Mechanics, Dynamics and Aesthetics (MDA)

 Hello again folks! Our week four readings were, once again, aimed at widening my game design vocabulary and understanding. "MDA: A Formal Approach to Game Design and Game Research" (Robin Hunicke, Marc LeBlanc, Robert Zubek) was the title of this weeks article, it mostly focuses on a framework called MDA (Mechanics, Dynamics, Aesthetics).

MDA is described as a framework put together for game designers that illustrate the way in which the process of games design is planned out. There are three main stages which describe the development phase, of which only one is controlled by the designer. The other two stages rely solely on these changes and their effects on one another. The stages are called:


Mechanics

Dynamics

Aesthetics

The article explains that the Mechanics are the base of the game, the Dynamics then rely on how the Mechanics interact. The Aesthetics are the feelings that affect the player whilst playing the game, influenced by both the Mechanics and the Aesthetics phases.


The game designer only has full control over one aspect of this: Mechanics. The Mechanics are the core of the game, this includes things such as: rules, player's movements, 'game bits', and all the core Mechanics required for the game to be played.

The Dynamics are the next stage, during this stage it is possible for the designer to see the way in which all the rules and mechanics interact with each other. A designer cannot change the Dynamics directly at this stage, however by observing the behavior of the Dynamics it can be seen if small changes are required in order to refine it. At this point changes to Mechanics can be implemented in order to improve the way they interact.


Aesthetics are possibly the most important stage to a game designer, however it is also the hardest to achieve and manage accurately. This stage is where the game presents the intended emotions for the player, the feelings they experience when playing the game. This is controlled by all the previous elements combined to create the final, beautiful product. The designer no longer has control over the game, because the game has in fact been published and is far into production. A game designer cannot directly know that the player will experience the intended feelings, and in games such as RPGs it is not unheard of for the player to decide how they feel when playing.

The only fully accessible stage to the designer is the Mechanics, however their target is to achieve the final Aesthetics stage and the Core Mechanics directly affect this. It is important for a game designer to look at game design from a different angle, instead of creating Mechanics that make the game function soullessly it is possible to use some that create a specific emotion within the user. For example a horror game may wish to use claustrophobia, hindered movement, small hallways, darkness and atmospheric music as Mechanics.

This article has presented me with a new way of designing a game by looking through the player's eyes and working backwards to the core. When designing a game it is important to consider the player before the designer; after all, that's who we're doing this all for.

Until next post...

           "Run! You fools!"
                            - Gandalf

Games Britannia - Dicing with Destiny (Part 1 of 3)

 During last weeks lecture, we were all exposed to the wonders of historical gaming! A great way to introduce myself to this was to watch Games Britannia - Dicing with Destiny, a three part series presented by Benjamin Woolley about popular games played in the Iron Age to the Information Age. Woolley shows us how the instinct to play games is as universal as language itself, taking us from 1st - century Britain to the Victorian Era.

Ancient and medieval games weren't just played for fun, they were fundamental! Often providing some sort of prophetic significance, a guide through life and beyond. Chess for example would have been used to represent forces on the battlefield, often governing how a battle was fought! By the late middle ages games became less and less associated with prophecies and religion, and became more associated with gambling...


Dice and card games started popping up, in Victorian times a moral backlash occurred causing people to associate games with loss and hardship. Games had become a form of moral education tools, with each aspect of gambling being associated with 'evil'. For example Dice are refered to as the instrument of the Devil, with so many ways to trick and cheat people (like shaving the corners of the dice for favoured rolls). In 1784 a pamphlet appeare in London telling readers to "STOP GAMBLING!", as it had supposedly been the cause of all the losses of the country, ofcourse this was a pointless blame. During these times most gambling games had a pure 50/50 chance, compared to todays gambling games, and this lead to people often losing fortunes overnight! Charles James Fox was bankrupted twice at the table, and was famously quoted saying "Winning is the greatest pleasure in life, and losing is the second." Previously, dice had been used to work out your fate (or the will of god) by Druids, as opposed to working out the fate of your wallet.

