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

This week, you read Chapter 4 (“The Experience Rises Out of a Game”) of Schell’s The Art of Game Design.

Discuss, analyze, and reflect on this chapter in this discussion forum.

You must post at least once by 11:59 pm on Friday, September 16th… and you must respond to at least three of your classmates’ posts by 11:59 pm on Monday, September 19th.

As was the case last week, this is NOT a prescriptive post. The point is to have a conversation and to learn more about game design together. (You did this wonderfully last week — so, keep it up!)

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 last 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!

• This topic was modified 3 years, 1 month ago by Dr. C.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

In Schell’s Chapter 4, I noticed what I originally thought were oversimplifications, but turned out to be quite insightful. Schell says that “fun is pleasure with surprises” (36). The text told me to try to find something pleasurable and surprising that wasn’t fun. I couldn’t think of anything, which means that that is the actual definition of fun, which was crazy to me; it felt too simple, too easy. What the author then says about spontaneity struck me as interesting. I am a fan of free-roam simulation story video games, like the ones I mentioned before (Uncharted, Assassin’s Creed, sometimes GTA, etc.) and I never thought of the spontaneous nature of them before. I always thought the freedom of it was what attracted me to those games, but I am now realizing that spontaneity is a much better word for it.

“Play is manipulation that indulges curiosity” (40). I love this idea. Just as marketing is manipulation that indulges greed/the need to fit in, play (games/toys) are also manipulations. All the other things Schell talks about (endogenous value, curiosity, fun, surprise, problem-solving, etc.) are things that help someone stay interested in a game, but it won’t necessarily make them play. Apparently, only manipulation will do that?

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Vallika!
I also found the distinction of something fun as pleasurable and surprising to be quite interesting. I started thinking of things like watching a comedy show, which is more funny than fun in of itself, but then I realized this is really just a passive activity, where play needs to be initiated by the individual. As for your last point, I can see how manipulation would be the deciding factor for players participating in a game because according to last week’s reading, players must ultimately submit to the rules of the game in order to play. In order to get players to submit to this type of authority, there should be some pressure and inherent manipulation involved. Overall, great response!

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

I also found his definition of fun to be interesting because I never understood it in that sense. I also talked about endogenous value and I really liked the quote you chose: “Play is manipulation that indulges curiosity.” To add to what Maria said, the core principle of a video game is entertainment. By using a controller or even our own bodies, video games allow us to experience a sense of immersion however deep in worlds beyond our reality and its rules. Developers will, more often than not, aim for a simple, aesthetically pleasing design which reacts with repetitive motions. If all of these factors are in place, then the game stands a much greater chance of sticking in the minds of players long after switching off the console. Rhythm games like Guitar Hero and Rock Band nailed this approach, and as a result the hooks were planted deeply into their player base, pulling them back time and time again. These are just a couple examples of how game developers use manipulation to retain the players’ interest.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Vallika!

I totally agree that that definition of fun is jam-packed into such a concise and simple statement, which is crazy to think about, especially since the word “fun” covers so many different aspects. However, I don’t think that it is THE definition of fun, because even if I can’t personally think of an exception at the moment, as Schell explains, someone will always come up with one. Also, I never really thought about the spontaneity of games until I read this chapter, I thought it was just free-will or freedom, but like you said, it actually kind of falls under the same branch. As for your last point, I also definitely love the idea that “play is manipulation that indulges curiosity”, because if I were asked to define “play”, the words “manipulation” and “curiosity” would never appear. But, I agree with both terms, and each term can expand to all the other parts of “play”, which is really interesting.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Vallika!

I mentioned in my response how certain things that Schell states seem like common sense but he puts almost a science behind it which makes it pretty interesting and sometimes more complex than we originally thought. I think this is the case with his definition of fun. As you said, his definition seems so simple that it’s hard to believe it is a sound definition until you actually think a bit deeper. He takes things that are so simple and turns them into ideologies that seem so much bigger, it’s honestly very cool.

As I am a business student currently studying marketing, I think Schell speaking about manipulation was actually very relatable. As you said, manipulation is a big part of marketing products but I never really thought about how manipulation was used in games. It’s almost kind of funny to think about all the different games we have been “manipulated” into playing within our lifetime!

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Vallika!

I like your comparison with manipulation in games to manipulation in marketing, it made so much sense when I read the chapter and helped me understand the concept of fun in games. Really great analysis!

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

I think the element of surprise and spontaneity are important in drawing a player to play a game because being removed from the situation forms a kind of barrier between the player and the game. If it’s not a spontaneous impulse to play, it may often be pushed aside for “more important” things. Maybe this is why people sometimes have really long TBR (to-be-read) lists.

I also really like the idea of play indulging curiosity. I think indulging my curiosity would be fun usually. Indeed, play and curiosity is like marketing and greed/need.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

