[Dr. CKeymaster Rupees: 1,000 RupeesRank: Magic Sword]

This week, you read Chapter 2 (“The Structure of Games”) of Fullerton’s Game Design Workshop, and Chapters 1 & 2 (“In the Beginning, There Is the Designer” & “The Designer Creates an Experience”) of Schell’s The Art of Game Design.

Discuss, analyze, and reflect on the readings in this discussion forum.

You must post at least once by 11:59 pm on Friday, and you must respond to at least three of your classmates’ posts by 11:59 pm on Monday.

Keep in mind that this is NOT a prescriptive post. The point here is to have a conversation and to learn more about game design together. So, to that end, here are some things you might discuss in your post:

– Quotes that you found to be especially insightful, along with explanations of why you selected these quotes.
– Questions that the readings raised for you — about your own experiences playing games, or about the way you previously thought about game design.
– Any “AHA!” moments you might have experienced, if the readings prompted you to suddenly see or understand something in a different light.
– Connections to your experience playing a game as part of this week’s quest.
– Questions you might have for your classmates (“Did anyone else think ___ about the part where Schell says ___…?”)
– Anything else, really, that’s notable, interesting, and discussion-worthy.

Have fun with this discussion!

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

After reading Schell’s chapters, I find it especially comforting how the first segment of chapter one is about confidence in who you are and what you are passionate about. Personally, I believe that the hardest part of doing anything challenging is always the start, and this encouragement in lines such as “This game of confidence building may seem silly at first. But it is far from the silliest thing you will do as a designer. And it is terribly important that you get good at building your confidence, for doubts about your abilities will forever plague you” (Schell) make my experience less intimidating. Schell mentions how the most important skill a game designer must have is listening, but when presented with contradictory ideas, how does one know prioritize which voice to listen to? Who’s voice is most important, the audience, fellow game designers, or your own? I like how Fullerton makes a comparison between all types of games, no matter how diverse, by explaining how they all have similarities in how they are constructed. For example, a conflict may be drastically different in a sports game as opposed to a card game, but the inclusion of conflict in both is essential. I enjoyed learning about the broad, basic formats and structures that can be applied to most games in these chapters.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

I also liked how Fullerton uses such a wide range of examples, including card games, board games, and video game RPGS. As for whose voice to prioritize in a game design conflict, it’s definitely important to listen to everyone’s opinions, but ultimately, it should be the game designers’ collective decision to decide what’s best for the game. In the past, I’ve played video games that just were not enjoyable. Later, articles came out claiming that the publisher forced designers to use a certain engine, emulate a certain game’s style, etc. This makes me wonder if modern game designers are losing freedom and artistic integrity in the video game industry.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

I think finding something you are passionate about is challenging because not everyone possesses innate talents. What Schell expressed in that quote is very motivational, and that all it takes is confidence, otherwise you will never be able to truly achieve something if you believe you are not capable. The question you asked is something I was wondering too and to answer that, I agree with Evan in the sense that it should be a shared decision amongst the game designers, as they are the professionals after all.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Altay!
You mentioned a really thought provoking question about listening in the Schell piece. I think the main takeaway from the Schell piece is that a game designer really has to be a jack of all trades and draw on a variety of skills. So when it comes to listening, it really seems to be an art of balancing different viewpoints as to not be biased by one particular perspective. This is why he emphasizes that game designers don’t just think about how much they might enjoy the games they create, but how other people will experience them. I also really liked Fullerton’s creative way of breaking down the essential components of games. I enjoyed his use of photos at the beginning of the piece to really highlight how wildly different Go Fish and Quake appear at first glance.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

This is a very interesting discussion. You bring up a good point about when to listen and when to follow your voice and your gut. I think that the most important thing is being open to criticism and then following your gut after that. For example, if you show a game concept to another designer, and they only have mean things to say, ask them how to fix it (constructive criticism) and then digest their suggestions. I think the designer’s voice is most important in the initial stages. Once it is ready to be tested, I think mass consensus among testers should be taken into account and given more weight, as they are the customers. Maria, I totally agree with the idea that games are meant to be experienced, so I wonder if the UI of the game is meant to reflect the specific lens of the designer’s life experience, or if it is more generic so that more people can enjoy it?

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Atlay!

I really like the point that you decided to point out in this discussion. Firstly, I agree, it is very interesting how Fullerton is able to find similar points in all different types of games, even though the games themselves are vastly different. It is just wild to think about the amount of actual game design that these games actually have in common. Furthermore, your question actually stumped me for a little bit, because how do you know which voice to listen to? Personally, I think its a combination of all three, but still it is very complex to break down which voice to listen to and what decisions to actually make.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Altay!!
I also really liked that Schell was encouraging confidence in readers. When learning a new subject or beginning a new career, confidence is one of the most important things a person can have, and the fact that Schell reassured his readers was really awesome. I also enjoyed how Fullerton showed similarities between all different types of games. I think it presented some really great arguments for how game design in any genre is interconnected. Every game starts somewhere, usually with conflict, and evolves to include characters and such which is what makes all of these different games, similar in technique.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Altay!

I was also really inspired by all of the quotes about confidence building and how important it is as a designer to not doubt yourself and to believe in yourself. You’ve brought up a really good point about who’s voice is most important. Overall it is interesting how much knowledge a game designer should have about different industries!

