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

This week, you read Chapter 5 (“The Game Consists of Elements”) 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]

I really liked the idea that a game designer must focus on not only the skin or the skeleton of their game but both at once. To me this means that they cannot only look at the graphics (and the user experience) or the internal workings (and technology), since one feeds the other and back again.

I had trouble understanding the difference between lenses 9 and 10 though: nine seems to be about the elemental tetrad (those four things that are crucial to building a successful game), but so does 10, when they talk about holographic design. The only difference I’m seeing is that 9 is for while you’re building a game (these are things to keep in mind) and 10 is maybe a beta testing and reiterating kind of situation? Was anyone else confused by this or can someone explain?

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Vallika!
As for the difference between lenses 9 and 10, I agree that there seems to be some overlap in their scope. However, I think lens 9’s purpose was to serve more as a checklist. That is, ensuring that the game encompasses all 4 elements in some way, and reflecting on which of the 4 elements may need revision/edits to enhance the game experience. I feel as though lens 10 focuses more on the cohesiveness/holistic experience of a game, as opposed to shifting your attention from one element to another through going down the checklist. Lens 10 serves as a more macroscopic view of the overall experience. I also agree with you that the description of game design as skeleton vs skin was very interesting and showed how interconnected these elements are.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Vallika!

I also talked about the skin and skeleton comparison because I think for game designers, it’s really important that they don’t prioritize one over the other. I can see how lenses 9 and 10 can be confusing, but you’ve got a pretty solid understanding of both of them. The way I understood it was that Lens 9 focuses on specifically the elemental tetrad, and if all four of the elements are working together because designers, artists, engineers, and writers often prioritize one of the elements over the over. So Lens 9 ensures that they are all working equally. Lens 10 is more broad scope of the game design, focusing on the actual experience or “skin.” What can be done to improve or enhance the experience and what characteristics of the experience actually make it enjoyable.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Vallika!

I thought it was really interesting that you pointed out the “skins” and “skeletons” concept that Schell used in this chapter. Personally, it is difficult for me to focus on both halves, but it is fascinating to think about how both halves are needed to really understand the game and the design behind it. As for your question, I can see how the difference between the two can be a bit confusing, especially because they are worded similarly. However, I would say that Lens #9 is more about making sure that you have all of the elements, enough of each element, and the connection between the elements. But, I think Lens #10 is more about the comparison between the elements and the actual game design, instead of each other, and I think it focuses more on how the elements are connected to the game and if the way they fit make sense.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi, my only comment is about lens 9. The 9th lens, at least to me, serves as more of a “does this even work?” rather than a “do this to make it work,” if that makes sense. It is trying to be a sort of proof read for the game when making the elemental tetrad and allow for someone to notice the flaws, if any, when making the story of the game.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Vallika,
I also liked how in this chapter Schell explained how everything is sort of connected to one another. Like you said, the game designer cant just focus on one specific part of a game, whether that be the mechanics or the graphics, they all have to be equally developed. In regards to lens 9 and 10, what I saw someone say previously about the lenses is that they overlap each other a little bit, like a Venn diagram, so they are partially similar because they’re slightly based off one another.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

It’s interesting that the graphics and internal stuff influence each other. It’s like how visual aspects might amplify the effect of good storytelling, and how good storytelling brings more meaning to the visuals.

I think the elemental triad is about the elements to a game, whereas the holographic design is about seeing the elements altogether.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

In order to make a perfect story, it must have no plot holes. Just like the visual aspects must be perfect an all other surrounding features must be to the same caliber or it will all be for nothing.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

One thing I enjoyed about Chapter 5 compared to Chapter 4 was the use of the diagram on page 51 (figure 5.1). This really helped me map out the key components of game. I liked the distinction between “less visible” and “more visible” elements. It made me think of elements like mechanics as the ‘skeleton’ behind a game, and the aesthetics as the ‘skin’ or more player-facing elements. Schell’s distinction of “left brain” and “right brain” elements also helped me visualize the entire game design process better, as well as showed me that game design is a multi-faceted experience. In terms of Schell’s analysis of Space Invaders, one thing that stood out to me was his point on the simple visuals of the game. The simple marching animation on the screen is very effective, and when coupled with the infamous marching invaders audio, there is a ‘very visceral effect on the player’. I’m sure this is relevant for other iconic arcade games like Pacman or Snake, as they really capture this addictive

A quote that really stood out to me was the following “It is not enough to merely understand the various game elements and how they interrelate with one another—you must always consider how they relate to the experience.” It reinforced the idea from last week that each user’s experience is so unique and game designers have to keep in mind that the outcome of their creation is highly dependent on each individual’s characteristic.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Schell’s writing is structured in such a way that is understandable for all types of readers. I think the diagram he illustrated helps the readers to visualize how all four elements work together in game design. The way the tetrad is arranged is very strategic, from most visible (aesthetics) at the top of the tetrad and least visible (technology) and the bottom of the tetrad. It makes sense that technology and mechanics are seen as “left-brained” while aesthetics and story are seen as “right-brained.” Left brained consists of being analytical and methodical, while right brained consists of being creative and artistic.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

The quote you chose really reinforced what people commented to me about the difference between lenses 9 and 10. First, the four aspects must be balanced among themselves, and THEN they must be collectively (skeleton) balanced against user experience (skin).