I really enjoyed how abstract the beginning of Chapter 4 was. Schell spends a lot of time discussing the semantics of game design discussion, particularly the definition of “fun”. Schell defines fun as “pleasure with surprises”, which I find interesting because there was so much emphasis in the previous piece on the individuality of game experience, yet he limits ‘fun’ to a rather narrow subset of experiences. Some people may genuinely enjoy lying in the sun or leisurely reading, and find these activities fun. In terms of games, I know the most fun I have in Minecraft is in creative mode– I’ve followed YouTube tutorials for building mansions, log cabins, etc., without the imminent stress of survival. I definitely agreed with his analysis on the concept of play, and that while trivial, and big component of play is that we “play because we like to”. “The more obligated you are to do
something, the more it feels like work,” which in my opinion is why once a game starts becoming overly complex, some people tend to become disengaged, as they have to exert unwanted effort to understand the game.
Additionally, I liked that this passage was assigned following the Fullerton piece, as I was able to connect a lot of the similar components of a game from last week’s reading to this one. One aspect of games that was different, however, was the concept of “endogenous meaning”, or the idea that things which have value in a game only have value inside the game’s world. While this is true, when we think about items and components of popular games at a societal level, they have so much more meaning. For example, monopoly money and all the other paraphernalia in Monopoly have probably become such a marketable commodity for merchandise, the creation and sale of new games, etc. For sure, this has ssome meaning to us outside of a single Monopoly game.
Lastly, I found Schell’s analysis on predetermined outcomes very interesting. He mentions that games like “war” or other gambling games often become boring, as players realize that they cannot control fate. Couldn’t the same be said about never-ending games like Tetris, since the player must realize they cannot play for eternity?
Overall, I enjoyed the deep-dive on what makes a game a game. Interested to hear others’ thoughts.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hey Maria!

I like a lot of the points you made and I talked about some of them as well. To answer your question, I think Tetris fulfills a very simple need. We all have a natural desire to create order out of chaos. The game of Tetris satisfies that desire on a very basic level. To play Tetris is to knowingly opt in to something that has no end and no way of winning. Unlike with most other video games, you’re playing only against yourself, without any concrete goals other than to keep on fitting blocks into other blocks. The focus is on the process, rather than the result. The hardship of the challenge is far more compelling than knowing you are going to succeed.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

That’s a great point you bring up Maria! In high school, did your teachers ever assign you a movie or tv show or book to watch/read in English class? It would always be something that in actuality I would enjoy reading/watching, but because it was homework (and I would have to analyze it later) I always seemed to not really pay attention or not enjoy it as much as I would were it not homework. So the idea that play is only fun if it is not work is absolutely true.

To suggest an answer to your question, I believe what you described is the attraction of these mind-numbing, feels-like-eternity kind of games. Like we said in a previous post, games like Run are things you can do while doing something else. I used to watch tv and play it. Run, like Tetris, is a forever game. You could literally get to the end of it and keep playing in FOREVER MODE. But just like Temple Run/Subway Surfers, the gameplay will speed up and spread out the usable objects and at some point you may make a mistake, and be forced to start over. I think the attraction to these games is that once you get bored, you use it like a FIDGET SPINNER: just something to do while you do something more important/interesting.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Maria,

You asked a really fascinating question about Tetris. I think the difference between war/gambling and Tetris is that players feel that they are in control with Tetris, as opposed to another type of game. In a war game, we know the outcome; in a gambling game, we will win or lose the game based on a random number generator. I feel that Tetris provides enough incentive (the ability to beat a previous high score) and offers enough player control to satisfy the needs of most people.

• This reply was modified 3 years ago by Archive.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

In the beginning of Chapter 4, Schell opened with the argument against having set definitions for game design terms, saying “It is just a slight inconvenience, because it means we sometimes have to stop and think about what we mean and what we are trying to say. In fact, having to do this, in the long run, may make us better designers, not weaker ones, since we are forced to think just a little bit more” (pg. 35). This quote captured my attention, especially because most people would agree to having a firm set of definitions and terms for a subject. However, when it comes to game design, I would have to agree that when people discuss their own definitions and terms, it allows for better collaboration and results for the future, especially with always advancing technology.

When Schell introduced Lens #5, I was a bit confused on how I could incorporate this lens or elements such as these, when words like “fun” are involved, because everyone has a different definition, as stated in this chapter? Would I go based off my own definition, would I incorporate my peers’ opinions, or would I try to figure out a definition I believe most people would resonate with? Speaking of which, Schell broke down many definitions of the word “play”, how would you guys define it, or whose definition did you agree with the most, I’m curious to know?

My biggest “AHA” moment in this chapter is when Schell introduced “endogenous moments” and pointed out that people use real money to purchase imaginary items. I never realized how accurate this statement was until I thought about games like Fortnite, Episode, or Clash of Clans, where people literally spend tons of money buying gems and tickets in order to exchange them for some imaginary item that is also a part of the game. Also, I thought it was really cool when he brought up how important “problem-solving” (pg. 45) is when people play games, and I immediately thought of the game I used last week, Clue. The entire game is problem-solving, since its a murder mystery, and each player is competing against the other to finish the problem-solving first.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Even though everyone has a different definition of “fun,” we should ideally be able to decide what that means for us individually. What game designers might think is “fun” might be different than what another group of people think is “fun.” Schell analyzed the term in depth, but ultimately, your nature will have a say for your own preference of activities. To answer your second question, when I think of the word “play,” the definition that best fits that word would be “…activities which are accompanied by a state of comparative pleasure, exhilaration, power, and the feeling of self-initiative.” When I play a game or play a sport, I do it for the exhilaration, adrenaline, and overall enjoyment that I get out of it.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Fun is pretty easy to classify for me, whenever I find a game that requires me to grind and earn my rewards I often justify my deaths as a reason of fun. Even sometimes playing Fallout and doing meaningless things is more fun than playing some of the modern games. I think that most people forget that you game to forget about the things you were doing, they were meant as distractions and now they are past times.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Jaz! I loved your perspective on this chapter!

