The usage of playtesting helps bring light to many issues within games. As described by Fullerton, we had group playtesting, where multiple people were involved and we were capable of having an open discussion.  Since it was impossible to know what point of the game that the player was at, we could not ask many questions during their gameplay and had to wait for their responses at the end. In regards to finding issues within games through testing, this can be seen through the class playtesting from Thursday. To give some context, our group project has multiple stories, which were written by different people and so there are discrepancies between each story as they may have a unique feel for each one, due to our separate writing styles. One of our stories was preferred by many of our playtesters due to the realism that was put within the story through the addition of names. Through the responses in our questionnaire, we were able to realize this helpful piece of information and begin to expand upon the other stories that lacked in the aspect of realism and relatability. 

Other important factors were mentioned. Some questions brought up the idea of lack of choice, which was felt by the player. However, the lack of choice can be beneficial in our case as it helps push the idea that toxicity will happen regardless of what you do. Even with choices, sometimes you cannot change the outcome. It is also important to note that not all people can be accounted for during a playtest depending on your audience. If your playtesters all dislike reading long paragraphs of text, they might not enjoy our twine game. Some responses wanted us to add more images to immerse the player more. This is a great example of easy feedback that can be easily implemented.

Overall, feedback can be very eye opening for a game. It’s challenging to view your own game from an outsider’s perspective, which is why playtesting exists. Sometimes your thoughts cloud judgement that could help benefit and improve your game. In the end, your playtesters are there for the benefit of your game and they will improve it further.

Works Cited

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

Viewpoints are very essential in combination with the controls and visual  interface for creating the overall game interface. In my opinion, viewpoints have always strayed me away from certain games. I felt the style of top downs was too unappealing to the bigger models of first person and third person games. Back to perspectives, many text based games do not use a viewpoint, while many modern games can have anything from a top down, first person, side view or third person. It’s interesting how these different views can enhance or restrict a player. Top down normally allows the player to see much more than what their playable character might be seeing. Some games don’t even have a set character like Civilization where you may have a movable army, but you aren’t connected to them in the same way as a narrative with one playable character. Different angles can allow you to relate more with the character or less depending on what the narrative needs. 

Viewpoints can also change how mechanics feel, which can benefit or hinder the gameplay. Mentioned in class, Dead by Daylight has the killer with a first person perspective, while the survivor is in third person. This allows the survivor to spot the killer faster and enables the killer to focus on searching for their targets. Another example, Night in the Woods was a side view and this worked with the mechanics given because the game was a platformer and 2D. Side view might also make things easier for a small group of developers versus a 3D platformer like Super Mario Galaxy, which is third person and had a large group of people to produce.

Overall, games can go with or without a certain perspective. Text based games don’t need angles, but many games today do and which ones that are chosen can affect the mechanics and feel. If the angle is an artistic choice, mechanics might have to be altered if the gameplay doesn’t feel proper with the new angle. “The view point is then “both a formal and a dramatic design element (Fullerton, 263).” It is a mechanic and a part of the storytelling.

Works Cited

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

Every game has an information structure. This is defined by Fullerton as “information about the state of the game objects and their current relationships to each other.” However, the way that the information is displayed to the player is different for each game. A common display would be the UI. There might be health bars, a mini map and an ammo tracker in the bottom right hand corner. 

These few pieces are normally what we think of, but we forget about the info that isn’t shown. “Many games use a mixture of open and hidden information so that players are given some data about the state of their opponent’s game, but not all (Fullerton).” This point is definitely key to a lot of games. When playing horror games like Dead by Daylight or Friday the 13th, the players do not know where each other are on the map with some exceptions for both games. Regardless, this means the player has to be alert to their surroundings, especially when other players might need your help. The information that you aren’t given can cause another player to die, due to your absence. With the killer in mind, one must keep track of sound cues and the absence of sound cues. However, there can still be moments, where if the player is not paying complete attention, they can be caught off guard, due to the lack of mini maps. 

