For our first homework for Game Design, we were assigned a reading by
Jesper Juul which is called “The Game, the Player, the World.”
I found the reading quite interesting, especially as it considered the architecture of games, we’re all very much familiar with: everything from to chess, to tic tac toe to the Sims was covered under the context of how they fit into a template for how to place limits around the definition of a “Game.”
Juul reviews various definitions of Game, as put forth by multiple authors from periods ranging from the 1950s to somewhat present day (2003). He seeks to find commonalities among these multiple definitions and distill them down to a new definition limited by 6 points.
1) Rules
2) Variable quantifiable outcome
3) Value assigned to possible outcomes
4) Player effort
5) Player attached to outcome
6) Negotiable consequences
When our instructor Kevin Cancienne discussed the age-old game of tic tac toe, he described it as being “broken.” I wasn’t sure I knew what to make of this statement, at the time, but soon understood it a bit more via Juul’s article. Juul describes tic tac toe as thus, “Once you figure out the principle, you will achieve a draw every time you play.”
Juul also discusses how some traditional card games have made the successful transition to online, such as Hearts or Spades or Poker.
“So the adaption of board and card games to computers is possible due to the fact that computers are capable of performing 1) the operations defined in the rules of the game, operations that is normally performed by humans, and 2) the keeping track of the game state which is normally done using cards and board pieces.”
Juul concludes his article with insight on the definition of “play,” which brought to mind our very first day as students at ITP. Red Burns insisted that we “play” for the time that we are students. She insisted that ITP was our technological sandbox for us to explore our imagination. Juul also touches upon this idea by challenging the definition of play as juxtaposed against the various rules of Games. In the sense that games have so much structure and limitations as to directly contradict the definition of the free form nature of “play.”
“The answer to this is basically that games provide context for actions: Moving an avatar is much more meaningful in a game environment than in an empty space; throwing a ball has more interesting implications on the playing field than off the playing field…”
Also, as part of our homework we were required to play the game filler. This is an online game available via clicking the link. The goal of the game is to fill 2/3 of the level screen with balls that you make by clicking and holding on the mouse without having your newly created ball collide with any of the independently generated bouncing balls also on the screen. I played it several times and was thoroughly entertained. The interface is quite simple. Greyscale colors. Simple collision detection of balls. The only color appears when you fail. I passed several levels before I “died.”
What I found most interesting about the experience is the fact that despite the game being completely “basic” in its interface. The experience also including several more sophisticated tools to enhance the overall experience. Such as live chat, links to social media sites, such as Facebook, achievement badges, and a comments board. The overall accoutriements add to the depth of the game despite its basic UI.