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Maria!

I also really liked the fact that Schell included that simple diagram, because I also think that it helped visually show the connections between the elements, which helped me to understand the difference and connection between them. I agree that the Space Invaders aesthetic, although simple, was still very appealing to players and held a lot of value. Personally, I really liked how simple and colorful it was, because it was already a complex game with the amount of action that happened on screen, so the simple aesthetics balanced it out.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Maria!!
I also really enjoyed Schell’s metaphor of skeleton and skin as I think it sets a good foundation for us to understand the priorities of game design. Just like a skeleton and skin is to humans, both graphics and internal workings are important to make a functioning game.
I also mentioned Schell’s example of Space Invaders as I really appreciated him taking the time to provide a guideline for things that we will eventually have to do when we begin our own game design process.
I like that you reinforced the idea of the experience as that is really what all of these lenses are about; bettering the gaming experience. Great analysis!

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hey Maria, I like the diagram as well, and how it shows the equal importance of these elements that work together to create a game. It is interesting to think about how there are so many different elements that combine and work together for the same purpose, to deliver a pleasurable experience to the player.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hello Maria,

Like you the anatomy analogy that the author makes helped me better picture the facets of a game and how it is built. I think that we must look at games this way to better appreciate them as we mostly just tend to see at the surface level and not often see whats within and how these elements work together for the greater purpose of the game.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Maria,

The comparison to the left and right side of the brain certainly helped me visualize the game design process better as well. I think good design in general, whether it is game design or some other design must be a good balance between visual and functional. Great analysis of the chapter!

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

I really liked how Schell broke down the four basic elements of game design in Chapter 5. By doing so, he makes it a bit easier for readers and first-time designers to better understand the steps of building a game. Personally, my favorite part of the process is the Aesthetics part, as I love graphic designing and creating visual experiences. Even when playing games myself, the first thing I always think about is the aesthetics; what environment am I in, what is the mood of the game, is it dark or light, etc. Though Aesthetics is my favorite part, I do want to reiterate what Schell said, which is that “none of the elements are more important than the others”. I also really enjoyed the example of Space Invaders that he gave because I feel like it gives us an outline of what we should do when beginning to design our own games in the future.
Lens #10 is also very important as we have to go back to earlier chapters where Schell tells us that the goal of game designers is to create an experience. The Lens of Holographic Design covers just that by asking various questions about forming the experience and enhancing the experience.
Outside of the context Schell provides, I think the structure of this text, which incorporates Lenses and different ideologies within each chapter, is also really helpful as it provides a bit of background on each lens before moving on to the next and it doesn’t overload us with information.

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

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hey Gabby!

I agree with a lot of the points you made and discussed them in my post as well. When I play a game, I definitely look at the visuals first to see if it’s appealing to me. Video games with poor visuals and effects tend to deliver a negative experience to the player. I also talked about how not one element of the tetrad is more important than the other. They all work collectively to deliver the best experience to the audience and should be treated equally. I liked how you talked about the structure of Schell’s writing, that he makes it easy for the readers to understand. It is perhaps the most comprehensive and crisply written intro to the key elements of game design.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Gabby!

Like you, I really enjoy the aesthetics of the game, but I think the story of the game would be my favorite element. I just really enjoy the background of the game and what the goal of each player is, but aesthetics are definitely a close second to me. But, as you pointed out, we have to keep in mind that the elements are of equal importance to each other, even if we have a preference for one over the other. I also liked the layout of this chapter, Schell really helped to layout the basics of game design with this chapter, especially with the elements, and the diagram that he included.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi!
I also really love the part about the aesthetics! I enjoy a game when it looks and feels right and also matches the vibe of the story! But that is also where I must disagree a little; the story of the game has to be the most important part to me. Although the aesthetics play a big part in enjoyability, you can have a great looking game but hate it because of the weak story, but have an okay looking game with a great story and rate it better!

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hey Gabrielle, I agree that although all four elements are equally necessary, aesthetics tends to be what I look for most. I love playing a game with a beautiful environment, cool characters, and great animation.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Without balancing out the various features of a game, certain aspects can be forgotten. I like how you brought up the mood a certain game gives you, it provides a sense of comfort going to a game you know and love.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Chapter four breaks down “game” into its four major constituent elements: Mechanics, Story, Aesthetics, and Technology. Schell calls this the Elemental Tetrad and holds that all four elements are equally important to a good game, supporting each other as they work to achieve a common goal. Each part of the tetrad contributes to the core experience and affects another part of the tetrad. I like how he compares the player’s experience and the elements that make up the game as the skin and skeleton. That is a very unique way of looking at it. I think it can be very challenging to be able to see skin and skeleton at the same time. Schell ends the chapter by emphasizing how a designer needs to have “holographic vision” while designing, so that they can see not only these four perspectives and how they interact behind the scenes in a game, but also what the player experiences directly, relating to the skin and skeleton comparison. Game design has become so broad that it is nearly impossible for a single person to keep all the concepts in their head at once. We miss asking many of the basic questions on a regular basis. There are nearly an infinite number of questions one could ask and often finding the right question to ask is key to coming up with the right solution. When you read the questions that are asked in each lense, it focuses on the ways that the designer can create a better experience for the players. After all, when designing a game, you should constantly imagine what your players would think when playing, how a certain design affects the feeling of a player, and how the players would play your games.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Meeteeka!
I really like your comment about infinite possibilities of questions during the game design process. This is what makes the game design process so difficult, especially because the game designer has no idea what the user experience will look like, as every individual’s perception is unique. As for the game design process being so broad, I think this is what makes the modern gaming industry so complicated and intricate. As games become more complicated and multifaceted, there now needs to be teams of people dedicated to different elements of games.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