The information structure determines how the game feels. If you don’t know something, it can be mysterious or scary or maybe even intense. It also changes the overall fluidity of the game. In a first person shooter, if there was no ammo tracker, the player would be constantly rationing bullets. Ammo would become a delicacy. Gameplay would shift drastically. In the same way, if there is no map, a player must be more cautious and focus on their surroundings to guide them to their goal. The more complex the game, the more information has to be explained. Sometimes the information structure is too much for a new player and tutorials are needed. Overall, the information structure is dedicated to helping the player become more immersed, understand their objective and give them more complex feelings towards different parts of the game.

Works Cited

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

Every game has a team behind it, where people work together with different skill sets to accomplish one goal. Sometimes the collaborators will join in on more than just their main role. These roles consist of game designers, programmers, visual artists, quality assurance and specialized media. Together they provide the base structure of the developing team. Importantly, balancing and allowing contribution of each member is essential.

However, some roles can be overlooked by other members. In cases where the head programmer is also the game designer, there can be less focus on other elements of the game like story and art due to role bias. “If the roles are divided, the game designer can approach playtests and feedback with a more objective mindset (Fullerton, 394).” Without objectivity, the product will weigh more heavily towards the bias of the designer. Even if the programmer is not the game designer, many people might see the programmer as more essential, due to the rigor of coding and without the code, there is no game. One could say that without an artist, there is no game either. Toxic mentality can really hinder the confidence of other members and cause them to feel disposable and invaluable. As mentioned in class, giving the ability of each collaborator to shine would be a helpful way to acknowledge the significance of their role on the team and on the game.

Similarly, board games that involve cooperation are intriguing examples of how a team should work together. Our group played Mountains of Madness, where we had to communicate what supplies we had in order to escape and collect enough relics. Each player only knew their own supplies in their hand. In the production of a game, we see that same concept. A bunch of people explaining and using what they have to contribute to the end objective.

Overall, developers aren’t just a group of nerds who know how to program. They are a combination of a diverse set of people, who have special contributions to the team and without even the smallest role, something can go awry. It’s a bunch of cogs and wheels in a machine that can’t work properly without every piece. In cooperative board games, there is no “I” in team. Just like real life, we can’t always work by ourselves, no matter how hard we try.

Works Cited

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

There are a wide variety of formal elements in video games. One element that resonates the most with me is characters and the difference between 2D and 3D characters. Many times I find myself stuck with 2D characters, like in multiplayer games, where the player’s actions matter more than the story of the character. The character might have a background, but nothing adapts in the game play to change the character. However, games like Assassin’s Creed have plenty of character development, where we go on an emotional journey as we discover unknown pieces of our life that drastically alters our perspective. That is the beauty of the 3D character. Unfortunately, 2D and 3D protagonists with a linear story line don’t allow much for the player to affect what the outcomes are for the character and their development. So, we are left with just many variations of the regular model, which have some positive aspects. Other types of characters can be more than just an emotional reflection of what the player should feel. As mentioned by Fullerton, The protagonist can be, symbolic for larger ideas, representative of a group of people, or be a historical figure.

Importantly, when developing this persona, there are two pieces to focus on, which is agency and empathy. Agency is when the character is a representation of the player, while empathy is the emotional attachment between the two. As I described before, a character doesn’t always have to be an emotional reflection. Multiplayer games are greatly influenced by agency, but it is not possible to never have any emotional pieces with a character. There is always something relatable. The character could be human or go through impactful events, where it’s hard not to relate to that.

The many elements of a character can drastically rework a game. With 2D, there might be less empathy and more agency, while with 3D there can be more empathy. A character can be plainly just a representation of yourself, where you have complete agency. Without them, we might find a game being less engaging because we have difficulty finding some sort of connection. However, even games like Tetris, have immersion without a protagonist to follow.

Works Cited

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

The environment within games is often taken for granted. When playing a game, sometimes we forget about all the minor things that tell a story and make the play a better experience. A horror game without spooky wind, darkness, and small hallways might be less scary because its environment is lacking sufficient backup to the monster or jump scare that lies within it. With this in mind, surroundings provide an experience themselves. In “Game Design as Narrative Architecture”, it proposes that video games don’t inherently need a narrative. A game can speak just through its atmosphere. This has a lot to do with the type of media. Video games are interactive and don’t have to tell you every single detail in order to understand something. The player explores the world and processes the cryptic information. In a game like FireWatch, we are exploring a simple forest, but the appearance of the forest abstractly represents more than just what it appears. The forest is an escape from the protagonist’s past. It is tranquil and peaceful and we are trying to protect this calmness from fires breaking out. The forest is an environment that we travel through and decode like what was mentioned before. Even in multiplayer games, the ambience still exists. In dead by daylight, you play as either a survivor or a killer. When the killer moves closer to you, heartbeats can be heard. This sound cue is a game changer because without them, the killer is much harder to notice. On the same note, the killer can hear generator sounds, birds, and breathing, which all signify that a survivor is nearby. Sounds are atmospheric, but they add essential mechanics. 

