Archive for Theory

MDA – Mechanics, Dynamics and Asthetics

April 10, 2014 Theory, Video Games No comments

Hunicke, LeBlanc and Zubek (2004) present a framework for developing games and thinking about games research. They start from the perspective of the player and the designer as a one way communication into a product, the game.

They formalize the consumption of games to into their components, rules, system and fun. Which they extrapolate their design components.

MECHANICS > DYNAMICS > AESTHETICS

Mechanics describes the particular components of the game, at the level of data representation and algorithms.

Dynamics describes the run-time behavior of the mechanics acting on player inputs and each others outputs over time.

Aesthetics describes the desirable emotional responses evoked in the player, when she interacts with the game system.

The authors then talk about language around fun, and how the vocabulary for “fun” is very limited. Then launch briefly into a “fun” taxonomy.

1. Sensation - Game as sense-pleasure
2. Fantasy - Game as make-believe
3. Narrative - Game as drama
4. Challenge - Game as obstacle course
5. Fellowship - Game as social framework
6. Discovery - Game as uncharted territory
7. Expression - Game as self-discovery
8. Submission - Game as pastime

This is interesting, and possibly useful. However how does this fit with other taxomonies? Does this cover everything one considers fun. What about other interpretations of fun? This taxonomy is Marc LeBlanc’s (author) eight kinds of fun (http://8kindsoffun.com/). Other ways of defining of categorizing fun is Nicole Lazzaro’s Four ways of fun (link). No doubt there are also some commentary from the fields of psychology.

The authors then move onto explaining the model. They feel it best to start from the user perspective, with aesthetics. This idea of starting the game design process from the user experience point of view is not new and shared by many designers (including Kevin Werbach, Gamification Design Framework). The model is very simple and the about definitions of the steps give most of it away. However, here are some choice quotes for each step that may be of use.

Aesthetics

“They succeed when the various teams or players in these games are emotionally invested in defeating each other.” Touching on emotional investment for engaged play.

Dynamics

[Between winners and losers] “As the gap widens, only a few (and sometimes only one) of the players is really invested. Dramatic tension and agency are lost.”

Mechanics

“By applying … changes to the fundamental rules of play, we might be able to keep lagging players competitive and interested for longer periods of time.”

They conclude that simple changes to games can result in a better user experience. “In addition, by understanding how formal decisions about gameplay impact the end user experience, we are able to better decompose that experience, and use it to fuel new designs, research and criticism respectively.”

 

References

Hunicke, R., M. LeBlanc, et al. (2004). MDA: A formal approach to game design and game research. Proceedings of the AAAI Workshop on Challenges in Game AI.

Ludus + Paidea

October 1, 2013 Theory No comments

In Ludology meets narratology: Similitude and differences between (video)games and narrative Gonzalo Frasca brings to light the lack of clear definitions between what we understand as play and games. He notes that there is both difference and similarities between the two and uses this paper to identify some.

Frasca (1999) goes on to raise the ideas of ludus and paidea. He settles on the definitions below.

Paidea is “Prodigality of physical or mental activity that has no immediate useful objective, nor defined objective, and whose only reason to be is based in the pleasure of experimented by the player”.

Ludus is a particular kind of paidea, defined as an “activity organized under a system of rules that defines a victory or a defeat, a gain or a loss.”

One point Frasca (1999) makes in the activeness of the player, in comparision to narrative theory. In a film or book the “player” or audience in this case is passive, merely an observer of the piece. For ludus the player needs to be active, for with action from the player there is no game and no session. He also notes that ludus as opposed to paidea is a possibilities, where narrative holds only a set of fixed chained actions.

 

References

Frasca, G. (1999). Ludology meets narratology: Similitude and differences between (video) games and narrative. Ludology.org.

Why am I here? – Motivations for playing games online

September 20, 2013 Game Mechanics, Theory, Video Games No comments

Yee (2013) conducted a study to investigation players motivation for MMORPGs. Early he critics the lack of empirical data behind Bartle’s Player types. Noting that the player types were not mutually exclusive and in fact have a significant degree of crossover. Yee opted for a factor analytic approach, “Players used a five-point fully labelled construct-specific scale to respond” to a 40 question survey.

The Results

Yee (2013) exposed the following factors and sub components in motivation. Noting the the data identified that a high score in one factor did not suppress a high score in another factor.

Achievement Social Immersion
Advancement – Progress, Power, Accumulation, Status
Mechanics – Numbers, Optimization, Templating, Analysis
Competition – Challenging Others, Provocation, Domination		 Socializing – Casual Chat, Helping Others, Making Friends
Relationship – Self-Disclosure, Find and Give Support
Teamwork – Collaboration, Groups, Group Achievements		 Discovery – Exploration, Lore, Finding Hidden Things
Role-Playing – Story Line, Character History, Roles, Fantasy
Customization – Appearances, Accessories, Style, Colour Schemes
Escapism – Relax, Escape from Real Life, Avoid Real-Life Problems

 

References
Yee, N (2006) Motivation for Play in Online Games, Cyber Psychology and Behavior. Volume 9, issue 6. pp 772-775.

