La Decima Vittima

La Decima Vittima is a film based around a fictional reality in which killing is the game and anyone could be playing. The game focuses around a world that treats killing like a competition, a gracious sport to reward the victors in. The game bares similarities to more recent films such as 'The Hunger Games' and I also felt there were fair similarities to an Asian movie called 'Battle Royale'. The winner of the event becomes some what of a hero amongst the world; a glorified celebrity. The film clearly aims to raise questions amongst society and force generations to question how different this reality is from our own. While we may not condone killing, it soon becomes clear that the underlying message of this film is in relation to the way in which we compete with each other in every day life, sometimes to the point of near death. The costs are obviously higher in this movie and the human nature is bewildering in some cases. I thought about it from a historical point of view though, and what I came to realise is that this was simply a modernised version of the Roman coliseum battles. 

The game sparked a lot of controversy around its time; it not only aggroed certain groups of people, but it also inspired others. While some people shunned the film as condoning violence, others chose to perceive the game as a bible for a world in which to immerse themselves; and thus was born 'Assassin' a game in which the 'players' enact themselves within the real world to eliminate their opponent in a mock assassination of one kind or another. Everyone is assigned a target and everyone is a target, it's defined as a pervasive game; games that take place across several media; also known sometimes as transmedia or alternate reality games. Simply put; it's a game played in real life. The essential ideology behind the game is that all humans are out to win, and that games are an instinctive part of life, and in some cases are life.

Trip to the British Museum

On the 22nd of November (2012) we began an arduous journey to London, to the British Museum to indulge our curiosity of all games ancient.

There were many a fascinating exhibits demanding my curiosity, but knowing my task; to study ancient games, I pushed on to see what I had come to see.

The Royal Game of Ur

Before arriving, I knew what the main thing I needed to study was. It was this! The Royal Game of Ur; a game of old, very old infact. The board seems to have held very well given its age, and although uncertain, I am sure the pieces provided with it are all genuine also.

The rules of this game had been found on a clay tablet dating from 177BC. This tablet is not only a crucial part of gaming history, it's also infact the oldest set of rules known to gamers.


Senet

This game has always interested me and I always meant to look more into it, the game is called Senet. It is an Egyptian variant of the Ur, at least that is what some think. The games rules itself have been lost to time, and there are many debates on how the game is infact played.

Okay Maybe I lied a little; most of us couldn't wait to go exploring London, so perhaps we could have spent more time surveying and studying the ancient artifacts on display.

Games Britannia - Part 2 & 3

Games Britannia Part 2

In this episode of Games Britannia Woolley traces the surprising political and social impact that board games have had in Britain over the last 200 years. Britain was the first nation to come up with the concept of board games as a means of education, these ideas later found themselves exported to America where it saw thriving success economically. 

This episode also looks deeply into Monopoly and its incredible success, it also takes a jab at the game by revealing its roots are actually tied to Communism, the irony is quite entertaining when you discover it was in fact based on a Communist game but focuses itself on a Capitalist overview of the world. It also shows how games like this, while distasteful in the eyes of some, are still incredibly popular to this day. Monopoly is not alone in this either; games such as Scrabble, Connect-4 and Cluedo have somehow lasted a surprisingly long time and still exist in the modern family home to this day.

Wooley also surveys the way board games have evolved, how they can move beyond the tangible pieces and into the realms of fantasy and imagination. A perfect example of this is Dungeons and Dragons or Dragon Age. These games have become just as popular thanks to their ability to free the player of the physical shackles and many constraints presented by a board game.


Games Britannia Part 3

Part 3 focused mainly on video games and how they've progressed over the years.

The first game of note that is covered is Elite; Elite is an old retro space exploration-trading game in which the player uses a ship to try and reach elite status through either trade or combat. It's quite interesting to watch when you come to realise just how pivotal such old games have been in paving the direction for modern games; many mechanics present then are still used thoroughly and efficiently to this day. Even though the game hasn't survived the test of time, the ideals, features and mechanics it introduced have.

