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

This week, you were asked to jump into Chapter 12 (“Some Elements Are Game Mechanics”) of Schell’s The Art of Game Design.

Use this forum to discuss your reading.

As in the past, you must post at least once by 11:59 pm on Friday… and you must respond to at least two of your classmates’ posts by 11:59 pm on Monday, September 26th.

Remember that the point is to have a conversation and to learn more about game design together. 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 (either the game you’re analyzing for our course, or any other game that comes to mind).
– 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!

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Once again, Schell has blown my mind! When playing a game, I never once stopped to think about where I was playing it or the space in which the game itself takes place and how that affects the playing experience. However, after reading Schell’s thoughts on space and the magic circle, It is very interesting how much it really does affect your gameplay. When you think about playing a game of poker, your space really does make a difference. For example, playing at your kitchen table versus playing in a casino are two totally different experiences, despite it being the same game with the same stakes. This also made me think of escape rooms and how the confined space of an escape room may be what makes them more enticing for older audiences as well as younger audiences. Rather than being in a digital world or at a table, an escape room fully surrounds you with real, tangible game scenery, which to me personally, is much more exciting than a standard game.
Secrets are another really good mechanism that I never put together with gaming. However, in the game of Clue, secrets are probably the most reliable tool of the game. Only you know what cards you have, but you have to trick other players into thinking you don’t have them so they can say the wrong answer. This concept can also be seen in games like Rummy, where you keep your cards a secret in order to make the best sets of three or more.
Another interesting thing I found in these readings was the Lens of Chance. This lens is my randomly assigned lens for the Analytical Analysis Essay, but beyond the game I am analyzing, chance is everywhere in gaming. Whether it is getting random cards in a card game, getting good weapons in a video game, or your opponent picking a bad spot in tic-tac-toe, these are all examples of how chance ties into gaming. Even when you think you are in total control of your gameplay, chance is always there.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hey Gabby!

I really like how you explained the concept of space through the game of poker. It’s crazy to see the immense difference space makes when you’re playing at home versus in a large casino. You get a totally different feeling when you’re in a casino because it’s more intense, and the same applies to the escape room example you gave. I agree that the confined space is one of the attractions of the game. A digitized version of the escape room would just not be the same as actually being in one.

To add to your explanation of chance, it’s seen in all games and one of the most famous games involving chance is Roulette. The game may not require players to be mathematical geniuses, yet it would be impossible for them to emerge winners in the long run without gaining a proper understanding of concepts like odds and probabilities. While there is no sure-proof way for a roulette player to make a correct prediction as to which number would hit on the next spin, having at least a basic understanding of odds and probability may help players make better-informed decisions as to which types of bets to place.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Gabby!
I really liked your point about escape rooms and space. Another interesting point I’ll add is that escape rooms also use 3d space; that is, they are tactile and aren’t constrained to the limits of a board or cards. I think this adds an element of realism and in turn makes the game more exciting. There is also a timed element which brings in Schell’s component of time and how the pressure of time makes a game more invigorating too. I also found it really interesting that you were able to pick up how chance plays a role in games everywhere around us. Your point about tic-tac-toe shows how chance is intertwined with perceived probability, another component of probability that Schell brings up. In tic tac toe, the chance of you winning is almost entirely reliant on your opponents perceived probability of you making a certain move (which is almost impossible to predict mathematically), which makes the calculation of probability so much more complex.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

I really liked what you said about Escape Rooms and Poker. With Escape Rooms, it is especially helpful to play in a tangible, 3D space because it helps with the feeling of claustrophobia that the game is meant to induce. There is more of an incentive to succeed when you are physically in a space rather than virtually. It is just like doing high school online versus in person. I feel like when I did high school online, if I forgot an assignment, it was less embarrassing because your camera is off when the teacher called you out on it. But just like when they made you turn on your camera in class, escape rooms in person have people watching on the outside as well as the friends/family that you’re playing with, so there is much more of an incentive to win and not give up. With Poker, I agree, it is crazy how much of a difference it makes when you play the same game in different places. I think part of that has to do with incentives and sacrifices though. For example, just like you have more of an incentive to do well when you do an in-person escape room with people you know, you have the same type of obligation with poker. The stakes are generally higher when you play in a casino. You play with real money, with the odds against you, and you can’t count cards (if you do that at home) because they will catch you. At home, you may play with cookies, candy, or coins, with no real consequences if you lose, and cheating is discouraged but probably won’t be caught. I think the space you play in comes with some inherent rule and incentive changes, and that is why it makes such a difference.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Gabby!

I also thought it was so fascinating the way that Schell made us realize the importance of space and the role that it plays in game design. I can definitely say that I never even thought about the relevance of the space of a game to its function before, so it was really interesting to read about it in Schell’s book. You are completely correct with the concept of space in both poker and escape rooms. Playing poker in your house with your friends is COMPLETElY different than playing in the casino, the atmosphere changes entirely. I never really thought about how much the space affects my experience in escape rooms, but now thinking about it, I realize that the space of the escape room is one of the biggest reasons why I enjoy it so much. I love being able to be physically in the game and being able to control my space and explore my space.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Gabrielle! Discrete space was also something I hadn’t considered before this class. I was vaguely aware of it as a mechanic, but I was so used to it being integrated into games that I hadn’t thought of it as a separate element. The lens of Secrets is something I’d been fascinated by for a while, but I couldn’t put a name to it until now. It reminds me of playing Go Fish and other card games, as well as team-vs-team tactics.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Gabrielle!