The idea of “fun” does vary among people, since the different topics of life that they are attracted to differ as well. However, I believe when building a game, just like when writing a novel, do what you know. There will always be people out there with the same sense of fun as you and you never know, it may be an untapped market because everyone else is trying to cater to EVERYONE’S sense of fun. There should be aspects that everyone can enjoy in the game, but the theme should, in my opinion, be based on YOUR sense of fun.

Also my favorite example of people buying fake things with real money is Hayday (it was popular a few years ago, and people were spending hundreds of dollars on it).

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

I was also really interested and confused when Schell discussed the topics of fun. While it did take some thought, I think that his definition holds some weight. While everyone perceives fun differently, ultimately, the basic definition is somewhat similar. It’s action of voluntary problem solving. Some might find different scenarios more fun than others, but this is an important concept for something to be fun. It’s not going to be fun if you have no desire to partake in whatever the action is. So in the context of creating a fun game for everyone, I don’t think this is ever going to be possible. People are so different, and opinions are so different, but as game designers we can make our game as fun as possible for as many people as we can.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Schell’s approach to game design differs from my own in many ways, and has its own quirks or proposed ways to model complex ideas. In chapter 4, he describes the many different definitions of “game” and the one that surprised me the most is “a game is a problem-solving activity, approached with a playful attitude.” Schell says that a games “cannot simply be problem-solving activities. One who plays them must also have that special, hard-to-define attitude that we consider essential to the nature of play.” Although this definition sounds pretty straightforward, the more I think about it, the more I realize that I never thought about games in this way; that they cannot JUST be problem-solving activities but the attitude the player brings into the game is important. Schell’s playful enthusiasm for games shines everywhere. It’s written personably – the author has a distinct, friendly voice and uses his previous experiences in games and other careers to tell anecdotes and explain his process.

Something that also caught my attention was the fact that imaginary game items are bought and sold in the real world because of how compelling the games can be. I actually just did some research into this and It’s that trade-off of money for time that has turned the MMOG secondary market into a global phenomenon. In April 2005, a 22-year-old Australian university student paid a record $26,500 for a 6,000-acre virtual island in the MMOG “Project Entropia.” It’s fascinating to see the extent game players go to bring their virtual gaming experience to life. Have you guys ever wondered Why do people voluntarily spend time struggling with problems like sudoku or crossword puzzles? It’s because We get streams of pleasure when we find something that can really help us understand some deep pattern. In the end, the act of solving problems is addictive because it brings us immediate pleasure, a sense of usefulness. This is what Schell emphasizes in Lens #8: The Lens of Problem Solving.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Meeteeka!

I really loved your evaluation of this chapter, I found all of your points to be really interesting. Firstly, I have to agree that I never saw games to be about “problem-solving” and still bring us pleasure. But, like you pointed out, it’s about the motivation that a person has to play the game, and I definitely never thought about it in that way before. When Schell mentioned the work example, it really hit me how much motivation really matters to someone and the pleasure that they get from an activity. Also, I am one of those people that play Sudoku or word searches for fun, but I never really thought about the reasoning behind this, and it really is the “problem-solving” that gives me the pleasure of playing these games.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi!
I am so blown away with how in depth you went with this chapter! You really took into consideration every factor that he discusses about what makes a game into a game. However, to me at least, if a game is to catch my interest it has to be some sort of brain teaser or else i will 100% without a doubt be bored and turn it off. Otherwise, great analysis!

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

The “special, hard-to-define attitude… essential to the nature of play” seems to be a readiness and openness to adventure/play. I agree that it can’t just be problem-solving activities; different players have different tastes in games; the activity has to strike the right chord within the player.

$26,500 for game development is a lot to me, but I don’t think it’s unusual in the world of game dev. Granted, this seems to be a single indie dev, so it is a lot for one person to pay…

I realized recently that game dev was pleasurable for me. I think I knew in the back of my mind, but I hadn’t taken much note of it. I think that’s why when I’m feeling down, I often go to something pleasurable, like game dev, to cheer myself up.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

I enjoyed how you brought out of school knowledge back into the class after absolutely hitting the spot on the definition of a game. Many people often forget that simple nature of a game is all that it takes to fix and change a person’s mood.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Chapter 4 was filled with a lot of cool information. The first interesting thing that stuck out to me was Schell’s view on vocabulary and definitions. He states, “time—as technologies change, they force us to reconsider some of our old definitions and terms, redefine some of them, and create new terms—so the process of definition and redefinition is likely to continue indefinitely or at least as long as there are advances in technology that are relevant to games”. This quote was said as a supporting idea to Schell’s argument that gaming definitions shouldn’t be exact or standardized as not all games are the same and these definitions should promote ideas rather than black and white statements. This is a really interesting take on definitions as most subjects stick to textbook meanings, but because game design is so complex and there are so many different paths to take, their definition must also be open to interpretation amongst those different paths.
Another part of the text that stood out to me was Lens #5 – The Lens of Fun. The reason this stood out was because it seems almost common sense to make your game fun, but there is actually a science behind doing so that many people do not know about. In addition to Lens #5, Lens #6 was also pretty interesting as curiosity is a vital part of almost any game. Even if the sole purpose of the game isn’t to evoke curiosity, having to worry about cards that other players may have or what other players may do also evokes curiosity. These lenses seem to interconnect as having fun can come from various forms of curiosity or surprise (as Lens #4 taps into).