Lara Croft also featured in the documentary; she was described as a really revolutionary point in game characters; finally we were starting to focus on the character and the importance of their story. Games were beginning to structure them self around the character, not the adventure. This was the beginning of the change. Some people opposed to Lara's appearance however. She had the body of a supermodel and was simply thought of as a 'Pamela Anderson solving problems'. Some people disagree with the statement, feeling she has moved beyond this and become something more.

Another big point for the documentary was moral choices and the impact they have on the overall experience. Black and White is talked about deeply here, it's unique take on gaming at the time; allowing players to indirectly or directly influence and mess with anything they choose, meant the players own judgement was responsible for whether something was right or wrong to do, and how they would act was decided by them. It was a matter of choice in intricately high amounts. Grand Theft Auto done something similar; it allowed players the free will and choice to perform whatever actions they desired, how they wanted to. Decisions in games such as these become policed by the players; instead of forcing them into something that the developer defines as morally correct, the player is challenged to decide for themselves. More and more games now do this, you could even argue games with restrictive mechanics and rule sets still give the moral choice; for example in an mmo, 'trainer killing (TK)' is when a pvper attacks and kills other players who are training. In many mmo's this is frowned upon and will usually result in the player being named and shamed, and as a result; hunted! This is the players choice; they don't have to hunt him, but they've made the moral choice, the moral obligation that it is the right thing to do.

Group project - end of sprint 1

So seeing as it's the end of the first sprint for my group project I thought I'd go over what we got up to, the ins, the outs, the successful and the sucky.

So to start off with in our initial pitch we came up with the idea for a dungeon crawling adventure game with RPG elements called Searching for Celia, in short it was a classic Zelda clone, and in shorter; it was a disaster waiting to happen. The idea was shot down in our pitch and logically for good reasoning, so back to the drawing board we went!

One of my group members was working on a concept idea he had for a side scrolling shooter where you defend a girl from being attacked, it would all be in silhouette form because that was easier to create then a fully detailed game. I liked the idea, it was simple, it could work and it had the potential to be fun.

It was at this point I threw in the suggestion for a mechanic to challenge the player; an aura. The game seemed to repetitive and simple in its current state so I suggested an aura, created by the girl that would grow or dissipate dependent on a variable. Originally it was suggested that variable be that damage taken = smaller aura. I was however against this idea; I felt it was increasing the gap between good players and bad players and making it harder for less skilled individuals to proceed. So in the end after some debating we came up with the idea to make the aura get smaller as you move, and recharge when stationary, this way we could reason that the aura gets smaller because the girl is exhausted from moving.

So we had our new concept, and an interesting mechanic. work was delegated between us all. Wayne handled the code while me, Jake and Giselle did concept art. We three were each tasked with creating a background, menu, main character, girl, monster and boss. While Wayne worked on coding the minimal viable product.

So lets have a look at what I personally came up with;

• Background - The background idea I created was basically a desert like theme where the player would be moving across the screen while a sandstorm brewed in the background, this background also left room for the possible inclusion of scorpion type mobs that crawl out of the ground.

• Menu - The menu idea I had was one similar to a lot of games pause menu, the idea is that the menu is simply overlaying the game itself so that when you click 'Start Game' the menu fades revealing the game in all its entirety.

• Player - The player design I did was basic but kind of shoddy and dodgy, the best part I'd say of this design was the gun, the gun would make an aesthetically appealing addition to the game, as for the character; I feel others may have outdone me.

• Girl - The girl concept here wasn't exactly the most lively silhouette, and the detail here was poor. But the idea was to convey the simple concept that as the girl character loses health, the change in health would be clearly visible, indicated by how full of blue she is.