Motivating Learners – Just add badges right?

September 7, 2013 Badges, Game Elements, Gamification, Theory No comments

Reading through Play As You Learn: Gamification as a Technique for Motivating Learners (2013) by Ian Glover gives an overview of the current state of gamification, with particular relevance to  education. Glover first states the three basic parts of most games:

  • Goal-focused activity
  • Reward mechanics
  • Progress tracking

Glover then notes some current uses of gamification including popular social network FourSquare.

Eventually gets to the good stuff, and touches on some criticism of gamification. These included the detriment of providing extrinsic rewards for learners who are intrinsically motivated, the addictive behaviours often associated with certain personality types (notes from Zichermann, 2011), the competitiveness of leaderboards (Williams, 2012), and the types of engagement when gamification is removed (Thoma, Millen, and DiMicco, 2012).

Glover’s main points include the following

  • Careful consideration needs to be taken before the application of gamification to learning
  • Providing extrinsic motivation for intrinsically motivated learners is detrimental
  • Gamification in earning should therefore be optional
  • Popular Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs) and LMSs (Learning Management Systems) provide an ideal opportunity, with tracking data already available
  • Rewards need to be desirable to all learner to motivate behavior
  • Gamifiation can be applied to non-electronic contexts

 

My references

Glover, Ian (2013) Play as you learn: gamification as a technique for motivating learners. In: HERRINGTON, Jan, COUROS, Alec and IRVINE, Valerie, (eds.) Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2013. Chesapeake, VA, AACE , 1999-2008. http://shura.shu.ac.uk/7172/

 

Glover’s References
Thom, J., Millen, D., & DiMicco, J. (2012). Removing gamification from an enterprise SNS. In Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW ’12), 1067-1070. Accessed: 27/11/2012 -http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2145204.2145362.

Williams, J. (2012). The Gamification Brain Trust: Intrinsically Motivating People to Change Behavior (part 2). Gamesbeat, Panel discussion, Wallace, M. [chair], Accessed: 26/11/2012 – http://venturebeat.com/2012/09/22/the-gamification-brain-trustintrinsically-motivating-people-to-change-behavior-part-2/#h8geQcI5BUyR5Ihv.99

Zichermann, G. (2011). Gamification has issues, but they aren’t the ones everyone focuses on. [Editorial] O’Reilly Radar. Accessed: 26/11/2012 – http://radar.oreilly.com/2011/06/gamification-criticism-overjustification-ownership-addiction.html

The Rules as Law

July 27, 2013 Game Mechanics, Rules, Theory No comments

Games and sports have many things in common, in particular rules. A game requires rules to maintain order and construct boundaries. The enjoyment of games and sports often comes from the sense of achievement in succeeding in the scenario, given the restrictions of the rules. There is significant differences between the ways in which rules are enforced depending on the game or contest. In video games mostly the computer program or AI (Artificial Intelligence) provides the rule enforcement, for physical board and card games the rules are general socially enforced (with the exception of tournament play), and for sports umpires or referees enforce the rules.

In Taking Umpiring  Seriously: How Philosophy Can Help Umpires Make the Right Calls J.S Russell discusses the role of an umpire and their impact on the game, specifically looking at Major League Baseball. Russell leads off the theory of performance utterance (J.L Austin), in which he explains in the case of baseball that the action that occurs is not in fact an action until it is called so. For example a pitcher pitches his ball, until the home plate umpire makes a call it is neither a strike nor ball.

The more important point this article brings to light is the concept of the umpires use of the “Spirit of the game”. To illustrate his point Russell  refers to the 1983 Pine Tar incident in a baseball game between Kansas City Royals and the New York Yankees. The George Brett (Kansas City Royals) had applied pine tar to his bat. Prior to the knowledge of this Brett had hit a game-changing home run. Pine tar is a sticky residue that hitters apply to the handle of their bat in order to increase grip. According the the rules at the time the residue could only be applied to no more than the bottom 18 inches of the bat. In Brett’s case he had applied pine tar to more than that. The Yankee’s team manger (Billy Martin) challenged the awarded home run. In which they applied the rule and the run was disallowed. Then on another challenge, after extensive discussion the ruling was reversed (with the Home Run allowed). Umpire Brinkman stating that it was not in the spirit of the game to disallow the run. The application of pine tar to the hitting surface of the bat would create a disadvantage more so than any extra advantage. This point in baseball history has been much remembered.

Pine Tar Incident Bat

 

This incident, quite rightly, lead to same changes in the rules for the following Major League season. Referee discretion is now written into many codes of sports to allow umpires and referees to maintain integrity of the sports over which they preside. Russell also notes that for the sport to survive integrity must upheld by its rule enforcers.

 

References

Ruseell, J.S. (2004) ’Taking Umpiring  Seriously: How Philosophy Can Help Umpires Make the Right Calls’ Popular Culture and Philosophy. Accessed 14/07/2013. http://www.georgereisch.com/popularcultureandphilosophy/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Taking_Umpire_Seriously.pdf

« Older Entries   Recent Entries »