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Gabrielle!
I really liked how you mentioned the importance of curiosity in a game. I think curiosity is what makes a lot of “other-worldly” and fantasy-eque games popular today. People become curious about the worlds these games take place in and how they are able to defy the rules of the real world. People also get curious about how they can test their limits– how far can they go to win the game? Also, I agree with your idea of interconnectedness. I hope that in some point in future readings, Schell is able to summarize and connect all the lenses into one general theme.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi,
I also am a big fan of how Schell changes and views these traditional definitions to his own point. I also very much agree with your point about curiosity and how it is a major point in playing a game. Overall, I really enjoyed your analysis!

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

I also love schell point of technology. It’s safe to say that games, nowadays, are way more technically advanced than they used to be. Back in the day these simple games required massive boxes in order to be played, but now, we have relatively tiny machines than can run games as large as 150gb. It’s crazy to see how far we’ve come, and these new advancements in technology slowly open up the possibilities for different games. For instance, almost every game that released is an open world experience. Even if someone wanted to create an experience like that 50 years ago, they wouldn’t be able to do it because of technical limitations. These new advancements really do make you think about the fact that the more you know, the more you can do. The more we learn about these technological upgrades, the more interesting things we will be able to create in the future.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Gabrielle! The way these lenses connect kind of reminds me of a Venn diagram or one of those glasses with sunglass lenses that stack onto it.

I agree with Schell’s statement about definitions being continuously recreated. I recall when the iPad first came out, a lot of people said it reminded them of a different kind of pad… but now look at it! iPad is a pretty common term these days, and no one really connects it to the other kind of pad anymore.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Gabrielle,
Overall I like your review on chapter four, you covered everything very nicely. I also thought that lens #5 was such a stand out compared to the rest because it seemed like such a basic thing, you wouldn’t even think to go into detail with it. However, when Schell goes into detail about making a game fun, it’s noted that everyone’s perception of fun is different, so it makes it very hard to cater to a large group of people, which I found interesting.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Schell’s rejection of technical definitions was something I found interesting. In many fields, a lack of standardized terminology would make the entire practice “illegitimate”. As a health major, most of my classes have been dedicated to learning intricate terminology. In fact, the health field as a whole is obsessed with definitions and classifications. My previous courses have argued that these definitions are necessary for standardized practice. While this is true in some respects, these definitions have also caused their fair share of problems. For instance, the DSM 5 is a tome containing the “definition” of mental illnesses, as well as the very specific parameters needed to be diagnosed with a certain illness. Although it was originally praised for being “necessary”, it likely caused more problems than it solved. Many definitions have since been proven outdated or incorrect, leading to an endless pursuit of rewriting and reclassification. Perhaps we would be better served having discussions instead of relying on terminology, as Schell states: “Yes, it requires that at times, designers have to stop and explain what they mean, which can slow things down a little (and only a little). On the other hand, this pause for clarification often saves time in the long run, since after the pause, the designers are definitely each clear about what the other means.” I agree that this approach to “definitions” allows for crucial, deeper understanding.

Something else I agreed with in Chapter 4 was Schell’s fourth lens: the Lens of Surprise. Schell states that surprise is a crucial part of all entertainment, “at the root of humor, strategy, and problem-solving”. This made me think about how crucial surprise is to visual media, specifically horror movies. Horror movies usually rely on jump scares, with a long series of suspense leading up to the ultimate reward of “surprise”. Effective games (not just horror games) can use similar structures to reward the player with surprises, creating a fun experience. For instance, a game may have a long stretch of normalcy punctuated by random changes in events. This makes the game more engaging by removing the predictability of repeated gameplay.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Julia!
It’s really intriguing that you were able to tie Schell’s analysis of language and semantics back to your health major background. I know that information in the medical field is constantly evolving and changing, so it makes sense that terminology is changing and relying less on strict technicalities makes sense. However, I do feel that some use of terminology in both medicine and game design can help us stick to a general framework. I also liked your connection to horror movies when it came to the element of surprise. I think the surprise in horror movies is what mimics a real-life experience– they induce the same physical effects (heart racing, blood pumping) that an actual scary encounter would produce. This is similar to the kind of experience a video game can create.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Wow! That is a very interesting (and well-written) point! I never thought about how undefined topics are illegitimate. I read the two parts of your response in tandem. My question to you is: does definition and over-analyzing of a subject take away its surprise aspect? Now we know all of the things that make games fun, so can we now go play a game without thinking of why it is fun? While definitions legitimize a topic, does it also make it less fun? (It’s just like analyzing a book in high school English: can you ever re-read To Kill A Mockingbird without thinking of the symbolisms and metaphors you discussed in class?) Just wanted to hear your thoughts on this.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hey Julia,

Super interesting insights as you relate Schell’s reading back to the health field. I do think that a basic understanding of key definitions is important to game design and any field of study, really. But knowing the definition of every key term does not guarantee one a deeper level of understanding. I’m an IT major, so I don’t know how accurate I am, but I would guess the reason the healthcare field is so terminology-heavy is to create a standard so that medical students are all learning the same material. That way, it’s easier to test students’ baseline knowledge of healthcare concepts on the MCAT, etc.? Does this approach teach one to critically think about prominent, ever-changing healthcare issues? Maybe not, but discussion-based learning also seems like it would be difficult to standardize. I’d love to hear everybody’s thoughts on this issue as well.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Julia,
I really like your thought behind Schell’s use of simpler terminology, and like Schell states, it does allow for easy descriptions of certain things, but it hits a point where simplicity can only take you.so far, which is why the medical field is like the way it is. Obviously using more complicated language will have its hiccups, because like you said it can get extremely confusing and understandably so. I just thought this was a very cool concept, I haven’t thought much into it before.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

The lens of curiosity made me realize something. When playing a game, not only is the player trying to reach the game goal, but they’re also answering questions that they’ve set. “Play is whatever is done spontaneously and for its own sake” (p.38). I didn’t understand it before, why people would say the game’s goal is not the end goal, but now I think I get it.