• Monsters - The monster design for the spider was quite simple and original; giant spiders, where would we been without them right? The idea was that at a later date we could implement a bit more detail to the way they spawn; having them come down vertically then move along horizontally.
  The second design was sort of a cross between a panther and leopard; this mob would be a straight forward horizontal moving mob that has more durability than the spider.

• Boss - Going on from the previous idea, I decided to develop the scoropard (hey it's my creature, I'll give it a cross-breed name if I want too!) into a boss type creature by adding crystals to its form that are meant to bolster its abilities and make it one tough cookie! I'm considering animating the crystal to glow blue to signify its status as a boss.

Overall the pitch went well, the lecturers seemed impressed and I left quite happy with how interesting they found my aura idea. A successful contribution I think.... now for the next sprint, I hear animations is heavy on the agenda.

Tools for creating dramatic games dynamics

Tools and techniques for storytelling are becoming a more desirable feature to games designers given the extensive progress of technology in providing movie similar experiences. However storytelling is no recent and new idea. It is visible in many kinds of board games; D&D, the royal game of goose, or even ancient games such as Senet. Through this we can see that stories are visible in games and have been for a long time; the digital age has just allowed us to refine the way the story is delivered. The story doesn’t rely on the metaphor of the game, but on the events encapsulated within it. Through this we could say the play of the game becomes a climactic struggle that builds to a satisfying conclusion, in layman’s terms; the game is dramatic.

Drama is a desirable quality in games, in some cases players seek out games for the drama alone, for this part we can say drama is a feature of game’s play content; it’s kind of fun. For this reason it can be important for us as game designers to imbue drama into our creations. Creating drama in games however is difficult; games will never be played the same way every time, people’s opinions and emotions may vary and we can’t control every element of the story’s creation unless we’re the only ones present to create it. It’s for this reason we need to remember we can’t create drama, only create circumstances from which drama will emerge.

Mechanics, Dynamics and Aesthetics;

Mechanics refers to the necessary pieces we need to play the game. This consists primarily of the rules of the game but can also refer to things such as equipment, location or anything else that is an absolute minimum to play the game. For example; Basketball’s mechanics aren’t only the rules of Basketball, but also the physical laws such as gravity and energy. A perfect example of venues importance would be surfing; you can’t go surfing on a road or up a tree, you require water. Consider a game is a system; the mechanics are the complete description of that system.

Dynamics refers to what could be defined as the behaviour of the game, the actual events that occur as the game is played. In chess the dynamics might include tactical concepts like the knight fork, as well as structural concepts like the opening and the endgame. When viewing a game through its dynamics, we are simply asking ‘what happens when the game is played?’. The relationship between dynamics and mechanics is one of emergence; a game’s dynamics emerge from its mechanics.

Aesthetics are a games emotional content, the desirable emotional responses, and the fun that results from playing a game. Games aesthetics emerge from dynamics; how the game behaves should determine how it makes the players feel. Understanding how certain dynamics will evoke specific emotional responses is one of the greatest challenges a games designer can face.

Mechanics always exist; we might not be playing the game, but the pieces still exist. Dynamics only manifest when the game is played; you can think about a tactic, but can’t carry it out unless you initiate the game. Of course from this you can easily deduce that aesthetics, requiring dynamics to evoke the responses, can only come into being when the game is played.

Games designers and players travel in opposite directions along this pipeline; designers start at aesthetics, emotional responses we hope to invoke, from there we determine what dynamics will accomplish these aesthetic objectives, and from there we can determine which mechanics will create those dynamics.  From this we can see that game designers work backwards.

An aesthetic model for drama

We want drama to be part of the games emotional content, but first we need to define what drama is and how it happens, this is an aesthetic model; these can help us know when we have achieved an emotion, and if we’re headed in the right direction. It’s important to remember however that not everyone will agree with our model of drama, nor is drama a quintessential key element of every game, this is simply an example.

