Video games are the only medium in which empathy can be explored. This is because a game gives agency to a player unlike books and movies. This was demonstrated in class with “When Rivers Were Trails”. As player has to go through the plight of Native Americans and learn about what happened to them. A similar game that tries to have an empathetic impact on the player is “Specs Ops the Line”. For the first half of the game it is a painfully average third person cover shooter. It hits all the beats that a generic shooter would have to hit such as macho man shooting at Americans current enemies. There is really no thought in the actions that is being done. Like is done in so many shooters before it. However, it is slowly reviled the atrocities that were taken. In the vein of “The Heart of Darkness” by Joseph Conrad and the movie “Apocalypse now”. Unlike those mediums the player had an active participation in what happened. Even if most action beats were forced, there were opportunities to refrain from acting as it was a game. It tries to explore morality with more than just a slider as is common with most games. It makes the player evaluate themselves and what they did in the course of the game. It also demonstrates that the player will do anything by listening to the authority. In the context of the game it is a man over the radio telling you what to do. As it is just a game it is possible to walk away and not complete it and the game even recommends that to the player. On death screens it makes fun of the player telling them it is just a game and that makes it okay to do what they are doing. Even though most people would find it morally repugnant.
Even more mainstream titles such as Battlefield one has tried to demonstrate that while it is a game there are real world consequences to what it is depicting. They do this by showing name of someone who died in World War 1 when the player dies.

Stages of development for a video game borrow a lot from the film industry and the traditional software industry.  It also depends on the size of the studio and if they release an early access version of the game.
From the film industry, in particularly animation large studios will have all the necessary steps such as that a major video game would need. With Screen testing and re shooting similar to quality assurance testing and fixing bugs found in that. Although one typically alters the narrative where bug fixing is altering the mechanics of a game. This is processes is usually done with a waterfall development cycle. Even large software companies are shifting away from this cycle of development. Due to it is hard to change and adapt and requires more capital upfront. As if it does not work then there is no way to find the problem until it is much too late. That is one reason large games will have catastrophic bugs left in a shipped game, such Mass Effect Andromeda. However, games with narratives often use this cycle because it needs to fit to a story.
However, usually indie games that are reliant on emergent gameplay to be entertaining use a form of agile development. Especially if the game was released in early access, assuming they are decent developers. This is because the game needs to be functional at the end of each sprint to be delivered to customers. This allows for game breaking bugs to be found and squashed early so they do not grow into larger issues. Gameplay can also change due to consistent feedback from the players and developers alike. However, using agile development in the cut throat world of the video game market can be dangerous. This is because the market is massive and consumers might look to different games. As by its nature of agile development it is unfinished upon release.  The game’s direction may change drastically enough for the developers to no longer have passion for the project. What is a common occurrence with agile development is a developer will release an early build and once they have the money, stop development. Thus, a lot of consumers are weary of agile development for games.

Source: Fullerton, Tracy. Game Design Workshop: a Playcentric Approach to Creating Innovative Games. CRC Press, 2019.

Dynamics of a game should evolve as the game play advances. In class we discussed the ring in fortnight how that closes. That changes how the game is played from more of a dangerous resource collecting game to a building and close quarters combat game.  A similar game with a clear defining moment in how the game is played differently is in Europa Universalis IV and the mechanic of absolutism.
In the early part of the game it is part of a slow build up. Expanding is possible but it has to be done with extreme care as it is expensive. It can take resources up from very important technologies, setting up a robust economy, and makes the player a direct target for other nations. There are negative multipliers to discourage blobbing fairly early.  Although the designers have it follow history fairly well with the Russians and Ottomans trying to expand their boarders fairly early and living with the penalties. With bonuses that would be beneficial to that.
However, with the late game mechanic of absolutism it quickly changes the dynamic of play. Smaller countries are able to take a lot of land extremely cheaply. Thus, if the player has set up their game correctly they would be able to capitalize on it effectively. It is in the players best interest to min-max for absolutism. The draw back at the point is a smaller more technologically advanced and more developed country fighting a larger more army with more people.
This change in game play does reflect history but also causes runaway power creep, which is a problem for all 4x games. This is a very decisive mechanic as it causes many players to stop their campaigns at the point in time. As it is evident they are the strongest on the map. However, it changes the game into one of min maxing the mechanics vs diplomacy and playing conservatively. With the end goal of trying to conquer as much land as possible. This is still a very hard accomplishment even as the strongest nation in the world.

Sources: https://eu4.paradoxwikis.com/Absolutism
Fullerton, Tracy. Game Design Workshop: a Playcentric Approach to Creating Innovative Games. CRC Press, 2019.

