Why We Play Games: Natural Funativity, Noah Falstein

 The word 'fun' is defined as a source from which we can receive enjoyment. It can be incredibly hard to describe fun, but everyone knows exactly when they have experienced it!

Paleolithic Pastimes:

 We all have a strong dependency on social interactions with one another; this leads to another dependency - An establishment in our family, and the ability to maintain that place in our family.

There is a theory that considers the way we behave towards things that invoke 'fun' to us, this is called Refined Sugar Syndrome (RSS). Throughout history humanity has strived to discover and collect various sweet-tasting things in the world. Sugar, being naturally present in fruit, was a coveted commodity to our ancient counterparts and after discovering the sugary fruits they treasured them greatly. More modern fruit sugar is generally created using a concentrated form of this substance. This process can be applied to the act of playing - we have taken this simple act and turned it into a concentrated source, Video Games. Our ancestors used games not only as a form of entertainment, but a way to keep their hunting and survival skills honed and constantly improving.

Physical Fun

 The survival instinct is one of our primary urges as human beings, anything that threatens our survival is automatically drawn into the centre of our attention and awareness. Modern games tend to play on this trait and cause players to feel more immersed in the game by doing so. As this 'urge' is completely involuntary and instinctive, players tend to find it hard to ignore it because it is built into everyone's mind set. Physical Fun relies on strong muscles and impressive coordination. A theory as to why sports are so popular is that these often focus on physical strength and cooperation with the team: these activities are what would have been required for our ancestors in order to hunt and survive.

Falstein mentions why many game aspects can be easily relevant in terms of our ancestral history:

Casinos - Berry Picking
Collectible Games - Gatherers
RTS, RPG, FPS - Travellers/Discovery
Weapons/Hand Tools - Stone Tools

Social Fun

 Games often bring people together, it creates a solid ground for us to build on our social interactions and increase our understanding of language and culture. It has also (indirectly) introduced a new way of learning and increasing the ability to hone our survival instincts. The existence of storytelling leads us to believe that our ancestors enjoyed or at least had the desire to socialise with eachother.

MMO's can create the basis of socialisation using many specific features in the game: Chat rooms tend to be opened where people can discuss their personal experiences within the game and recieve feedback from other players. The media is expanding constantly, creating even more social interaction! A reason why so many people play these games, and especially why so many game developers focus on this aspect of their games - Socialisation is, and always will be, something required by every human being in order to keep happy.

Mental Fun

 Games that challenge us in a mental way lure some players in purely with the promise of a challenge. We have developed as human beings to have an expansive brain that can hold so much information, giving us an advantage of learning to survive and adapt over time. The constant growth of our brains has given us quicker reactions, recognising patterns and important decisions.

Blended Fun

 The type of games that this 'fun' often use more than one of these natural funativity types in their games to lure in more than one type of gamer. Different gamers prefer different types of funativity, and so by tapping into more than one type of funativity they can attract and hold a much larger audience for their game.

After discussing this reading I have gained a large insight into how 'fun' is considered when creating a game. I did not think to look back in history and use the most basic of human instincts to see what 'fun' really is today - exactly what it used to be!

Group Game End Animation... Research!

The final level of Independent thought requires a large Exit Gate,  I thought it best to find some Portcullis gates in the real world in order to get an idea of how they operate and look.

Exit gate influences:

(01)

(02)

Yuma Prison Portcullis (01)                               Boston Castle Portcullis (02)

- As opposed to the gate rising, there                 - This is much more what I had in mind, a very large

is a small gate in the Portcullis. This                   stone archway with heavy iron grating on the gate.

wasn't really what I was looking for,

but has a great stone archway effect.

This design is delightfully simple and easy enough to implement. Very simple stone archway with an equally simple gate. The grey/black colours will fit with the rest of the level, making the whole thing fit seamlessly.

I think it’s important to give the gate character whilst also making it stand out as a massive goal – the final escape from the prison! So utilizing features like the points at the bottom of the gate, and slight patterns in the way the stones are arranged in the archway are key. 

The background behind the Portcullis is also a very important aspect of the level. It’s important to make the player feel like they are really striving towards a goal.