The Victorian era was also around the time that Britain established the worlds first games industry, with games such as Snakes and Ladders, Ludo, and the Staunten Chess Set leading the way - all of which were adaptations of games from other countries. Snakes and Ladders was once a Hindu game that represented a journey of enlightenment , now 'tainted' by commercialisation. Woolley uses this as one example as to how the 'power' that games once had has been slowly drained by commercialisation.

 I thoroughly enjoyed learning about games from the past! My favourite game that was shown in Games Britannia has to be the original Hindu version of Snakes and Ladders; from what was shown during the documentary it looked like a very 'enlightening' and fun game to play! I will delve further into some of these games in future posts, hoping to better understand how gaming in history was used as a tool rather than entertainment.

So long, and keep watching the stars!

Game Design Tools and Vocabulary

 During the third week of lectures we were given readings to better understand and analyse - Extracts from a Doug Church article as well as a chapter to read from the course text - Challenges for Game Designers by Brenda Brathwaite and Ian Schreiber. This chapter shows how a game can be broken up into many tiny areas, hence the simple title: Atoms.


"In short, we need a shared language of game design."
- Doug Church (1999:1)


So let me begin by stating that Doug Church really emphasises the lack of technical and precise language used within the games industry, specifically in the design of objects and assets areas. Church expresses his desire for a for a structured framework for a vocabulary around the basis of designing games. Assets of games design are constantly analysed, however there is very little information for a designer to realise what they have done wrong and how to rectify it. Of course a very basic idea of the problem is presented when people say a game is "cool" or "fun", but what exactly constitute 'cool' or 'fun'? There is not a strong enough amount of detail for the designer to set it straight - which is where Church's proposed system comes in:

Church developed a framework called Formal Abstract Design Tools (FADT). In simple terms:

Formal 
- Criticise and define items and be able to explain them to others.

Abstract 
- To explain new and fresh ideas around the entire subject.

Design 
- We are Games Designers, so design is rather a large aspect...

Tools 
- Involved in the very framework we want to create.

The first tools that Church explains in depth are intention and perceivable consequence:


Intention - "Making an implementable plan of one's own creation in response to the current situation in the game world and one's understanding of the game play options." 
- (Doug Church 1999:4)


Perceivable Consequence  "A clear reaction from the game world to the action of the player."
                                                                                  - (Doug Church 1999:4)


Put simply, intention helps the player to feel as though they are progressing by acting on their own plans as they see fit inside the game world. Perceivable consequences allow the player to assess the situation they are in, ensuring they learn from their mistakes and never feel 'cheated' by the game.


Reading this article has further proven that using a clear design vocabulary is as important as breathing. Church's tools and vocabulary accurately reflect my feelings (from a user's point of view), no one wants to feel 'cheated' by any game - if you die from choosing to go down one path instead of the other, you don't expect to succeed by repeating the process. You can clearly see the wrong choice that was made, and learn to avoid it.


The chapters from Challenges for Games Designers broke down game design tools and vocabulary into even smaller 'atoms'! However, this chapter creates many more small design tools that are crucial to design, aspects involved in intention and perceivable consequence perhaps? Let's take a look at these tools:


Game State
- One large collection of all the relevant game data that could change during play. This extract gives Poker as an example; the game state would be each of the player's hands and chips, the pot size, who's turn it is, who has folded on the current hand, which cards are in the deck and in what order. Put simply this is every aspect the game requires to operate smoothly and as desired.

Game View 
- The areas of the game that the user can see and interact with. For example in a game of chess, the game view would be the board, the pieces, and that is all! None of the information is concealed from the user. However in a game like Battleships, the game view is rather different.

Game Space 
- This is the whole area of the game in general. 

Avatar
- This is the digital projection of the player.

Game Bits 
- This involves all the game pieces - such as cards, dice, counters etc. All the physical objects that must be included to make up the finished game.

Game Mechanics 
- In order for the game to operate smoothly, game mechanics are required. The game rules and how the player interacts with those rules to fulfill the objective. For example during snakes and ladders when you land on a snake, you must go to the bottom of the snake, with no exceptions.

Game Dynamics 
- This is the pattern of play that occurs after the game mechanics have been implemented. For example, a game such as Risk is highly involved with territorial acquisition.

Goals 
- A lot of games have one, ultimate goal (to win!). However some games have multiple smaller goals used to immerse the player into the game world (e.g kill X of this creature, run from here to there etc.), often resulting in rewards.