It is through the atmosphere that we can also alter stories in unheard manners. The storyteller can do much more than create something original. Brought up by Jenkins, the concept of taking existing knowledge and repurposing it is a profound mode of producing a story. An existing folktale can be adjusted and altered in such a way that it creates a new experience. For example, Jenkins talked about American McGee’s Alice, which readapts Lewis Carol’s Alice in Wonderland. Wonderland becomes a much darker and grittier world. It contrasts with the previous conception of wonderland that is whimsical and lighthearted. It is through the tone and atmosphere that McGee reinterprets the story.

In summary, a game’s background is not just something to look at. It is a game mechanic as well as a story component. Previously existing environments can have their tone adjusted to become a new space for the player to traverse with new found joy. The environment is not something to be underestimated and it can change the game for narratives in video games completely.

Works Cited

“Game Design as Narrative Architecture”, Electronic Book Review, July 10, 2004, .

The importance of a paper prototype can allude people from time to time. Why do we need a paper prototype? Well not only is it useful for helping other members of a team conceptualize what is being created, but it can be tested. A paper prototype can be played with and readjusted. It can help us figure out what works and what doesn’t. Others can play it and tell you what mechanics fall flat. Some might just focus on the look of the game, but the physicality of the prototype is not just a visualization. A prototype’s purpose is interactivity. Only focusing on the end goal and not the process can cause a game to fail when you thought the idea was completely perfect and never make changes.

Within the process of creating a game, there is a vision. The vision is the game concept, planning and building. Mark Barrett supports this with his in depth explanation of what the vision is. He explains that the vision starts as just a description of the game and some art to help envision the look of it. This is the production of a game concept and the first part of the vision. After the game concept, a plan for it’s execution can be thought up. It should be simple and easy to understand mock ups. Once the basic game exists, this leads to his next point of core mechanics and fleshing out the game. Without core mechanics, the game is unplayable. A narrative with no mechanics can heavily impact a game. For example, pokemon without battles is missing a core mechanic. It would have a story, but it wouldn’t be the same. A game needs to have balance. If there is only a focus on the core and nothing else, it leaves a boring concept that doesn’t challenge the player.

There is always a concentration on balance with games. There is a prototype to find balance. There must be balance between the core mechanics, secondary mechanics and narrative. Everything must fit together properly for a perfect game, but of course a perfect game does not exist. So, with all of this importance on balance, is it fair to say that balance is more than just the pieces fitting together? It’s the combination of these parts that best fit with what the target audience wants. In the end, if the target audience likes it, it’s perfect in the creator’s eyes.

Works Cited

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

GDC. “Hitchhiker’s Guide to Rapid Prototypes!” Online video clip.YouTube, 6 September 2017. Web. 19 February 2020.

Procedural rhetoric is the recurring concept within games that has been iterated over and over. It’s similar to asking what makes this game tick. There is a reason behind every game and a way to proceed through that game to one goal. Fullerton explains this as a few components, which are as follows. The procedure is the process of getting to the goal. The rules restrict the player. Finally the resources help advance or benefit the player on their way to their goal. Although there are more than just these pieces to the puzzle, I found that these three envelop a large portion of procedural rhetoric.

Through class, the objective while playing each game was to understand its procedural rhetoric. Some games wanted you to gain points or find out an enemy, but rules and resources deterred the player from accomplishing their goal with ease. Every structure all came down to the player, again and again. The player is given rules and mechanics that enhance and challenge them so that they are entertained on the way to the goal. However, balance determines if that game is truly fun. As rules were altered in the games during class, we found that one change could completely unbalance that game, making it almost unplayable even though that change seemed like a good idea beforehand. This problem displayed the issue that will be coming up during the game development stages. It shows us that if a new addition or change does not work then we must return to the drawing board and start again. So, the iterative process, that Fullerton mentions, is displayed as generating ideas, formalizing ideas, testing ideas, and evaluating ideas, are all apparent in this exercise, which supports his idea.