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Altay! Building confidence has been a very gradual thing for me. Reflecting on it now, I wasn’t very confident at the beginning of my game dev adventures. In comparison, now I’m confident enough to lead a team, and (although I might not be leading perfectly) I think I’m doing a decent job at it. It seems it really is the piling up of experience that builds confidence.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

I really enjoyed the structure of the Schell piece, particularly the bulleted list of skills that a game designer needs. The wide range of areas that a game designer draws on, from business to engineering to even public speaking (something I thought would be the opposite of a game designer’s role, as I envisioned it as a job someone does in mostly solitude) showed me the breadth of opportunities in game design there are. I also found the way a game is defined to be quite interesting and showed how abstract games really are. The particular quote, “The game enables the experience, but it is not the experience” , and the idea that a game’s experience is imaginary–something in which the output relies on the user and not the creator– really emphasizes the challenge of game design and made me very excited for tackling this challenge throughout the course. So much of a game is dependent on the user’s individuality. For example, their familiarity with similar games, ability to pick up skills, learning styles, their personal interests, and more determine if they will play the game and keep playing the game. This made me wonder, how do game designers pick the appropriate audiences for their games? Today, so many online games are so niche and complex that it’s almost a prerequisite to have previous game experience. With gaming such a huge industry as well, I wonder what kind of market research and testing are done to test the user experience and make sure a game is marketable and provides the imaginary experience a game designer is going for. Since the experience is so different for everyone, what kind of metrics are they looking for? I also really enjoyed the analysis in this piece about observing and reflecting on our own memories. I related a lot to the idea of analyzing a memory rather than the live experience. I often have moments when I’m having fun with family and friends and stop to think something like “wow, I’m having so much fun right now”, but this self-awareness interrupts the moment and taints the experience. Schell suggests that this takes practice to “observe silently”, but I disagree, as I don’t think an experience can really be authentic with this kind of ‘looking from the outside’. I also found the “Two Pauses” method, where you run through a memory twice, once to have the experience and once to analyze, can be helpful not just for game design, but also for living a fulfilling life with lively memories.

My first “wow” moment from the Fullerton piece was the idea that players accept and essentially submit to the rules of the game. I had never thought of this “lusory attitude” as what defines a game before, but after Suits’ golf analogy, I understand that playing a game requires players to give up some of their pride and accept a set of arbitrary rules for the sake of entertainment. There is a non-implicit authority that oversees the game, and I wonder what kind of psychological or sociological factors have caused humans to be willing to submit to this nonexistent authority in games for centuries. At the end of the excerpt, it also was mentioned that games are dynamic systems, like a car engine, that cannot be described by one element alone. I thought this related well to the Schell piece, as each game experience is so unique and can’t be defined simply by a static set of rules. One question I had about the Fullerton piece was the difference between objective and premise. For example, he writes: “the premise in Monopoly is that the players are each landlords, buying, selling, and developing valuable pieces of real estate in an eff ort to become the richest player in the game”, but this seems to describe an objective to me.

Overall, I felt that the Fullerton piece portrayed game design as more of a science, with a defined set of qualifications, whereas the Schell pieced focused more on the creative aspect of a game and the personalized experience that a game gives each individual player. I find it interesting that games are something so theoretical and abstract, but appear in society in so many different ways.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hey Maria, it was quite interesting to me as well how many skills are needed to be a great game designer. I did not realize there were many components involved beyond just some programming. I appreciate how you mentioned the importance of how the game makes the player feel, prioritizing their experience while playing. I believe that the premise of Monopoly is to buy and sell properties in an attempt to become the richest player, but the actual objective is to ensure all other players are bankrupt, as this is how the game is won.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Altay,

What you said about Monopoly got me thinking about social deception board games like Coup, or Bluff (card game), etc. The real purpose of these games is to deceive the people that you’re playing with and to manipulate them for your own benefit. I wonder what these games are meant to teach us, the players, about life. I wonder what the true hidden meaning is in these types of games. Thoughts?

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Maria,

It’s so interesting how you touched upon market research and how user experience research comes into play. In one video game, I was shocked when the credits rolled across the screen. Their UX research team was huge, but I felt that the interfaces and game mechanics felt very similar to the previous game in the series. I wonder how important a good team of UX researchers is, and I’m interested to know how different the game may have felt without them.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

I also talked about the skills Schell mentioned and was also surprised to see many of the ones on the list, such as public speaking. It’s just not something that would initially come to mind when I think about the skills that the game designers would need but once you think about it more in depth, designers definitely need public speaking to promote and market their game. Although I may not have the true answer to your question, I believe that a lot of market research is done in order to gauge what type of audience the game is intended for. Unfortunately, there is no certain way to know if your target audience is the right one when you launch your game. Authenticity is one of the most crucial elements of game marketing. It represents the connection between ideas, the brands developing the games, and the users playing them. Gamers value authenticity and they look for it in the titles they play. With players able to interact with each other seamlessly in their communities, they are more aware of what they are being offered.

• This reply was modified 3 years, 1 month ago by Archive.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Maria,

Schell’s view on game design as either a hobby or a profession is definitely from the view from an eclectic: just as video games are complex and depend on multiple variables of game development, game developers must be prepared to tackle these tasks with use of a versatile skillset. Schell’s outline of this in his first chapter is certainly done to set the reader’s expectations appropriately, in that a game designer cannot simply neglect developing some or most skills if they wish to craft well-received experiences. When you say that Schell’s piece is more about the creative side of game design, I would completely agree given his exposition & when contrasted with the Fullerton piece which is deeply technical.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Maria! I was touched by the idea of analyzing a memory as well. This ideology is definitely the root of “living in the moment!” Aside from that, I’m so glad you mentioned the “Two Pauses” method. When I first read this I was immediately reminded me of how my middle school literature teacher taught us to analyze poems. She always said you had to read it three times. The first two times you read slowly and experience it all to yourself, the third you say it aloud for a whole different experience.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Fullerton focuses on the components of a good game, rather than the designer’s role in game creation. I think it’s interesting how he dissects individual systems in different types of games. Using examples from Monopoly to Final Fantasy, Fullerton explains how each of these systems comes together to create a whole, cohesive game.