What you said about infinite possibilities with game designs really rings true, especially when you think about the fact that the skeleton often comes before the skin, so the entire skin has to be kept in mind while the skeleton is being iterated out. So not only do you have to think about how a certain design in the skeleton affects the UX, you also have to think how a skeletal design affects a skin design and how both affects UX together AND separately.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Meeteeka!
The skin and skeleton metaphor seems to be a very popular point by Schell! I think it’s partly because it helps u better understand that all parts of game design are equally important and should all be taken into careful consideration during the building process.
I like how you mentioned ht importance of the lenses, and I agree with your statements about the infinite possibilities of questions that go into designing games. I definitely think these lenses help narrow and organize those questions into logical steps. Overall, this was a really interesting take on the reading!

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Meeteeka! I agree that the world of game design is ever expanding. People try to find more innovative ways to do certain mechanics, and that leads to a lot of new game concepts being created. While there is a lot one can do, and probably a lot one should do, it helps to focus on the enhancing player experience.

The thing about seeing the skeleton and skin at the same time reminds me of a song called “Painted Skin” that mentions that while you can paint someone’s outer appearance, you can’t paint their skeleton (usually).

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

On page 51, Schell made a comparison of knowledge between doctors and patients, he then stated, “But guess what? You’re a doctor now. You need to know, intimately, what your patients (games) are really made of, how their pieces all fit together, and what makes them tick. When things go wrong, you’ll need to spot the true cause and come up with
the best solution, or your game will surely die. And if that doesn’t sound hard enough,
you’ll be asked to do things that most doctors are never asked: to create new kinds of
organisms (radically new games) no one has ever seen before and bring them to life.” I just thought that that this quote was really interesting, because by completing this course, we are making the transition from “patient” to “doctor”. We are going to have to be able to look at a game design, see if there are any errors, and then automatically be able to determine the best solution to the problem, which is mindblowing to think about.

Also, when Schell was pointing out the four basic elements, I was able to connect it back to the game I chose last week, Clue. I thought about how an example of mechanics would be the rulebook or the guidelines included with the game, the story is the murder mystery that the game revolves around, the asthetic is dark, mysterious, and supported by the design of the gameboard, and an example of technology would be the notepad included with the game to write down player observations. It’s wild to think that all these elements are simultaneously working together to guide the player to solve the mystery before all the other players.

Schell brought up skins and skeletons towards the end of the chapter, but personally it is hard to focus on both the “player” view and “game designer” view at the same time. I feel like I would be biased to look at the game in one way over the other. How would I be able to balance those perspectives? What about you guys, do you guy have trouble balancing the perspectives, or are you able to objectively look at both sides at the same time?

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Jazz!
It’s really interesting that you were able to connect these readings back to your game of choice from last week’s discussion. One question I have is about the mechanics vs technology of the game. I know that Clue usually involves a board with pieces, and I wonder if the movement of those pieces is more associated with mechanics or technology. Is it possible that the lines of these 4 elements can be blurred? Also, this part of your response really stuck out to me: “When things go wrong, you’ll need to spot the true cause and come up with the best solution, or your game will surely die.” I think this lesson applies to more than just game design, and really any design process. Working from the inside out and doing a root-cause analysis is critical to any creative pursuit. It’s so interesting how a lot of these messages in the Schell readings tie back to general human experience.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hey!
I really loved how you were able to employ the doctor quote in your discussion post as well! I really enjoyed this analogy and thought it was pretty interesting and also liked how it put everything into perspective. The connection to Clue with the game mechanics section was also pretty impressive as it is pretty difficult to connect these points to a game like clue!

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

I think the doctor comparison is a great one, as I now look at games through a different lens. While I used to simply enjoy the pleasurable experience of my favorite games, I now also take into consideration the different elements of the game and how they all connect and work together to create this experience for me, the player.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Jaz,
Although some people might see Schell’s comparison to designing video games to being a doctor as a little extreme, it definitely makes sense in some regards. If you mess up one little component of your game, the entire thing could be ruined. Also to try and answer some of your questions, I don’t really know if there is a way to look at it from both perspectives as the game designer, because you’re always going to have bias towards something that you created. You could love the game, publish it, and everyone hates it. I think thats why they put many games through beta phases and things like that, so people can play them and give their feedback without the full game being out yet.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Something clicked for me when Schell mentioned that we’re “doctors” now. Game designers should, in theory, be held to the same standard in their field that a doctor is held to in the medical field. Before reading this, I held the illusion that “maybe it doesn’t matter if someone isn’t good at game design as long as they do it,” but now I see this from a different perspective.