Overall, procedural rhetoric not only helps us understand the inner workings of a game, but it also provides us with insight that can be utilized in the iterative process. Components of a game’s procedural rhetoric are changed, which in turn are put through a testing cycle. The work done in class supports these functions and provides a better comprehension of procedural rhetoric.

Works Cited

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

The player is one of the most valued parts of game design. Many developers forget the necessity of their audience because they are either focused on one aspect or their own wants.  This concept is iterated by Fullerton where he says,“It’s far too easy to get caught up in a game’s graphics, story line, or new features (Fullerton, 3).” A game has no utilization without its players. It’s similar to a car without its driver. A car company shouldn’t develop a car with only cosmetics in mind because most likely that car will crash and burn. The player is the end goal and the developer should always be asking themselves about what the player would do and keeping a fresh and open mind when planning their game. The developer can also have the player try the game for themselves instead of being the only ones playing the game. This function is known as playtesting.

Playtesting is one of the key solutions in preventing a game failure. During playtesting, players are able to give feedback on the game and how every aspect affected them during their run. With every new person who tries the game, they add another beneficial addition. This extra puzzle piece to the testing is the complex differences and backgrounds that create the separating experiences between players. However, every person will have their own opinion and therefore a developer will not be able to accommodate all of them. As mentioned in Lorde’s article, it’s essential to acknowledge everyone’s differences. Although when planning, the creator can’t always guarantee every player will love the game and should focus on a certain niche. A game that attempts to please everyone will fail. This idea is similar to the common phrase, you can’t always please everyone. It’s true.

Overall, there are two things that can’t be done. First, one cannot only focus on a specific game feature. Good gameplay should be the objective, but it should have the audience in mind. Secondly, there is no possible way to please everyone. There is no game that every person in the world likes equally. So, when planning, everything should be considered, but within limits and kept moderated.

By: Samantha Reeb

Works Cited

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

Lorde, Audre. Sister Outsider: Essays and Speeches. Crossing Press, 2007.

In this day and age, play is more vibrant than ever. It is present daily. From consoles and PCs to board games, play entertains and wraps around us. In order to play, one’s belief of reality must be cast aside during it, but only enough to remove the seriousness and freely join a new world or setting, known as the magic circle. However, there are forms of play that can be stuck on the border of work and play. Professional gaming can be seen as work. The player is paid and ordered to act a certain way. In the words of Huizinga, “all play is a voluntary activity.” Therefore, that form of gaming is work, but this could be argued. Depending on the person, their job could be voluntary. The person enjoys the play and it is not strictly an order, since they have full willingness to play. If it was truly an order, then perhaps they would quit or no longer enjoy the game. Many major league players start off as regularly enjoying a game, but later on choose it as a job because it could be a source of income. So, there is no clear distinction whether or not professional gaming is considered play.

Play, in relation to one’s culture, has a much stricter and easier relationship to understand. Each person experiences play in a different way. From the example in Upton’s “The Aesthetic of Play” visiting a Chinese opera will not be experienced the same way by a foreigner versus a Chinese citizen who understands all the social, cultural and political history surrounding the opera. Anyone can join a game and play it, but it doesn’t mean everyone will feel the same way. If thought about in regards to race, gender or even age, a game can be sexist, racist or ageist. With that in mind, a game might be acceptable to one group versus another because of the opposing characteristics between groups. A gay man could view a character as homophobic while a straight man could ignore the problematic aspects of that character because they don’t notice those stereotypes that are commonly placed in triple A titles. However, with the increasing publicity of rights of minorities, this will hopefully produce better representation within games and make play a good experience for all.

By: Samantha Reeb

Works Cited

Huizinga, Johan. Homo Ludens: a Study of the Play Element in Culture. Angelico Press, 2016.

Upton, Brian. The Aesthetic of Play. The MIT Press, 2015.