Developing a New Major

ch3 is on play - altho he goes back and forth between play and games kind of willy nilly (games = metaphorical, play = safe), comes aroudn to fun at hte end of hte chapter - says fun concept is changing as society changes, that it has a different meaning in different contexts and gives us ntohing to work with in a design analysis so don’t use it

huizinga definition of play - voluntary activity, rules freely accepted but absolutely binding, play for play sake, “accompanied by a feeling of tension, joy, and the consciousness that it is ‘different’ from ‘ordinary life’” (p. 26)

baby mammals play - learn life skills - balance, motion, hunting -kids “needed every opportunity to learn the complex skills necessary to survive” (p. 28)

? “difference between a ritual and a game is trifling” (p. 28 - he’s talking about the ritual of a formal meal with rules about dress, napkins, silverware, courses)??? - is there something here to help game designers make new kinds of games??

says games can be simulations but better games are metaphorical - talks about how simulations aren’t accurate because that would be boring - then talks about games being metaphors - “Space invaders simulates nothing. I see in this game not a simulation but an excellent metaphor for hte frustrations of the individual in our society. All the social rules and institutions are arrayed against us; they march in lockstop as they threaten to suffocate us. They rain their nasty poop onto our heads; we can only dodge them. But we do have one gun with which to shoot back, and if we dodge quickly, we can defeat them. It’s a compelling metaphor for the predicament with which we all struggle; that’s why it was such a huge success. Even more interesting is the fact that there were many, many variations and improvements upon the basic design, and none of htem caught on like the original. The designers of these imitations tweaked the components of the design, but they lost hte power of hte metaphor.” (p. 30)- pacman also a metaphor since it doesn’t simulate anything - “what pac-man captures so well is the franctic nature of our working lives. We rush about, collecting some meaningless dots(carrying out our daily tasks), while bad guys chase us, just waiting to trip us up on some minor mistake. (p. 30-31) — says games need to stop focusing on photo-realisms and think about what other metaphors from peopel’s real liives they could use to make games - these metaphorical games could make stronger emotional connections with players

says play must be safe - that this is one of the fundamental aspects of play - it’s safe, want to be able to do (practice the skill, the simulation) without the dangers of the real life experience. Here is where frequent save points comes in - they encourage players to take chances, try new strategies because they can save before trying something new and very little lost if htey mess up “Without the assurance of safety, players will resort to conservative, careful, plodding strategies - which aren’t much fun….Good games permit the player to undo his last move, or play it over, instantly. The quicker and more easily the player can correct a mistake, the safer he will feel and the more exploratory and playful his play will be.” (p. 32) - not just be safe - but feel safe - play provides dangerous experiences that have to be safe - “perceptions of danger” together with “certainty of safety” (think rollercoasters)

play doesn’t have to be set in exotic worlds - think skateboarding games - players just want cool challenges to overcome, don’t necessarily need outerspace goodness - think the Sims - totally not exotic but very successful - someone called it a “housekeeping simulator”

comes around to fun at the end - says other languages don’t have a word for fun , just english - other people talk about happiness, enjoyment, pleasure, play, game - but not fun

consider this relationship  - game is the formal activity that you perform, play is the actual behavior that you engage in, fun is the experience you get from that “play” behavior — he says that leads to this conclusion: “games and play must lead to fun. If a game isn’t fun, it’s a bad game.” - - he says that’s a totally wrong conclusion tho

he says the 3 words - play, game, fun - are changing their meaning over time - as we move from thinking of play just for kids to play for all ages in lots of situations/contexts - and that flux make it tough to define any of hte words

“Fun is a misleading word to be using just yet. It is a semantic chameleon, changing its meaning in each new context. I continue to use the word informally and loosely, but I never use that owrd in serious design analysis. Games don’t have to be fun to provide entertainment, rewarding play, or just nice feelings. Condemning a game as ‘not fun’ is about as useful as calling it ‘crummy’; it expresses and emotional reaction but absolutely nothing you can get  your hads on. Let’s banish this term from our serious game design discussions.” (p. 35),

Trackback URL