I think I’m able to look objectively at both sides (the skeleton and the skin) partially because of experience. Some details that in the beginning I would have to remind myself of, such as a mental checklist of required art assets, have become ingrained in me.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Game designers rarely get their credit, they make absolute hits and get downplayed for the exploit glitch that some kid spent a week trying to find. They also receive their share of hate for bad projects, but I like the comparison to doctors. Maybe we can sue them for malpractice if they sell an inferior product .

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Chapter 5 revolves around Lens #9: The Lens of the Elemental Tetrad and Lens #10: The Lens of Holographic Design. The lens that I found more interesting and highly agreed with was Lens #9. The Lens of the Elemental Tetrad states that there are four basic, equal elements that make up every game: mechanics, story, aesthetics, and technology. I found this lens to be important because there have been many instances where a game has been noticeably worsened or outright ruined as one of these elements was neglected. For instance, games with great mechanics but a poor story bore me very easily. Games with a great story but poor mechanics are tedious and feel like reading a book. Even seemingly small changes to one of these elements may throw it out of sync with the other elements.

One example that illustrates this is the difference between the first and second games in the “Zero Escape” series. Zero Escape is a series of adventure-based visual novels in which the player must solve puzzles to escape captivity. The first game, which was very well-received, utilized 2D graphic technology. This technology then impacted the element of “aesthetics”, as the game utilized 2D character sprites and animation. This aesthetic in turn impacted the storytelling, as it allowed the player to have a certain emotional connection to the characters and story. This also impacted the game mechanics, as there is no 3D environment for the player to “walk around”. The player is shown a fixed point of view, allowing the designer to emphasize important puzzle items. The four elements — technology, mechanics, aesthetic, and story — came together to create a very good game.
The second installment in the series, however, was not well received. This is because one of the four elements was thrown out of sync. Zero Escape 2 switched to (now outdated) 3D graphic technology, thus impacting the aesthetics of the game. The sequel uses 3D character models that feel lifeless and stiff, thus impacting the player’s ability to connect to the story. The mechanics were also negatively impacted, as the 3D environments became confusing and convoluted. This shows that all four elements are truly equal and that each element must work together to create the best player experience.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

That idea is baffling to me, since I never thought that 3D could be worse than 2D in any situation. I think they could have made it work, if they hadn’t gotten rid of any functional aspect of the game that fans loved.

I’ve noticed that this happened pretty often with games switching technologies in the 90s and early 2000s. That switch from playing games on a gaming system to playing them on a PC with a joystick often created a weird environment. For example, when I was little, I had a PC game called Crazy London Bus and it was literally just you driving a super-fast bus through the streets of London. Back then this graphic technology was new, and tended to blur the city a little too much when you go really fast, which after awhile, would hurt your eyes and leave you feeling kind of sick. I’d never thought about how big a part that little detail played in UX: how the player feels when they finish playing the game for the day. Did they have fun? Will they be back tomorrow? Or was it fun in the moment, but maybe it did not feel meant to be played multiple times?

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Thanks for your comment Vallika! I agree that they could’ve made it work, as similar games have successfully incorporated the 3D element. I think it did ultimately result from budget reasons/the switch to 3D in the early 2010s. 3D is often easier/cheaper to animate because instead of hand-drawing hundreds of sprites, backgrounds, and items, the developers can just create reusable 3D models.

Some graphic technology also used to make me sick! I remember when Nintendo released the “3D vision” feature of the 3DS, it never really worked that well and always gave me a headache. It’s interesting to see how games experimented with graphic technology and the different techniques that were left behind because they did not work.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

My favorite parts about this chapter have to be the diagrams and the lenses Schell describes. Although I had experience in making video games as of a few years ago, this really put all of those little parts together and allowed me to view the big picture, which is what the Lends of Holographic Design talks about! I also personally loved the analogy of the doctor vs. everyday human where the human knows enough about the body to get by but if you suddenly become a doctor, you have to know the ins and outs of everything! The way Schell describes the different parts that make up a game is seamless and super clear! I really like this chapter and hope the rest are as entertaining as this one.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hey Jaskaran!
I totally agree; this chapter did a lot to put the intricacies of game design into perspective for me. That doctor analogy especially made me realize just how much a game designer really has to be aware of. Sure, sometimes a doctor won’t know an answer to a problem immediately, but they always have to do their best to learn more and figure out everything they’ll need to help save lives, just like how game designers have to be willing to put in the work to research any problem that arises within their game.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

