Tag Archive for Fun

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.

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

June 29, 2013 Collection, Game Design, Game Mechanics, Theory No comments

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