective adjective like “meaningful” in discussing games. Anyone can find anything to be meaningful. It would be better to discuss the game in regards to design and not include one’s ideas which are external to the game. This is something I have mentioned in my tweets recently.
By meaningful, I think you mean interplay. Your quotes from Rules of Play all allude to interplay but are put in a complicated way and fail to sharply address what the relationship is between reactions and gameplay. When you say things in your own words or use examples it’s clear that there is some confusion in your understanding. Here is a clearer quote for you of how games are meaningful:
“interplay is where actions and elements in a game aren’t means to an end, but fluid opportunities that invite the player to play around with the changing situation”
You can read a full description here with examples.
You’ll note your quote on the descriptive definition (slide) is similar to the quote I use in my post, but it goes a little further to add the “fluid opportunities that invite the player to play around with the changing situation”. Meaningful play is not simply that games react to the player (as your quote in the initial slide suggests), it is instead that the reactions lead to more interactions (interplay). And the more interplay there is between mechanics the greater depth and “meaningfulness” there is.
Your quotes exclude or aren’t clear on this point and so too is your understanding. For example, in the slide on the descriptive definition your own words say that the push and pull reaction between mechanics (interplay) allow us to understand the mechanics which are inside the game. This doesn’t say anything about the way reactions work to open opportunities for more interaction.
The evaluative definition is also very nebulous and doesn’t answer it’s own point . I would question your quote by then asking “and what is that then?” or “so what actually occurs?”. This quote is like saying, “chocolate ice cream is what happens when chocolate and ice cream come together” instead of “chocolate icecream is chocalate flavoured ice-cream”.
Your words here are again not so relevant to the quote.
The discernable part and what you then say about it irks me. How well the games makes the unfolding of interplay apparent is not a measure of how much interplay there is in a game. Putting it another way, lucidity!=a part measure of “meaningfullness”. And you certainly can’t use it as a quotient to compare with other games. Furthermore, how can we even compare the levels of interaction in an interactive medium with mediums that have no interaction as you say?
Intergrated is all fine though.
In the bullet point slide it’s clear that you are tripping up on this needlessly complex language.
The noughts and crosses board is actually a mirror and the pieces are halves. Not sure if you noticed that. In this example, you fail to discuss interplay and “discernability”. What you want to say is that when placing a piece on the board, wherever placed, this changes the game for the other player as they must alter their strategy every turn. This interplay is discernable through the representation of the pieces on the board in regards to matching three.
In your Tetris example you again don’t discuss “discernabilty” in regards to the outcome of the interaction/interplay/the terms and conditions of “meaningful play” (ok, no more “meaningful play” from here!) . That is, when you destroy blocks through making a tetris you see new block formations open up which creates new and different opportunities to interact (via your block placement). This is readily discernable as the player can see the visual structure of the collection of blocks and what happens when they remove them and the blocks rearrange.
Personally, I wouldn’t have used chess as the 3rd example as the interplay is similar to noughts and crosses (players pipping players with the position of their pieces). But more so as it actually subverts this whole notion of discernability through the “unknown implications” which you back-peddle on. You need to be clear and say that the fact that I move a chess piece and then physically release it says that I have completed the action. The releasing of the piece represents the end of the “move mechanic” and allows the players to therefore intepret moving as a mechanical feature of the system of rules that is chess.
What you say about the environment (level design?) isn’t so much about the environment itself as much as it is the things in them and how they effect the existing rule system. What you mean here is counterpoint. Again, another quote and another link:
“Counterpoint, in gaming, is a word for the way gameplay develops past optimization by layering interactive elements into a single gameplay experience. When each layer influcences, interacts, and enhances the functions/gameplay of each other layer the gameplay emerges into a medium of expression that reflects the individuality of a player and the dynamics that reflect the complexity of the world we live in.”
Basically, the way elements of games (enemies, time limits, exploding barrels) create ripples in the interplay. And here is an example.
The Killzone 2 example is a killer, but it should have been under the other heading as it has nothing to do with the environment/counterpoint and is actually about discernability (clarity is a better word, I think) and how it cushions the reload mechanic. Using the word “consequence” is a bad choice.