Our aesthetic model of drama;

This model imagines a dramatic tension in quantity that can accumulate or discharge as time progresses. However it’s important to know that we don’t mean general quantity, quantity of dramatic tension cannot be measured, it can only be analysed in terms of quality. It’s important to remember that the dramatic arc isn't a universal fact of all stories, but rather a desirable property of a dramatic story. But why so specifically this shape? It’s hard to say. Perhaps it’s to do with the human psych, the way in which we think and are appeased. This model compels us, slowly drawing us in over time until we reach the peak waiting for the final climactic event, of course you have to have the climax at some point, otherwise the story will eventually become dragged, and lose its sense of wholeness.

What’s dramatic tension? Think of it as our level of emotional investment in the story’s conflict.

However our job as games designers isn't as easy as this model may appear; we must assure a game will be dramatic, even without direct control over narratives. A narrative that isn't scripted in advance, but rather emerges as time progresses and the events of a game are played out.

All drama originates from conflict, conflict comes from competition. But how does tension emerge from a contest, and how does that tension change over time? Dramatic tension is the product of two different factors:

Uncertainty: the sense that the outcome of the contest is still unknown. Any player could win or lose.

Inevitability: the sense that the contest is moving forward toward resolution. The outcome is imminent.

Both of the above are independent of each other, they’re evoked using different systems and dynamics, which make it easier for a designer giving better control over each element separately for tuning and adjusting. When uncertainty and inevitability intersect, this gives rise to the peak of dramatic tension.

Most techniques that imbue dramatic tension use two main approaches, 'force' and 'illusion';

Force is manipulating the state of the contest itself. We make a game close because we limit how much advantage one player can have over another. For example giving both players the same weapon.

Illusion is manipulating players to make the game seem closer than it actually is. An example of this might be something such as Yu-Gi-Oh card game, player A has 5 monster cards down, player B only has one, but player B’s one card is more powerful than player A’s five, however he doesn’t know this and will no doubt attack believing he has the better position.

The feedback system used in conjunction with uncertainty has four main parts;

The Game State – for example the game save or the time left to complete a level.

Scoring Function – Quite straight forward to understand, this could be things such as kills, or captures that indicate to a player who is winning and who is losing.

The Game Mechanical Bias - the rule of a game which gives one player an advantage over another.

The Controller - the rule of the game that decides which player receives the mechanical bias with the decision being made from the scoring function. For example kill streaks in an FPS.

Negative feedback systems could be seen as those that strive to keep the scores as close and close to zero as possible. Positive feedback on the other hand would be a system that strives to separate scores by larger quantities usually resulting in a decisive winner.

The negative feedback system is a powerful tool in creating dramatic tension as it keeps the game uncertain; players won't know the outcome of the game as the scoring difference would be as close to 0 as possible, therefore creating dramatic uncertainty. This allows you to keep all players immersed in the experience for longer. It avoids players ‘rage quitting’ because going on seems pointless. When aiming towards the end of a game, using the positive feedback system is useful for dispelling uncertainty, bringing about the climax and a sense of finality, every game needs an endpoint, and endpoints are more enjoyable with a victor. Using only the negative feedback system can cause games to stagnate so positive feedback systems are needed for breaking the equilibrium and moving a game forward.

There are but a few of the feedback systems, and there are many more. For example;

Pseudo-Feedback is a mechanism used to create game dynamics that make a game appear as though it is being driven by a negative feedback system, however there is no actual cybernetic feedback system at all. In simplicity; the game deceives the player into thinking it’s interfering, when in fact it isn’t at all.

Escalation is a game mechanic used to make the score gain faster and faster as the game progresses so more points are at stake at the end of the game than there were at the start. Because of course who doesn’t like bigger numbers! It makes you feel better, feel like you’re doing better!

Hidden Energy is another tool used, an example of this could be 'turbo fuel' on a racing game, each player has an equal amount of hidden energy at the start of the game but the timing of using this fuel can change the outcome, think of the Need for Speed the film, where the main protagonist almost beat his opponent, but inevitably failed due to his poor choice of timing to use his hidden energy. This mechanic creates dramatic uncertainty by manipulating the players incomplete understanding of the true score of the game.