“Endogenous” is a word I learned today. I think this is a key part of what makes games compelling — in the game world, this or that item has value. By giving value to something that did not have it originally, you’re giving he player a reason to return and pursue this item or thing.

Reading through the various ways Schell tries to define a “game,” it seems like it really is a matter of taste, like how different people define art.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Bunbun1k!

I really like your interpretation of the lens of curiosity, because not only is the player reaching their goals, they are answering their questions during the process. I never really thought about it like that, but I applaud you for including that interpretation. I also did not know the word or meaning of “endogenous” before this chapter, but I do think that games are based off of people’s preferences. Just like each person has a different definition of game design terms, each person has a different opinion in which games bring them the most pleasure, and which games they have the most value with.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

I think you have a really good interpretation of the lens of curiosity. Whenever a person starts a game, they create their own definition of what completion is. Whatever goal they set based on their initial curiosity, is the one they will define as completion. Some might want to unlock every single achievement and collectable, while some may only want to try the game for 10 minutes. Regardless of what the goal is, their curiosity is what will cause them to formulate their own perceptions of completing the game.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Bunbun1k!

I also thought the lens of curiosity was very fascinating. As you said, curiosity leads people to not only want to reach the end goal of the game but to push themselves further every time. For example, someone could win Call of Duty ten times, but maybe beyond just winning the game they want to be faster, get more kills, etc. It’s almost like challenges within challenges when people begin to form their own goals beyond the main premise of the original game.

I also really love how you related games to art because at the end of the day, every game is different and as Schell has said multiple times, the games are meant to inspire experiences that are subjective to each player. I think relating it to art perfectly summed up that ideal as art acts as a foundation for our imaginations to grow upon. Very interesting analysis!

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi,
I really love your view on how Schell describes games as works of art. It is such an interesting observation and I am sort of mad that I didn’t make that comparison myself! I also had no clue what “endogenous” meant either but after looking it up, you’re so right! It’s such a key element and if you don’t account for the value of the objects to the core story of the game, the fun sort of gets drained as it has no worth.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hey, I like the comparison you drew between Schell’s various definitions of a game and other art forms. Just like any other form of art, a great amount of creativity is required to produce a good game.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

As I was reading this chapter, I honestly noticed just how different Schell and his writing style is compared to other textbooks I have read. He uses a lot of fun imagery in his work and very non-standardized and entertaining grammar, which leads me into two of my favorite lenses: the lens of fun and the lens of problem solving. To me, these two lenses are both parts of a whole, which I guess is the whole meaning to this chapter. The lens of fun discusses how the whole point of a video game is to have fun and the lens of problem solving discusses the the fact that “A game is a problem-solving activity, approached with a playful attitude.” This to me is the most important quote in this chapter as when I am looking for a game to buy/play, specifically a story game, one of the biggest factors in determining my purchase of the game is the story. This is also one of the reasons why I love the Uncharted series: they all get me thinking as to how I am supposed to solve the specific puzzle of get past this obstacle or whatever it may be. Overall, this chapter seriously had me going in depth about how I feel about video games and I have to say, I’ve never thought about my favorite games like this before.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Jaskaran, I also really enjoy Schell’s writing style! I like how he gives lots of examples to explain different concepts. For me, this made it easy to visualize the concepts he presents. He does a good job explaining game design from every single angle. I also agree with his choice of framing games as a “problem-solving activity”, as the “puzzle” portion of games is often my favorite.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Good morning Jaskaran! I noticed Schell’s style of writing as well. I mentioned in another reply to one our peers that it is almost poetic!! It seriously makes me more interested in what he is saying.

To your point, though, approaching a game with a playful attitude is 100% the key and I’m so glad you brought up Uncharted. I do not by any means play that game myself, because I am severely limited with properly working a game controller (lol), but I loooveeee watching my guy friends play this. In fact, I watch them play it and they LIKE when I watch because I can help them solve the puzzles. Sometimes, it’s unclear where/what they should be climbing next and I am able to scope it out with them. Thus, I think if I could work on better using a controller I would enjoy a lot more games like the Uncharted series with a true “playful” attitude. As opposed to one of frustration!

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Jaskaran,
Schell’s style of writing is definitely way more comprehendible compared to some other readings out there, as Schell simplifies his work in order for a mass amount of people to be able to understand it, which I find to be very smart, because its cater-able to a bigger audience. With that being said, it does give you a great appreciation for what these game developers are actually doing once you’re able to understand the dedication that they put in.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Jaskaran,

I was thinking about Schell’s style of writing the same way while reading. It is so nice to read, as if we are having a conversation with the author directly. This chapter definitely helped me see game design in a new light.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Reading Schell really feels like talking to a narrator, it made analyzing the text easier and focusing on the real aspects of a game. Often I felt like the information was described in a manner where the game developers were finally given some credit.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

