Sploder Game Types

What Makes a Good Game

Games are very diverse. From their objectives, narratives (or lack thereof), designs, and target audiences, every game has a unique chemistry that makes it what it is. However, not every game is a good game. In fact, there are many bad games that are bad not because of opinion, but because they fail to include certain characteristics of research-based best practices for game design. Nevertheless, individual opinion matters when considering a gamer's personal relationship with various games and genres. Following, are criteria of good games and bad games that I have identified through my own experience with digital and analog games.

Good games make you want to continue to play them. There are a number of ways that they do this. A few of them are timely rewards and observable feedback systems. These provide players with essential information regarding their effort. Also, narrative has a gripping effect on player engagement as well. This, quite possibly, is due to the emotional impact on a player that narrative can have. A third characteristic of good game design is differentiated game play. As Dr. Puentedura alluded to, good games should not allow a newb to hit buttons randomly and earn a similar score to a more involved veteran player. Conversely, those with little experience should not be forced to simply watch a veteran triumph with little hope of enjoying the game themselves.

In addition to ignoring the previously mentioned characteristics, bad games are qualitatively different than some of our favorite games in a number of ways. These include a lack of space or setting, absence of directions or a reliance on reading an instructional guide for all of the directions in gameplay, lack of a meaningful context, contrived or trivial objectives, and non-scaffolded opportunities for learning how to play the game.

Creating a good game design is not that different from creating a good learning experience. Many of the principles of good game design could be applied to principles of good instructional design. The same goes for bad games and bad instruction as well. At the root of both practices is an understanding of player/learner needs and experiences. The more cognizant we become with these, the more data and information we will have at our disposal to create an optimal experience.


Platform Creator

This genre was reminiscent of the traditional Nintendo games that I played as a young child. The two platform-based games in this quest seemed very familiar to me because of my exposure to similar games from my youth. I enjoy the uncertainty that always awaits just off screen as you move further along the level. There is an element of anxiety that invigorates the game play. However, this quality is also what deterred me from playing too challenging of platform-based games when I was younger. Still, today, I lack control that is otherwise present in a game like Madden or Call of Duty.

I also grew frustrated with how "touchy" the keys and corresponding movements were as I continued to fall off of platforms back to a lower level throughout the games. This quickly became a nuisance which probably limited the time I was willing to invest in playing the games further.

Both of these had frequent reward systems that I enjoyed as part of their designs. Whether that was leveling up, finding a new resource along the path, or conquering a foe, each of these served to reinforce my efforts in the game.


3D Game Creator

This game style was my favorite of all of them. I really liked the narrative. I liked being responsible for another character. I liked the puzzle elements that added to the storyline and overall engagement in the game. I also liked the opportunities to gain health boosters and new weapons. These sent a squirt of oxytocin into my brain each time I came across them.

As for things that I didn't like, the challenge was quite easy. The villains were never able to do that much damage to me. I was also caught off guard when the game ended. There wasn't anything that seemed to designate the final portal as the winning condition of the game. I simply stepped on to it and then realized that I had accomplished the goal of the game.



Classic Shooter

Though I've come to like first-person shooter games since beginning this course, I did not like any of the games in this quest at all. In fact, none of the three had anything that I would use in my own game. That's not to say that I won't experiment with this genre however.

What I did not like about these games was that the rules of gameplay were unclear. It seemed like their were unknown physical forces working on my ships as I played. I found that I would get stuck under or next to an object in the playing field, and I could not get myself loose. This eventually led me to frustration. I also did not like the lack of clear instructions. While one game challenged me to "Get the crystal." There was no additional information to tell me how to get it, where to find it, or what I should avoid in pursuit of the winning condition. I would run into what looked like adversaries, but they would not have a negative effect on me. Along this line, I did not like the absence of immediate feedback. I never knew how close I was to success or failure until the game ended for one reason or another.


Retro Arcade

I really liked this one. Similar, in my mind, to a platform-based game, this game had some very rewarding characteristics. On a basic level, the music was calming and the sound effects for collecting coins was reinforced that behavior. On a more theoretical level, I appreciated, in Stage 2 of Level 1, how there were two different ways to reach the finish line. One was above ground and the other was subterranean. Upon discovering this, I felt very optimistic in my ability to observe such options in future levels. It was also rewarding for me as someone who is always looking for ways to "cheat" the game, so to speak. Finally, I found the feedback bars very helpful. I was able to see how many coins I had collected and how each kick from a green monster diminished my health. This helped me in making decisions throughout gameplay.

