Week 2: Readings

GDW Chapter 2: The Structure of Games (p29—36):

In this chapter, the author lists the different components that are necessary in creating the structure of games, whether they are analog or digital games. After giving a comparison between Go Fish (analog) and Quake (digital), there are a few parts to which makes a game what it is: 

• Players: Every game needs players and their participation to operate, and they are desgined for the players.  The requirements for the players are for them to be actively participating in the game, as well as accepting the rules and the constraints of the game. 
• Prodecures: This is the instructions of what the players have to do to achieve the game's objectives which guides the players through the game.
• Rules: This describes what the players can and cannot do. Some rules creates limits and blocks loopholes from the players. When the players decide to play, they are accepting the rules of the game, because without the rules, the game would not function as one.
• Resources: These are the objects that have certain values in the game. They can vary in utility and rarity, and depending the rules, the players will have to manage them to reach the game's objectives.
• Conflict: This is the result of the rules and prodecures that creates a situation where the player have to think and work towards the goal of the game.
• Boundaries: This is the rules and the objectives in the game that only exist within the context of that game, or the "magic circle" as described by theorist Johan Huizinga. It is the temporary world that exist from the game, separated from the real world.
• Outcomes: This is like the result of the game, but more importantly, it should have some uncertainty in it. A game with certain outcomes will fail to entertain the players, because uncertainty creates tension for the game and affects the players emotionally.
• Formal Elements: These are the "elements that make up the essence of games." There are no exact definition as to what these elements are, according to the author, and they will differentiate between different games, and even with new development of games. 

In my opinion, many of the components listed implied an negative connotation in real life, like rules or conflict. However, within the context of the game, the "magic circle," these components are what makes the game interesting to the players. In addition, sometimes the rules and the constraints are what draw the players into being interested and playing the game, because when they eventually master the skills, completed the objectives, and finished the game all within the game's stated rules, they will feel a sense of pleasure and achievement. Looking at Planet Plunder from project 1, I could say that we got most of the elements down, with some that were more apparent than the others. One of that was the outcome that had some uncertainty in it. Because our game allows players to employ different strategies to win, there was always a sense of uncertainty on who would be the winner, even with some players seemingly having more points than others.

GDW Chapter 3: Working with Formal Elements (p55—90):

This chapter explores the components mentioned in the the previous chapters in more depth, describing that the players, prodecures, rules, resources, conflict, boundaries, and outcomes are all formal elements that make up the essence of the game. Again, the author referred to the "magic circle," that allows the players to do things that they otherwise wouldn't do like shooting, killing, or betrayal. When a player decides to play the game, they decides to play "the fantasy of the game," which is possible due to the immersive nature of games. 

The chapter also goes on to describe the different amount of players for games and the different patterns of player interactions. What's interesting about this is that some patterns are more common in some types of games more than other. For example, the single player vs. game is found in digital games, while player vs. player or multilateral competition seems to be found in both analog games and digital games. In addition, team competition pattern is found in games that involves the audience as well, which might be because these competitive games are visually entertaining and contains dramtatic elements that allow the audience who's watching to enjoy the games as well. The games' rules must already be known to the audience in order for them to enjoy watching the game.

The next essence the chapter mentions is the various objectives within games: capture, chase, race, alignment, rescue or escape, forbidden act, construction, exploration, solution, and outwit. Just like player patterns, come objectives can be found more in analog games or digital games, and many games will carry mixed objectives. Also, I think that depending on the theme or the story of the game, it could influenece the objectives of the game, or the other way around. The objectives could also set the tone of the game right from the start. Objectives like capture or chase imply a high tension situation, but also an offensive one, while escape gives a sense of the player being put under a more powerful force and therefore feelign weak right away. On the other hand, objectives like exploration or construction imply the ability to freely manuver around and experiment with the game.

Next is the prodecures of games. The author compare Connect 4 to Super Mario Bros. 4 to should how prodecures are more straight-forward in analog games and more implied in digital games. Moreover, prodecures in digital games can be more complex with multiple layers. Still, this does not mean that digital games are more complex to play than analog games, and prodecures should be easily understandable in order for the players to start the game. In think that with easily understandable prodecure, it allows the players themselves to be the ones to increase the complexity of the game, especially in multiplayer games where there are many relationships in the game. 

The rules of the game, just like prodecures, can be less explicit in digital games than analog ones. They define what the players are allowed to do, and as aforementioned, cover the loopholes that could break the game from happening. While the rules have to make sure to cover every aspect of the game, it cannot be too complicated that it discourages the player from playing. The rules can limit variables and objects within the games, as well as limit the actions and effects of the game, keeping the player within the boundaries. Making the rules that were both simple but also covered every situation in the were ones of the challenging things the group faced when making Planet Plunder. We have to add in more rules every time we found a loophole within the game during the playtest, while at the same time having to write it down in a way that is concise so it wouldn't look like the rules are long and complicated. I realized that one thing we could've done better was to have the players give their feedbacks on our rule book and its explanation along with the gameplay.