This week’s chapter was amazing to read, I love the thought about space that designers put in because it really does make a huge difference for the gameplayer, it defines the whole experience. I can agree that an escape room that surrounds you with game scenery is more exciting than a standard game. You also explained the lens of chance really well!

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Gabrielle, I too was really amazed by Schell’s discussion on spaces. It is something so integral to a game and its atmosphere yet often we do not think of it. Schell also adds that spaces can be of various types, such as nested space- where there’s a space within a space-, to have a different impact on the game, which I found very interesting.

Chance, as you mentioned, is all over gaming in very subtle and obvious ways. One example I can think of is the loot boxes that are all over many online games today, in which a player gets randomized items to help them in the game after opening the box. A more subtle example may be the team one may join in a match, if randomized.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

I really enjoyed Schell’s analysis of space in game mechanics. In my mind, I would have never thought to differentiate between pool an tic-tac-toe by the number of dimensions of the physical game space, however it was interesting to see how the boundaries of the game define the game play (i.e. although the pool table is technically 2D, there is no reinforced boundary that forces players to confine to these two dimensions). Another interesting lens that Schell mentions is that of time. I like his point that the pressure of time is often subtle, such as that in Space Invaders, since I never though of Space Invaders as a ‘timed’ game. I wonder what kind of psychological pressure is induced by games that are the opposite of timed games, like chess, where games often go for hours and hours but players never seem to get bored.

One point that piqued my interest was the following quote: “But cheating has a more insidious effect than that—if players start believing your game is cheatable, even if it isn’t, all the precious endogenous value you have worked to develop just slips away”. I thought this was interesting, as there are entire forums, YouTube channels, and groups online dedicated to ‘cheat codes’ for online games. I think this is part of the appeal of the game; the attempt to try and find a way around it. I think the slim chance of success shown by others is what leads other people to try and cheat, thus making the game more marketable.

I also found Schell’s discussion of probability to be very analytical, and it really showed me how much of game design is mathematical and logical. In last week’s reading, I felt like game design was portrayed as a fluid and more creative medium. However, when discussing probability and the science behind outcomes to game, it feels like game design is very formulaic in nature. I especially liked Schell’s last point about human error, particularly the element of regret. It is probably super difficult to quantify game outcomes based on the rapid decisions made by the human brain, and I wonder how the ‘estimated chance’ vs ‘actual chance’ graph on page 197 was calculated. I wish Schell would have dived more into the concept of ‘perceived probabilities’ and how certain factors can either increase or decreased a player’s perception of their chance of winning. For example, do game aesthetics or environment play a role in this psychological phenomenon?

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Maria!!
I also thought Schell’s ideas on space were really interesting. In my response, I mentioned an escape room, which is a closed space that quite literally surrounds you in the game. Though I didn’t write about it in my response, time was also an interesting factor. I wonder what it would be like for a game as simple as checkers to have a time limit, say 10 seconds per move? Might make for some questionable but funny moves.
I agree with your statements about cheating!! Outside of cheating being lame to begin with, I think cheating takes away the whole idea of the game. What fun is playing a game when your no playing it the way it was intended?
Being that I am a math person, I really enjoyed the probability portion of Schell’s reading. To answer your question, I think aesthetics and environment definitely do affect a player’s perception of their chance of winning. For example, someone who is used to games like Call of Duty and Fortnite would probably feel confident in similar games. -aesthetic wise- as opposed to someone who plays Temple Run or Fall Guys.

• This reply was modified 3 years ago by Archive.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hey Maria!

I also talked about the concept of cheating in games. I can see where you’re coming from when you say that the difficulty of some games and being able to cheat through that difficulty is what makes the game tempting. There are many games that are just too difficult and players often get stuck repeating the same thing for hours and in that case, I can see how cheating can be enticing. However, the purpose of many games is to challenge the players, and that purpose is defeated if people cheat. I think if games had no challenge, your interaction with the game becomes meaningless. For example, if you’re trying to solve a difficult puzzle and find the end result of the puzzle online then what is the purpose of trying to solve the puzzle then? Overall, I think the idea of cheating is subjective to the kind of game it is.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

The probability section was really long, but it did make me think in the context of games, it does make gameplay more versatile, but I only worry that if it isn’t balanced, it will end up harming skill. What I mean by that is, if a player highly prides their skill, then they will end up becoming incredibly frustrated if the end up losing to someone who doesn’t meet their skill level whatsoever. I’m not saying to completely get rid of this idea of probability and chance, but it must be balanced, or it will also end up deterring other players.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

The player’s perceived chance of winning definitely would affect whether they still wanted to play. For example, although the jackpot for lotteries is usually pretty big, the chance of winning it are so slim that a lot of people prefer not to take the gamble.

The concept of players just *thinking* that there are ways to cheat reducing the endogenous value reminds me of some social manipulation tactics. One of those tactics is to make the opponent think you can beat them, even if you really can’t, like in poker. I just remembered — it’s called bluffing.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Schell returns to games themselves in this chapter, breaking them down into the game mechanics at their core. According to Schell, there are six categories of game mechanics: space, objects, actions, rules, skill, and chance. This leads to a brief discussion of emergence – how simple actions can combine to make complex phenomena – and how to foster emergence in a given game. Included within this section is a list of tips for understanding mathematical probability, a useful reference for game designers. What really stood out to me was the way he took a game as simple as tic-tac-toe or “Twenty Questions” and explained it in terms of Mechanic 1, which is space. He presented a new way to look at the game, in terms of space. That’s something that wouldn’t even cross your mind while you’re playing but Schell brings that concept to light in the most fascinating way possible.