I never knew that the term Endogenous was how you describe “caused by factors inside the organism or system”. I always intuitively understood that concept through things like CSGO Weapon cases and Gacha Games. I think one of the reasons that those items or the items in Gacha Games are worth money outside of the game is due to the nature of collecting those items. Like some items would be unobtainable for someone who is unwilling to spend money on the game, so the game forces you to buy it, or maybe they are only on sale for a limited time frame. I think about this constantly whenever someone talks about gacha games like Genshin Impact.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Drew! I always thought that Gacha games/mechanics such as Genshin Impact and CSGO weapon cases were really interesting. As you said, these games convince people to spend more money on these items because they are “limited”, more powerful, etc — the game assigns importance to an otherwise worthless item. Personally, I don’t play Genshin Impact but have witnessed some of my friends spend money on the game to get certain characters. Specifically, one of my friends spent $200+ dollars to obtain one of the limited characters. Funnily enough, after they spent this $200 they never played the game again. I think this is because of an interesting phenomenon with Gacha Games in which they 1. falsely assign an item too much importance and 2. make said item extremely difficult to obtain. Once the item is obtained, the player realizes their efforts were not worth the item. Instead of feeling happy/fulfilled after obtaining the object, the player feels disappointed. Add the element of large sums of money to this equation and this results in complete disillusionment.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Julia! Your point on an interesting phenomenon with Gacha Games makes a ton of sense. When I was in high school, I had done something similar where I spent $60 on a gacha game only to never open the game again. I think the main selling point for a gacha game is to be able to collect items that were difficult to obtain. I think another reason why some people stop playing the gacha game after spending x amount of money on it is due to the fact that there is no longer a reason for them to play that game. If the main reason you play a game is to collect rare items, but you already have those rare items, why would you continue to play that game anymore? I also completely agree with the disappointment once the item is obtained as I immediately regretted spending $60 on something that brought me zero entertainment value.

• This reply was modified 3 years ago by Archive.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

It was very interesting to read about what makes a game fun so much in depth and see the conclusion that “A game is a problem-solving activity, approached with a playful attitude.” The playful attitude plays a massive role in making the game fun and not feel like obligated work. Toys and games would not have the definition that they have if the fun factor was missing. Really interesting how the difference between bad games and good games was compared that “Bad games have little challenge or too much challenge. Good games have just the right amount.” I had never heard of the word endogenous before but it was explained so well in the chapter with example and I totally agree that a compelling game has greater “endogenous value.” Reading this chapter made me think about what aspects I like the most about games and the analysis of problem-solving being the core of all games and without that element, it is just an activity. Game design seems very interesting and complex because in order to create a good game, the designer needs to create the perfect amount of complexity that feels fun to solve.

What aspect of a game makes it fun for you?

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Tehreem,

I actually wonder about the quote that you chose “Bad games have little challenge or too much challenge. Good games have just the right amount.” Because it’s definitely true that I will give up on a game if it has too much challenge, and if there is none, I’ll tend to get bored. However, some games are notorious for being extremely challenging to beat, but they are hugely popular (think the Dark Souls video games). So, when a designer makes a game this intentionally challenging, how do they also provide enough incentive for a player to continue? It’s food for thought.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

I agree that it is cool to see how there must be a solid balance of different elements of a game to distinguish it as a good game. For example, the difficulty level. I feel as though a lot of games are ruined because although they are fun in several ways, they may be too difficult, eventually discouraging a player from finishing them.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

What stood out to me the most in this chapter was the rant about definitions section. I agree that, in the long run, taking time to work out the exact definitions of what you’re working with can make designers better at what they do. Being introspective and actually thinking about your process instead of mindlessly following the motions you’re used to is always a good practice, and I think more people should stop and think about what they’re doing more often. However, I think that stopping your process to solidly define something you’ve been subconsciously understanding can be dangerous; it could lead to unnecessary stops if the designer is not used to this process. I feel like anytime a new designer reaches a snag in the designer process, they may take this information and think, “Oh, maybe I need to redefine something,” when it could be any number of things that are hindering the process and taking a lot of time to create a definition that may not help could trip the game designer up in the long run.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

After reading this chapter, I can truly value the freedom offered in rpgs. For example, Fallout allows for a user to customize his army, base of operations and truly be a savior of the wasteland or a wicked villain raider. The “Surprise is a crucial part of all entertainment—it is at the root of humor, strategy, and problem solving”, by providing the customer the surprise to do whatever action or task allows for a customer/player to see the various endless encounters in a game(37). I think Bethesda studios in general focuses on making an experience for the customer, the countless surprise encounters and randomized events clearly show the care they put into making a story.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Rameet! This is a really good point, I think one of the reasons RPGs are so popular is how well they incorporate “surprise” and customization. Specifically, I see this in two sub-genres of RPGs- open-world and choice-based. You mentioned Fallout and I have to agree that Bethesda is good at creating an immersive experience for the player. When playing Fallout: New Vegas, I loved exploring the open world, discovering new characters, and fighting surprise encounters. It never felt monotonous and had a lot of “surprise”. I feel that this made the game fun and helped immerse the player in its world and story.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