Theme
- This is a massively general definition for 'What is the game about?' For example: Chess is about you, the commander of an army, destroying enemy armies. Snakes and Ladders is about who can reach square one hundred first.

Both of these articles are an in depth attempt at creating a more structured game design vocabulary, something that everyone can use and understand universally. Church, Braithwaite and Schreiber have all attempted to create this new vocabulary, but only one can reign supreme. In my own opinion I believe that, when compared to Doug Church, Braithwaite and Schreiber have created something much closer to a consistant and correct vocabulary for games design. They are both straight to the point, easy to read and understand, and have covered each aspect of games design in a precise and in depth analysis providing us with a much more versatile vocabulary towards games design.


Live long, and play games.





New Game Definitions

 In the last weeks lecture with Eddie, we looked at in depth definitions of video games in different terms. Presented with an extract from "Videogames" by James Newman, specifically chapter 2: "What is a Videogame? Rules, puzzles and simulations". Newman states that there are six main catagories of games:

Paidea

Ludus

Agon

Alea

Ilinx

Mimicry

Each of these terms are crucial as a games designer, and in the coming years it will help to use specialist terms and precise descriptions in my analysis of others work, including my own.

At first glance, these words look more like a spell made up by J.K Rowling, than anything to do with games design. But here are the most simplified terms for each of the words mentioned in the chapter:

Paidea - Gaming simply for pleasure.

Ludus - A game that is constrained by rules and has an outcome (having a winner, or a loser).

Agon - Competitive gameplay.

Alea - Randomness/change involved in-game.

Ilinx - Movement.

Mimicry - Role-play, simulation  etc.

 Paidea and ludus require a bit more explanation. Paidea is a term that is used whenever the main objective of a game is not clear, if there is indeed an objective at all! The soul idea behind the game is that the player is free of rules and can do whatever may take their fancy. The game does not have a set frame that a player is guided through, leaving the whole game limited by the imagination of the player. As a creative designer this is the sort of game that I crave, it gives me the freedom to let my imagination run wild and create tasks and goals for me to reach without being limited by the linear path many games require you to stick to.

Similarly to Costikyan's description of a 'toy' in his article "I have no words & I must design", Newman uses Sim City as an example of a paidea game. Newman also uses The Powder Game as an example of a paiedea game, a game released long ago on the Dan-Ball website and has since been removed. This particular game had no rules at all, but simply using a choice of many materials such as magma, gun powder, stone and so many more. There is a blank screen which allows the user to create anything they desire, using these different materials and physics. (e.g Stone is solid, Magma flows slowly etc.) This particular game does also include aspects of other definitions that Newman speaks about - Mimicry is when simulation is involved, this game mimics the aspects of elements in real life. The sign of a good game is that it can be adapted with simple changes that result in it fitting to many different definitions, therefore being a strongly adaptive game.

The term Ludus is given to a game which has rules and goals 'weaved' into the core framework. These rules must be followed in order to eventually reap the outcome rewards (e.g Winning or Losing). The original game of Tron is a perfect example of a Ludus game - The user travels around on a light-cycle leaving a trail behind it that remains until the end of the round. The first player to crash into either their own or their opponent's trail (Or into the side wall) is the loser. If these rules are not abided by then the player will not receive the desired outcome (to win). Despite the fact that these rules are minimal, this game is definitely a Ludus  game, purely due to the requirements for the win - Do not hit any trail, do not hit the wall, use the arrow keys to move and the first to hit anything fails the round. Tron however can be categorised further to fit other descriptions such as ilinx - the fact that it relies on a players movement, as well as agon due to the multiplayer aspect (competition). 

All of these topical description words will now be incorporated into any analysis I do of future topics and games. The pure volume of what constitutes a game makes using these descriptive words a must, in order to create a more structured and disciplined analysis.


Keep watching the skies...