I think that the doctor analogy is a good one to keep in mind for any situation. I’m not sure why, but the concept of visual effect in movies comes to mind for me. We all have seen behind the scenes videos in some capacity. We understand that all the things are made from computers by talented people, and we can visually see and appreciate the things that they create, but in our current form, we would never be able to create the same thing. We would need to truly understand the ins and outs of how things are done in order to keep up with them. Just understand the basic outside “skin” isn’t enough to truly create something. We need to have a deeper understanding.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

I like hearing about the four Basic Elements in a game. I think I personally don’t put too much emphasis on the story of a game, and I care the most about the Mechanics. The technology used in a game won’t make me want specifically play it, but the more outdated the technology is, the less likely I would be to play it. I always love looking at the aesthetics for different games. There are the games like minecraft which have very simple aesthetics that you can make it look extremely beautiful, and you also have games like pong which is essentially a black screen with two white rectangles and a circle on the screen along with games like Horizon Zero Dawn which have extremely high resolution graphics.

Lens #10 is interesting because I feel that some games purposely break elements of it like making the game unenjoyable. Like having a game be extremely frustrating be part of why it is a good game like Jump King. I think it’s something interesting to think about. Rather than making the experience enjoyable, have the main focus of the game be breaking these ideas.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Drew! Thanks for sharing your perspective. 🙂 I’m actually the opposite and enjoy games that have more of a story or allow me to create the story. I’ve talked a bit about it, but Life Is Strange is a great example of this. The mechanics would probably bore you because there isn’t much action! I don’t blame you, by the way! If there is action, the controls are simple or are played back in the form of an “episode” in which you have no control over anyway. I’d be interested to know how good you consider yourself at video games? See, I think this is my issue. I love games which have a heavier emphasis on a story because of my own limitations in dexterity when handling a control. The challenges I enjoy are in making a character decision, or in solving a puzzle.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hello! I think your opposite perspective is quite interesting. When you mentioned the challenges you enjoyed, I actually had the opposite thought. I struggle a ton with character decisions due to my want of not wanting to choose the wrong option along with how I don’t want to think too hard when playing a game I don’t consider myself the best at video games, but I do consider myself better than the average person. Personally, how I always felt with mechanics based games is that everyone can generally improve the more they play. I’m also curious about your opinion on aesthetics. Would you consider aesthetics to also be important because I feel like a good story-based game with bad art wouldn’t be fun to play.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Drew,
I’m kind of the same way when it comes to games, I don’t really care about story modes a lot and I think that’s just preference, because. I know a lot of people who play games only for their stories. I like how you said you value mechanics in video games, and I think that makes a lot of sense because nowadays, games are just made so much better and to me they’re way more enjoyable, so why wouldn’t I want to play the best verison?

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

I liked how the author gave emphasis to the fact that none of the elements that form a game are more important than the other and how they must be given equal importance for the game to become good. While I was reading, I was also thinking about UX/UI Design and how a good designer should not only be giving emphasis on the appearance and colors and not giving emphasis on just the functionality either, but both of these elements simultaneously as one cannot function successfully without the other. The same applies in game design. In order to make a good experience, equal emphasis must be given to all four elements. It was amazing how the author summed up one of the great challenges of game design, which is to simultaneously feel the experience of your game while understanding which elements and elemental interactions are causing that experience and why. After reading this chapter, I really realized how much thought a game designer has to put into creating an engaging experience.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Tehreem,

I like how you engaged with the text from a UX/UI design perspective. That’s an interest of mine too. I think the word “balance” is pretty key; balancing between clean visuals and efficient functionality is, well, the entire point of UX/UI design, whereas balancing between the player experience and mechanics is important in game design. Viewing your work from an overarching perspective is certainly important in both design fields.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Tehreem! You mentioned you were reflecting on how simple things like color could make a difference. I felt this way when Schell spoke about Sound. I was not sure, at first, where he was going with it. But little things, like the sound the game makes when you lose either reinforce if it as a negative experience or a playful one. Also, how frustrated you will be! On the opposite end, positive sounds when you collect an item or reach a checkpoint! This is interesting because, despite my initial unwillingness to see how this would be important, I reflected on how I play games. I RARELY turn off the sound effects/music in a game. Now, I can say it is because the sound undoubtedly adds to my experience. Beforehand, I probably would’ve had a random answer based on “I just like it.”

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

The four basic elements of a game were slightly eye-opening for me. I think we all subconsciously realize these four things are in every game we play, but seeing them laid out and explained was interesting. I know the actual configuration in the diagram of the elements doesn’t matter that much (and not nearly as much as putting effort into making the elements work together to create a worthwhile product), but I wanted to dissect how I would organize them. I think I would reconfigure the figure (with the different poles of most-to-least visible). I agree that aesthetics are the most visible part of the game and that technology is the least visible. However, leaving mechanics and story “somewhere in the middle” is a disservice to the two elements. Story should definitely be more visible than mechanics because story and aesthetics are what the player is staring at and dissecting the entire playthrough. Mechanics, though, after the first ten minutes of gameplay (especially if there’s a tutorial level of some sort to get the player used to the mechanics), become second nature and are no longer consciously thought about, therefore not really visible anymore. Again, I realize the actual placement of the elements in the diagram isn’t important as long as you recognize that they’re all equally important, but I still wanted to share how I’d reorganize them.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