As someone who has enjoyed Bethesda games in the past, I agree that they typically make for a very fun experience considering how much you can do at any time. In a game like Skyrim, you are free to let your curiosity take over and go anywhere you wish right off the bat. There are plenty of surprises during your main journey throughout the game.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Altay’s point on Skyrim reminded me of why a game like Breath of the Wild did extremely well. It was another Zelda game, but the ability to not have to follow the story in a set path, but be able to go anywhere regardless of level was really surprising. You were completely free to walk up to the end boss and try to defeat him.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hey Rameet,
I agree with the element of surprise and the effect it has on games as these become more unique and entertaining. The element of surprise is what triggers the customer to always come back and play the game. The features of customizing an army as you mentioned make the game feel a little more personalized and hence creating a feeling of belongingness.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Schell’s presentation of each lens inspired me to think about which of the presented lenses necessitate the others. Of all the lenses discussed in Chapter 4, I think that “The Lens of Fun” is at the top of the chain of actions/emotions the player can undertake. To expand on this, Schell’s discusses what a game entails at the most fundamental level (A game is something you play, a toy is something you play with, etc.) In the discussion underneath the lens of fun, he discusses some of the other lenses indirectly such as surprise (Fun is pleasure with surprises), with surprise being the followed by curiosity, which it necessitates, demonstrated by the scenario Schell sets up in the Lens of Curiosity paragraph when he says that unique animations when solving a maze would breed curiosity. While not yet acknowledged by the author, Schell’s lenses are certainly not a rigid chain, but rather a pyramid upon which greater and more complex game concepts are built on the backs of foundational aspects deeply rooted in psychology such as what motivates curiosity and the acceptance of endogenous rules.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Kwabena!
I like your point about the lenses not being a rigid chain but a pyramid we can build upon to make more complex games. It reminds me of the list of skills a game designer needs (that we read last week). There is so much effort and thought that goes into the back end of games, so many little pieces that are built to be further and further developed into something extraordinary for the player.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Anna,

After writing my initial comment, I took a bit to reflect on the history of video games as they developed alongside available technology, and your reply caused me to partially recall my thoughts. I think it’s interesting to note that the pyramid probably gets progressively narrower — the improvements made over a generation of games was far more apparent 30 years ago than now, likely due to the increasing complexity of the task at hand. The “little pieces” as you mentioned in your comment are becoming smaller and less foundational.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Good morning Kwabena! I love that you call out the interrelatedness between the field of psychology. I think a part of me has been so intrigued by Schell’s narration of game design because of this exact notion. He almost even has a poetic way of speaking to the creation of games, which I have learned (from him) truly is an art!

I agree with you in the sense that these lenses aren’t rigid. In fact, I think that’s why he chooses to call them “lenses” because this way, he is able to frame our thought process to better align with a game designer. Rather than tell us exactly what to think. If he were to confine us to rigid boxes (or definitions, as we know he hates), he would argue we are limiting the world of game design! What do you think? 🙂

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Kattie,

You’re absolutely correct that Schell’s tendency to be indistinct when it comes to definitions plays into his fondness for creativity. In the earlier chapters, he placed a lot of importance on new video game designers striving to evolve the genre, and billed innovation as a key to success. The lenses are largely open to interpretation in order to simply guide a designer’s contemplative thoughts.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

I think the most interesting part about this chapter that really caught my eye was the section regarding the different definitions of what a game really is. It’s so fascinating to me how some people perceive something to be so simple, yet is such a complex topic for other people. “First… they make players feel ‘mentally immersed.’ … Second, ‘a closed, formal system’: this implies a lot of things. ‘System’ means games are made of interrelated elements that work together. ‘Formal’ is just a way of saying that the system is clearly defined, that is, it has rules.” This quote from chapter 4 was personally my favorite description on what a game truly is in two simple parts. The first part states you have to be somewhat immersed into it, which I completely agree with. And the second part of this description states that if it has rules along with this mental immersion, it can be considered to be a game. Other definitions say that games need someone to win and lose and whatnot, but at the end of the day a game is just something that you can play, even if there is no winner or loser.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Jared!!
I love your thoughts about the various interpretation of definition in game design! A previous post related Schell’s ambiguity to artwork, which I thought perfectly summed up his ideas. Similar to artwork, every person interprets these definitions differently which I think provides more leeway in the game designing process. It also allows for more variations of games as not everyone is adhering to strict guidelines which is pretty cool!

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Jared,

I would agree that it is an interesting point that Schell draws out of the reader, in that the defining features of a game are of secondary importance to those who play them. The “system” and “interrelated elements” are generally hidden and overshadowed by the interactivity that the game presents to the gamer, which obscures the process of game design to most. To compare this to another medium of art, the process of filmmaking is easier for most to make inferences about given that one only needs to observe, thus making it easier to define films as a whole.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hey Jared,

I agree, games are more complex than we think they are as there are systems that are purposely built to work with one another to create an interesting game. Competitiveness which you mention is a theme very common in many games from videogames to board games, but it is not the ultimate goal for all games. Hence, followed by the idea that we play games because we enjoy them.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

I really enjoyed the discussion about spontaneity and what that means to a game. As soon as I saw the word “spontaneous,” I immediately though of some of my favorite video games. Santayana discusses spontaneity more from the viewpoint of a player’s mindset. Schell’s example is that when someone is being “playful”, that is a spontaneous activity (38). I would definitely agree with that definition of spontaneity, and I do agree that while it is not necessary, spontaneity is often an important part of play.

To me, spontaneity is also a perfect word that captures what makes my favorite games game great, especially open-world video games, which I play relatively frequently. In terms of gameplay, I would personally define the term “spontaneous” as any action that occurs within the game that is not premeditated. I have seen a few people mention Assassin’s Creed, which is one of my favorite gaming IP’s. It has a massive world to traverse, and it allows the player to scale up and down mountains, buildings, and more. That sense of exploration makes the game fun, but what makes the world so engaging are the random, spontaneous interactions with NPC’s (non-player characters), as well as random encounters with wild animals, which is more prevalent in Assassin’s Creed Origins and Odyssey. I remember playing Red Dead Redemption 2, an open-world Western RPG, and being mind-blown when my character randomly encountered a bear, ran from said bear, and then was hit by a train. In my experience, these random actions help to make me curious and excited about the game world. Beyond video games, spontaneous decision-making must be made in board games and card games. So, while spontaneity is not “necessary” to play, I think that having the aforementioned spontaneous gameplay elements, as well as the spontaneous feeling of excitement to play the game, are key factors that could make a great game.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Evan,

I totally agree that spontaneity is often an important part of play and what make our favorite games unique and great. The excitement of feeling like you are on an adventure feels freeing from regular life, almost like an escape. Great analysis!