A quote that I found very interesting was when Schell says “That is the danger of cheatability—if players feel like your game can be cheated, some will try to cheat, but most will just no longer want to play.” I didn’t realize the truth that this statement holds before, but after thinking about how many games I’ve played that can be cheated through, it truly does defeat the purpose of the game if it can be cheated. The effort vs. reward aspect of our brains is essentially removed from the game when we cheat, because we have nothing to strive for. For example, if Lebron James played against a group of nine year olds, it wouldn’t be fun for him because he’s not being challenged. As human beings, we only really appreciate the things we have to work for.

• This reply was modified 3 years ago by Archive.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hey Meeteeka!
I also never really thought about the space of games before reading this chapter. It’s pretty interesting how many different gaming spaces there are, from paper to a kitchen table to whole rooms (escape rooms).
I also thought Schell’s ideas of cheating were very enlightening. For me, cheating ruins the whole fun of the game. The whole idea is to attain the main goal by completing the challenges, overcoming obstacles, and cheating essentially deletes the entire “challenge” of the game. I like your analogy of Lebron James and nine-year-olds, and I agree; I feel like humans gain more satisfaction from things that are difficult to overcome rather than cheating their way through them.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Meeteeka!
I totally agree with your point that Schell brings up a lot of game design components that we wouldn’t think of naturally. To be honest, this week’s reading really had me seeing game design in places all around me. My younger brother was telling me how he was playing Kahoot in one of his classes, and I instantly started thinking of ways that Kahoot has gamified learning (using a timed approach, showing a leaderboard to enhance competition, utilizing aesthetics like bright colors and the infamous Kahoot music, etc). This is really fascinating to me, especially the fact that we’ve now dived into more complex ideas like ‘discrete’ and ‘continuous’ space. I wonder what kinds of abstract game design ideas will come up next week.

As for your point on cheatability, I mentioned this in my original discussion post, but I think I disagree on this one. Of course, no game should be entirely cheatable. However, I find it hard to believe that modern game designers don’t make games somewhat cheatable with ‘add ons’ or extra features you can purchase. Isn’t this cheating in a sense? If games aren’t cheatable like this, then there will be no incentive for players to spend money on power ups or whatever fancy gadgets are in the game’s item shop. This is ultimately how game designers make money.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

I didn’t give it much thought before because I didn’t see myself a cheater, but after reading your comment, I suddenly remember when I found a hack for a mobile game back in the day. This game specifically, was Infinity Blade 2. I found a way to essentially get an infinite amount of money, and this allowed me to get the absolute greatest weapon in the game. I was able to defeat all the secret bosses without breaking a sweat. It made the game significantly less fun and rewarding, and it also helped me complete the game incredibly fast. I felt really cool for a little bit, but I ended up becoming virtually strong so fast that I lost interest almost immediately.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Meeteeka!
I think I honestly lean towards agreeing with Maria more than you on the cheatability aspect. Yes, if one or two players cheat in a game, it can lessen the experience for all present. It sucks the fun and intrigue from the gaming experience. However, I think having cheating as one of the rules makes the game so much more interesting, as long as everyone present is comfortable with the game’s original rules. I said it in a different response, but I think the players’ ability to change the rules of a game to keep it interesting and more in line with the players’ needs is an important aspect of a game’s rules. I think about my family’s games of Clue. We love Clue, but unfortunately, if we play the game more than twice in a short time period, it gets a little boring. So, since we caught one of my brothers cheating, we just decided to add it in as one of the approved rules. It made things way more fun; we hid our cards more discreetly, changed how we wrote our notes, and even started trying to figure out ways to send coded messages. The game feels completely reinvigorated now that we’ve added cheating; it made the game something new and exciting for us to play, and I think the same can be said for many games as long as everyone is okay with it cheating being one of the rules.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Meeteeka!

I totally agree that cheating can ruin the entire atmosphere of the game. With Anna and Maria providing counterarguments to your discussion post, I would like to point out that the new editions that you add or the fun little quirks included wouldn’t necessarily be “cheating” if all the players agree on it, it would be adjusting the rules. So, Meeteeka, I would have to agree with you more than them. Also, with the LeBron James point that you made, it goes along with the problem-solving concept that Schell introduced last discussion, because as humans, we want to be challenged, it brings us pleasure.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hey Jaz!
You’re right; I wasn’t talking about cheating as much as I was adjusting the rules, but I think you overestimate how much everyone agrees to things like buyable add-ons in online games. Games where you can get more favorable outcomes because you have money to spend on it (and not in-game money; I’m talking real-life dollars) isn’t technically cheating, but it sure feels like it when you don’t have the opportunity to partake. My version of cheating (and yes, I still view it as cheating since it’s going against the original nature of the rules) is okay in my eyes because everyone is okay with it and has an equal opportunity to cheat. You might get some imagined penalty for getting caught, but your gain through cheating doesn’t necessarily translate to someone else’s loss.
In the buyable add-ons example Maria was talking about, though, people with more money blatantly skew the game in their favor because of their real-life luck that no one in-game can access. There is no equal opportunity to cheat, and therefore it isn’t a fun-loving “agreed change to the rules” as much as it is some richer/luckier people getting access to different facets of the game everyone else isn’t privy to. Maria makes the point that this is cheating and the way game makers make money, and I agree, but I have a problem with the idea that a game isn’t fair because some players have more money than others.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Meeteeka, great analysis of Chapter 12. I too was amazed how Schell was able to take very simple games and deconstruct it into its building blocks. This is something I really appreciated as it shows the skeleton of the game, the base on which the rest of the game relies on.