Designing for accessibility is only a positive. It produces better overall products in games and out of games. Even with the help I can provide to those with disabilities that need the extra features, it also improves the game for everyone else. It demonstrates that the developer has thought more outside the box and thus will likely create a better product. But it gives players more options with how they want to play the game. For example, designing for a deaf person would also allow a player to experience the game while listening to music or without sound at all. While sound is an important aspect of a game once a game is published the player bought/ leases the product they should be able to experience how they want. Developers may have an intended way they would want it to be done but at is really up to the player how it should be done. This thinking has led to some what is now expected features such as the ability to remap controls, change the field of view, and disabling motion blur. These were once considered accessibility settings but now common place and have only improved.
It is also a futile effort preserve the integrity of the game. As if a player with enough technical know-how wants to change something part of the game it is going to happen. This can be seen with the decomplication project of Mario 64. Features are being added to the game that fundamentally alter it that as a byproduct that adds more accessibility features. Notably making it more accessible such as putting it online. There will be more due to a recent leak of Nintendo but the source code was not obtained legally.
The only caveat in which care should be taken for the integrity of the game is online games. Such a game with a minimal hud would make it harder for some players to play. However, it would not be too much in development time to make a server in which those settings are allowed such as ones that allow modifications.
Designing for accessibility helps the game overall as it allows for players to play how they want to or encouraging modding in a game.    

Source: https://learn-us-east-1-prod-fleet01-xythos.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/5e00ea752296c/7614786?response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%2A%3DUTF-8%27%27Accessibility%2520and%2520Gaming%2520Action%2520Card.pdf&response-content-type=application%2Fpdf&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Date=20200508T194044Z&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Expires=21600&X-Amz-Credential=AKIAZH6WM4PLTYPZRQMY%2F20200508%2Fus-east-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Signature=3ab5c0746a2607d4f69a512ca8707c6bfe63df8f10734f01498f060d742b1b1e

Balance in games is an incredibly hard thing to get right. As even in bored games you can still gain an advantage by which turn you start with. Such as the first turn advantage in chess. This complexity increases with video games as it is possible to scale up the world. Balance can also come at the cost of fun.
In a perfectly balanced game it is possible that it comes to grow stale. Balance in a video game is not equivalent to equality in character builds. If both players have the same opportunities and of equal skill it would be in their best interest to play as conservatively as possible. They would never gain an advantage or the perception of one which is important part to make a game fun. One example of this approach is 2fort sniper matches in TF2. Where it is a game more of reaction time vs anything else. A similar experience can be gained by 2 players dropping a ruler and trying to catch it faster.
Thus, imbalance is where fun is generated. It is possible have imbalance as a feature such as in Europa Universalis IV. Where each starting nation has its own unique set of challenges to overcome. But there are clearly easier nations to play as.
Imbalance is usually represented in a rock-paper-scissors type scenario. Where a player would have an advantage over one or the other. Balance comes in making sure all the scenarios all have an equal fighting chance over the other. Otherwise, there would be a meta defining game play which would all players would flock to in which you get stale game play. Even if the game play trends to the equaling of each player it is in the entropy that would still cause a game to be interesting. Such is the case with competitive Quake 3 as the starting position has players forcing to move as their opponent’s starting position has the counter to their advantage. However, each player trends towards an power quality although there is sufficient entropy in which skill differences are able to determine the match. 

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ii_Q4OCoHvU

Harassment in online games is something I am aware of that exists but something I have extremely limited experience with. Thus, in the second game project when I had to write the experiences of what it is like to have to deal with online harassment. I have two older brothers so in general I learned to have an extremely thick skin, to where pretty much any random third-party criticism doesn’t really bother me. Especially, anonymous people online. I wrote it inline with how I would react in the scenarios of just learning or muting people. It is definitely a valid strategy to handle the situation, is it works for me every time. Even if the narrative was short it was still effectively navigating the problem encountered in our game.
I think there is also a component in why I have a minimal experience with harassment in games I have experience with. For the past 6 years the only online games I have played are indie games with usually no more than 2000 active players at the same time. Then frequenting the same servers allows for not necessarily a community to form but you begin to recognize other frequent players. Also, most of the games tend to have a more mature audience as the skill curve is rather dramatic. People also go out of their way to help explain the mechanics of the game. It is also players in these games do not really stand for people attempting to harass anyone.
Another incredible deterrent for harassment is my profile name. I use my last name on online accounts. The risk of privacy leak is minimal but helps with dealing with harassment. It prevents me from doing anything as I have my name personally attached to what I am saying. Then people do not like to be mean to someone when it is an actual name. It has even led to pretty funny encounters as people will tell me stories of someone they know with that name or make jokes asking if I am Tony Hawks kid.