"I Have No Words & I Must Design" - Greg Costikyan Article

 In 1994 Greg Costikyan wrote an interesting article that tried to identify the term 'game' as a whole. The article has been revised many times since, but the core meanings are still present. I have been asked to read this article and collect notes then blog about it. Whilst considering the following quote from Costikyan:
"A game is an interactive structure of endogenous meaning that requires players to struggle towards goals"
                                                                - Greg Costikyan (2004:24)

To start off: I completely agree with the statement made by Costikyan. The "struggle" involved in games is what draws players in and makes them keep returning to that game for years to come. Costikyan describes a game as "an amazingly plastic medium", with them being massively adaptable to the extent that they can cater to anyone, with anything. There's been such a large selection of games produced over the years that cater for so many different desires (e.g RPG, racing, MMO, MMORPG, card games, board games, play-by-mail and so many more), it has become so hard to define what a 'game' actually is. Costikyan tells us that in order to better understand games as a whole, talk about them intelligently, and to design better ones we must first understand what a 'game' consists of, breaking it into easily identifiable areas. So in order to better understand what a game is, Costikyan stated that we must create a "critical vocabulary for games".

The Art of Computer Game Design by Chris Crawford was published in 1982, and according to the article is one of the few decent books published about games design. Crawford compares his understanding of 'games' with 'puzzles'. Puzzles are static, a player is given a set logical structure that needs to be solved, often with the help of clues. 'Games' are not static and can change with the player's actions. According to Crawford, some 'games' are really just puzzles (e.g Zork). With the sole objective of that 'game' in solving puzzles, there are no opponents, no roleplaying, no aspects of what you may consider to be a 'game' at all! In order to win the 'game' you must solve the puzzle, with no other 'struggles'.

I strongly disagree with these observations, and I am glad to see that  Costikyan felt the same. Crawford uses Zork as a direct example of his theory. Zork is considered one of the earliest successful computer games, and Costikyan states that adventure games such as Zork are more than just mere puzzles. Almost every game has puzzle elements, in fact, any game that involves any sort of decision making, resource organisation, or item trade-offs can be treated as containing puzzle aspects. Even games like Call of Duty nowadays require a certain amount of puzzle-solving - choosing the correct tactics for the situation, maneuvering around the battlefield effectively are both prime examples of puzzle solving in a 'game', and if these aspects are puzzles, you can never truly remove the aspect of a puzzle from any 'game'.

We can still learn something from Crawford's observations:

"A puzzle is static. A game is interactive". 

'Games' aren't just computer media, there are many non-digital games. Costikyan uses Monopoly as an example to demonstrate how a 'game' is interactive: The game interacts with the players, and the players interact with eachother, changing state as they continue to play. All board games are interactive at their core. If a game is not interactive it is a puzzle,  not a game.

By introducing choice into interaction, for example you are able to choose decision A or decision B with the outcome being different for each. So what is it that makes decision A better than decision B? Or is B more suited to different occasions? What is the eventual goal, and how does decision A/B help to achieve that goal? Now this is no longer just simple interaction and has become 'Decision Making' - Interaction with a purpose. In order to consider something a 'game' it must involve decision making. Costikyan considers Chess as having a few of the aspects that make games appealing - "no simulation elements, no roleplaying, and damn little colour." But Chess has that main aspect of decision making, in order to achieve success you must obey the strict rules, reach the clear objective, and think several moves ahead. Being good at decision making (considering the multiple outcomes) is what brings success in this game, the one and only aspect. However games such as Mario or Halo success is dependent upon aspects such as quick response and interface mastery. However decision making is still a core aspect of these games, and is indeed a core aspect of what comes together to make any game.

Will Wright described Sim City (which he designed) as a 'toy', not a 'game'. He offered a ball as a comparison: A ball offers many different behaviors that can be explored by the user. It can be bounced, twirled, thrown, dribbled; and if you wish to it may be used as an aspect in a game such as football, baseball, basketball etc. But the game is not intrinsic to the toy, it is a set of rules applied by the players with a set objective overlaid on the toy. So Sim City itself has no 'completion' aspect, the user may apply themselves limitation and goals, but the game itself has no specific outcome. Sim City is simply a software 'toy'.

Roleplaying games and MUDs both involve controlling a single character in an imaginary world, non-player characters are either controlled by the gamemaster (D&D) or automated systems (MUDs). However in both types of games character progression is a huge aspect, your character can become more powerful as you progress past obstacles and reach goals. Implemented character progression/improvement is a fundamental aspect to both RPGs and MUDs - Players are motivated to improve their characters. Both of these types of games involve interacting and meeting other player characters, working together to achieve goals or creating new goals with eachother. The connections made with other player characters provide you with alternate goals, and alternate rewards.

