Developing a New Major

title: MDA: A formal approach to game deisgn and game research

mda = mechanics (components of hte game, data representation, algorithms), dynamics (run time behavior of the mechanics), and aesthetics (desirable emotional reponses in the player by interacting with hte game) = approach to understanding games

research methods look at the end product of game design – “interaction between coded subsystems creates complex, dynamic, and unpredictable behavior” – there are lots of interdependencies that have to be considered

designer creates games, player consumes games and then throws it away, game consumption is unpredictable (compared to books and movies) because games nonlinear and outcomes unknown when play starts

discusses aesthetics first since it’s what the player sees first – it’s to work on the question of what makes a game “fun” without using the word fun and gameplay (words that don’t have good clear meannings) – better to look at sensation (games as sense-pleasure), fantasy (games as make-believe), narrative (game s narrative (games as drama), challenge (games as obstacle course0 fellowship (games as social frameowrk), discovery I(games as uncharted territory, expression (games as self-discovery,submission (games as a part time experience)

games don’t try to hit on all these aesthetic components, they hit on several to differing degrees and we don’t have any formula about what combo of these features always brings fun, but by looking at several of these factors we get an understanding of why different games appeal to different players, some factors go together (competition and being emotionally invested in winning go together)

ex: charades hits on fellowship, expression, challenge; the sims hits on discovery, fantasy, expression, and narrative; Final fantasy hits on more – fantasy, narrative, expression, discovery, challenge, and submission

dynamic models

dynamics are how the aesthetic experiences are created – if we want competition then game has to have opponent play and time pressure; if we want fellowship we have to have ways (and encouragement) for players to share info with team or setting up winning conditions that can only be done by a team

if the dynamic model doesn’t work we don’t get the aesthetic factor and game not fun (monopoly not fun if you start to lose faster and faster which breaks dramatic tension and sense of agency – but we could fix monopoly by giving some reward to losing players to help them keep up or to make progress harder for hte player in the lead so they can’t pull way off in the front -might break the concept of monopoly but would make the game more fun

mechanics

the things the player can do or control with in the game (actions, behaviors, control mechanisms) the gameplay dynamics, we can adjust the mechanics to fine-tune dynamics

- in card games ya get shuffling, trick taking, betting – put those together and you can get the dynamic of bluffing

- in shooters ya get weapons, ammo, spawn points which can produce dyamics of camping and sniping

- in monopoly – could add mechanics of bonuses for poor layers and taxes for rich ploayers, or time pressures to spped up the game (another reason monopoly is not fun)

has a 3 stage example about a babysitting game, changes the target audience , talks about what aesthetics might be more attractive to different age groups

Related articles by Zemanta

• Ever think about actually MAKING the Games you play? [Advertisement]

Trackback URL