Archive for Game Mechanics

Rewards. Means I get a trophy right?

Rewards are a natural part of games and gamification. They appear to create the motivation to engage in a given behaviour. This is true pf many things. Most (if not all) games systems have a reward involved from board games, to digital games, and even other things that have been “gamified”.

Rewards can be either intrinsic or extrinsic. Intrinsic rewards in games are where the player engages in the action for the simple enjoyment or pleasure of the task. Extrinsic rewards are those that would grant a reward that does not have application to the immediate task, eg grinding away in World of Warcraft (WoW) for that one amazing sword you must have. Both types of rewards have their values.

In Extra Credits Season 6 Episode Intrinsic or Extrinsic they discuss the ideas of both motivations. The narrator notes that all games should be made wholly with intrinsic rewards, were playing the game would be its own reward. While this is a great idea I find that this would not really appeal to me. Whilst I am not the first person to shoot my hand up to grind out a day for an awesome shield or some other similar reward, I see and feel the appeal. The narrator does come to note that building wholly intrinsically motivating games is unlikely.

Val Teixeira (2013) hits the nail on the head, different people are have different motivations. Some people are motivated by extrinsic rewards, while others are a motivated by the intrinsic nature of games. Which brings to mind the Bartle player types, perhaps the style of player influences motivation? What is more interesting perhaps is to what extent each gamer is motivated to engage with the game where only extrinsic rewards are presented.

Back to gamification, one of the most common methods of this is the application of badges, trophys or other such rewards to non-game processes. These are always extrinsic rewards. So, why for so many people do they stay engaged when clearly there is no intrinsic motivator? An answer I’d like to know. Recently Steam released a new method of extrinsic rewards, cards. It motivates gamers to play certain games in order to attain digital cards. Cards are not, by default, available for all games. It will be interesting to see the development of Steam cards over time. Not just of the community but the patterns of play. Will frequent gamers abandon the games they have put hours into, just to start playing new games that offer them opportunities to get the cards?

 

Further Reading

Games and motivation

Reward Systems

Bartle Player Types

 

Resources

Penny Arcade (2013) ‘Episode 01 – Intrinsic or Extrinsic’ Extra Credits, Season 6. Accessed 18/07/2013.

Val Teixeira (2013) ‘Rewarding players’ Boardgamegeek.com. Accessed 18/07/2013. http://boardgamegeek.com/blogpost/21342/rewarding-players

Valve (2013) http://store.steampowered.com/news/10946/

One card win. Discussing rarity, power and balance in CCGs

In Rarity and Power: Balance in Collectible Object Games Ethan Ham brings to the forefront the eternal struggle game designers have for Collectible Card Games (CCGs), Balance, specifically rarity and power. Ham uses three examples in particular Magic: The Gathering (MTG) developed by Wizards of the Coast, Sanctum and Trading Card Baseball developed by Digital Addiction. Ham notes similar issues in card rarity and power in both Sanctum and MTG. Cards that presented significant impacts on the game. Where is felt like players with large collections that had played longer had significant advantages over casual players. In some part this still exists in MTG today, especially in formats such as legacy and modern. In both cases early in the piece Wizards of the Coast and Digital Addiction announced the decision to no longer print the cards. This meant secondary markets (such as eBay) saw prices for the cards sky rocket.

Seeing this practice in action in a later set Digital Addiction saw fit to flip the rarity and power balance model. Rather than making rare cards that were high power cards, they produced cards that had major impact at a common value, while the rare cards had effect but were far more specialized or situation-specific. I can see the value in such an approach but whilst the two approaches co-habitat-ed would have in itself presented an unbalance.

After beta-testing Sanctum, as a reward for those who helped test Digital Addiction distributed a limited edition Elven Piper. To avoid issue with power, and impact on play they made the card harmless. However, the limited edition nature of the card also saw it sell for high prices on secondary markets.

Learning from lessons with the Sanctum game, Digital Addiction embarked on a second CCG, Trading Card Baseball. In Trading Card Baseball, play statistics from each game serve to feed the cards in ones deck. These statistics also feed ‘heat’ ratings. giving all players an understanding of a teams strength. This heat rating also served as the mechanism to determine match-ups for competing teams.

I note that MTG is still thriving, while Digital Addiction have ceased production of the Sanctum series. I wonder if this is due to the execution of the games? MTG is a physical card game, while Sanctum was online. Offering a different proposition for new players.

Additional to this Wizards of the Coast have also since instituted a banned list. This list outlines a number of cards in print that cannot be played in certain formats, to stop over-powered cards, instant games wins, and “unbeatable” card combos. This banned list is regularly updated to control the meta-game.

 

References

Ham, E (2012) ‘Rarity and Power: Balance in Collectible Object Games’, International Journal of Computer Game Research. Volume 10, Issue 1.

Wizards of the Coast (2013) ‘Banned / Restricted Lists for DCI-Sanctioned Magic: The Gathering Tournaments’. Accessed 29/06/2013. https://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=judge/resources/banned