Fog of War is a mechanic used to create dramatic uncertainty by limiting the information available to players. As a game progresses, more information becomes available. Generally any RTS can usually be called upon as an example of this systems use. It is quite important because that uncertainty causes intrigue, which pushes the player onward.

Decelerator is used as an obstacle that slows down players later in the game, making it seem that the game is closer than it actually is by changing the scale and pace of the game. Look at the game show gladiators; the player who won earlier events would be given the lead, however as that player progressed, obstacles got harder. This allowed the other player to catch up, creating the illusion the game is closer that it really is.

Cashing Out is another mechanic used. An example of this would be if a player wins a round of a particular game, the start of the next round both players start even, but the first player to get three wins will win the game. This shows that the player who wins the first round will not necessarily win the game, however it does give them a greater chance at winning as they are one win closer than the opposition. For example capture the flag.

Out of all these in terms of the least used, I felt pulled between Decelerator and Cashing out. In the end I feel Decelerator is the least used. Cashing Out can be seen in many forms of gameplay now; a perfect example would be any game that has capture the flag, or a game mode such as Call of Duty’s Search and Destroy. Decelerator on the other hand is more difficult to incorporate or notice in a lot of modern day games. Hence why I had to resort to the example of the old game show gladiator. In fairness it becomes clear how subjective these systems uses are. For example one could argue that both cashing out and decelerator are both visible in capture the flag; cashing out in terms of the next round, and decelerator  in terms of the difficulty a player may have getting the flag back to their base, or perhaps the nature of the game mode is likely to result in an opposite force, and instead speed the game up the further in you get?

MDA: A Formal Approach to Game Design and Game Research

MDA (Mechanics, Dynamics and Aesthetics) – A formal approach to understanding games, attempts to bridge the gap between game design and development, criticism, and technical game research.

Design methodologies guide the creative thought process in all steams of development and help to ensure quality work. Iterative, qualitative and quantitative analysis helps in two ways; to analyse the end result, which allows you to refine the implementation which in turn allows you to refine the result. Using both allows you to consider a wider range of possibilities. This is especially important in computer/video games, where interactions between subsystems create complex and sometimes sporadic behaviour.

Game design and authorship happen at many levels, there are many different roles and fields in game research and development, however all must at some point consider issues outside their area’ base mechanisms, design goals, gameplay etc. No discipline or role is acceptation to this rule, if one element becomes ignorant, the whole game may suffer.

Games differ from other media sources as their consumption is unpredictable; the events that occur in gameplay and the outcome of those events are unknown at the time the product is finished.

MDA framework formalizes the consumption of games and breaks them down into distinct components:

Rules   >   System   >   Fun

It also establishes their counterparts:

Mechanics describes the particular components of the game, at the level of data representation and algorithms. 

Dynamics describes the run-time behaviour of the mechanics acting on player inputs and each other’s outputs over time.

Aesthetics describes the desirable emotional responses evoked in the player, when she interacts with the game system

Fundamental to understanding this framework is the idea games are artifacts, more so than media. This is because the content of a game is its behaviour, not the media that streams out towards a player, in other words it comes down to an experience unique to the player themselves, that is created by them, unlike films for example that portray a specific, scripted story with certain emotions plotted and weaved within it. In lamens terms; games build behaviour via interaction.

MDA identifies that the player and the designers perspectives are reversed; a designer identifies the mechanics which give rise to a dynamic system behaviour which in turn leads to aesthetic experiences. However the player sees it as aesthetics setting the tone, which is born out in dynamics and eventually mechanics. It’s important to always remember the player’s perspective in order to avoid falling into feature-driven design traps, when you should really be aiming for experience-driven design.

Aesthetics:

It’s important to move away from generic terms like fun and gameplay, so let’s move towards a more directed vocabulary, here are some examples;

·         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 pastime

Examples:

Quake: Challenge, Sensation, Competition, Fantasy

Charades: Fellowship, Expression, Challenge.