Narrative, Games, and Theory

As a born again gamer, I've found myself most attracted to the affects of narrative in the gaming process. Initially, I saw this as simply adding context to the missions that I was enjoying in a few first person shooter games. However, because of reading Narrative, Games, and Theory, I've come to assimilate much more into my paradigm of narrative in games.

Narrative adds to the gaming experience by causing us to "adopt the outlook of the characters who are living the plot as their own destiny (Ryan, 2001)." Simons refers to this phenomenon as "prospective" rather than reflective. At issue here is whether or not this approach to game play is more valuable than the objectivism preferred by ludologists. As both perspectives are considered, an understanding of the potential relationship with narratology and narrative becomes more complex.

Interesting to the debate is the lean of game theorists regarding the presence and role of narrative in delineating all potential strategies and evaluating relative advantages and values of each. Whereas a casual gamer might finish a game and use the culmination of the narrative to help him or her retroactively connect the dots amongst the sequence of events, game theorists "weigh the outcomes of the alternative choices they are confronted with" in order to "be able to compare the payoffs of all possible outcomes of a game" before taking action. To effectively evaluate competing strategies, narrative in the context of a game is strongly considered. Simon's findings support this, stating, "Games not only become 'stories' after the fact, but stories can be an important part of the decision making process during the gameplay itself."

There is no doubt in my mind that I am more of a narratologist in my enjoyment of gameplay. The immersive quality of a well-composed narrative keeps me more engaged than the actual activity of play itself. Simon's thoughts certainly fortified the way that I view narrative in games. Additionally, they have helped me to better understand the functionality of narrative beyond simply adding context to an otherwise arbitrary endeavor.

Security and Brig

Play vs Game

The terms play and game are quite similar, so much so that some might use them interchangeably. In fact, in the German language a game is any activity executed only for pleasure and without conscious purpose. Doesn't that definition sound a lot like play? So, where do the two forms of entertainment diverge?

According to Peter Grey in Psychology Today, play must meet four basic criteria: 1) Play is self-chosen and self-directed; players are always free to quit. 2) Play is activity in which means are more valued than ends. 3) Play is guided by mental rules. And 4) Play is non-literal, imaginative, marked off in some way from reality. To synthesize the criteria into a succinct definition of play for myself, I see play as a participatory activity in which those involved rely on imaginative self directed interactions within the framework of unwritten but agreed upon rules.

A game, while sharing a confluence of traits with play, has its own distinguishing features. Primarily, a game has fixed rules which guide player interaction. A game also has an final objective which motivates players to fulfill. A third defining characteristic of games is that they must have some sort of counterbalancing challenge to establish some degree of difficulty. As we pursue the final objective of a game, by nature of game play, we require frequent feedback on performance. How are we doing compared to the challenge, the clock, a points system, or other players? Finally, unlike play, games by definition must be competitive.

Though the focus here has been on the difference between play and games, the conclusion must not be reached that the two are mutually exclusive. To the contrary, they are quite complimentary and supplemental. Nevertheless, for the sake of understanding their relationship with one another, it is important to understand how each is identified by their own merits.

Embedded Awesome Pirates

Learning Theory Mashup: Social Constructivism Learning

Born of Albert Bandura's Social Learning Theory and Jean Piaget's Constructivism Learning Theory, what I call Social Constructivism Learning Theory marries principles of both philosophies into a working model of how we learn today. 

What I took from Bandura's Social Learning Theory is his idea that we learn by observation. According to Bandura, observation can take one of three forms: 1) Live Model observation, which is watching the behavior of a person in the same physical space, 2) Verbal Model observation, which describes observing a behavior mentally as someone describes it verbally to you, and 3) Symbolic Model observation, which reserves observational learning for real and/or fictional characters' behaviors as demonstrated on TV, in movies or books, and as I would like to add, in games and virtual worlds.

Piaget's Constructivism Learning Theory offers up some complimentary principles to join to those taken from Social Learning Theory, mainly that we arrive at knowledge construction and understanding through our own unique experiences.

The diagram which I have created to represent my Learning Theory Mash up shows the three models of learning as outlined in Bandura's approach. These three models are interconnected, lending themselves to a comprehensive observational approach to learning. And as illustrated behind the triangle, Constructivism Learning Theory is depicted as a branching tree. I chose this metaphor to capture the variance in our experiences as learners. While we all participate in some degree of each of the three models of observational learning, we do so from our own unique context as prescribed by the experiences we have enjoyed through life. 