I preferred the Schell reading because it focuses on the important skills needed in game design, and other tips to keep in mind for new game designers. A quote that stood out the most for me is, “The game enables the experience, but it is not the experience” (Schell, p. 11). I’ve always thought of games as an experience — either good or bad, based on how much entertainment I got out of them. From a designer’s point of view, what is important is the player and their interaction with the game. The experience is subjective, and more of a byproduct of the existing relationship between that particular player and interaction. And that is particularly interesting because game designers need to be good at predicting how a player will interact with a game’s mechanics and its environment. I also enjoyed learning about the complexities of decision-making in game design. Some of my favorite games, particularly role-playing games, have many different in-game systems to keep track of, and I always wondered what the process was like to meld them all together into one seamless piece of art. Schell emphasizes that game designers must draw from an eclectic range of sources; as a designer, both your own experiences and those of others should influence how the game is designed. In addition, a designer must be mindful of the player’s feelings, and certain mechanics may enhance specific emotions, whether it is intentional or not. Overall, what a player experiences is subjective. But it is the designer’s job to make the design choices for a game that can elicit these experiences.

• This reply was modified 3 years, 1 month ago by Archive.
• This reply was modified 3 years, 1 month ago by Archive.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Your post was very insightful and brought light to things that I did not necessarily think of when I read Schell’s chapters. I really liked the quote you chose because I have always judged games based off of my experience playing them. However, the intentions of the game designers are not to make the game the entire experience, but rather to understand the relationship and interaction between the players and the game. I also talked about how the designer needs to take into account a number of things when creating the game, and not act upon personal likes and interests, but rather the interests and experiences of the audience.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Evan!
Your comment on what makes a game “good” or “bad” was really interesting. I know that different magazines and online forums post rankings for the best online games, and after reading your response, I wonder what kind of factors go into deciding whether or not a game is objectively good or bad. In other words, what kinds of things would go on a game-scoring “rubric”. I also liked how you mentioned the technical complexity of culminating all the pieces of a game into ‘one seamless art’. I hope we learn more about how animations, graphics, sound effects, etc. replicate a real-life experience in games this semester.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Evan!
I agree that Schell and Fullerton’s readings were different in style, but I do think both were very insightful. Schell seems to focus more on the game design process whereas Fullerton seems to focus more on breaking down the building blocks of games. Though these are just the first few chapters, I think, in time, both will provide us with a multitude of information. I like how you included that the experience side of gaming is subjective but it’s the game designer’s job to make the game itself, a good objective foundation for said experiences. I also found it interesting how you mentioned that game designers must draw from a multitude of sources, and I think that ties in really well with Schell’s five types of listening. Not only do you have to listen to the wants of the audience, but you have to listen to the game itself, to yourself, to your team, etc. Very interesting analysis!

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Evan,

I enjoyed this part about Schell’s chapter as well. There are so many games that I felt like I should enjoy just because people around me enjoyed them. Of course this goes for everyone, but a lot of the games I enjoy are at paces I like to play and with controls I pick up easy. All of my friends enjoy playing Madden or NBA2K but I never quite grasped the controls for those games. This doesn’t make them “bad” games to me, they just aren’t games I enjoy playing . It hard thinking about creating something you may not enjoy in a game but others may which I think is difficult but knowing that more & other people will enjoy it is rewarding.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Evan,

You’ve brought up some really great points. There is a lot of feelings and impact to consider from a designers perspective when designing a game.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Evan! The quote “The game enables the experience, but it is not the experience” is also one that moved me. What is important to the player might be overlooked by the developer, so the developer needs to be aware that the game and experience are separate.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Evan,

I would agree with your second paragraph in that the Schell reading was presented in very personable in encouraging terms. More specifically, he points out the psychological aspects of games that makes them worthwhile experiences such as interactivity, which by its very nature separates games from other forms of art. I found that the aforementioned attribute of interactivity that all games share in common is responsible for most of the complexities of game design that you mentioned in your comment. What Schell thus seems to be getting at is not only must a game designer take these complexities into account, but each one (many correlate with the skills he listed in Chapter 1) must be addressed fully for any given game to achieve full chemistry with its player.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

To Schell, game design is more of an art than a science, but ought to be approached with both subjects in mind. Chapters 1 and 2 of Schell’s book are about game mechanics, the player experience, pitching, iterating, and brainstorming; all the messy core activities of game design. In Chapter 1 of Schell’s The Art of Game Design, he talks about the skills needed to become a successful game designer, and although I knew that it takes a lot of skill to create a game, the list he complied fascinates me because there are truly individuals that possess such a strong skill set like the one he mentioned. One quote that I found very important was “When we listen deeply, we put ourselves in a position of risk. We accept the possibility that what we hear may upset us and may cause everything we know to be contradicted. It is the ultimate in open-mindedness. It is the only way to learn the truth. You must approach every-thing as a child does, assuming nothing, observing everything.” Not only is this applicable to game designers, but I think it’s something that is important for everyone. We should all have empathy towards each other to make sure we actually understand what somebody is saying.