Different games require different elements to take priority, for example Quake centres its main element as challenge, while fantasy is important too, it isn’t the core point of Quake, and the fantasy is simply a supporting element to the challenge of the game. Something such as Final Fantasy however will rely heavily on the fantasy as the element, and while challenge would still be important, it isn’t as important. There is no key golden rule to element focus, it’s all dependent upon the game itself and many different outcomes can lead to the fun factor.

These aesthetic definitions must then be refined and used as the foundation of aesthetic models, in simplistic terms its basically expanding upon the feature and how it is incorporated in the game. For example Quake incorporates Competition by pitting teams of players against each other.

Dynamics models work to create aesthetic experiences, for example challenge is made through things such as opponent play, where as fellowship can be encourage through things such as sharing information. Through these models we can create and identify feedback systems within gameplay to determine how particular states or changes affect the gameplay overall.

Mechanics

Various actions, behaviours and control mechanisms afforded to players within a game context. These can be things such as shuffling, betting, weapons, spawns etc.

Adjusting the mechanics of a game helps us fine tune a games overall dynamic. For example allowing a player who has been killed 3 times in a row to see their opponent through a wall might help to keep the losing player immersed and having fun, if the person knows that inevitably they have no chance and will lose, the dynamic fails, and players lose interest.

This involves tuning, tuning are the steps we take to slowly iterate new mechanics and change the overall gameplay, it’s important to record changes one at a time and make sure they have a beneficial effect upon the overall experience. In short the whole process is about prioritising the core feature on the first pass, and then as you go through each pass afterwards you should be adding more features to add depth to the game. The areas of choice could range between gameplay, story etc.

In an overall conclusion; MDA supports formal iteration approaches to design and tuning, in allows up to reason logically about design goals and to review and analyse the impacts of different features and aspects of the framework and implementations. Using the three levels of abstraction we can conceptualize the dynamic behaviour of game systems, understanding the game in dynamic systems form helps us develop techniques for iterative design and improvement over time. This in turn gives us control over the outcomes and allows us to tune the product to achieve desired behaviour. This also allows us to make informed decisions about gameplay impact upon the end users experience and we are then able to decompose these experiences effectively and use them tio fuel new designs, methods, research and criticism.

The Royal Game of Ur - The divines demand I change you!

So today we had a look at an ancient game known as The Royal Game of Ur. The game in basis is a race game coupled with a war game I guess. The idea is to get your pieces to the end of the board, you have 5-7 pieces depending on the version, and each opponents units can remove each others from the board, forcing them to start again. The first person to get all pieces to the end of the board wins. Here are the basic rules (as assumed by Irving Finkel;

1. Throw the dice to decide who plays first - highest score goes first, if it's a draw, throw again.
2. Players take turns to throw three binary lots and move one of their pieces. 
3. Only one piece may be moved per throw of the dice and pieces must always move forward around the track.
4. If a counter lands upon a square occupied by an opposing counter, the counter landed upon is sent off the board and must start again from the beginning.
5. If a counter lands on a rosette, throw the dice again (and again if another rosette is landed upon). The same piece need not be moved on the additional throw.
6. Pieces can be moved onto the board at any stage of the game as long as the square that is moved to upon the first turn is vacant.
7. A player must always move a counter if it is possible to do so but if it is not possible, the turn is lost.
8. Exact throws are needed to bear pieces off the board.

Simple enough, so we started off by playing the game with its general rules, or at least some of them. You see on our first go we hadn't really paid full attention and thus we missed out the importance of the rosette squares beyond the use as a safe zone. Fair enough, I won, game set and lets go again.