As you consider Social Constructivism Learning Theory, ponder the following questions. Leave your thoughts in the comments thread below if you would like.

1. How significant of a contribution do you think observation makes to our overall learning?
2. Is one model of social learning (Live, Verbal, or Symbolic) more influential than the others?
3. Will we become more intelligent as we have more frequent and richer experiences?
4. What do we need to do to ensure an experience is meaningful?

Different Types of Games

Shoot 'em Ups

The closest thing to a shoot 'em up (or SHMUP) game that I had played before this assignment is probably Angry Birds. Yeah, I know. Angry Birds isn't exactly a shooter style game. But SHMUPS just hasn't ever really been a genre of gaming that appealed to me. Yet, as I embarked on this quest and played three different SHMUP games, I found myself increasingly engaged in them as the story became more real.

To begin with, I played Asteroids. A simple game with a simple objective along with simple controls, this retro SHMUP game was fun for a fleeting moment. I did find myself face-palming myself as my ship would be destroyed by a meteor fragment or an invading foe, but without context, Asteroids didn't hold my attention for long.

Next, I went to AddictingGames.com, and found Awesome Pirates under the Shooter tab. The objective of this game is to defend your fort against increasingly larger swarms of pirates. In the same style as Angry Birds, you and the pirate invaders take turns angling your cannons at one another and firing with the objective of either destroying my fort or sinking the pirate crews. Obviously, what I liked most about this was the story which added context to the game. Not only was there a plot present, but the pirates would exclaim things like "Yiaarrrrr!" when they were hit and "ROFL" when my cannon balls missed them. Additionally, as I conquered more pirates on subsequent levels I earned money which could buy me both more and better cannons to take on the ever-growing challenges. With this option available to me, I quickly found myself considering the economics of the game. Should I purchase the next best cannon now or see if I can get by for a few more levels to buy the grand daddy of them all? Awesome Pirates is certainly bookmark worthy, but don't tell my boss that.

Finally, I played Sniper Team, also found at AddictingGames.com. This game was far outside of my comfort zone, which is to say that I shy away from the simulated real-world violence of military-style games. However, just as happened with Awesome Pirates, I found the storyline to grab my attention and take me further and further into the game. In Sniper Team, you are a member of a group of snipers who are stationed throughout a military base. As waves of intruders approach, your objective is to get them in your cross hairs and wipe them out, so to speak. However, these intruders are strategic and aren't in a hurry to give you the easiest shot or wait their turn. Instead, they use simulated precision as they fire from relatively secluded stations with weapons of varying intensity. Not only did Sniper Team force me to focus on my attention to detail as I surveyed the base, it also encouraged improved hand-eye coordination in a short amount of time. Kill or be killed as they say. To my surprise, I enjoyed this game much more than I initially expected myself to. The storyline was epic and the required skill level was just enough to offer a moderate challenge without being overwhelmed as a "newb".

Other Games

This genre of gaming includes card games, board games, dice games, etc. Perhaps the easiest of all games to play, the games in this category don't require as much energy as others might, which could appeal to a population of casual gamers (those who play Solitaire at work, for example) more than, say, MMORPGs.

While these types of games are relatively more passive, many of them do require an element of strategy to at least be good at playing them. Chinese Checkers is an example of this. Until this quest, I had never played Chinese Checkers before. And as I started my first game, I had no idea what the rules or objective were. However, as I watched the nature of the other players' moves, I was able to deduce the rules and objective which in turn helped me to devise a strategy which helped me to win my very first game.

Yhatzee also requires some strategy and a good understanding of probability to master this family-night game. If you simply roll the cup of die without thinking about potential outcomes, sequences, and patterns, playing Yhatzee is nothing more than a game of luck for you. But, if you play with an understanding of number frequency, the probability of rolling a straight sequence against rolling a pair and so on, you will gain some sense of purpose leading to a potentially successful strategy of game play.

Though designed for the casual player, this genre of games still offers many of the positive emotional and psychological benefits of other types of game play. When we engage in casual games we still experience appropriate levels of challenge, scaffolded failure, immediate feedback, acknowledged successes, and membership into a community when played with others online or around the dinner table. Perhaps this is why even those most averse to video games occasionally find themselves procrastinating work with Solitaire.