Source: Antidotal + classwork

The camera is important in defining what the game will be. It is how the player is able to visually see what is happening in the world. Therefore, one of the most crucial aspects of any video game. It also helps with immersion such as being able to look down and see a body in a first-person shooter. Many games follow a similar recipe in how place camera. However, there was experimentation as to how it should be handled. Especially in the early days of video games. Even going from a static frame to multiple panels in the earliest of games.
No game is a better example of this than Super Mario 64.  That was one of the first 3d platformers and had the unenviable task of introducing players how to navigate in a 3d world.  To achieve this, they made the camera a literal character in the world. By making it a character they were able to personify it. Personifying things and giving it a name, a trait makes people react far better towards things including an element in a game. Despite that it the most criticized aspect of the game in both modern and contemporary reviews. There is also a speed running exploit that is dependent on the camera. Therefore, it is taking a direct mechanical role in how game is played.
Another early game that was very influential on how the camera is perceived in the world is resident evil. It was extremely important in building the atmosphere of the game.  AS it was able to restrain the character and build tension. It was able to restrain the character as they were not able to see everything. In this restraint tension was built as it was impossible to know what was around a corner. Also, the further away you moved you physically got smaller and if the character was running towards the front of the screen they would get bigger. Although, in this case whatever was chasing the player would also grow in size thus the tension would increase.

Source: https://vimeo.com/193267720 and an in class discussion

Comparing two games demonstrates common characteristics for something to be a game. In Tracy Fullerton’s The Structure of Games chapter 2 compares Quake and Go fish. Both these games are seemingly unrelated but they have a similar structure. It is possible to gamify or consider more things to be games following the same structure. Such as, getting a game of Quake to work can be just as much of a game as the intended purpose of the video game of Quake. It would have the elements that make a game with varying levels of difficulty. The base case is having it installed with the official install has all parts of a game but it is extremely easy and therefore negligible. However, if the computer system is supposed to be a locked down system or if the player does not have access to a screen or mouse it becomes more of a game.
 First, the game is on the computer or it is not which means “there is the certainty of a measurable and unequal outcome of some kind” (Fullerton 37). The conflict is largely artificial as there it is not entirely necessary to have it run on a system. In the adversarial computer system one player sets up the challenge and did not know when the other player would challenge them. The rules can be such in a way that effectively handicap the player in order to create a conflict and a challenge. Such as limiting when the action can take place as to not arouse suspicion, which is a very common element in games. Then there is the extra excitement of adding achievements. Such as once the computer is able to run the game to be able to connect it to the network and lan the game.
If there is an adversarial system set up there are many components to make an activity to be considered a game. Even in something that is traditionally is not considered a game be embody many of the elements of one.

Sources: Fullerton, Tracy. Game Design Workshop: a Playcentric Approach to Creating Innovative Games. CRC Press, 2019.

Information in a game determines many of the decisions that a player will make. My experiences in gaming is far different than what was discussed in class. With the strategy games being most similar to first more mainstream first person shooters. This is because most of the information is available. Everything has a reason for its current value which is able to be looked up to gain an understanding of the current situation. This would be analogous to the current amount of health a player has. It is up to the player to act or react to the opposing players. The only thing that is really terra incognita is where the enemies are which is also the case for many games on the market. This complete control of displaying information can be fun but is not the only way games are able to be made.

During class, we did not talk about what happens when removing information can affect the game play experience. Such as removing a HUD all together to have no feedback on the players health of the character or amount of ammo. Subtracting elements of information can make the feeling more immersive since it is reliant on the player to count shots or move more cautiously if they know death is less forgiving. Terra incognita is still there with player movement but it is also there with their death especially in long range encounters since there is no way to know if the player actually killed their enemy outside of seeing them rag doll or they are no longer shooting. All these make the games more realistic and a better experience for it. It hurts the accessibility of the game as there is a steep learning curve but that does not make it less valid of a way to design games.

Cooperative group board games are not very good at what they set out to do. First, the setup is extremely convoluted. Most teamwork is done in setting up the board, that in itself is a challenge that requires a lot of communication. Secondly, The main problem with them is the instruction booklet is more akin to an actual book. There are a lot of instructions that it becomes teamwork to try and remember them all. Unintentional teamwork once again is displayed at this point. The team has to remember all the rules and come to consensus on how to interpret them. During class period Tuesday as a group the instruction booklet was consulted at nearly every turn and we were unsure if we were playing correctly. Asking players to keep track of many things and even worse when those things are more abstract ideas is bad game design.
    Furthermore, the game’s intention is to put the players at odds. It wants to inhibit communication to make the game harder to play. However, many of the things that would inhibit would just delay the game more so than hinder communication. This is because many of the things that the game could prevent communication would be done in parallel at the start of the round. However, even by the middle of the game the inhibitions were so great it would be hard to play a round. The game also just boiled down to who was able to do mental addition the fastest. 

Sources:

Mountains of Madness, Angry Lion Games (2017)