With regards to cheating, I noticed something similar but also surprisingly noticed the opposite as well. For instance, though cheating may ruin the fun in an online game and cause less people to play it, I have not noticed the same with regards to single-player story games in which a player simply goes through a storyline. Actually, some people may be pushed farther away from extremely hard story games in which it is harder to cheat or search up walk-throughs, as the casual gamer would have far too much difficulty in trying to play the game.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

My favorite section in this chapter was the one about rules. I found it connecting in an interesting way to my game essay of choice, Smash Bros. I just think it’s really cool that the players are given the opportunity to set their own rules within casual play, but there is a strict defined set of rules when it comes to competitive play. Smash in really unique in the sense that there are so many different variations of rules that a player can implement. In the context of Smash Bros. training mode, a player can change the rules mid game. It can make it so their practice is more efficient or more difficult. Either way, the player is given a large amount of freedom within this game.
My random lens is also lens 32, which talks about goals, so I would like to also say some initial thoughts about that. I also think that Smash has a very clear goal. While the technical definition of the goal is to knock your opponent offstage the specified amount of times, the basic definition is to win. In the context of a fighting game or competitive games in general, the end goals is to be the winner, and in the context of this game, the desire to win is the primary motivation for playing.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Chris Kim!
My random lens is actually 33, so it’s all about rules! Before reading, I was honestly pretty stuck on how I was going to apply it to my game (Minesweeper, which I swear doesn’t include written directions before you start playing), but this section was really interesting! It also made me think really hard about card games since most don’t have written directions that are easily accessible; almost all instructions are spread by word of mouth. This can lead to a lot of discrepancies in play, like with Uno. Have you ever actually met more than five people who can agree on all the rules of Uno? And those even have written rules! But since everyone has their own ideas on how to play, no one bothers with the directions, and I think games are more fun when you can change the rules to fit your needs. Like your example with Smash’s training mode, the player’s experience with the rules should always be designed for the player to get the most out of the game possible.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

I really agree with what you said about being able to change the rules. Especially in games like Smash, which before playing I always thought was super repetitive, changing the rules can help make it more fun, or more difficult. And what Anna said really makes games more fun. Games like Monopoly and Life are fun to play a couple times, but feel repetitive after a few rounds. My friends and I changed the rules to include a loan; we could get a high-interest loan in Monopoly and at the end of the game, they would have to pay back the loan with interest. It changed the game a little because people were no longer forced to sell/mortgage properties when they ran out of cash. They could keep borrowing, and at the end of the game they would have to pay double, and THEN sell off DOUBLE the properties!

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Chris,

A term that you used that really caught my attention is “freedom” and how it is developed through rule changes within the game for efficiency purposes. When one thinks of games, you think of a certain process that you gotta follow to accomplish the goal. However, when a “certain process” is not set in stone, then you are able to do and change as you please. Hence, freedom becomes a very important theme factored into the game as this can be appealing to certain users.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Chris!

I definitely agree with your analysis of the Smash Bros rules. While the goal is to push other people off the platform (3 times to be exact), the main goal is to win. People win the game by pushing people off, it’s a way to adhere to the rules of winning. When my friends and I play Smash Bros, we always set our own special rules, to me it is part of the magic of the game. While we have to follow rules in the game, which is enforced by the game, my friends and I get to collectively decide what exactly those rules are, which makes the goal of winning that much more fun.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

The most interesting part of this chapter for me was the section about time mechanics. There is so much I’ve never considered when it comes to time. I never even really thought about how all games use time in some capacity, even when there is no time crunch to pressure players; for me, there was always a timer, or there wasn’t one, and if there wasn’t a timer present, it meant time wasn’t important! I now see differently; there are so many different ways to view time in games and how it affects players and (in the case of spectator games) the audience. There are turns for players to take, and you can add a time crunch to those turns, but even without it, those turns take up time and measure how long the game is going on. Time outs, too, feel like a completely new concept to me now that I think about how their purpose is to pause the time of the game for both the players and spectators. Obviously, I realized this but having it legitimately spelled out for me felt eye-opening.
I think the thing that messed with me the most, though, was the idea that you can have multiple times of time going on at once in one game. Schell says that “even the duration of Mario’s jump in Donkey Kong are different kinds of “clock” mechanism, designed to limit gameplay through absolute measure of time” (Schell 164). I mean, whattttt??? That’s such an interesting way to look at it! I always thought of Mario games as a race against the timer in the corner, but to think about how a character’s actions also have to take place within time and are therefore limited by this mechanic is so interesting to me!

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Anna,

Similar to you, I found the concept of time mechanics very interesting. In most games where time is present, is serves as a restriction to the player in the way. Meaning, if you run out of time then it is game over. A good example of this is arcade games where most games run on a very similar time mechanism.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

I found the “Time” mechanic to be one of the most interesting that Schell mentions in this chapter. He reiterates the point that the job of a game designer is to create a good experience for the player, and “experiences are easily spoiled when they are too short or too long, too fast or too slow” (Schell 165). Whenever I play a really good game, I always wish it never ends, but now I can’t help but think, would I enjoy this game as much as I do if the story is stretched out? I understand that part of the beauty of a good storyline is that it ends when it needs to.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Altay!