I feel like this whole elemental tetrad thing only applies to a certain extent. Let me just explain briefly what I mean by that. I think it’s obvious that a lot of games nowadays don’t have a story, or at least that’s not what people play for. I don’t know many people who play online shooting games like call of duty or fortnite who play for the story. While I don’t think this means that story shouldn’t be cared for at all, I think that there is a time and a place. If you know your audience is looking to play endless rounds of online matches against other people, you probably won’t need to spend a large amount of time crafting a masterful story.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Anna,

I think that your dissent against Schell’s illustration of the four elements provides considerable insight into how we all as gamers might prioritize the different elements. I think Schell leaving story in the middle was a compromise between his point that, at least in the past, a story was nonvital to a successful game — however, if a story is present, it might be one of the most prevailing features of the game. Story is a very flexible thing, because even games with deep lore might choose to present them at a superficial level, such as Guilty Gear or a platformer like Megaman. Overall, as you concluded, Schell places equal importance on the interactions all of the elements share, no matter how visible they are.

• This reply was modified 3 years ago by Archive.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hello Anna,

I agree with your idea on the restructuring of the system as some elements might be of greater importance than others. As you mentioned when first playing a game there is usually a tutorial that one must complete before starting to play. Hence the importance of aesthetics as this is what will be visually appealing to the eye and to the consumer. However, you to mention how these four elements must work on tandem as they are all of great and equal importance for a game to be successful.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

I think most video game creators attempt to balance the skin to skeleton ratio, however there are many instances where one side gets too much care. Cyberpunk2077 was meant to be a revolutionary next gen game that really barely survived to rerelease properly. After showing insane trailers and advertisements, the game was simply lacking a real plot and had no mechanics. Personally after spending 200+ hours on it (I like finishing games all the way, every achievement) it lacked the story and graphics it originally aspired for. If the studio focused on creating an ai system like GTA instead of spending millions on Keanu Reeves they would not have lost 50 million in preorders (all coming from massive complaints that game was not ready for release and was forced). Learning the balance between making a game nice and comfortable to unplayable is difficult but it can be accomplished (The Witcher 3 tripled sales than Cyberpunk2077). Still who am I to say they did bad when they made 500 million on this trashy game.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Rameet,

I also spent a lot of time on Cyberpunk and I have to say, that concluding sentence definitely cracked me up because it’s somewhat true. You mentioned that Cyberpunk had no mechanics, but in my opinion, Cyberpunk had a lot of mechanics. Too many, in fact. I feel like that is why the mechanics were too shallow. With the sheer number of mechanics present in the game — dynamic weather, perks and attribute points, crafting, cyberware, vendors, items and item types, weapon types, etc. — game designers and developers bit off more than they could chew, so to speak. A lot of these mechanics felt really incomplete. From a player experience perspective (skin), you want a lot of different mechanics to play around with. But from the actual mechanical side of the game (skeleton), the massive number of mechanics, and the poor work done by CDPR, meant that the player’s interaction with certain mechanics was not much deeper than cosmetic.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

The discussion of the four basic elements in creating a video game seems very broad to me, however I do like some of the points that are made from this topic. I guess from a basic standpoint it makes sense that the four pillars of creating a game would be mechanics, story, aesthetics, and technology, but I feel like theres much more that goes into it than just four simple elements. With that being said, the following quote really spoke to me, “It is important to understand that none of the elements are more important than the others. The tetrad is arranged here in a diamond shape not to show any relative importance but only to help illustrate the “visibility gradient,” that is, the fact that technological elements tend to be the least visible to the players, aesthetics are the most visible, and mechanics and story are somewhere in the middle. It can be arranged in other ways.” This quote explains how important the elements of mechanics, story, aesthetics, and technology all are to each other, and the fact that each one heavily relies on the other. No one element in making a game is more important than the other.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Jared,

There are certainly more elements to keep track of when it comes to actually creating your own game. I think the idea of the tetrad is just to provide a framework, almost like a checklist for a game designer to make sure they are fulfilling these four keys of game design.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Jared,

It was interesting to read about that part as well because there are some careers which emphasize one aspect over the other but in game design, they must all be given priority in order for the game to be an engaging and functional masterpiece. There are so many elements to consider too.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

I love the discussion of the 4 elements. This is once again such a simple thing that I don’t really put much thought into. In order for the player to achieve the proper experience, the game needs to have the proper balance of mechanics, story, aesthetics, and technology. The game will only be as successful as its weakest link. A bad story will never be saved by a beautiful aesthetic. Proper attention and unity must be applied. These are the important elements underneath everything else. All of these elements are important tools that will influence the final result.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hey Christopher!
I love that point about the game only being as successful as its weakest link. I think a lot of people overemphasize certain elements when they’re talking about a game, thinking that the plot or design of a game is all you need to make it successful. However, if you ignore the fundamentals of mechanics and technology, the game will be basically unplayable. No element is more important than another, and no game can be successful without dedication to all four.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Christopher!!
I’ve said it several times, but I’ll say it again – Schell is great at making things that seem simple into complex and thorough ideologies! As you said, the balance of Schell’s four elements is so important, but as someone who is relatively new to this, you would never think of dividing game design into categories the way Schell does. However, by doing so, Schell makes it so much easier to understand the elements and how to properly accomplish them, in my opinion. Great analysis!!

