VideoGame Adaptation of Shakespeare's Two Gentlemen of Verona
Monday 22 November 2010
Wednesday 17 November 2010
Board Game Fun-damentals.
The last few weeks have been focused on studying the fundamental (emphasis on the fun) mechanics of board games.What are they made of? Why do we play them? What do they offer us as a social or personal experience. I found that at the core, there aren't many differences in the structure at the core of board games.
Objectives seem essentially limited to winning criteria strategies such as last man standing: when the player must defeat all other players to become the victor; First to the finish line: the winning player is the first one to reach a certain goal stated in the rules or agreed upon by all players; Richest after all: where the winner is the payer with the highest value of a certain criteria after an agreed upon amount of time. The players act as rule enforcers and keep the players from breaking the rules or cheating.
Translating that into digital games, all the agreements and objectives are made between the computer and other players. The computer acts as the rules enforcer. If there is an illegal move the computer wont let you play it.
While there are some board games that can be played solo, I think it's safe to say that the majority of them in are created to be played by groups. And the social aspect of the game is what brings the fun to the table; and that fun is generally experienced when the players trump the each other in one form or another.
In history of digital games, the social experience of playing online is only really in it's infancy and many games are played by one player. Yet this still brings a similar experience of fun and enjoyment.
While the rules, essential fundamentals and gameplay methods of games in general can be broken down into similar categories whether they're tabletop or digital, they offer similar experiences through different types of play.
So what makes a one player digital game as much fun as a four player board game? Why do players with strong social capital still choose to play on their own rather than with a group? is the type of fun a different experience altogether?
It is argued that fun is a very arbitrary word. Something we all experience but not something that anyone can quite put their finger on. So capitalising on it can be quite tricky. Nonetheless, we can establish what are similar elements in 'fun' games and throw them into the mix to create a seemingly fun game. Maybe from studying that mix a little closer we can establish a more defined definition of the word.
Objectives seem essentially limited to winning criteria strategies such as last man standing: when the player must defeat all other players to become the victor; First to the finish line: the winning player is the first one to reach a certain goal stated in the rules or agreed upon by all players; Richest after all: where the winner is the payer with the highest value of a certain criteria after an agreed upon amount of time. The players act as rule enforcers and keep the players from breaking the rules or cheating.
Translating that into digital games, all the agreements and objectives are made between the computer and other players. The computer acts as the rules enforcer. If there is an illegal move the computer wont let you play it.
While there are some board games that can be played solo, I think it's safe to say that the majority of them in are created to be played by groups. And the social aspect of the game is what brings the fun to the table; and that fun is generally experienced when the players trump the each other in one form or another.
In history of digital games, the social experience of playing online is only really in it's infancy and many games are played by one player. Yet this still brings a similar experience of fun and enjoyment.
While the rules, essential fundamentals and gameplay methods of games in general can be broken down into similar categories whether they're tabletop or digital, they offer similar experiences through different types of play.
So what makes a one player digital game as much fun as a four player board game? Why do players with strong social capital still choose to play on their own rather than with a group? is the type of fun a different experience altogether?
It is argued that fun is a very arbitrary word. Something we all experience but not something that anyone can quite put their finger on. So capitalising on it can be quite tricky. Nonetheless, we can establish what are similar elements in 'fun' games and throw them into the mix to create a seemingly fun game. Maybe from studying that mix a little closer we can establish a more defined definition of the word.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)