I also found the “time” concept of this chapter to be extremely intriguing. I used to view every time that I went as my “turn” whether it was playing a game Monopoly or playing chess. But, now after reading Schell, I can’t believe I never realized how different those “time” sequences are. As for the story being stretched out, I think you can enjoy it depending on the game. For instance, some games like Monopoly is better when it is stretched out, in my opinion, and others if the story is too stretched out I get bored, like Clue.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

The way in which the concept of in-game time is used in different games is very interesting as they all serve different purposes. In regards to sports games, time is essential as it sets a limit for gameplay. As compared to an “open world” game where time restrictions are not as strict as those in sports. For instance, in sports, as time goes by the player tends to exhaust their stamina, while in an “open world” game, this is not the case as time is used differently but in other cases similarly, to a smaller scale. For example, in the GTA games, when running with one’s character, after some time of sprinting, the character slows down showing the lack of stamina left. However, this stamina can be built up as the player levels up in XP to the point where maximum stamina as achieved. Therefore, allowing the character to continuously run non-stop at the same rate for a long period of time.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hey Jose, when you think about it, sports games like FIFA also give players stamina stats that can be increased, and GTA has missions that must be done within a time limit! While used in different ways, it seems time in games will always serve a similar purpose: to put limitations and pressure on the player. In a game like FIFA, you must be aggressive enough to score points within the time limit, but conservative enough where your players are not exhausted quickly. There is a balance that skilled players can find, and it is different based on players and play styles.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

This chapter was particularly interesting to me, because of the layout and all of the subcategories within mechanics. There are tons of quotes that I could point out in this chapter, but I wanted to talk about when Schell states, “That is the danger of credibility–if players feel like your game can be cheated, some will try to cheat, but most will no longer want to play” (pg. 178). While I think this is true in many games, what about Monopoly:Cheaters Edition? Isn’t it true that cheating many actually promote the profitability of games? Personally, I’ve never been the biggest fan of cheating, it takes away from the game to me, but there are games that come with the exhilaration of cheating, which attracts people to cheat instead of making them lose interest in the game. Thoughts?
When I thought about the concept of space relating to games before, I always thought about the boardgame or the physical space that the game covers. I didn’t really think about discrete vs. continuous space or even 2D vs. 3D space, because I honestly didn’t think about the relevancy of the space to the game design, it’s really simple but it’s kind of a mini “AHA” moment. However, now becoming aware of this concept, I realized that even playing the verbal game “Telephone” consumes space, even though it is just talking, which I found really interesting and wanted to point out. Schell emphasized the difference between traditional games and video games, when it comes to the rules and enforcing them, it got me thinking, do you guys prefer traditional games or video games? In the sense of being able to enforce rules with other people yourself (and even adding special rules or things like that) or using software that memorizes the rules for you and strictly enforces them?

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

You know, that is the first counter example I have ever heard to his lenses. But I suppose you are right, in this case only. I have never played a game of monopoly where everyone played fair; people always had side deals going on or were stealing monopoly money. However, is that not what the point (the theme) of the game is? It teaches business and in business, there are always side deals going on to screw over the other party involved. So I think Schell’s idea still stands as cheating is sort of a big part of monopoly.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

This Chapter was more technical than the rest of the chapters we have read so far, and one thing that surprised me was Nested Spaces. As a CS major, the idea of nesting is pretty common, but this is something I had never thought of before. All of my favorite video games have spaces inside spaces. Whether that be being able to walk into a house or having a level open into another level, the idea of spaces inside spaces is incredibly interesting.

I never thought about the fact that creating a game is like creating a whole world, the way that space and time intermingle to change perceptions and experiences. The ideas about Cheatability made me laugh because the integrity of the game isn’t based on whether you can actually cheat or not. it is based on whether the players THINK you can cheat or not. Some people will try to cheat and some won’t, but it makes the game no longer fun to play, and will probably end in a fight between players.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Vallika! It’s interesting that you bring up the computer science aspect of nesting. Since I am not a computer science major, I had never thought of nesting before at all. But, it’s interesting that in video games, nesting occurs in both the game and in the code itself. The spaces, and spaces within the spaces, are extremely important to the game’s experience.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

I found the topic of game mechanics to be very interesting, and I really liked how Schell splits it up into seven main rules of mechanics. The first rule that was mentioned is space, and I found this one to be a very basic yet necessary part of the game mechanics, as it depicts what type of game it will be, in regards to a two or three dimensional game. Another mechanic that caught my interest was the fourth mechanic which relates to the actions in a game. “Goals that can be achieved more than one way: It’s great to let players do all kinds of different things in your game, giving them lots of verbs, and verbs with lots of objects. But if the goals can only be achieved one way, players have no reason to look for unusual interactions and interesting strategies.” (Schell, pg.172). This quote is talking about action mechanics in a game, and how leaving the players open to a variety of different approaches can make a game much more entertaining because the player won’t have the option to discover new things within the game. The mechanic I found the most interesting was the last one, which was the mechanic of chance. “We deal with it last because it concerns interactions between all of the other six mechanics: space, time, objects, actions, rules, and skills.” (Schell, pg.184). I found this mechanic the most interesting because of the fact that includes all of the other game mechanics and uses them in such a way where the player is constantly on their toes about what’s going to happen next.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Jared,

It’s so true that if the goals in the game can only be achieved through one specific way, then that game cannot be as interesting as one that allows the players to choose unusual interactions and interesting strategies. The mechanic of chance is cool because the anticipation is one of the best parts of playing a game.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

This chapter once again brought to my attention how much I don’t pay any attention (ironic) to the space in the games I play. I really enjoy talking and learning about mechanics as they are my favorite part of any game I play as that is how I decide what to buy. The way Schell talks about the seven rules of mechanics makes it super easy to comprehend (along with the various models he explains) and actually see when I am playing various games. One of the lenses I want to put my focus on is the Lens of Emergence. I like this particular lens as it shows how the best way to keep players interested is as much action as possible. The more “verbs” your player can do, the more action there can be. This lens leads right into the Lens of Action, which simply states that a game with no action is pretty much like “a sentence without verbs—nothing happens.” This line means a lot in the world of games as stated above because the overall goal for any game designer is simple: Do not let the player lose interest. We need the player to keep coming back, so the more action you add, the more players you retain.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Jaskaran! I feel the same way, I never knew how much I didn’t know when reading Schell’s pieces!! lol.