It is quite often that games such as RPGs and MUDs result in a lack of interesting goals, leaving players trying to find the next interesting thing to do - to find their own goals. This is a huge flaw in these types of games. A good gamemaster will sense when the players are getting bored, and will introduce a new and exciting goal (e.g Self-preservation). In an RPG or MUD players do ultimately create their own goals, the requirements of these games is not to complete the single goal, but to offer a multitude of goals for the player to choose from and find one that they enjoy.

"Games are goal-directed interaction. But goals alone are not enough..."
       - Greg Costikyan


A 'struggle' is a critical aspect of any game. There are very few games that give you two simple decisions, and one correct outcome - why is this? Because there is no struggle involved! Competetive games involve a struggle against another player, direct competition. There is nothing

harder to overcome than a sneaky, lying human opponent. Competition is not the only way to achieve a struggle. In games such as D&D monsters and NPCs provide the struggle (for the most part). The plot of the game involves many different encounters resulting in multiple possibilities of rewards and such. There are multiple struggles in a game such as this - opposition posed by monsters and NPCs, exploration of the world and the story, traps, puzzles. Emotional decisions included in games such as Dragon Age, Mass Effect and Fallout 3 also offer a new kind of struggle - emotional struggle. I think we can all agree that multiple struggles are indeed a huge part of what makes a 'game' as a whole.



Game developers are constantly trying to find new struggle aspects to add to games; if the game is too hard, players will find it frustrating. If the game is too easy, they will find it dull and boring. This is where implementing difficulty settings comes in, giving the player the choice - If its too easy, turn the difficulty up, and vice versa. Whatever goals are in a game, you must make them work to achieve them. Setting player against player is a great way to achieve this, but not the only way - we want games to challenge us, to make us strive to achieve the goals set before us.

"There can be no game without a struggle. A game requires players to struggle interactively toward a goal."
                                                       -Greg Costikyan


"Games are structures of desire"
                                                              - Eric Zimmerman

Structure is what brings a game together. By 'desire' Zimmerman means that games must have goals, and players must agree to behave as if the goal is important to them. By structure Zimmerman means that the interaction with game rules, characters, obstacles, story etc. create a structure within which people play. This structure can fall apart if the players do not agree on a proposed rule, for example when kids play 'Cowboys and Indians' - "Bang, you're dead Indian!", "No, I'm not! Why am I?". We have to remember that we are all playing the same game, confined by the same rules. Without obeyed rules - there is no structure. Therefor, without structure - there is no game.
"A game is an interactive structure of endogenous meaning that requires players to struggle towards goals"
                                                               - Greg Costikyan (2004:24)

This quote is Costikyan's attempt to find a functional definition of a 'game'. According to the dictionary, one of the definitions of endogenous is "caused by factors inside the organism or system". Exactly as a game's structure creates its own meanings. The meaning is caused by the structure, it is directly endogenous to the structure. This definition covers all aspects of what constitutes a 'game', it poses questions when designing a game that are vital for the game to be a success, such as:
  • How does the player interact with the game?
  • Are these interactions meaningful?
  • Is the process of interaction enjoyable? - if not how can it be made more so?
  • Is there a single goal, or several?
  • What kind of playstyles do you want to support, and therefore what kind of goals should you allow?
  • Do the algorithms that govern the game fit in the context of the game world?
  • Are they both complex enough to challenge the player, but not so hard as to frustrate?
  • Where does the struggle lie?
  • What obstacles must be overcome by the user?
  • What meanings does the game create?
  • What pleasures does the game provide?
  • What connections can be made between game objects and objects in the real world?
  • If there's a story to the game, is it emotionally satisfying?

This list of questions continues, all posed by Costikyan's definition of a 'game'. A game is made up of structures that people are going to use in every possible way, including ways that we cannot anticipate. The shape of a game is created by the artist, but the experience of the game is created by the player. Game design is therefore the creative attempt to imagine the kinds of experiences that a player will have with your game. Using that imagination, also creating a structure to nudge them towards the kinds of experiences you would like them to have.