Another essence is the resources of the game, which are valuable due to its limited amount and various utilities. Some resources, like lives, are always better to have more of, while things like units might cost something else in order to use, which requires the players to calculate and come up with a strategy. Resources like power-ups could increase the uncertainty of the outcome if players that seem to be losing obtain them, while other resources like time can also place an emotional effects on the player as well. In my opinion, time is a resource that really gives the game its tension; a countdown clock always implies that the players have to hurry. Additionally, the act of managing resources in game can becomes a challenge in itself, requiring the players to strategize.

As for the conflict, the author divides them into the obstacles, opponents, and dilemmas, all of which work to deter the players from the game's objective, requiring them to obtain certain skills or objects in order to move pass the conflict. Conflicts can also come from other players as well. This is very apparent in almost any multiplayer board games where there are 2 or more sides competing against each other and can block each other or attack them in some way. I think that the complexity of the game really increases when the games allow different players to become opponents, with the rules allowing the various actions that can intensify the game's dynamic.

As mentioned before, the boundaries separate what the game world is from the real world and also gives many games the frameworks to function within. It plays a big part in creating the "magic circle." However, players are not restricted to form connections with other players in the real world, and in some instance, the fantasy experience within the boundaries can create a connection to the player's real world. In fact, I feel like many games' objectives are to form relationships that translate from the game world to the real world. Simply put, players of the same game, even though they might've played as opponents, can form a relationship outside the world of the game based off of their common interest if playing the same game. 

Lastly, the outcome of the game, which must be uncertain in order for the player not to lose interest in the game. The outcome will be the result of the players' interactions with the other elements up until the objective is achieved. The outcome doesn't always have to be and win-or-lose situation either, and sometimes a range of outcomes can make the game more interesting to players. I find that games which have various outcomes, not eassentially good and bad ones, added a replayable value to themselves. Moreover, the varying outcomes can also allow the players to learn more about themselves and find connections from within the game into the real world.

GDW Chapter 3: Sidebar: The Mechanic is the Message, by Brenda Romero, Atari, Sir-tech, EA (p85):

Unlike texts or cut scenes, in this part, the author explains how she used the mechanic and the system of the game to convey the message to the players. What I got from this part is that, by using the mechanic to implicitly convey the message, the players can find their own personal connection to the message and react differently. This allows the game to find itself a place in the real world along with the players who've finished or experienced the game. Also, the author gives tips on how this can be done. First, you find the system that you want to represent. Then, you decide what you want the players to feel as a result of interacting with that system. The rules should be meaningful and effective, but still allow the players to give their own meanings to the game. This reminds me of what theater and movies can do, which is allowing the audience to find their own meanings within the story that was portrayed. However, the medium of games also allow the players to be more immersed when done correctly, which I think is a very important thing to consider when making a game with the goal of implicitly conveying a message to the audience. One must keep in mind the interactive nature of games that can provide immersion, and use it to its full potential.

GDW Chapter 5: Working with System Dynamics (p127—131, p155—156):

Games integrated various components which, in connection to each other, create one whole system with the goal of entertaining the players who interact with the system. The way in which the game entertain the players is by "creating a structured conflict and providing an entertaining process for players to resolve that conflict." (p. 127) The game designer can make the system as predictable or unpredictable as they want, and this depends on the decision on objects, properties, behaviors, and relationships within the game. Within the system are many interconnected objects with varying relationships to each other. Each objects have their own properties and qualities that define their importance to the game. The objects also have behaviors that, depending on the situation, will change its action. The objects will always have relationships between each other in a system, and this will decide how the game would function as a whole. While some relationships are fixed, some changes throughout the game or according to the players' actions. Some relationships, especially ones that directly involves the player's decision, can be fairly unpredictable and comes with a large amount of possibilities. In my opinion, there's no way to completely predict all the different relationships that are going to happen in the game, therefore, playtesting will play a very big part in working with the objects and its relationships within the game. Most importantly, the system must be complete without any loopholes that could create unintended conflict or prevent the goal from being reached. In addition, the system must be fair, but with uncertainty, and entertaining to the intended players, so that, when the system is complete with all its components, the game will allow the players to play it over and over again with the same amount of enjoyment.

GDW Designer Perspective: Frank Lantz (p160—162):

In this part, I've found myself highlighting many useful advices whilst reading. One of that is "Start with a fun game, put some stuff in it, then take some stuff out." (p. 161) In my opinion, just like any other design process, its always good to have more ideas and resources than needed because rarely will I ever get a perfect set of ideas that work together perfectly. Having extra ideas lying around allows many trials and testings with errors that can be easily fixed by implementing another ideas that's on the list. Another thing is that, with more stuff, there will be more to take out, and being able to cut some ideas and move forward is also very important. It is better to have a simple, complete system than a broken but full-of-different-features one. Another advice is to "think of each game as a prototype for a better, more finished game that you will make later." (p. 161) There is always a time limit to everything it is impossible to keep working on the same thing forever. This is especially true as a student right now, where I only have a certain amount of weeks to complete a project, whilst at the same time learn new skills for later use. As a result, using previous work as inspiration and research will help in learning skills and coming up with more ideas that, hopefully, will evolve into the game that was envisioned since the first prototype. In addition, keeping a list of interesting ideas that went unused in the current projects can allow the future projects to come back to those ideas and actually implement them.