In our second game we decided to start iterating (we're meant to be doing that in a few weeks, but now seems good enough). So we began by adding the ability to stack units on a square, and in doing so the units then moved as one, this had its benefits quite clearly, however you did need to waste time stacking them up. Fair to say however, the time spent stacking them up did not outweigh the time saved travelling, the game was indeed much faster, but much simpler; there was no real challenge, no risk associated with grouping your units.

Thus came game 3 after another win. This time we decided to add some variables to the gameboard, so many squares are not used in this game because they're simply not understood, but I've never been known to neglect a square simply because its different! Neigh I turned one of the types of squares into a creation to be hated; an insta-kill square, this imposed a greater risk on moving all your units into a single consortium, because in doing so you only ever had one unit to move and should fate decide your next move would land you on the kill square; you had no choice but to advance to your death! This definitely made the game more fun, if not at times longer. Not a bad thing at all though, it simply added depth to the play in general, tactics became more important, like Battleships before it, the game became about tactic just as much as chance.

With my win streak still safe and growing, onto game 4 we went! Our next iteration; the introduction of an add unit to group square; this square would allow you to move any unit (or group if multiples are on a square) up to the other units square, an effective and handy square, luckily a limited one in its appearances too. However, if you look more closely this square is either a help of a hindrance  For example if your only other unit is back near the start, then back you go. Once again the game remained fun and more important did tactics become. Another reasonably successful iteration I think.

After that win came the idea for an iteration involving a fall back square; if a unit landed on one of these, then it would be forced to fallback to the closest unit, whether forward of backwards from the position.

Once again this iteration causes the player to consider tactics even more, it was fair to say at this point we had started to shape a derivative of Ur that relied not so heavily on chance, and more so on a mix of chance and skill. The game already possessed choices to accompany its chances, but these choices had little variety or variables to them. By the end of our iterations (we had room for more (but had run out of time)) I felt that what had been created was a product better refined to tactical play than its predecessor.

Well on that note I think it's about time you all tried this game if you haven't already, and remember; if you don't win then it's probably because God doesn't love you, this is a game of divinity and fortune telling, not just based on pure chance! *casually whistles.

Gamasutra – Formal Abstract Design Tools

Design is the game, in basis it could be defined as the superglue holding together all aspects of development (code, art, levels, etc). However it tends to lag behind the technical aspects that consist of a game, its less developed, less explained, harder to understand. The main reason for this issue is that design has no fixed vocabulary, no generic mean by which to communicate, we lack an elaborate code that can be understood and juggled between different designers. Fun or not fun, that’s all we have.

That’s what design needs; if we had a generic vocabulary, a means by which to define, relay and analyse, then design as a branch of game development would see vast progress. Because of this, relating elements of a game to design becomes difficult; we can see if animators have done their job well, or if code has been done well by whether the features work or not. However when the crowds break apart, and it’s all said and done, few observe the design steps evident in the game, people are less likely to identify and analyse good unit balancing, however they’re more likely to notice bad unit balancing.

Formal Abstract Design Tools (FADT) – an attempt at creating a shared vocabulary between designers. I think the article explains this quite well so let’s reference it;

Examining the phrase, we have: "formal," implying precise definition and the ability to explain it to someone else; "abstract," to emphasize the focus on underlying ideas, not specific genre constructs; "design," as in, well, we're designers; and "tools," since they'll form the common vocabulary we want to create.

"Design" and "tools" are both largely self-explanatory. However, some examples may help clarify "formal" and "abstract." For instance, claiming that "cool stuff" qualifies as a FADT violates the need for formality, since "cool" is not a precise word one can explain concretely — various people are likely to interpret it very differently. On the other hand, "player reward" is well defined and explainable, and thus works. Similarly, a "+2 Giant Slaying Sword" in an RPG is not abstract, but rather an element of one particular game. It doesn't qualify as a FADT because it isn't abstract. The general notion that a magic sword is based on — a mechanic for delivering more powerful equipment to the player — is, however, a good example of a FADT, so the idea of a "player power-up curve" might meet the definition above.