An image such as this uses sunshine, luscious grasslands and bright colours to show the outside world.

The background will be created using photoshop, and placed behind the 3D Portcullis gate – creating the effect of an outside world without having to actually create it entirely.

Group Game End Animation... Research!

The final level of Independent thought requires a large Exit Gate,  I thought it best to find some Portcullis gates in the real world in order to get an idea of how they operate and look.

Exit gate influences:

(01)

(02)

Yuma Prison Portcullis (01) 
- As opposed to the gate rising, there is a small gate in the Portcullis. This wasn't really what I was looking for, but has a great stone archway effect.

Boston Castle Portcullis (02)

- This is much more what I had in mind, a very large stone archway with heavy iron grating on the gate.

This design is delightfully simple and easy enough to implement. Very simple stone archway with an equally simple gate. The grey/black colours will fit with the rest of the level, making the whole thing fit seamlessly.

I think it’s important to give the gate character whilst also making it stand out as a massive goal – the final escape from the prison! So utilizing features like the points at the bottom of the gate, and slight patterns in the way the stones are arranged in the archway are key. 

The background behind the Portcullis is also a very important aspect of the level. It’s important to make the player feel like they are really striving towards a goal.

An image such as this uses sunshine, luscious grasslands and bright colours to show the outside world.

The background will be created using photoshop, and placed behind the 3D Portcullis gate – creating the effect of an outside world without having to actually create it entirely.

Games Britannia - Monopolies and Mergers (Part 2 of 3)

 Following on from the previous episode, Benjamin Woolley shows us the influences board games have had over the last two hundred years on British society and how they have developed into games that have become a moral teaching for many people over the ages.

Elizabeth Magie in 1904 invented and patented a board game titled The Landlord's Game. This game was supposedly designed to show people how 'land grabbing' and renting worked back then. It was also used to teach children to understand fairness, and hopefully allow them to take these new learnings into the adult world. This game was first published in 1913 in Great Britain with the title Brer Fox an' Brer Rabbit, later a massive influence on the most popular game in history - Monopoly. The similarities between the two games can be spotted easily - the versatility of both games allowed any of the places to be renamed, making it possible to change the names for a specific location where the game would be sold. (This is the reason for monopoly being so big all these years.)

After this point family board games were being created to sail families through the great depression - Cluedo and Scrabble quickly became popular family games during this time, then started to form the biggest games companies at the time (even big now, producing the same games!).

Since that time not a lot has changed in the world of board games, they are simply not as popular with the masses as they used to be. There are new 'innovative' board games being created today that are used to teach people about the changes in the world, War on Terror for example. This game was created to further alert people about how countries have acquired other's land and the cheapness of terrorism. This game is mainly just satire, however it does raise some interesting points that pose discussions to the players - teaching them whilst they play! Unfortunately it is very hard for the designers of this game to find a shop that will stock it, due to its satirical nature.

Board games are important to teach generations how to 'cope' with life, and to provide distractions from everyday work. With the introduction of digital games it is important that we do not forget the simple board game, and ensure that we pass on the knowledge that we have learned form board games onto others - hopefully inspiring a new board game that will revolutionise the way that people think of board games.

Royal Game of Ur Essay

Abstract

 During this assignment I will be discussing the problems encountered in tweaking the dynamics and game mechanics in The Royal Game of Ur and how I overcame them, whilst also referring to the readings undertaken during the “Critical Games Studies” module of the “Computer Games Design" course at University Campus Suffolk.

Introduction

The Royal Game of Ur is one of the earliest recorded games, first discovered in the excavations of the tombs of the City of Ur (hence the name) by Sir Leonard Woolley between 1926-1930. This first game board dates back as far as 2600 BC, and for a long period after its discovery the rules were unknown. The rules were first discovered and translated from a Babylonian Tablet by a historian at the British Museum named Irving Finkel. These however are not necessarily the original rules of the game, and it is still argued by some that the game could have been a divine ritual practice, performed by priests (Becker, 2008, p 13). There are two known versions of the board, with historical rules only corresponding with one. Both of the boards have 20 squares; hence the game adopting the name “The Game of 20 Squares”. The Royal Game of Ur is merely a name given by the discoverers, the original name is not known. There are many references to the game throughout popular culture, for instance the television series Lost references the discovery of the game when John Locke explains the origins of Backgammon to Walt in the episode "Pilot, Part 2".

