EPORTFOLIO

There are 2 discussion topics within this week and here they are:

“GD1 - Rules and Choice - Games are tightly-constructed sets of rules — often extremely strict — and yet clever game designers hide the rules so that the player is convinced that they are making meaningful choices all the time. The human being, as a domesticated species, is easily led in this way; you drive on the right side of the road and follow the double yellow line without ever questioning this process, because you know even if you took the time and effort to challenge this rule set you’d still end up dead or in jail. Yet even though we are easily led, games have sets of incredibly constrained rules and abstract worlds which require a huge level of acceptance, on the part of the gamer, to play — for instance, why do I only have three lives in Asteroids, and why is any contact with another object in the game instantly fatal?

Give an example of a game you have played (video, board, card, etc.) which has an extremely strict and constrained rule set, but that you still found fun to play; describe the game briefly, and then explain what about it you found entertaining.

GD2 - The Magic Circle - Chapter 9 describes The Magic Circle, a concept which deals with the gamer’s willingness to “buy in” to the world of the game as created by the designer.

For this discussion, give an example of a game that, for you, created the illusion of the Magic Circle — in other words, a game which gave you the temporary illusion that you were a vital part of the game, that the game’s rules were your rules and your participation was important and needed.

THEN, give a counterexample — give an example of a moment in gameplay in a game in which something happened that shattered the circle and took you “out of the game” entirely; something which broke the faith between the game designer and the player, and ruined the illusion of the experience.”

Quoting Professor Michael Eilers.

1. 
   Ryan Bridglal said...
   11:59 am - January 23rd, 2009

   GD1, My Discussion Post:

   Posted 23 Jan 09 12:27 PM MST,

   The game I’m writing about is Super Mario for the Nintendo Entertainment System. Briefly, the game is based on a bad guy called Bowser (King Koopa), who invades the Mushroom Kingdom and zapped the citizens to stone. Princess Toadstool can destroy the spell and release the citizens. She was kidnapped and locked away in Bowser’s castle. The player must go through the challenging levels as Mario (a Mushroom Kingdom plumber) and defeat Bowser; to rescue princess Toadstool who can free everyone. With the current technology floating around the world in the year of 1985, the Nintendo company did a great job of getting entertainment into everyones homes. I didn’t have to head out to an arcade for enjoyment. I enjoyed the game in my living room. I loved and spent countless hours playing it because of the story line, characters everyone could relate to, a challenge and the entertainment it offered. The game was addicting because of it’s simplicity. The rules can be summarized as, you can move forward through the level and only backward within the same area you’re in. Kill or avoid your enemy (at certain times) while advancing through the level. Collect all coins and power ups, build your high score and the faster you complete the level, the higher your score will be. Each level advances the story of Mario getting closer to Bowser, with hopes of saving the princess.

   Add references:::

2. 
   Ryan Bridglal said...
   12:03 pm - January 23rd, 2009

   GD1, Discussion post, Responses to other students.

   Posted 23 Jan 09 1:16 PM MST

   This was my first response to a student

   The force unleashed and Superman…

   Aaron and professor Eilers, I agree with your comments about the game rules; but the developers could have created the titles to get by these overlooked details. I can understand the exposure of the rules against what the company advertises. With the Force Unleashed, I would also expect to have the same amount of powers as the advertised character. Even with Superman and the bullets bouncing off of him; I’d expect that within a game if I’m playing the character of Superman. This is where the professionals drop the ball on the project and it exposes bad game design. If were a team member on the project, I would try to incorporate a story line that claims, the player is not the advertised character. The advertised character is part of a race or clan, that dresses and looks the same. Just as solders in our military have almost the same attire for the most part (depending on skills, branch and so forth). With Superman, the only way I can see his health bar going down when bullets hit him, is if there’s kryptonite involved. I can understand after he takes a severe beating, his health drops to a point where he will pass out; but dyeing is out of the question.

   It’s so easy to see how people can over look the simplest things that exposes bad game design in something they have to spend about $50 or $60 USD for. I always thought I would buy this game for my pc because the graphics looks amazing. Also, it appeared to be great game play. But, the title hasn’t been released for Windows and based on this discussion, I realized I can’t be the character as advertised; so I won’t even but it for my WII.

3. 
   Ryan Bridglal said...
   12:06 pm - January 23rd, 2009

   GD1, Discussion post, Responses to other students.

   Posted 23 Jan 09 1:45 PM MST

   This was my second response to another student

   Bioshock.

   There are many games out on the market that allows you to save anywhere within the game, turn up or down the difficulty and progress through the story. This is one of the main goals the developers have in mind for its players. To make some kind of progress through the game and story. Most successful titles made it because of these features. I don’t think the World of Warcraft would have been a hit with a severe death penalty. Think about it, you spend 5 hours non stop gaming (which I can’t even do) to grow your character into a level 10 whatever. Then you die and you can’t continue with that character. You have to start all over again from scratch, create a new name because the one you had was already used. Yes he/she died, but you can’t reuse the same name. You’ll have to make a new body and relearn all your skills again.

   Honestly, a game that does not allow the player to save, set the difficulty level and customize some part of the game to the players liking, will not go far. The only thing I can think of that has a severe death penalty (to an extent) and has all the features we like in games is Crysis, Warhead and Wars. Within the single player game, you can save at any time. When you hurt an enemy, it can run away and regenerate it’s health. Then come back to try and kill you. Or it will call for help and the group will try to take you down. If you die, the game will reload from the last saved point with everything you had. Within multi-player, you start off within your base. Based on the points you’ve earned through the game you can buy weapons and equipment. Then you set out to achieve the goals of the match. If you die, you don’t re-spawn where you died and with the same equipment. You start off again within your base as a fresh solider; you have to buy your weapons and equipment again, then head out to achieve the goals of the map. The only thing that stays the same is your name and score (kills, captures, etc…).

   Back to the World of Warcraft, I haven’t read anything that suggests the following but I believe it: the magic within that game allows the players soul a chance to find it’s body. With this you could regenerate yourself and come back to life. The developers locked the looting (so other players can’t loot your body) so you can retain your equipment.