In Chapter 2, Schell talks about introspection and putting yourself in the audience’s shoes to determine what experiences they would or would not enjoy. In that case, something I wonder is how would you know if your audience prefers competition or cooperation? And how would you go about figuring that out and implementing it into the design?

The Fullerton piece and the Schell piece both present game design in two different ways: Fullerton presents several elements to a game such as players, objectives, procedures, rules, etc. and explains how they are part of an intertwining system which makes up the game system, and by extension, the experience as a whole. Schell talks about the traits of the designer themselves and the relationship between the designer and its audience, and how that plays a role in effective game design. Out of the three practical approaches talked about by Schell, I can see how psychology plays a role in the game I play, Call of Duty. The game is very reward-driven, where the players get rewarded for a number of things. The designers of this game definitely utilized psychology to understand what would make the players keep coming back for more.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Meeteeka!
See, the list of skills needed for a successful game designer fascinates me, too, but more than anything it overwhelmed me. I realise that for a lot of jobs you could spell out how a long variety of skills could be helpful, but actually spelling it out and explaining how each skill can benefit a game designer was eye-opening.
I definitely agree with your point about COD, though. It’s kind of sick when you think about how (at least, in my experience) much dopamine a player can get from a reward, especially when that reward is based on killing a certain number of players in a row. On the flip side, though, the psychology of COD is really interesting because the rewards are so addictive that being denied them (someone else stealing your kill, for example) can cause so much rage in a particularly determined player. It’s interesting to see psychology in games at work and the potential dangers of it.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Anna!

I noticed the discussion on the reward-driven psychology Meeteeka and yourself have identified only because I have seen this first hand. A lot of fast paced games seem to have a frustrating impact on players who fail to record a kill or execute a task. A fair number of people who I have seen play Fortnite, CoD, League of Legends, or Rocket League become frustrated when something negative happens in the game. From my experience, I sometimes feel like this happens because the players follow professional gaming leagues or watch streams. I feel as if they hold themselves to a certain standard then another player might.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Meeteeka,
I completely agree with you on the fact that its super impressive to hold the skill set in order to be able to create video games like some of the people out there, I’ll never understand how they do it but I will always appreciate their dedication to what they love. I think that when it comes to game developers, they most likely decide whether they want to make a game cooperative or competitive before thinking about their audience, I’m not totally sure though, that’s just how I would do it haha. I thought that Fullerton’s article was also interesting because of how they mentioned how each game is similar, yet different in their own ways.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Meeteeka! You raised a really good question, which is a situation I find myself in often: “how would you know if your audience prefers competition or cooperation? And how would you go about figuring that out and implementing it into the design?”

Since I prefer games of cooperation rather than competition, I end up playing more low-risk games like Animal Crossing or Just Dance. Aside from those, I really enjoy puzzles (word searches, crosswords, mahjong, jigsaw puzzles) because I get to think critically. I think a game designer probably thinks about which audience he is going to cater to: one which prefers cooperation or competition. From there, I think his toolbox starts to thin out a bit because games that are low in competition won’t be too serious in nature. For example, Untitled Goose Game! It is literally just a game about a goose running around town who has objectives like “steal the groundkeeper’s keys” or “get the groundkeeper wet.” I would be more likely to play a light-hearted game like that and feel satisfied with the level of challenges in it!

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

I know it wasn’t the point of the reading, but the section about puzzles in “The Structure of Games” was my absolute favorite part of all the readings. Something about having a concrete definition for what makes a puzzle, why people find them fun, and the differentiations between games and puzzles. As an avid puzzle lover, it made me start thinking about my favorite kinds of games, which usually involve some sort of critical thinking or puzzle solving. Puzzles are always so satisfying, and the section about designing our own puzzles made me start thinking about creating my own puzzles whenever I’m bored.
I also liked the detailed breakdown of the different elements that go into a game. Obviously, as game-players, we have all subconsciously accepted these elements and haven’t questioned them, but having them spelled out for me opened my eyes a little. Yes, obviously games have conflict, but what makes a conflict a conflict? Why do games have to have one? I never thought of these questions before the reading.

Also, did anyone else find out they were playing Go Fish wrong? I’ve definitely only been playing for pairs instead of “books.”

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Yes! I noticed the part about Go Fish. I was very confused about the fact that their version is so much more complicated than that of 6 year old me.

I also agree about the puzzles. I feel that storied video games are the best kind and I’ve noticed that they all have a mystery/puzzle aspect to them. The idea of conflicts kind of hit me too, since I’d never thought of it that way. In a successful game, how did they know that the conflicts they chose aren’t too confusing or too bland? It’s mind-boggling.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Anna, I also find that puzzles are usually the best components of games, as they typically require you to think outside of the box. By using clues and trying different tactics, nothing compares to the satisfaction achieved when you finally solve a difficult puzzle. I feel like games must have a conflict in order to create interesting and fun objectives for the player.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Although puzzle games can seem very simple, they’re definitely not simple to develop and create. The fact that the developers of the games have to come up with these puzzles and the solutions to them makes it so much more impressive to me. I never really put that much thought into it but puzzles are some of the most complex things you could do in a game. Also, the Go Fish thing really threw me off too lol.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

One thing I found especially interesting in Fullerton’s text was the comparison between movies and video games: “When you watch
a film or read a book there is no clear-cut objective presented for you to accomplish during the experience—of course, there is one for the characters, but we’re talking about the players here” (29). I have always felt the effort level change between reading a book, watching a movie, and playing a video game. When I read a book or watch a movie, the most I have to do is feel the emotions of the characters. But when I play a video game, I have to BE the characters. This means, yes, feeling their emotions (if it is that type of video game), but also solving mysteries, doing puzzles, in some games waging war, etc.