The part about “verbs” was also interesting to me because he also touched on the ability to be creative with this. In other words, how can your stick be used for non-stick like things. The idea that you can use one object for various things keeps the player engaged and excited! I’ve always loved this aspect because it gives the feeling you are creating something totally new within the world of the game.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Schell has such a way with words when discussing games! After listening to the GDRT Podcast, I am starting to believe all passionate game designers are artists and part-time poets! Lol.

I loved his analysis of “Space” in a game. When I first started reading, I knew it involved physical spaces but his breakdown of the game Twenty Questions was an AHA! moment. Of course the game doesn’t just exist in the physical location we are playing, so much happens behind the scenes in our own brains and that of the person holding the answer. Schell even says, “When thinking about game spaces, it is easy to be swayed by aesthetics” and this is exactly what happens to newbies like me. He suggests to better capture the abstract space, it is best to think about “states” of existence.

When discussing “Time” I thought it was interesting how he says when you die in a game you essentially are controlling time by rewinding. I never really thought about it like that, but returning to your last checkpoint is a good way of rewinding time.

Another awesome point made by Schell is the idea that “secrets are power.” This made me think about the reason why I love Uno!! I feel like if I can keep my best cards a secret for longer, I have a superpower down the line. If I can keep a poker face when I receive a good card, it will lessen my chances of being picked for “Draw 4,” etc. Essentially, in my experience, the better you can fly under the radar in Uno, the better you do.

When talking about “Rules” I really enjoyed the inclusion of Behavioral Rules because it tied back into the podcast I chose. They also spoke about unintentional “bad-player” behaviors and how that can truly ruin the entire experience for someone. The speakers even mentioned not wanting to play certain games because of the negative experience associated with it, which I can relate to. Schell ties this back to a “social contract” between players which the Podcast speakers refer to as “setting player expectations.”

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

This chapter intersected perfectly with the podcast episode I listened to, as they both discussed the importance of setting in a game. Particularly, they both discussed the unique issues that can come with each space. But, one thing I never explicitly thought about before reading this chapter was how space/setting affected games played in real life (card games, board games, etc.). Schell describes this as the “magic circle”, aka the spaces where the player can exist in the game. This made me reflect on games I have played in the past and how the “space” affected the gameplay experience. For instance, this summer I was a camp counselor and one of the most popular games to play among campers was Mafia. As the counselor, I frequently had to moderate these games. Looking back, I noticed that the games where we played in a defined location (ex. all players sitting at a single table) were much more fun/successful than games where we played in an undefined space (ex. all players sitting randomly in an open room/space). The space heavily contributes to the vibe or energy of the game, thus emerging the player into the game’s “world”. This makes the player feel more involved and gives them an overall better experience.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi,
It is really interesting how space can make a game feel more fun since it makes them feel more involved. That last line got me thinking about why games on the VR systems are very fun. Games where you do mundane tasks that people would do in work still somehow feel fun. There was a game called superhot which was fun on the computer, but it was insanely fun on the Oculus. It really felt like you were in the moment and that some entity was actually trying to shoot you.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Some of the technical aspects of this chapter were challenging to follow along with, in my opinion, but there was a lot of great insight. It was so interesting to read about how physical skills involving strength, dexterity, coordination, and physical endurance were included in the list of required skills. Now that I read about it, it totally makes sense but initially I never realized the amount of vast knowledge a game designer has. It was interesting when it was mentioned that the game itself is yet another entity, with a special status, since it isn’t really playing the game, although it may be making decisions that enable the game to happen with a reference to his grandmother not trusting a computer game. That distrust is often common among older people because they think the game cheats.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Tehreem,

The discussion of certain portions, specifically probability, were definitely long-winded but synthesized nicely with the rest of the chapter. For example, given that in RPGs “skills” typically determine how favorable RNG will be to the player (RPGs being Schell’s area of expertise), the probability section of the text is crucial in clarifying why it is necessary to balance these values (virtual skill) and the player’s actual skill that they must improve on. I definitely agree with your last point that having the game believably act as a “player” in a PvE scenario is important for the human player’s suspension of belief and acceptance of an endogenous ruleset.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Something interesting I found was how many different kinds of rules there are in different games. There’s a lot of thought that goes into understanding the kinds of rules. Like aren’t laws just house rules on a bigger scale? I feel like most competitive settings would still refer to them as the house rules for that tournament. The laws created for the competitive setting are a result of tuning the game to make it more fun.