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Chapter 4 really made me question the things that I thought I knew. I never stopped to think what the concept of fun is. I’ve always that of it as more of a feeling, and personally, sometimes feelings don’t make sense. Sometime you just can’t explain why you like something, but this chapter attempted to place a definition on the abstract and subjective concept known as fun, and I found it really interesting. As a game designer, what part of my creation is fun? This chapter was overall just really interesting. Defining these concepts that we never stop to think about really began to put things into perspective for me.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Christopher!
I also found Schell’s attempt to place explicit definitions on things we subconsciously know interesting, partly because I’ve never stopped to think about them, but mainly because the actual definitions felt so scientific and lackluster. Having definitions we can all agree on for things like play, games, toys, etc., is definitely necessary, but defining these concepts so succinctly drained all the whimsy and intrigue from them, for me at least.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Christopher, thank you for sharing, I felt the same way! I was baffled by how much articulation and thought goes into crafting my experience. I never thought it had been carefully engineered by someone on the other end. Like you, I felt it was kind of hit-or-miss and that my feelings/reasoning associated with liking a game were somewhat random. Now, I am able to better explain the types of games because I know how to explain them. Knowing the different elements and systems behind them, I understand that there are game designers out there with me in mind so I just need to keep searching for my crowd.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hey Chris,

Like you, the concept of fun is oftentimes taken for granted as we never really acknowledge the feelings that come along with this. We “play” because we enjoy these activities because we like them and we are entertained.
The approach that the author takes is very interesting as he thinks through the lenses of a designer and hence thinks about all these things that the costumer does not think about.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

In Chapter 4, Schell helped me reflect on the game I chose to play in Week 1, when he was speaking about every game having a problem-solving aspect despite our first instinct. I chose the game Run, and truthfully it felt pretty straightforward. Upon second consideration, though, I realize the problem-solving aspect of not being given instructions IS the very first problem to solve. Schell writes, “When problem solving is removed from a game, it ceases to be a game and becomes just an activity,” which made me realize the different sets of problems I embarked on solving. First, was figuring out how to play. Second, the discovery to be able to switch walls felt huge, and overall extremely rewarding. I resonate with Schell when he talks about problem-solving as an evolved survival method. There is an air of comfort that solving a problem brings, probably because your brain knows it can keep you safe!
Thus, as Schell said, the more problems you solve, the better you get. I did feel this way in Run. I felt I could beat the game if I had figured out how to play, which made me care, and that kept me engaged. To conclude, as we examine the game through the lens of problem-solving lens, the regeneration of new problems comes in the form of new levels with different gaps to avoid and different walls to switch to. Especially since there are various ways to beat the level, you are encouraged by that fact to keep going.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Kattie!
I chose Run 3 for last week’s discussion post, but admittedly when I was reading I wasn’t even thinking of how Schell could apply! The Run series always felt really straightforward to me, too, but I think I always come back to it because of the problem-solving aspect of the game. Not only does the player have to quickly solve how they’re going to get to the other side of the level, but they also have to consider how their character might affect their play, the length/strength of their jump, and any mini-challenges the game designers involved in the level. Now, though, after years of playing the game, the problem-solving aspect has dulled enough that the game is no longer really fun; it’s become more an activity to eat my time than a game to take my attention.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Anna! Thanks for your reply 🙂
Totally agree with you! The game, at this point, is somewhat mind numbing for me now since the challenges have all been figured out. However, our experience makes sense according to Schell! Since we have essentially overcome the structured conflicts laid out for us, the “fun” starts to die down.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

I find it interesting how crucial of an element surprise is to a game. Reading this chapter made me realize that all forms of entertainment including humor, solving a puzzle, or watching a show all incorporate surprise. It was cool to see how any surprise, even an unpleasant one, will trigger excitement in the brain. I think that before one can be surprised, however, they must first have some sort of expectation, and their curiosity drives them towards finding out truths and fulfilling that expectation. Therefore, curiosity and surprise are both tied in as important elements of a game.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

I agree with what you said about how surprise is crucial to games. Horror games would not be entertaining without that element of surprise. The expectation going into horror games is that it will be scary, and there will be moments where the game will try to surprise the player. Story-based games also are another example of the element of surprise being crucial. If the story went on a linear path where there was zero element of surprise, it wouldn’t be very entertaining of a game.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

In Chapter 4, Schell goes over several definitions that entail the act of playing. One that caught my attention the most was “If we don’t like to do it, it probably isn’t play. That is, an activity itself cannot be classified as a “work activity” or “play activity.” Instead, what matters is one’s attitude about the activity” (Schell 39). I find this quote interesting because as gamers/entertainment seekers, we tend to look for activities that bring us joy. Hence, this is what separates a regular “work activity” from a fun and entertaining, “play activity”. The author mentions one’s attitude when getting involved in these activities. This is something I had never thought about before as gaming has been part of most of my life. By this, I mean that I never paid attention to my attitude when engaging in this form of entertainment. However, now that this has been brought to my attention, I can reflect back and confirm this. I engage in gaming due to the excitement it brings which uplifts my attitude and mood. Hence, making it enjoyable to play.

[Author]

Posts