One thing I found intriguing in Schell’s text was the idea that designing a game for others means first introspecting and understanding the lens through which you see the world. It is the idea that empathy is universal even though it is true that other people have different perspectives than you: “Some designers take extreme positions on this ranging from ‘I will only design for people like me, because it is the only way I can be sure my game is good’ to ‘introspection and subjective opinions can’t be trusted. Only playtesting can be trusted.'” (17). They go on to explain why this is a risky way to go about designing games for the mass public. Schell claims that designers have sometimes funky tastes in games, but isn’t it good to tap a market for funky tastes in say, an indie game industry? It may not be a billion dollar game, but I’m sure someone is looking for a game just like that. Thoughts?

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Vallika!
Interestingly, I’ve always felt the shift in effort level between playing a game and watching a movie, but I’ve never consciously noticed or analyzed why I felt it. Books are different, though. You say you have to BE the character in a game, and while I agree, to an extent I feel the same about reading. To really emotionally connect with a character, especially one I have to visualize all by myself, I feel myself immersing myself in everything the character feels. It increases my enjoyment of the book, the same way I think it increases your enjoyment of a game.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Vallika, I like the comparison you noted about movies and video games. A movie with relatable characters often makes us imagine ourselves in their place, but in a video game, you can actually control the main characters. This gives you more control over the story, as it is more immersive, and makes the game feel more personalized.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

I loved that point as well. I grew up loving movies and the video games that I have played were all single player games. Both of these mediums are really trying to tell a story, but I could never put my finger on what made the experience so different. The action of playing a video game and becoming the main character is an absolutely massive part of why they feel so different. You, as a player, are responsible for some of the actions the character makes, and you enter another layer of connection with the main character because in this particular experience you are physically doing this together.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Vallika!

You are completely right about the separation in books/movies and video games. With books and movies, you are simply enjoying the experience, you have no say in what happens or how the plot changes. However, with video games, you are the one in control, the one that makes decisions for the character, and you control a majority of how the plot plays out. As for your question, I think funky game ideas can be a good thing, but I also agree with Fullerton that if the idea is too out there, it won’t gain enough attention or approval to become a good selling point.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Vallika!

Interesting analysis on the difference between films and games. After reading, I definitely view games in a different manner and you pointed out exactly the difference that playing a game makes, which is getting to BE the character and making decisions. That’s a whole different experience than watching a character make decisions.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Vallika! Regarding your question — for a lot of indie devs, there’s the risk and cost to think about. Although some devs make games purely as a hobby, a lot of devs are trying to “break into” the game industry or make some profit in order to recoup the costs that went into making the game. For example, a composer may need to buy certain software to create music, so there’s that initial cost. For someone with no art skills, they may have to outsource it to someone else and pay them. There’s also the time that went into making the game. A dev is sort of gambling their time on their best bet, in a way. For instance, making game A might take longer than game B, but the chances of game A being successful seem higher, etc.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

After reading Chapter 2 of the Fullerton text, there was a significant quote about the nature of games that stood out to me. The chapter pulls a quote from Bernard Suits, who describes “Lusory Attitude,” or the voluntary acceptance of a game’s rules by the player(s). Suits says, “Suppose I make it my purpose to get a small round object into a hole in the ground as efficiently as possible. Placing it in the hole with my hand would be a natural means to adopt. But surely I would not take a stick with a piece of metal on one end of it, walk three or four hundred yards away from the hole, and then attempt to propel the ball into the hole with the stick.” Of course, the game being described here is Golf, but what Suits said about the rules of the game resonated with me. If the goal of the sport is to get the ball into the tiny hole, why do we stand so far away from it and hit the ball with the club, instead of using our hands to drop it into the hole, as Suits said? The reason is because these rules exist to challenge the players, making the game more technical and competitive. Anybody can use their hands to pick up the golf ball, walk over to the flag, and drop it in the hole. However, it takes lots of practice and skill to use clubs to swing and hit the ball into the hole. The rules of golf allows one person to be a “winner” at the end of the game, due to the threshold of skill required to play the game. Otherwise, anybody would be able to walk onto the golf course and become a golf master, regardless of skill. So, my main takeaway from this week’s readings is that the rules of any game exist to make it challenging and competitive, which is why Golf is played the way it is, rather than the way that would make it easier.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

As I was reading Chapter 2 of Fullerton’s book, there was a specific quote that garnered my attention, mainly because I never viewed this thought using this perspective previously. On page 11, it is quoted that “The game is not the experience. The game enables the experience but is not the experience. This is a hard concept for some people to grasp”. I choose this quote because it really stumped me, and I had to think about it using another view. I always thought that the game was the experience since people playing the game are playing it for personal enjoyment and experience. However, when I really think about it, I agree with this quote, because the entire process and everything that went into the game production is the real experience. I just was so astonished by this quote that I chose to include it in this discussion post because it is a truth that most people, such as myself, do not realize. Honestly, this quote inspired my “AHA” moment, because even though it’s not really that big of a realization, it just set a new perspective for me, especially at the beginning of taking this course. It also made me wonder what the real “experience” must be for creating the game I played this week, Clue, and what that experience must have felt like.