The Uncharted example is again a good example but it is more about camera angles as validation for chunks of gameplay than counterpoint which you asserted as “environment” at the start of this slide.
The last part on this slide about breaking rules makes no sense to me as your 2 examples weren’t about rules, but rather mechanics and camera.
The Mario slide is utterly confusing and full of holes. You ought to talk about the way the fire flower allows Mario to gun down enemies, Super Mario can break blocks and small Mario walk through tight places. These are all good examples of the integration (level design and mechanics work together).
However, I don’t like this term as tracking the relationship between mechanics, interplay and loads of counterpoint and level design is impossible to do without generalisation. Also certain parts have strong and weak integration respective of their strong/weak roles in the system of rules and mechanics.
“Become Genuinely Interested In Other People”
January 14th, 2010
If I were to run my own bookstore, I’d probably re-title the ‘Self-Help’ section to ‘Common Sense for Foolish People’. Generally speaking, there are three flavours of self-help books: weight loss, depression and success/motivation. The answers to each dilemma is very simple, but often made complicated by the people dealing with the problem:
Need to lose weight? Eat lean, exercise more. Feeling depressed? Make friends, adopt a positive attitude. Want success? Find a goal and work hard.
As you can tell, I’m pigeon-holing the entire genre, and I apologise for doing so, however, the primary ideas behind self-help books can be rendered moot in the face of common sense. Well, that’s my belief. Self-help books primarily serve the purpose of reminding us to be sensible when we’re likely to over-evaluate an issue. In anycase, to remedy my ignorance towards the new age crowd, let me talk about a self-help book that I’ve been reading: How to Win Friends and Influence People.
My brother, who does engineering, suggested that I read this. He originally began reading How to Win Friends and Influence People because good communication is a key requisite of team engineering, of which constitutes most of the field. He didn’t suggest that I read it because I lack people skills…but because it’s such a good book! A classic in fact. Yes, it’s all common sense, but damn, we sure do lose sight of common sense easily.
Allow me to demonstrate with one of the principles which transcends the very subject matter (yes, this does have something to do with video games, bear with me): “Become Genuinely Interested In Other People”.
Human nature states that 90% of the time we’re thinking about ourself, right? Putting ourself first is essential to our survival, pretty much. What Dale Carnegie (author) asserts is that by being genuinely interested in other people, we’re appeasing their interests and therefore can’t help but be liked ourselves. Think about it in practicality, who wouldn’t be friendly to someone who expressed a genuine interest in themselves? In a sense, people who put other’s interest ahead of their own are playing people for what they want, and winning. That’s a very selfish way to talk about a very no selfish act, I suppose.
This notion of serving the customer can not just lead to good interpersonal relations but also to success in other areas. Allow me to elaborate with two examples:
Mac
I’ve had my Macbook for about one month and it’s easy to see why Apple has such a strong fan base. Mac computers are designed for being used by normal human beings (yes, normal human beings), the user is central to the design and not the company. This is why Mac hardware and software is aesthetically very pleasing, why they don’t receive viruses, why the AC lead is magnetic, why the trackpad is almost as good as using a mouse: these are all features that make the experience simpler and more pleasant for the user. It’s because Macs pander their users that Apple fans get so aggro over issues like DRM, where Apple is (was?) clearly violating its users.
Windows, on the other hand, has the stigma of being unfriendly and very corporate/power user-centric. Consider the types of responses you hear from Windows users when discussing operating systems. They all say the same thing, they hate Windows/the computer but have no choice but to stick with it. Furthermore, Windows and Windows software (Office, for example) is also heavily pirated, because it’s perceived as not offering value. (Aside: Why would you buy MS Office when you can get Open Office for free).
Although Macs only hold a small market share (for obvious reasons being that Macs are overpriced and lack compatibility), the market share is strong and dedicated and less likely to convert to Windows or Linux. If Microsoft continues to neglect regular users and Apple continues to treat its users well, it seems likely that the market share for Mac computers will slowly increase.
Nintendo
Nintendo have always been successful at developing video games, particularly over the past few years, as usability is of prime importance to their design philosophies. Take a game such as Wii Fit, Wii Fit is actively interested in the player’s development and reinforces the player’s growth through the trainers which give personal, positive advice and praise which is sincere and unflattering.