Play Testing and the Iterative Process

The original board discovered by Woolley is composed of a set of twelve squares and a set of six squares linked by a bridge of two squares (Fig. 1). They are all covered with geometrical designs on the original board. The second version is covered in different animals fighting, and rather than two separated sets of squares there is only one set of twelve, with an extension of eight squares like a ‘sprint to the finish line’ (Fig. 2). The latter corresponds greatly with the rules translated by Finkel.

(Fig 1) - Original Board

(Fig 2) - 2^nd Century BC Board

In order to begin iterating this game, I first needed to understand the rules; and what better way to understand a game than to play it? After four or five games with one of my colleagues on each of the game boards, we decided the competitiveness that the ‘sprint to finish’ style of the 2^nd century board was more entertaining (Fig. 2). The rules that we adopted for play testing were the rules translated by Finkel and found in the book “On the Rules for The Royal Game of Ur”.

With these rules thoroughly understood and our chosen game board at the ready, we began to really Play the game – and have an amazing time doing it. After the initial thrill of the game, it became clear to me that this board could have easily been used as a form of divination and Becker’s theory may well be true. Many ancient games have been used as some form of divination as I discovered whilst looking for different divination games and found Van Binsbergen, W.M.J., 1995, ‘Divination and board-games: Exploring the links between geomantic divination and Mancala board-games in Africa and Asia’. Which specifically mentioned Mancala, which is ever so slightly similar to The Royal Game of Ur in that it is a ‘race game’, each player must race to collect the most pieces. Andrea Becker and Irving Finkel both state that there have been many game boards for The Royal Game of Ur discovered all over the world.

Boards for the Game of Twenty Squares become increasingly common throughout the second and first millennia BC and over one hundred samples are now known from Iraq, Iran, Israel, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, Cyprus, Egypt and Crete.

Finkel, I. (2005) Games: Discover and Play 5 Famous Ancient Games. British Museum Press p. ??

The game Alea Evangelis was a metaphor for the pilgrimage of Jesus through Jerusalem; and the Stanway Game discovered in Colchester (Essex) was supposedly played before wars as a form of prediction (Games Britannia - Dicing with Destiny, BBC, 2009). So I decided to follow the theme of these historic games and imagine the game as a precursor of the future in order to involve my own mechanics in a way that would have still been accepted way back in history. The point that Becker makes about many boards having been discovered all over the world shows that the game was playable by many different social types, and understandable universally – it was important that my iterations of the mechanics and dynamics did not lose this aspect and over complicate the game (possibly leading to boredom or frustration).

The first iteration that came to mind was something to increase the pace, as (fun as it may have been) each game had taken a rather long time. To eliminate the possibility of illegal moves the rule was added:

1.     If token lands on another token owned by the same player the tokens then ‘stack’ and become one entity (but still two tokens), the newly ‘stacked’ tokens can then move as one, or separate using moves. The stacked tokens are treated as one in relation to all other rules.

For example, previously if I rolled and received two tipped edges I would be able to move one piece, two spaces. However with this rule it is possible to have multiple tokens ‘stacked’ and use these two moves to allow one token to move forward two squares, or both tokens to move forward two squares simultaneously. This introduced a whole new aspect of skill and prediction, in that by ‘stacking’ your tokens they can all be ‘captured’ at once – creating a good emotional response in the player (a risk factor - Aesthetics).

After playing a few games with this new iteration, it was clear that the game had become slightly more nerve-wracking! The competitiveness of both my colleague and me increased significantly and it became more of a heart-pumping race to the finish. One slight problem with this iteration was that it was often a long time before either of us would get free of the safe zones, after using each of our moves to put new tokens onto the board (within the safe zones) and merge them with other tokens. There was a couple of occasions when we both had all seven tokens 'stacked' and we were relying entirely on the roll of the dice to either overtake our opponent or capture all seven of their tokens - returning them all to the start. With this in mind, it did not make the game any less entertaining! There were still shouts of triumph and moans at every dice roll, the fun factor was definitely improving and it became apparent that the random aspect of the dice roll could be manipulated more to increase "funativity" (Noah Falstein, Gamasutra: Natural Funativity, 2004).