Three designer tips to be taken from this article:

  1. Begin by thinking about the experiences you want your players to have.
  2. Understand what makes a game.
  3. Understand what pleasures people find in games

I apologise for the long read, writing about this article has helped me to better understand what it is to be a games designer. The term 'game' can indeed be defined, and Costikyan has provided a strong insight into what constitutes a game; there are aspects that must be present, and some that are optional. But the most important aspect of a game is the structure, for the structure is what governs the entire game. As stated before

- Without structure (and its many aspects), there is no game.


Thankyou, and goodnight.



Pandora?!


 In response to Eddie's comment on the previous post, I've been checking out the Pandora Console!
This beast is expected to have its second batch in February 2012, and if you want to get your hands on one you'll have to pre-order from the Pandora site:




The Pandora boasts some fantastic specs:

  • ARM® Cortex™-A8 600Mhz+ CPU running Linux

  • 430-MHz TMS320C64x+™ DSP Core

  • PowerVR SGX OpenGL 2.0 ES compliant 3D hardware

  • 800x480 4.3" 16.7 million colours touchscreen LCD

  • Wifi 802.11b/g, Bluetooth & High Speed USB 2.0 Host

  • Dual SDHC card slots & SVideo TV output

  • Dual Analogue and Digital gaming controls

  • 43 button QWERTY and numeric keypad

  • Around 10+ Hours battery life (yes, really!)



  • Maybe I should've looked a bit harder for a dedicated retro-gaming machine, 'cause this ones got it all...

    All Things Great and Portable


    I'm going to take this opportunity to express my love for all things portable! This isn't a tonne of reviews, it's simply the story of my experiences and desires with portable gaming machines. Ever since I first lay hands upon my very own Gameboy Colour I fell in love with portable gaming!

    There have been so many incredible pocket-sized machines produced since the release of 'my first' fully portable gaming device, the Gameboy Colour, it's staggering to think how much has changed...

    The headaches I brought upon myself from solidly playing Pokemon Red under my covers (with my bendy light attatchment of course!) would be enough to put any normal nine year old off gaming forever, but I powered through! And I'm glad I did, that level 99 Pidgeot serves me to this day!

    I wasn't lucky enough to own one of the super awesome first gen Gameboy Advance, I hadn't finished with my Gameboy Colour yet! (Pokemon games are just timeless...) But I did manage to pick up a Gameboy Advance SP on release day. Along with, would you guess it? Pokemon Ruby! Now this beast served me for many years, and took rather a beating being taken to and from school. The back light was a much needed addition that lead to even more playtime under the covers! (No pun intended)

    The next announcement from Nintendo in 2003 revealed something innovative, different and gosh darn beautiful! Or so I thought, perhaps I was blinded by my love affair with portable consoles... But the DS didn't quite live up to promises made by the leaked images (will I ever learn?). Still, I received my American import of the DS that Christmas, and couldn't have been happier! (Even though I was stuck with nothing but the Metroid Hunters demo for at least 3 months) As soon as Mario 64 DS came through, I started realising that what I really wanted in a handheld was a simple emulator to play all those classic games I grew up with...

    Upon the release of the Sony PsP in 2005 I had become a diehard DS fan, and the thought of owning a 'chavy' psp was laughable. The moment I saw one in action, I knew what I was missing! But the pricing was rather ridiculous, which resulted in my not buying one until 2007 for the meager price of £25 from eBay (The old Phat model mind you, after the slim models had been released). I proceeded to enable homebrew apps and fired up the Daedelus N64 emulator, to my suprise it was in fact playable! Barely... However using PoPsLoader I was able to relive original titles from the Ps1 like Final Fantasy XIII and IX, Vagrant Story, Monster Rancher, Little Big Adventure (You'll probably hear me reference this game rather a lot) and quite a few other brilliant but nearly forgotten games.

    So, I've got a PsP that can run my favourite N64, GBA, GBC, SNES and Sega Megadrive games with no effort other than switching SD cards involved, with a library of 50+ games on each card. But my craving for more portable games consoles grew ever larger, and the sub-par framerate of the N64 emulator was rather frustrating. But the PsP was the most powerful handheld on the market, totally overshadowing the DS in terms of game quality and ease of use (That analogue stick was a much needed godsend). With the release of the PsP Go and the promise of a slightly faster processor, higher resolution, a more robust analogue stick and the icing on the cake - even more compact! Luckily, my girlfriend saw the glint in my eye, and bought me one for my birthday!