Does anyone else think that sometimes it is near impossible to “dissect your feelings” when you are describing something just because you don’t have the right words to describe those feelings? This concept is mentioned on page 18 in Chapter 2 of Fullerton’s text. Maybe it is just me, but sometimes I can just come up with one word to describe my feelings, and I literally have brain farts when I’m asked to elaborate on those feelings.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

I agree that the quote “The game is not the experience. The game enables the experience but is not the experience.” was extremely enlightening. I interpreted it to mean that the game sets up the desired experience, while the experience itself is the emotions/journey felt by the player. The game itself is not an experience because every person’s feelings/journey will be different when playing the game. The game developer can try to inspire a certain experience in the audience by designing the game a certain way, but the experience is ultimately determined by the player.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

When thinking from the perspective of a marketer (my hopeful future career), you’d think the only voice that matters in the market is the audience. Whether they like your product, whether they’d buy the product, whether it would be useful in their lives, etc. However, Schell challenges this idea when he says that game designers have to listen to not just the audience but to their team, their client, themselves, and even the game. In fact, Schell believes listening is the most crucial part of game designing, which is the complete opposite of the common answer I would have given – creativity. After reading Schell’s thoughts, I can see why listening would actually be the most crucial; after all, you can’t please people if you aren’t listening to their wants.
I also found it interesting how Schell once again contradicts my common sense, which tells me a game designer’s goal is to design games. Schell states that the game designer doesn’t care about the game but rather the designer looks to make an experience. This makes sense when you think about games a bit deeper. A game designer can put whatever they want on a screen, but if the person is not using their imagination to draw up solutions or strategize or anything of the sort, then the game loses its interest, thus creating a dull experience.

In Fullerton’s readings, I found it really interesting how he broke down a general idea of “games” into several components that are found in nearly every game regardless of their genre or end goal. It just goes to show that no matter how different games may seem, they all have essentially the same building blocks. This reading made me think about how interesting it is that a single deck of cards can be used to play tens of different games.

Overall, both of the readings better helped me understand a bit behind the game designing process in terms of how games are actually developed. I don’t think I’ll ever be able to look at another game without analyzing it the way Fullerton and Schell both have!

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Looking at it from a marketer’s view definitely brings an interesting perspective. At the end of the day, many game developers must submit to the genres, structures, and formulas that will make the company the most money. As a result, many players have started to feel like games are getting repetitive, as developers are only following the money-making “formula”. Because of this, it is important to (as Schell said) listen to not just your client, but also your audience and players.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Gabby! I found the puzzle versus game illustration in Fullerton’s very helpful as well. After doing the reading and as we reflect each other’s posts, I not only grow more confident in knowing the types of games I enjoy but also so in the why! It is true that when I play games, I don’t play them to win, I really do it for the experience of immersing myself into a specific goal (i.e. word searches) or story-line (Life Is Strange). I also really enjoy Mario Kart, but even then, this is going to sound weird, I like to play alone!! I find that when I play my friends, I lose part of what makes games fun for me. I’d rather challenge myself! If I play with my little siblings, I end up letting them win. If I play with my friends, everyone gets overly competitive! I even observe my guy friends play games like Rocket League. Despite the fact that they can play on the same team, they still end up getting frustrated with each other!

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

I really liked how Fullerton described basic game structure using a diverse variety of games. When thinking about “game design”, I usually only think about game design as it pertains to video games. However, Fullerton illustrates the basic structure of “games” using every kind of game — card games, board games, etc. Specifically, he compares Go Fish (card game) with Quake (video game), showing the underlying structure that both games share. Both games require players — perhaps the first and most important requirement for any game. Fullerton says that games are forms of entertainment that require “active participation by their consumers”. A movie can be very similar in structure to a video game, and perhaps even employ many of the same storytelling/visual techniques, but it is not a “game” because there is no active participation. Fullerton also argues that participants must agree to a set of rules. Fullerton concludes the chapter by defining a “game” as a “closed, formal system that engages players in structured conflict and resolves its uncertainty in an unequal outcome”. In this way, this course could be considered a “game” — we are active participants who have agreed to a set of rules regarding assignments and grades, causing conflict and resolving in an uneven outcome.

In Chapter 1, Schell maintains that there are no prior qualifications needed to become a game designer — you simply need to start designing games. Some skills (creative writing, animation, visual arts) may be beneficial but are not necessary. Schell states that the most important skill to have when designing a game is “listening”. As a game designer, you must be able to listen intently to the player’s feelings, wants, and needs. I found it interesting that besides listening to your team, audience, and client, you must also listen to your game. I thought of this as making sure that you understand and inspect every aspect of how your game works. I think this is very important, as some game designers/creators will include certain elements simply because they like them without knowing 1. how the element works and 2. if the element fits within the “machine” of their game. In this way, “listening” to your game is very important.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Julia!
I think it’s really fascinating how you brought in the subject of movies and how they relate to the game designing process. Similar to a movie, you need characters, conflict, and hopeful resolution in a game as well. I also liked how you tied in card games as many people tend to forget that even simple card games still have a designing process behind them. I also mentioned Schell’s five ways of listening in my response but I find it interesting how you focused on the listening-to-your-game aspect as it seems to be overlooked. Listening to the market and the audience is extremely important, but if you aren’t listening to the game and the issues within said game, then its nearly impossible to develop a well-working, high-quality, gaming experience.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

After reading Chapter One from Schell’s paper, it quickly made me realize how difficult it is to make a game and how many factors go into it. The point that really had me thinking is when Schell is talking about the skills that a game designer needs, there is 21 different skills that are listed, with the most important skill; Being able to listen. “When you listen thoughtfully, you observe everything and constantly ask your-self questions: ‘Is that right?’ ‘Why is it that way?’ ‘Is this how she really feels?”Now that I know that, what does it mean?'” Asking yourself these questions when developing a game is extremely important and the most key factor according to Schell. This chapter really had me thinking about how much thought and effort these game developers but into their games, and it honestly was enlightening to read that chapter. In Chapter Two, Schell discusses how to apply these skills into the actual art of game developing. The thing that I found most interesting from this chapter is when Schell writes, “Game designers don’t have it so easy. We give the player a great deal of control over the pacing and sequence of events in the experience. We even throw in random events! This makes the distinction between artifact and experience much more obvious than it is for linear entertainment. At the same time, though, it makes it much harder to be certain just what experience is really going to arise in the mind of the player.” This quote shows the difficulty in creating and designing a video game, and how every skill set is absolutely needed to satisfy not only the designer, but a large population of players.