We can apply the Bell Curve (Braithwaite, 2009) in this newly created situation (Fig. 3).

(Fig. 3)

By introducing a rather large aspect of risk (stacking), but balancing it with the possibility of a reward (winning faster/easier) it has made the game a much more enjoyable experience!

The second iteration took slightly longer to come up with, but I had already decided that I should continue with the idea of the game being a form of divination. So what tactical possibilities were there for conflicting armies? When a group is 'attacked', they didn't just stand there and get wiped out - they fought back! So with this in mind, I came up with a new rule:

2.     If a 'stack' of tokens is under attack, and the quantity of tokens is higher than that of the attacking 'stack' of tokens; then the victim receives a chance to defend themselves - i.e. The victim and attacker must both roll a dice, and the player with the highest roll must return their 'stack' to the beginning.

Now this rule was slightly more complex, meaning it was important that it was followed as it added yet another layer of depth to the game. It was also important that the rule aspect of "and the quantity of tokens is higher than that of the attacking 'stack'" was included as this gave the attacker (the player that is behind the victim) a bonus - positive feedback when losing. This aspect not only coincided with the relevant divination methods, but it also provided the losing players with a reason to continue whether they were behind or not, without feeling as if all is lost. (Mark LeBlanc, Salen and Zimmerman's The Game Design Reader p438 - p459). After several plays with this new rule it was clear that this was a much-needed addition; not only did it add an opportunity for the losing player to fight back more effectively, but it also prevents the possibility of boredom within the losing player; preventing such phrases,  "That's not fair!" and "These rules are ridiculous!". The randomness of the die mechanic added to the heart-pounding effect and despite some ‘bad’ rolls it was easy to use the first iteration rule to spread the moves and provide for a more strategic method of play.

Conclusion

With comparison to Finkel's rules I feel as though my iterations have improved the game in a way that makes it more fun to the modern gamer. With more movement possibilities and strategic conflicts the game has become even more of a prediction of war, which is the idea I wished to stick with from the start. I believe that the game could still of been used as a form of divination with these new iterations, which was the main aspect that I did not want to lose. By focusing on this single aspect from the start I have managed to keep the mechanics that made The Royal Game of Ur engaging, entertaining and most importantly FUN! I have tweaked the Dynamics and Mechanics of The Royal Game of Ur with minimal problems; the second iteration rectified the issues with the first, keeping the game balanced and interesting.

Bibliography

Finkel, I. L. (2008) “On the Rules for The Royal Game of Ur” in Finkel, ed. Games: Discover and Play 5 Famous Ancient Games pp. 16-32.

Van Binsbergen, W.M.J., 1995, ‘Divination and board games: Exploring the links between geomantic divination and Mancala board games in Africa and Asia’

Finkel, I. (2005) Games: Discover and Play 5 Famous Ancient Games. British Museum Press

Games Britannia - Dicing with Destiny, BBC series, 2009

Noah Falstein, Gamasutra: Natural Funativity, 2004

Game Rules (According to Finkel):

•       Each player begins with 7 tokens.

•       Each player starts on opposite sides of the board.

•       Players decide which of them starts first, with any desired method.

•       The player who starts rolls four d4 die, each coloured on two tips.

•       The player moves a single token forward according to how many coloured tips are rolled.

•       If a players token lands on a “Rosette” square (Rosettes on the original board, stars in both Fig. 1 and Fig. 2) they get another turn.

•       The purpose of the game is for each player to get all of his tokens off of the board, following the pathway shown in Fig. 2.

•       If a player’s token is moved on top of the opponents token as a result of the die, the token that was first on that square is returned to it’s player. This is referred to as ‘Capturing’.

•       A token on a “Rosette” square is considered to be in a safe zone, and cannot be ‘captured’. These squares are often called ‘Refugee’ squares.

•       If a player cannot move on that turn (legally), then the turn is lost.