Also, reading about Cheatability is really interest to think about. Chess in person has very limited and easy ways to cheat, but chess online you can do a number of things to cheat. It’s much easier to have someone watching your screen, and telling you what move to use in an earplug, then for someone to watch over their shoulder and directly tell them. So, chess online often does get people who end up cheating through other people, or through chess engines that tell them the best move in that scenario. However, people still play chess online since it’s very obvious when someone is cheating. I think something to think about is whether or not it would be worth it to cheat in a game. I think if it wasn’t worth it to cheat, then most people wouldn’t bother trying.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hey Drew, the final point you made really resonated with me: If it wasn’t worth it to cheat, then most people wouldn’t bother trying. It makes me think, why do people really cheat? It will not help you get better at Chess, but may help you secure a win, which leads me to believe that people value winning at any cost more than they value learning and improving. When I first started playing chess in elementary school, I could only play against my father and older cousin, who were both grown adults and way more skilled than I was. Of course, I lost every time, and it made me believe I was bad at chess. Nowadays, I only play against a good friend of mine, and I beat him every time, making me feel like I am good at chess. In reality, the younger me who kept losing was improving with each loss. These constant wins nowadays do not teach me anything, meaning I am only as good as I was 20 games ago. Who is really winning? I would say the younger me.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Drew,
I never really thought about the rules in a game sort of being a like a law, that’s a very unique way of thinking about it. There are laws set in place to make sure people aren’t cheating their way around the game, in whatever regard that may be in. In the competitive setting, a lot of the laws in place are to make sure people aren’t hacking during tournaments and other competitive gaming events. Also, you would think people wouldn’t cheat in a game if there was no point, but I’ve played many games where people were cheating for no reason other than to be an nuisance.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hello,
What you said about people cheating for no reason other than to be a nuisance is interesting to think about. That could also be a problem for games if it was inherently more fun to cheat, rather than play the game itself. Like what if you were playing against a chess grandmaster while you were like 800 rating. There’s like almost zero chance that you would win 1 game out of 1 hundred. However, if you were to secretly some of their pieces of the board while they weren’t looking, then the game might become more fun.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Drew! Good question at the end of your post, it kinda made me think about how people cheat in school too. I would say I don’t cheat in games for the same reasons I don’t cheat in real-life. Whether or not you do it, you will always know and you will always rob yourself of the chance to know if you could have done it. For example, you could cheat on an online quiz where no one is monitoring you- but then how would you measure your understanding of the topic? You would be cheating yourself as well because you will never truly know.
Also, I feel like it’s a waste of time if I am not able to take something away from it. If all I took away from the gameplay is that I can cheat without being caught, then I am never actually experiencing the game. I am creating a false reality which is very dangerous when real-life comes knocking. For example, let’s say the content on that online quiz you cheated for is now being brought up at work? Will you wish you would have taken the time to learn the subject rather than take the easy way out? 100%. It will now take you twice the amount of time to learn it, when in reality, you could have started making progress from the beginning.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Schell wonderfully dissects the structure of the game into its most fundamental parts, which is the game mechanics. He describes the main mechanics to be six: space, time, objects/ attributes/ states, actions, rules, skill, and chance. Normally when I am playing a game, I do not stop and reflect how the game designer implemented these mechanics, but this chapter really made me ponder on how these mechanics come together like puzzle pieces to make the game as a whole.

One aspect in particular which intrigued me was the discussion on nested spaces. The notion of a nested space, where a subspace exists within an already existing space, is something very fascinating for me. As a video game player, these nested spaces really enhance the player’s experience and allow them to explore many more areas, hooking the player onto the game and blurring their perception between is virtual and what is reality. I have personally experienced this with many story games, such as the Amazing Spider-Man 2 which I had played way back in elementary school. I remember how there would be certain in-game spaces where Peter could travel to and enter an entirely different space, for example when you can enter the video game arcade inside the comic-book shop. Another instance in which this can be seen is secret rooms inside video games, which make the player’s experience more fun and engaging. I really enjoy this concept of nested spaces, and I will definitely try to add this in the game I develop.

Something mentioned by Schell which truly made me re-think how games are made was the gaming mechanic of secrets. While elaborating on how a video-game version of “Las Vegas Poker and Blackjack” is not truly cheating, Schell states, “there were really three entities in that game who knew the states of different attributes: my grandfather, who was aware of the state of his hand; the virtual opponent algorithm, which was ‘aware’ of the state of its hand; and lastly the main algorithm for the game, which was aware of both players’ hands, every card in the deck, and everything else about the game” (Schell 168). Schell brilliantly breaks down the issue of “secrets” in the game in a very simple way. He describes how the machine is actually split into two entities, one which knows everything about the game and one which only has partial information. Prior to this, I never grasped how player vs. computer card-games truly operated and this example made it crystal clear, while also demonstrated how complex these gaming mechanics can become.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

(please ignore the first post as it has some grammatical errors which I cannot seem to edit)

Schell wonderfully dissects the structure of the game into its most fundamental parts, which is the game mechanics. He describes the main mechanics to be six: space, time, objects/ attributes/ states, actions, rules, skill, and chance. Normally when I am playing a game, I do not stop and reflect on how the game designer implemented these mechanics, but this chapter really made me ponder on how these mechanics come together like puzzle pieces to make the game as a whole.

One aspect in particular which intrigued me was the discussion on nested spaces. The notion of a nested space, where a subspace exists within an already existing space, is something very fascinating for me. As a video game player, these nested spaces really enhance the player’s experience and allow them to explore many more areas, hooking the player onto the game and blurring their perception between what is virtual and what is reality. I have personally experienced this with many story games, such as the Amazing Spider-Man 2 which I had played way back in elementary school. I remember how there would be certain in-game spaces where Peter could travel to and enter an entirely different space, for example when you can enter the video game arcade inside the comic-book shop. Another instance in which this can be seen is secret rooms inside video games, which make the player’s experience more fun and engaging. I really enjoy this concept of nested spaces, and I will definitely try to add this in the game I develop.