    I still use the PsP Go near enough every day now, mostly replaying old Ps1 games (which is essentially all I want the system for anyway). A lot of these games are just plain better than the newer releases, especially for the PsP. Impressive high budget games for this console have somewhat disappeared in the past 12 months or so. Still, the Ps Vita is set to wow everyone, and I don't expect that to be an overstatement.

    The latest itteration of Nintendo's DS was a near enough instant buy for me. I was most likely sucked in like most other early adopters of the 3DS with the promise of old games being re-mastered and re-released. To myself, the 3D feature was just a bonus. "The day that I can play Ocarina of Time (flawlessly) on the train will be the day I never need another handheld gaming device!" I used to say... Let alone in 3D! Well that day has been and gone, and indeed I dare say I will never need another handheld gaming device. But that doesn't mean to say I won't be running out on release day and purchasing the PS Vita to add to my handheld family.

    The truth is, every second of my life I have to spare is taken up by gaming of some kind; and what's cooler than whipping out a 3 inch screen and cracking on with some? Nothing, that's what. With each and every new portable console that is released, I fill up with excitement just like I did in PC World when I was nine. It's a brilliant feeling I'll tell you now, and it's something that I'll never forget.



    So that's my life in the form of portable gaming machines! And I'll leave you with yet another quote from inside the gaming industry -

                                             "Do weird and difficult things."

                  -Masaya Matsuura (Musician and Games Designer on games such as - Major Minor's Majestic March on Wii)

    Finally: I didn't include mention of iPhones, iPods or iPads for the same reasons I didn't include comments on the Samsung Galaxy, Xperia Play or Motorola Xoom - They are not dedicated gaming machines. However much I love my iPhone, and the incredible games pumped into the App Store, I don't believe they deserve a position in the handheld gaming machine family... Yet.

    Thanks for your valuable time, you beautiful people.

    So... Where to start?

     Well hello! I didn't see you standing back there, come forward, out of the darkness and into the warm bathing light that is a practicing game designer's blog! I will be using this blog over the next three years to show my evolution from a lowly passionate gamer, in to a beautiful butterfly! (Or better known as: a Games Designer)

    In preperation for becoming a very important 'butterfly', I gave myself an interview! To better understand, well... me!


    Question 1: What is the title of the fictional book you are currently reading, or the last one you read?

    I finished reading 'His Dark Materials' series recently, and proceeded to pick up the follow on short-stories: Lyra's Oxford and Once Upon a Time in the North, all by Philip Pullman.

    Question 2: What is the title/topic of the non-fictional book you are currently reading, or the last one you read?

    I am currently attempting to read "Essential ActionScript 3.0"...

    Question 3: What is the last live performance you attended?

    Pariah and Exhale the Skies gig, helping to support my local bands!

    Question 4: What is the title of the last film you saw at the cinema / online or watched on DVD?

    Disctrict 9, albeit for the 12th time... But who's counting?

    Question 5: How often do you read a newspaper?

    Whenever there's a newspaper in front of me, you can be sure I'll have a good read!

    Question 6: Which art gallery / museum / exhibition did you last visit?

    Museum of Natural History in London. I also recently attended the Eurogamer Exposition, possibly one of the greatest experiences of my life - playing many unreleased games, and generally having a great time with thousands of other gamers!

    Question 7: How many hours a week do you spend playing video games?

    Between 30 and 50 hours or possibly more... Too much? No. NOT ENOUGH!

    Question 8: How many hours a week do you spend playing games other than video games?

    Between 5 and 10 hours. 99% of this time is most likely spent playing chess or poker!




    So that's it for the interview, and for the first of many, many blog posts! I'll finish on a quote from a brilliant man in the games industry -

    "A single-player game is really a movie that you create in cooperation with the player, where the lead actor doesn't have a copy of the script." 
                                    - Gabe Newell (Co-Founder and Managing Director of Valve) 

    Peace out!

     
    Game Design with a Mallett! © 2011 | Designed by Chica Blogger, in collaboration with Uncharted 3, MW3 Forum and Angry Birds Online