So in basis we can summarise anything added to this vocabulary must be;

·         Precise and explanatory

·         Generic to games as a whole, not specifically

·         Relevant to design

·         Usable in design

It’s important to understand that this vocabulary alone, these tools are not the answer to a good game. They are simply stepping stones for refining a game, they can help you discover a game but you still have to journey the rest of the process with your own capabilities, with your own relevant approaches to producing fun.

This vocabulary isn’t set In stone, it may come from others analysis and breakdown of games but at its core the vocabulary is concocted around the actual playing of games and their reviewing. A good way to break this down is to briefly look at how things work together; study their impact on the experience and how design decisions in general push the player deeper, immersing the player more in the game world. After reviewing these things, we can come up with some FADT’s for our vocabulary;

INTENTION: Making an implementable plan of one's own creation in response to the current situation in the game world and one's understanding of the game play options.

Or in a simpler way of stating it; the process of accumulating goals, understanding the game world, planning and acting on it. This works to allow/encourage the player to do things intentionally.

PERCEIVABLE CONSEQUENCE: A clear reaction from the game world to the action of the player.

The idea of perceivable consequence is to basically teach the player right from wrong, or true from false in the game world.

The issue with this is avoiding situations where the designer forces a player into a consequence, this can be a difficult trap to avoid and a very easy one for designers to fall into; if you are to be punished for your choices, a player expects those choices to be their own, not pre-determined. This is sadly something many games fail to understand in modern games, this sacrifice of player control is performed to improve the flow of a story, but at what cost to the players immersion and experience? It’s hard to tell whether the positives of choice outweigh the negatives, or vice versa. Thus we are brought onto another world for our vocabulary;

STORY: The narrative thread, whether designer-driven or player-driven, that binds events together and drives the player forward toward completion of the game.

It’s important to remember different tools work better (or worse) with certain situations. Dependent on your game, it might be more or less relevant to close off player choice in order to give a more critical story. This does make the outcomes more linear, but it also improves the narrative and flow of the story as a whole, in most cases at least. This is a hard decision for game designers; do we choke choice and provide depth to the story, or expand choice and sacrifice intended reactions by players.

RPG’s tend to approach this dilemma in an interesting but relevant method given their genre. Many RPG’s tend to fix choices throughout the story, but they open up intention to the player through their leveling, their skill trees, their equips etc. This gives the player a feel that their involvement warrants merit, that they have choices at their disposal and these choices have consequences. They story is still driven by the designer, but the experience is theirs to have, and they feel pushed to advance it.

Depending on the game, and usualy its genre, the method by which you mix these tools is different; a game like NHL can successfully incorporate story, intention and perceivable consequence all as one, however this doesn’t work for RPG’s in general, so they usually have to have a splitting point for the two, such as combat providing the intention, being driven by players choices and tactics, while still holding a fixed story, neither tend to contaminate each other negatively if done correctly.

It’s always important to remember that games are unique from books or films, such things tend to drive the viewer/reader to a preset expected outcome, an action is produced with a specific and planned reaction. Games are different, games are about empowering the player, you have to surrender to the possibility that a players interpretation may be different from your own, that a player might use weapon A instead of weapon B. Perhaps you wanted them to use weapon B, but you had to plan for the possibility that weapon A would be chosen even if you didn’t desire that outcome.

In conclusion it’s important to remember that FADT is subjective, it, like gaming is not written in stone. The choices are yours to make, things may be interpreted differently from designer to designer, and so may their relevance. But it cannot be questioned the validity of simplicity and understanding that something such as FADT could bring to designers as a whole.

I realise that a lot of this may seem boring to you readers, and for those that feel this way I might suggest starting off where we define FADT, that’s only a suggestion though, feel free to start anywhere really…. Huh will you look at that, it’s an article of choice.

Note: if you read this article backwards, it’s a story about how we started off with a reasonable generic vocabulary for designers, started to throw different definitions into the pool and then decided we preferred being primitive.