Why We Play Games: Four Keys to More Emotion Without Story - Nicole Lazzaro

Player Experience Research and Design for Mass Marker Interactive Entertainment

 This topic presented me with a question: Why do we play games? Well people play games for different reasons and this results in games having different effects. However all 'gamers' play to change or structure their internal experiences, these experiences create a strong emotional impact on them as a player. Emotions are a form of expression and allow us to express ourselves and let others communicate with us and better understand our emotions. Many games use some form of tools to give the player challenges to overcome, the challenge can result in emotions such as frustration and anger, whereas once the goal is reached the reward is happiness or relief. This could be one of the reasons for why people play games, the sense of happiness as a reward allows people to step out of their ordinary life and into a game world (escapism).

The company, named XEODesign, specialise in researching player experience and design for mass marker interactive entertainment. In these readings they have performed a field study on thirty different players from many different backgrounds with many different preferences in order to find out what makes them want to play the games they do. A set of key emotions were produced that tie in with story:

1. Like: What players like most about playing.
2. Emotion: Creates unique emotion without story.
3. Games: Already present in ultra popular games.
4. Theory: Supported by psychology theory and other larger studies.

Each key is a reason for why people play these games.

Hard Fun:

Players attempt to overcome obstacles. Hard Fun is a way of structuring your play and creating your own experiences and emotions - usually pursuing a goal set by them. This mainly focuses on the reward factor. This technique can cause more frustration and passion when goals are completed, players enjoy the relief after overcoming the frustration and this is one reason for people playing games. Hard Fun tends to attract people who enjoy a challenge and think things such as:

• I play to see how good I am.
• I play to beat the game.
• I play to have multiple objectives.
• I prefer using strategy rather than luck.

Easy Fun:

This type of player receive enjoyment from simply playing the game, for the simple enjoyment and experience of it. This enjoyment often entices the player provoking a sense of curiosity which causes them to become deeply immersed in the game world. The sensations of wonder and awe often draw these players into the game. They tend to have a short attention span so RPGs and Adventure games tend to keep them satisfied. Easy Fun attracts the kind of people that often say things like:

• I play to explore new worlds with intriguing people.
• I play for the excitement and adventure.
• I play because I want to figure out the story.
• I play because I want to see what happens in the story, even if I have to use a walkthrough!
• I play because me and my character are one.
• I love the sound of the cards shuffling.
• I play because of the growing dragons.

Altered States:

These types of players play games that generate emotion through perception, thought, behaviours and playing with others. Many people will say they play games because it makes them feel better about themselves, these games are usually created to shift players from one mental state to another. Players who enjoy these types of games often say things such as:

• I enjoy letting the game clear my mind by clearing a level.
• I feel better about myself whilst playing.
• I play to avoid boredom.
• Being better than someone at something that matters.

The People Factor:

These games create opportunities for players to interact and compete with each other. This type of player often play purely for the social aspects of the game. They will even play games they dont like just because they enjoy socialising with the people that do play. People can get angry and jokes can be thrown about but its all part of the game. These players often say things such as:

• It's the people who play that are addictive, not the game itself.
• I want an excuse to invite my friends over for some games.
• I don't like playing games, but it's a fun way to spend time with my friends.
• I don't play, but it's fun to watch.

Why Some People No Longer or Never Want to Play:

Some people refuse to play games as they value other things in life with a much higher responsibility, such as jobs or family. Some people never want to play again because they know that games can become addictive and develop bad habits. Games have even been regarded as against some people's morals.

Looking at these partitions of the types of games for the gamer I think that I barely fall under any of these categories. Perhaps a mixture of all of them because I enjoy doing nearly everything listed, but it depends on what mood I am in. But if I had to choose I would say either Easy Fun or Altered States  would satisfy me, although as I said I believe I enjoy nearly all aspects of gaming listed here.

Until next time!

Large-Scale Group Game Idea (Unlimited Players)

 My game idea for an unlimited amount of people does not require props of any kind, however two parallel walls/lines/benches etc are required. The aim of the game is to be the last person left 'uncaptured' by the enemy.

