Monday, April 16, 2007

Week 15 Games: Design

Articles Read

Koster, R. (2004). A theory of fun for game design: What games aren't. Gamasutra, December 3.

Gee, J. P. (2004). Learning by design: Games as learning machines. Gamasutra, March, 24

Garneau, P-A. (2001). Fourteen Forms of Fun. Gamasutra, October 12.

Prensky, M. (2001). Fun, Play and Games: What Makes Games Engaging. Chapter 5 in Digital Game Based Learning. NY: McGraw Hill. (From the author's website)

Article Summary

Koster, R. (2004). A theory of fun for game design: What games aren't. Gamasutra, December 3.

In this piece, Koster argued that games are about teaching underlying patterns, and they train their players to ignore the fiction that wraps the patterns. People don’t play games because of the stories. The stories that wrap the games are usually side dishes for the brain. And the part of games that is least understood is “the formal abstract system portion of it, the mathematical part of it, and the chunky part of it”. Games are not about beauty or delight. A lot of aesthetic elements make players feel good, but not necessarily fun. Games are not about jockeying for social status either. Games stand, in their own right, as something incredibly valuable. According to Koster, fun is defined as the feedback the brain gives us when we are absorbing patterns for learning purposes. Fun is about learning in a context where there is no pressure, and that is why games matter.

Gee, J. P. (2004). Learning by design: Games as learning machines. Gamasutra, March, 24

Gee discussed explored the question of how good game designers manage to get new players to learn long, complex, and difficult games, and listed the principles of learning built into good computer and video games. The first section is empowered learners, which includes allowing the game players to co-design, customize the game, manipulate a character, and offering players identities that trigger a deep investment on the part of the player. The second section is problem solving. The problems in good games are well ordered; Good games are challenging but doable; Good games create and support the cycle of expertise; good games give verbal information that is often in a manual; good games offer players fish tanks and sandbox either as tutorials or as their first level or two. In addition, in good games, players learn and practice skill packages as part and parcel of accomplishing things they need and want to accomplish. The third section is understanding. Good games help players see and understand how each of the elements in the game fit into the overall system of the game; good games can make abstract ideas concretely realized in image and action.

Garneau, P-A. (2001). Fourteen Forms of Fun. Gamasutra, October 12.

Garneau listed the fourteen categories of activities that are fundamentally entertaining, and analyzed how they can be used effectively to create more interesting games. These categories are: a. beauty: "That which pleases the senses."; b. immersion: "Going into an environment different from one's usual environment by physical means or by use of one's imagination."; c. Intellectual problem solving: "Finding solutions to problematic situations that require thought."; d. Competition: "An activity where the goal is to show one's superiority."; e. Social Interaction: "Doing things with other human beings."; f. Comedy: "Things that make one want to laugh."; g. Thrill of Danger: "Exhilaration coming from a dangerous activity."; h.Physical Activity: "Activities requiring intense physical movements." i.Love: "Strong affection toward somebody." J.Creation: "To make exist that which didn't."; k.Power: "Capacity of having a strong effect, of acting with strength."; l. Discovery: "Finding something that wasn't known before."; m. Advancement and Completion: "Going forward in, and eventually finishing, an activity." n.Application of an Ability: "Using one's physical abilities in a difficult setting.". Garneau suggested it is important to keep a balance of all these forms while creating a game.

Prensky, M. (2001). Fun, Play and Games: What Makes Games Engaging. Chapter 5 in Digital Game Based Learning. NY: McGraw Hill. (From the author's website)

Prensky explored the elements that contribute to the engagement of the best games. According to Prensky, the first two elements are fun and play. Fun, in the sense of enjoyment and pleasure, put people in a relaxed, receptive frame of mind for learning. Play, in addition to providing pleasure, increases people’s involvement, which also helps learning. The six key structural elements of games: rules, goals and objectives, outcomes and feedback, conflict/competition/challenge/opposition, interaction, representation or story are also important. Prensky claimed that, in games, rules give us structure, goals give us motivation, interactivity gives us doing, adaptivity gives us flow, outcomes and feedback gives us learning, win states gives us ego gratification, competition gives us adrenaline, problem solving sparks our creativity, interaction gives us social groups, and story gives us emotion.

My Reactions

As I read Gee’s article, I can see that Neopet possesses a lot of the elements that empowers the players. At the very beginning, the players have the freedom to choose whatever types of pets they like. You can choose the species, the color and name them whatever you like. You can also choose what they like doing, how they greet others, as well as where they will live. The whole process makes you think that your pet is unique and is your best choice. When the players got their pets, they also have choices on how they earn neopoints to keep their pets alive. For example, the simplest way is to play games. Again, there are hundreds of games for you to choose from. Besides playing games, you can earn neopoints through a diverse array of contests and activities on the site. In addition, there are discussion boards, plots, and various sets of items and other things to collect. The choices are just immense, which allows players with different preferences (Garneau, 2001) to get engaged in the game.

Discussion Questions (My Questions)

a. Think about the game you have played…What are the elements in the games that engage you?

b. How do these elements fit into the categories mentioned in our readings? Is there anything left out in these pieces?