Something mentioned by Schell which truly made me rethink how games are made was the gaming mechanic of secrets. While elaborating on how a video-game version of “Las Vegas Poker and Blackjack” is not truly cheating, Schell states, “there were really three entities in that game who knew the states of different attributes: my grandfather, who was aware of the state of his hand; the virtual opponent algorithm, which was ‘aware’ of the state of its hand; and lastly the main algorithm for the game, which was aware of both players’ hands, every card in the deck, and everything else about the game” (Schell 168). Schell brilliantly breaks down the issue of “secrets” in the game in a very simple way. He describes how the machine is actually split into two entities, one which knows everything about the game and one which only has partial information. Prior to this, I never grasped how player vs. computer card-games truly operated and this example made it crystal clear, while also demonstrating how complex these gaming mechanics can become.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

The discussion of nested spaces is pretty important, the ability to fast travel and move around the map quickly allowed for gamers to get past some of the boring aspects when they wanted to. For example, Fallout and many open world games have locations you can travel to quickly and instantly but the player can also make that same 30 minute journey by walking through the map.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Mahir!

I absolutely LOVE The Amazing Spider-man (especially the 2nd one)! I think it is really cool how you applied Schell’s chapter to this movie, because you are completely right, and the secrecy like the rooms in video games definitely make the game more interesting for the players. I actually was one of the people that thought the computer was “cheating” when I played online games, because I thought the computer knew what was in the deck. But, after reading Schell’s chapter I realize now that there are 3 perspectives and it completely changed my view on online card games.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Mahir! I also found the idea of nested spaces very interesting. Your response made me think of all the “spaces within spaces” I have found in games without realizing it. I remember watching a video essay on Youtube about the purpose of safe rooms in horror games. Safe rooms in horror games allow the player a moment to breathe, to know that they will be “safe” for just a few moments. These safe rooms are very important nested spaces — they are crucial to the player’s experience.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

I think the distinction that Schell draws between real and virtual skill in order to bring focus to the interactivity that games creates a new view from which the audience can view the relationship between game developers and their audience. Skill requirements exist in games to give a sense of progression and eventually power to players, but game developers can institute this in a variety of ways. And although not stated in the passage where the subject is discussed, one of Schell’s overall themes in the book is that of balance, and real and virtual skill deserve balance no matter no matter the genre they’re in.

In fighting games, which I’m writing my Analytical Adventure on, the gap between real and virtual skill is maintained through multiple mechanics and modes; the super meter determines what moves are available in one’s arsenal, which is the game’s method enforcing virtual skill, and practice mode & trials, which exist for the betterment of real skill. I think the distinction made between the two also serves to make Schell’s audience realize that interactivity in games is multifaceted, and cannot be solved by a formulaic solution.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Kwabena,

This was a really interesting point to emphasize: real versus virtual skill. I also agree that they should have balance, and I really liked your example in fighting games. The theme and actual survival helps to better “real skill” in my opinion, and the use of online weapons and gear packs help to better “virtual skill”. It definitely helps to prove that games can be multifaceted, even if people think that they are just using either “real skill” or “virtual skill”, instead of actively practicing both.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Jaz,

There are definitely a variety of examples that one can use to demonstrate how the balance between real and virtual skill can differ between game/genre. In an FPS for example, virtual skill is dependent less so on the game’s inherent structure (such as a constant super meter) and more on weapons achievable through gameplay, which combines virtual and real skill in a totally different way. The desire to emphasize one or the other surely makes certain games more difficult to develop than others.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

I thought the explanation of space was interesting. I hadn’t thought of tic-tac-toe that way before — “there are really only nine discrete places that have any actual meaning in the game” (p.160). I didn’t quite understand what a continuous space was, until I read the part about there being discrete vs continuous time as well. The turn-based versus real-time comparison made a lot of sense and connected the dots for me. I think it’d be awesome to make and play a game that involves manipulating time, like in one of the Zelda games.

Note to self: A state diagram would be really useful for planning out gameplay.

“Gameplaying is decision making. Decisions are made based on information” (p.170). Exactly! Some games I enjoy playing have layers of secrecy in them, such as Battleship.

Lens of chance, huh… reminds me of the gacha games I liked to play on mobile. Agreed that a bit of “risk and randomness” (p.200) can make the game more entertaining.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Bunbun1k,

Like I commented on other posts including my own, the concept of the space of the game really threw me in for a loop. I never really realized the importance of space until I read this chapter, and then I started realizing how space affects games such as Poker (at home versus in the casino) and other games like this. I also love the quote you chose, and the secrecy in games both irritate me because I want to know the information (haha), but intrigue me to no end. I have a love/hate relationship with secrecy in games, but one of my favorite games is Clue, which is all about secrecy.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

Hi Bunbun1k,
The concept of the lens of space was also very interesting to me, but I also found it the most confusing out of all of the ones that were listed in this section. The part about turn-based and real-time games made this section a lot more clear for me too. I think that real-time games are more interesting than the turn-based games, only because I’m inpatient to wait turns, especially if it’s turns longer than a minute lol.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

I also thought the lens of chance is very important, it allows for players to play a game with complete randomization. Any action can occur and any problem can be solved. Whether it be the various weapons to use or the various ways to solve a puzzle. Without having this many games can often lose the appeal of playing after one go around.

[ArchiveParticipant Rupees: 0 RupeesRank: Newbie]

The interest of tic tac toe really made me understand that turn based mode allows for players to control their environments. A real time game forces a player to really grind down and focus on making a better decision while also valuing their opponents decision or lack of one. I think the randomness of games and creating situations where players must follow the belief where “timing is everything.”(Schell, 165). If a player is allowed to make the decisions of their liking while also being able to tackle adversity, than the game is properly built and has a good design in mind.

[Author]

Posts