Rules

• One player is designated as 'border patrol' and must stand in the middle of the parallel lines.
• The other players stand touching the line ready to run across to the other side.
• Whenever they are ready any number of the players at the line can make a dash for the 'border' (the other line), trying not to be captured by the border patrol.
• If a player is 'tagged' by the border patrol, they must link arms with them (up to a maximum of five persons, after five people are joined a new group of five is made).
• The winner is the last person touching the line.

My game is quite similar to bulldog, but involves the 'border patrol' players linking arms, making it not only harder for them to manoeuvre, but also harder for the 'imigrants' to pass them.

Players Who Suit Multi-User Domains (MUD's)

 For week 8 we were presented with a rather dated article by Richard A Bartle and entitled "Player's who suit MUD's". The points presented within however were not as dated as at first glance and can still be applied to the current games design industry and community. The question posed to us was how the different styles of players related to ourselves as well as the game world. Along with how the article was relevant to our own actions as players whilst we play the games we enjoy.

MUD's are Multi User Domains and are 'typically' text-based RPGs with one significant difference: a chat element allowing players to interact with eachother online (at a very basic level). This type of game has now become widely popular and is referred to as a MMORPG, a Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game.

Bartle describes two distinct playing styles: Action (World orientated) and Interaction (Player orientated). These are then split into four types of players, known as...

• Achievers: See leveling up and gathering points as their overall goal. Achievers tend to set themselves goals and are constantly on the look out to improve their character in any way they can.

• Killers: Players that use killing others as their overall goal. They often just want to cause distress to the other players, limiting their enjoyment of the game - the less fun others have at the behest of the Killer the more fun the Killer experiences.

• Socialisters: Players that base their playthrough around talking to others and making new friendships. Socialisers tend to play just because of the inter-player relationships that can be formed, and often don't care that much about the intended objectives of the game.

• Explorers: Players that want to learn everything about the game terrain they are playing through. Explorers often try to find and explore the game Mechanics and enjoy discovering interesting objects and artifacts within the game. These kind of players get enjoyment from things such as being the 'first' player to discover a hidden item, or location.

Bartle uses metaphors for each of these gaming personalities, he uses the suits from a pack of playing cards to do so:

• Hearts (Socialisers care about players feelings)
• Spades (Explorers tend to 'dig up' strange new places)
• Diamonds (Achievers want to have the best of the best when it comes to score and items)
• Clubs (Killers club people to death)

Relationships

 Socialisers: Tend to socialise with each and every player time, but mainly speak to other Socialisers. They take an interest in the game purely so they have people to talk to.

Achievers: Achievers see other Achievers as a form of competition, and often want to 'out-rank' them within a game. This type of player sees the game as a very important aspect of their life.

Killers: Killers target Achievers as enemies. The game means so much to the Achievers that the stress caused by the Killer can be maximised against these players.

Explorers: Do not usually want to fight back against Killers, but when they do the Killers may need to treat cautiously as in the process of exploring the Explorer may have found powerful items that could lead to the Killer's demise.


Bartle tells us that the balance between these player-types needs to be in balance. Each of the player-types offers a relationship with another player-type, leading to mass player interaction. If one of these types was to drop in population, chances are that another type that relied on that one would also drop in population. For example if the population of Achievers dropped dramatically you may find that the population of Killers also drops; this is due to the Killers wanting to maximise their 'annoyance level', and Social or Explorer players dont necessarily get annoyed at being killed.

 Less Achievers = Less Killers

Conclusion

Throughout this article I have learned about different player types which have been noticable to me but never really broken down in my life as an MMORPG player. However I would consider my own playstyle to be a mixture of all of these aspects as I enjoy taking part in all of these activities. I feel that in newer MUD's players can be forced to experience all of these playstyles whilst leveling up. There are often segments of the game-world that specific types of players enjoy hanging out. For example PvP zones for Killers and high score leaderboards for the Achievers. This article may have been a little old, but it definately can be applied to modern games and gamers.

Mass Effect Themed Background Update

Minor progression on my custom background:

I neglected to mention that I purchased a Wacom Pen & Touch Tablet at the start of the year after using a fellow students and falling in love. I've been using this tablet every chance I get (including previously posted artwork). I love the scratchy effect I can create so easily, giving my art a really unique feel!