Nintendo also design their games so that rather than forcing players through a mandatory, you’re-a-newbie tutorial, the environment embodies the tutorial and teaches players organically as they progress. In effect, it empowers the player and masks inability. Super Mario Bros. for instance, does not sit the player down and tell them in writing how to play, the logic of the entire game world is conveyed in the first few seconds of play as the goomba walks towards the player. If the player jumps over or on top of the goomba, they continue playing, that’s the tutorial: jump to avoid obstacles. Metroid achieved the same effect; walk left instead of right: exploration. Super Metroid iterates on this again by presenting players with an initial roadblock in which the only way players can progress is by bombing an unsuspecting part of the landscape. The message? Check everywhere, without fail. Super Metroid is unwavering in its commitment to this principle and magnificently iterates on the concept while placing itself on step ahead of the player, which is why Super Metroid is one of the most acclaimed video games ever made, it respects that the player and believes that they are capable of overcoming the challenge.
I’m sure that you can think of many counter examples, but here’s one in case you’re unsure. Yesterday I booted up my brother’s PC and started playing Runman: Race Around the World, the acclaimed indie title which is free and worth downloading (do it!). Runman’s an excellent game for fans of speed running platformers, however it’s tutorial components could be streamlined even further. Instead of having a sign telling the player to press ‘X’ to wall jump when standing in front of several adjacent walls, all they need is a picture of an ‘X’, the players can fill in the rest.
Nintendo games treat players with respect and sincerity which makes them approachable and enjoyed by many. It’s the reason why they’re been on top of the business for almost 30 years.
Conclusion
As we can see, Dale Carnegie’s principle of becoming genuinely interested in other people is effective not just in relationships, but in a corporate and design setting also. Companies that are aware of their user base and appease their user base through product and promotion (Capcom’s recent effort with Dark Void is a great example) will always be successful ones. Looks like common sense, and self-help books for that matter, prevail in the end, maybe I’m not such a hater.
Culture Bred Through Game Design
August 23rd, 2008
There were two articles which inspired me to write this piece so I’d like to call them out before I begin. They are Wanted: World Games by Chris Plante and The (possible) Source of Classical & Western Game Design by Richard Terrell.
Culture can roughly be defined as a set of socially transmitted norms that characterize the behaviour of a community. Our culture affects our understanding of the world around us and hence dictates how we behave in this space. Therefore when games are created, culture is inevitably bred through game design.
At this point in time game development is largely polarized between Japanese and Western (read: American) game design (European culture if often misinterpreted by the larger audience and as a result is often unfortunately left out). So to begin with, let us analyze some examples of how American and Japanese culture is expressed through games and what the overarching differences are.
One comment that has often been leveled towards the divide between Japanese and American games is the question of violence. Japanese games almost always go out of their way to provide reasoning behind violence. Think of the samurai who fights for honour or to avenge a tragedy in his life (typical example; home town being burnt down). The ninja’s actions are justified as he is retaliating to the violence bestowed upon him and due to the importance of face value in Asian culture (respect to elders, naming conventions in language) he is allowed to create violence, he is allowed to kill those who stand in his way. Unnecessary violence then, pushes against those ideals: if the ninja was to attack people because he felt like it would be a fun thing to do, within the village he’d lose face. Examples; Street Fighter, Ninja Gaiden Metal Gear Solid, Onimusha.
Furthermore when violence is used in Japanese games it is often heavily stylized, reflecting a cultural side effect of the Hiroshima bomb disaster where animation and art was used to displace people’s trauma of the devastating attack. The threat of nuclear bombs is also evident in numerous Japanese titles.
Welcome to Daniel Primed, my self-titled games analysis blog and the online supplement to Adventures in Games Analysis.
Reader Emails | RSS / Email Feed
Game Design Companion: A Critical Analysis of Wario Land 4 - $7.99
Level Design: Processes and Experiences
Speed Boost: The Hidden Secrets Behind Arcade Racing Design - $5.99
Adventures in Games Analysis: Volume I - $5.99