Saturday, April 7, 2007

Week 14: Games --- Who’s playing and why?

Articles Read

Avery, A. (2005). Beyond P-1: Who plays online?. Digital Games Research Association 2005 Conference: Changing views- worlds in play, Vancouver, 16 - 20 June 2005, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada: Digital Games Research Association.

Paras, B., & Bizzocchi, J. (2005). Game, motivation, and effective learning: An integrated model for educational game design. Digital Games Research Association 2005 Conference: Changing views- worlds in play, Vancouver, 16 - 20 June 2005, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada: Digital Games Research Association.

Yee, N. (2007). Motivations of play in online games. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 9, 772-775.


Article Summaries

Avery, A. (2005). Beyond P-1: Who plays online? Digital Games Research Association 2005 Conference: Changing views- worlds in play, Vancouver, 16 - 20 June 2005, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada: Digital Games Research Association.

The study analyzed the aggregation of empirical characteristics for 1178 gamers. The factor analysis yields data suggesting four distinct archetypes: a. “warriors”, who prioritize weapons and technology, combat and military themes, realism, graphics, and to a lesser degree, fast-reaction and unpredictable play; “Narrators”, who place priority on themes and plot, characters, exploration, using their imagination and thinking a lot; “Strategist”, who focus on complex strategies, challenging game play and mastery over the game and other players; and “Interactors”, who rate competition and cooperation with other players above all else, while they do not care about unpredictability or being made to use their imaginations.

The findings offered quantitative support for characterizing different kinds of online gamers into four categories. However, as Avery pointed out, each gamer can be comprised of a unique combination of Warrior, Narrator, Strategist, and Interactor.

Paras, B., & Bizzocchi, J. (2005). Game, motivation, and effective learning: An integrated model for educational game design. Digital Games Research Association 2005 Conference: Changing views- worlds in play, Vancouver, 16 - 20 June 2005, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada: Digital Games Research Association.

In this paper, the authors discussed the model they developed to integrate games and effective learning. The authors fist looked at is motivation in gaming based on Csikszentmihalyi’s flow theory. Then, they reviewed others’ research on the charateristics of effective learning environments that match the characteristics inherent in flow experiences and motivational design. The research included Norman’s seven basic requirements of a learning environment, and Lepper and Malone’s four principles for instructional game design (games must introduce challenge; the game should create sensory and cognitive curiosity; the learner should feel a sense of control; the games should use fantasy to reinforces the instructional goals and stimulate the prior interests of the learner). In addition, the author addressed the significance of reflection in learning, and suggested that in educational games, reflection must appear to the learner as one of the many in-game goals that drive the game play.

Yee, N. (2007). Motivations of play in online games. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 9, 772-775.

In this paper, Yee adopted a factor analytic approach to creating an empirically-grounded player motivation model. Here are the categories identified by Yee based on the survey to 3000 MMORPG players.

The Achievement Component

Ÿ Advancement. The desire to gain power, progress rapidly, and accumulate in-game symbols of wealth or status.

Ÿ Mechanics. Having an interest in analyzing the underlying rules and system in order to optimize character performance.

Ÿ Competition. The desire to challenge and compete with others.

The Social Component

Ÿ Socializing. Having an interest in helping and chatting with other players.

Ÿ Relationship. The desire to form long-term meaningful relationships with others.

Ÿ Teamwork. Deriving satisfaction from being part of a group effort.

The Immersion Component

Ÿ Discovery. Finding and knowing things that most other players don’t know about.

Ÿ Role-Playing. Creating a persona with a background story and interacting with other players to create an improvised story.

Ÿ Customization. Having an interest in customizing the appearance of their character.

Ÿ Escapism. Using the online environment to avoid thinking about real life problems.”

The study also presented very briefly the relationships between motivations and demographic variables, including age, gender, and usage patterns). Yee warned against the researchers’ tendency of collapsing all video gamers into a simplistic archetype, and discussed the significances of this empirical model in future quantitative research in online games.

How does your gaming demographic and your reasons for playing fit in with the research?

I think the categories identified by Avery and Yee made perfect sense to me. I am not really into Achievement type of games. I occasionally play car racing games, but I do not really like the feeling of competing with others. Also, I am not particularly interested in acquiring power over others or becoming stronger. Social type of games is better for me. Chatting with others, helping others and making friends make me feel good. But I should say the one I like most is discovery or role-playing games, where I live as someone else in a world full of fantasy or surprises.

Two issues emerged from my thinking while reading and reflecting on the article. First, I should say that the categories are useful, but how much can we predict a person’s choice of games just based on the demographic information? The type of game that each of us chooses to play largely depends a lot on our personalities and experiences.

Second, since different people tend to be interested in different types of games, the implications for educational games would be: we need a variety of games that achieve the same educational purposes. If we only provide one type of game, students who preferred another type of game may not benefit as much from this type of game.

Questions for Discussions/My Questions

Though people’s choice of games can be explained, to some degree, by demographic information, I guess their choice can be better explained by other factors, such as personalities. Is there any research on this?

If people are motivated to play games in different ways, what is the implication of this for designing educational games?