In Fullerton’s article, the topic of how all types of games are created, and looks at the similarities and differences in making certain types of games. There are several topics that Fullerton compares in creating games, but the one that I found most interesting was the comparison of the games Quake and Go-Fish. “One is a turn-based card game; the other is a real time 3D action shooter.” This quote obviously shows the differences between the games. They are completely different games, so how would they be considered similar? “If we look closely, though, and try not to ignore ideas that seem self-obvious, there are enough similarities between the experience of Quake and the experience of Go Fish for us to begin to understand what underlying requirements we are looking for when we judge whether or not something is a game.” I feel like the thought behind this quote is extremely deep, as I personally never would have thought to look at it in such a light. All games can be related if you look close enough, and at the end of the day, the fact that they are both games alone relates them so closely to each other.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

I definitely agree that it is difficult to predict what kind of experience the player is going to have, especially when there are so many different variables at work. Even after “listening” to your game, audience, team, players, etc., you will not be able to 100% guess a certain person’s experience. I think this is what makes game development difficult, but at the same time very interesting and rewarding.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

I loved the portion of the reading that discussed the experience. It really made me think that these games and art in general have this goal of delivering a feeling. It’s not this tangible thing, it comes from the experience of the art that was created. It really puts into perspective the thought that is put into this. There is no one single thing that makes up the game. It all must come together to create the experience. This leads into the very interesting points made later on that the games design can’t just be modelled through the lens of just the designers perspective. There are so many things that need to be considered in order to properly create the device through which you will deliver this experience and surge of feelings to the audience.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Christopher!
I think your point was reiterated by the list of skills a game designer needs; there’s a lot that goes into designing a game, let alone a good game, and one of the most important parts of it is using all these skills to create an experience the player will hopefully never forget. I think playtesting is an essential step in the process for that exact reason. There is no one person creating a game, there shouldn’t only be one person testing to make sure it’s up to standard.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Christopher!
I was also really interested in the part about experiencing a game versus simply playing a game. I think Schell put it best when he said that it’s game designers’ job to foster a good experience, which as you said, is not something that can be hand delivered like the game visuals and sounds, but rather created based on one’s perception during their gaming experience. In other words, the game designer must set the foundation for players to have a good imaginative experience. After all, what good is a game if it doesn’t stimulate a bit of your imagination?

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

“If you can listen deeply to your team and truly communicate with them, you will all function as one unit, as if you all shared the same skills.” (Schell p.6) This quote reminds me of something I posted elsewhere recently. As a small team, it is critical that each member communicates, so that the team functions as a cohesive unit. ((Random note: You know you’re a game dev when… you accidentally type “unity” instead of “unit,” out of habit.))

In some Youtube videos I watched, I heard about “player experience” being something that is hard for the developer to grasp. Thinking about it now, I agree that the player’s experience is truly the end goal of making a game.

“The most obvious similarity in these two descriptions is that both describe experiences designed for players. This sounds like a simple distinction, but what other forms of entertainment are designed to demand active participation by their consumers?” (Fullerton p.28) This gave me an Aha! moment because it made me remember that games are (usually) interactive. So, the player is a key part of creating their own experience.

Like Fullerton says, what’s fun is subjective. I know that horror games appeal to a big audience, for example, but I don’t get much enjoyment out of them myself. I’ll have to keep this in mind when working on games.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

As a landscape architecture student, I can resonate with Schell’s anecdote about listening and the emphasis on having this skill. Sure, being able to communicate and convey ideas is important, but communicating means nothing if that information cannot be received properly. I work in group settings in just about every project I work on in class and it is important for all team members to listen and understand the ideas being conveyed from the professor and group members.

When you listen thoughtfully, you observe everything and constantly ask yourself questions: “Is that right?” “Why is it that way?” “Is this how she really feels?”
“Now that I know that, what does it mean?” (Schell p6). Listening like this as opposed to letting information go in one way and out the other is meaningful and the right way to listen.

“The game designer needs to be able to look at a game system not only as separate elements but also as a whole in play.” (Fullerton 42). This quote reminded me of Gestalt psychology in that the argument states the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. I believe this to certainly be true with games. What good is the game is everything feels right but theres no challenge? Or theres never really an outcome or the rules feel unfair? if parts of your game lack then the game can not be greater than the sum of its parts. I never really saw games as bits and pieces put together to create something whole but really just an activity with outcomes.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

I agree that the particular anecdote Schell uses about communication is extremely important. I think it serves a great parallel with the idea that your group is only as strong as your weakest member. You all need to effectively be on the same page in order to get the proper final product. If one person doesn’t understand the task properly, the final product will suffer because it is being dragged down by the mistake caused by ineffective communication. I think that this is just an important concept to understand for every field.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

In chapter 2 of the Fullerton text, I noticed his mentioning of the “lusory attitude” towards games, or in other words the acceptance of the game’s rules in anticipation of playing. This encompasses the motivation to eventually reach the game’s assumed goal, as the psychological state the player enters is a prerequisite to creating the objective of the game by accepting constraints on the way it can be played. I found that the steps that are laid out in the reading after defining the lusory attitude are essentially the foundation of any game, and thus are the crux of the overlap between two radically different games such as Quake and Go Fish, and defines the level of interaction that can be had between the player and the game through presenting the objective.