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hello Christopher,
I also agree that Schell is quite wonderful with how he is able to put into words what everyone intuitively thinks about when they think of a video game. For certain games, it is kind of obvious what basic element they focused the most on like with how beautiful a game is like Breath of the Wild. I actually think there might be some exceptions to how a game will only be successful as its weakest link. I personally feel like a game like Fortnite doesn’t even need a story in its game. Most people would probably not be able to tell you what the storyline is for a game like Fortnite, but everyone knows that the game is extremely popular and fun to play.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hello Chris,

I agree with your idea on the importance of solid basics to make a successful game as mechanics, story, aesthetics, and technology must be impeccable for a game to succeed. Having limited basics whether it is in mechanics or in a story, the success of the game is then limited and may lead to failure.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

I really love the skin and skeleton analogy that Schell uses. The skin is what we see and feel on the surface, while the skeleton provides the structure that holds our body together. In a game, the skin is the player’s experience; how we see, feel, and interact with the game world. The skeleton consists of the game elements that hold the game together, and ultimately create that player experience. In particular, I think it’s interesting that Schell says that we can shift from skin to skeleton and back again when judging the effectiveness of our game, but it’s better to try and view them all at once so we don’t forget either part. At first, I was a bit surprised when I read this. I just didn’t understand how a game designer could be forgetful of the player experience because the core goal of a game is to be enjoyable for its intended audience. And obviously, a game designer should be focused on the mechanics that make up the game.

I kind of related this to a music genre I’ve been getting into recently, progressive metal, which is a weird subgenre of rock and metal characterized by long runtimes, experimental songwriting, and very technical instrumentation. My favorite songs have a balance between weird, experimental songwriting that musically just don’t sound quite right, and beatiful melodies and catchy guitar solos. With that genre in particular, I think it’s very easy for artists to get carried away, writing a 15-20 minute song full of crazy, odd songwriting elements, but they just are not enjoyable to listen to. Game designers are artists too. I would guess that some get carried away, adding too many mechanics and intricacies to their game, without realizing they are sacrificing the player experience.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Evan! Your relation of this chapter to progressive metal and songwriting was really interesting. I always liked experimental music as well, but I agree that it is easy for songwriters to get lost and create something that is certainly new but not very good. I related this to Schell’s holographic design, meaning that the designer has to take into account both all the elements and the player’s experience. A songwriter can understand all the elements of their experimental piece but must be able to step back and see if the listener will enjoy it. In this way, songwriting is very similar to game design.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

What stood out to me about Chapter 5 was Schell’s explanation of the Elemental Tetrad, specifically his opinion on the “story” portion of the relationship. Schell describes the Tetrad as a symbiotic type relationship in which the balance of each element serves to mutually benefit the others, saying “Are the four elements […] reinforcing each other and working together toward a common theme?”

What’s interesting about this is that Schell goes on to imply that story is not necessary for a successful video game, noting the near absence of story in early games such as Space Invaders. I think that this is significant because Schell’s definition of “story” is closer to what I would consider a “premise.” Schell’s description of the threat in Space Invaders being believable enough to strike fear in the player is hardly a story, as he implies. I think this ambiguity is intentional, as it might serve to motivate newer game designers who are in the prototypical phase & have not developed a story yet — does anyone else have any thoughts on this?

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

I like the idea of calling it a premise. I think another good word for it might be a concept. While there isn’t necessarily a laid out story, you have different things within the game that make you understand what’s going on. We know that in the game space invaders, aliens are coming. The very obvious title helps out with that. While there isn’t a long narrative written, I still think that some form of story was put into the game, and there is even an argument that every details serves the theme.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Chris,

I would agree, “concept” might be an even stronger term than “premise” due to the more obvious connotations of development and infancy. And in a game as simplistic as Space Invaders, as you said, every detail that contributes to the concept, down to individual lines of code or sentences in an instructions manual, is going to contribute to the game’s fun factor and replayability. I recall saying in one of my Chapter 4 forum posts that the simpler tenets of game design seem to serve as larger building building blocks, that get increasingly smaller as games become more complex.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

I used to make and play a couple of visual novels. They sometimes also had mechanics like point-and-click and point counters. But they usually focused on story and aesthetics and used various game engines, like Ren’py. “The important thing to understand about the four elements is that they are all essential” (p.53). I agree that all are essential, though I also think that some developers tend to weigh different elements differently, depending on the game they are working on.