When it comes to game design, the fundamentals are more fleshed out and well defined than many will consider at a superficial level. The rest of the Fullerton text builds on what comes after the lusory attitude, such as conflict and challenge, both of which require its adoption: Fullerton’s exploration of the psychology behind games I think lays the foundation for the Schell reading’s discussion of the mechanics behind design.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Kwabena. Schell’s concept of “lusory attitude” also resonated with me. It makes perfect sense when describing why game rules exist. He uses the example of Golf, but I’ll use the example of Soccer. If the goal is to get the ball into the net, why wouldn’t every player just pick up the ball and toss it into the net? I mean, that’s what would be easiest. But, then the game would be too simple. So, the rules that say you can only use your legs to kick the ball (unless you play the position of “goalie”) exist, among other nuanced rules that make the game soccer what it is. Without the lusory attitude, games would be boring and simple, and not fun to watch or play. Because of this, I think lusory attitude is an important factor in game design.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Much to my surprise, I found Schell’s first two chapters very inspiring. I would list all the quotes I found inspiring, but truly each of them reached me way past the point of game design, but of course, how cool is it that I got to reflect on Siddhartha while reading about game design.

While Schell talks about the essential skills in creating and designing a game- like psychology, anthropology, animation, mathematics, creative writing, etc.- he spoke about a lot of intangibles which cannot be thought of as “natural skills.” In fact, a lot of what I am referencing to are skills we must all practice in the game of life!!! We must practice them and, above all, love the work in getting there. In Chapter 1, only after he has listed all the skills needed to succeed, he reminds us that no matter how well we may carry out each of those skills… ultimately, it is our love of the work which will transform it. He challenges us to “listen,” not just hear what is being told to us. He challenges us to look past what is on the surface and flesh out what the experience truly was. He asks us to look deep into our audience’s hearts and listen to what they really want from your game.

In chapter 2, he dives deeper into contrasting the experience to the actual game by asking us to reflect on the quote, “If a tree falls in a forest, and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?” Now, I have to be completely honest with you; I have never truly understood this quote until now. This was an AHA! moment for me because I knew then, if I listened hard enough I would be able to create an experience for an audience that resonated. In other words, I could place my audience in the forest (even if they really weren’t there), so that they DID hear my tree falling in the forest. I have ability to immerse them in a reality within their own, but I must listen and observe for what tools/type of gameplay will create that experience. The Lens of Essential Experience aims to explain the aforementioned. It is only when you can step outside yourself, put yourself in the audience’s shoes that you can begin to capture and cater their experience.

In Fullerton’s reading, I got stuck on the challenge aspect. He tells us we must balance emotional responses to the challenges, because too hard or too easy will push people away. I struggle a lot with most games, so I tend to be on the “too challenged” part of the spectrum. Consequently, I end up not playing games if the frustration outnumbers my perception to beat it. At the same time, this is only true when I play a multi-player games. When it comes to puzzles, I love to be challenged and don’t quit until I sort it out. The difference, which Fullerton goes into, is a right answer. While you can “win” at a puzzle, you don’t win at anyone else’s loss. Fullerton defines these conflicts among players as “structured conflicts,” but even within those I think the emotional response for me is too large! (Or maybe I just have really competitive friends LOL)

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Kattie. I really like your interpretation of Schell’s chapters, and how you can “place” the audience in the forrest so they can “hear your tree falling.” I think this is a central theme of communication, which is crafting an audience-centric message. After all, your audience is who you are creating for, so their needs and wants are most important. I think sometimes people tend to get caught up in what they, themselves want to see in a game, that they forget what the audience wants to see! Taking the people who are going to be playing your game into account when designing the game is crucial to success.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

In “In the Beginning, There is a Designer” I felt so inspired to read the introductory paragraph. Even though I am not a game designer nor do I desire to be one, I still feel that way about other things that I pursue and I realized it is so important to assure yourself that you are whatever you want to be, you just have to start and take the first step and say ‘I am a x.’ Confidence building is the most important step to achieving anything. I particularly loved the quote, “Some of the greatest innovations have come from people who only succeeded because they were too dumb to know that what they were doing was impossible.”

I looked at the skills that are useful for a game designer and I was amazed at how much knowledge that they have about so many various industries and how much calculation and creativeness goes into creating an experience and the process overall. I definitely never thought about this before.

In ‘The Structure of Games’ it was interesting to read that “characters in games can also be vessels for our own participation, entry points for us to experience situations and conflicts through the guise of a mask we create and direct.” This makes me think about how important it is for minorities and women of color to become game designers and bring their perspectives into the characters that are being created.

As someone who is not so used to playing games, I was very amazed to read about how without the experience, the game is worthless. It definitely helped me see them in a new light.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Tehreem. I agree with your comment about the author’s sentiment that in order to be whatever it is you want to be, you just have to believe you are and take that first step. That’s why it always bothers me when I hear someone say they are an “aspiring artist” or “aspiring musician.” Instead of saying “aspiring,” just say you are! Aspiring means you hope to one day be that thing, but if you make art or music or whatever it is you do, you are that thing, not aspiring. Confidence is key!

[Author]

Posts