Holographic design sounds like quite a challenge; taking into account all elements as well as player experience… it kind of reminds me of a musical conductor. I guess this is necessary to perform well in the role of game designer.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hey Bunbun1k!
I think you’re right that designers will weigh the elements differently depending on the kind of game they’re going for. What comes to mind for me is Animal Crossing; it has a really simple plot that is easily consumed. The game developers didn’t have to spend much time coming up with the plot, so they were able to spend more energy on the aesthetics and mechanics of the game. However, just because they weighed the plot differently does not mean it wasn’t an important part of the game; without plot, do you even have a game worth playing? I think weighing the elements is definitely possible, but I think it’s still necessary to create a basic foundation for all four to have a successful game.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Bunbun1k,

I agree with the last point you made in your first paragraph: to expand on it, the weight of the elements Schell described likely depends on not only the designer’s vision, but also the constraints imposed by the current paradigm of the genre. Of course, a sidescrolling platformer will have more immediately obvious mechanics than storytelling, and vice-versa for a game made in Ren’py or RPGmaker. However, as you said & as Schell stressed in his first chapter, a prerequisite for falling into a game design role is being an eclectic in order to take on these constraints with critical thinking skills.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

This was actually my favorite chapter so far! His analogy for game elements and experience to “skin and skeleton” is awesome. Not only does it frame The Lens of Elemental Tetrad in a way that can be studied and broken down and switched around, it portrays the significance of doing so. As doctors of game design it is our responsibility to dissect a game by its elements and see which elements need attention. Going further, like organs in our bodies, all elements of a game must work together as one to be successful.
In addition, the reason I loved this chapter so much is because of how it came together in the end. Without knowing it, I have started to understand how each element adds, or takes away, from an experience. For example, prior to this chapter, I would have told you Run had no story. How could this be true? I would have argued it was! Alas, Schell’s analysis of Space Invader’s Story element goes far past my skills of game interpretation and I am so thankful for having learned from his perspective. In Space Invaders, they could have chosen another war-time game where soldiers were defending their base. BUT, viewing it through the The Lens of Holographic Design, this would have taken away from the player’s experience and potentially, even narrowed the audience. Not everyone feels comfortable shooting another human. The story as an alien protecting his planet is a lot more playful, which we learned in the last chapter is critical. In Run, the same could be said. As a tiny alien character, you feel more playful. With the setting being placed in a “portal” of some sort, you able to imagine whatever feels comfortable to you when he falls through the gaps. Lastly, the aesthetics don’t reinforce through sound of graphics that your tiny alien character is being harmed. He simply restarts at the beginning of each level 🙂

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Kattie! This chapter was also my favorite, as I loved thinking about the four main elements of games.
Your analysis of “Run” is really interesting! I’ve never thought of “Run” as having a story, but the way you explained the story using Schell’s lenses makes a lot of sense! There could have been many different potential aesthetics for a “running” based game. For instance, it could have starred a human in a regular track-and-field type race. But, this would have been a completely different feel from the alien and space-themed Run we know and love. This space theme allows for two things: 1. an anti-gravity mechanic, allowing the alien character to run upside-down and jump large distances. 2. a fun “solo” race. Had it been a regular “running race” game, the player would wonder where the competitors are. Further, human being running by themselves often suggests a “horror” theme — i.e. that the character is running away from something. An alien running and jumping around in space makes more sense and is seen as fun and whimsical.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Good morning Julia! YES, I am with you!! You are so right, I didn’t even consider the possibility of it being a human (need to think like more of a creative game designer). It’s so cool to think all the different avenues the creators could have gone down to tell their “story.”

The “horror” theme is a great callout as well! By breaking down the elements of Run, you basically were able to come up with a whole new game. There is surely a whole market out there for “horror” games which goes to show what Schell has been saying from the start: create a game that goes beyond game design and speaks to what you love. This way, you (as a game designer) will be happy with the outcome and there will a player will likewise enjoy the output because you have been able to articulate what the player needs/wants.
I guess what I’m trying to say is the possibilities are endless!

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

When describing the 4 main elements of a game, Schell notes that no element is more important than another. This suggests that they are all equally crucial elements of a game, but what about a game such as poker, where there is no story needed to play? Do all games necessarily need all four types?

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hello!
This is something I mentioned in a reply to Christopher as well. This tetrad is important for the majority of games, but I feel like there are exceptions in which it is okay to focus less on a specific element. Like, for example, I feel like pong doesn’t fit the basic elements. The game itself looks admittedly, pretty tame. There are two white rectangles, a white circle, some numbers, and a black background. I think it’s okay to break the basic elements of a game as long as you’re focusing much more on the other aspects of the game.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

In chapter 5, the author introduces four of the basic elements of gaming. The one that catches my attention the most is the story element and its importance in a game. Having a great story is of significant importance as this defines the success of a game. For example, the author introduces Space Invaders by Taito as a game whose story change meant success. The success that derived from this story change is the fact that Taito made a unique game whose story was different from others in the market. Also aware of the social impact, “It is said that Taito decided this sent a bad message, so the story was changed” (54). Hence, the importance of the story in the game as it can lead to failure or success.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi,

I agree that the story has a lot of importance in the game and can either make or break it. There are a lot of people who enjoy a game because of the emotional connection that they have with it, and some stories can make you go back to your childhood because of the spontaneous elements.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

.

• This reply was modified 3 years ago by Archive.

[Author]

Posts