Kinds of Fun, Kinds of Players was a great article to read. It began by questioning the players who suit MUDs and the 4 approaches to playing MUDs. The MUD's preface states that most MUDs go right back to Trubshaw's game that was released in 1978. MUDs can be of considerable value in game applications and non-game applications. They're treated as if they're games and it's suggested that we think of them in that way. The real question that stands is are they games? Are they pastimes? Are they entertainments? Are they sports? Or are they simple a combination of all four of these elements?
The article goes on to tell us that MUDs have caused a heated debate and sparked the question of What do people want out of a MUD? While 15 people took a major part in the debate 15 more simply just gave their comments and thoughts now and again. Most of these were shown to be active wizzes. Although it's estimated that they'd probably prefer game-like aspects over social-aspects, this debate was well received and obtained mostly positive results. Some aspects of MUDs that people enjoyed include the game's exploration, imposition upon others, achievement within game context and socializing aspects.
The interest graph was presented next. In this graph the axis represented the players interest. Achievers were interested in carrying out actions like acting on the world while explorers were interested in having the game surprise them by interacting with the world. Socializers were interested in interacting with other players meanwhile killers were simply proud of their fighting and combat skills.
A stable MUD is described as being inclusive of all 4 principles of style of the player in equilibrium. The balance between the multiple types remains the same. We also learned that the point of balance here can vary hugely and it's solely dependent on the individual admins. Putting emphasis on the players is regarded as easy, this can be done by providing the players with a lot of communication commands and not much else. Emphasizing the world can be done simply by tilting the game towards the world rather than it's inhabitants. An emphasis on interaction can go a long way and can be done by restricting players freedom when choosing different courses of actions which is the mechanism to implement it. As for acting, if the graph is redrawn it becomes boring.
Next the article discusses how to emphasis the player over the world which can be carried out by adding in more communications facilities and decreasing the size of the world. You can emphasis the world over the player by having lots of mobiles and granting building privileges to many. To emphasis interacting over acting, one can have only a shallow level/class system and lower the rewards for achievements. Acting can be emphasized over interacting by providing a game manual and including auto-log facilities.
Next we learn about player interactions. Firstly we learn about achievers vs achievers. Achievers see other achievers as competition to be beaten and will often cite bad luck as reasons for not being as far advanced as their competitors, Despite this achievers will more often than not co-operate with each other in order to perform a collective goal.
Achievers and explorers are next. Achievers tend to regard explorers as losers . Overall the number of explorers has only a marginal effect on the population of the achievers. Achievers' attitude towards socialisers is poor as they barely tolerate them. They often regard them as contempt, pity and irritation, flame wars break out often enough from this. Finally we reach achievers thoughts on killers. They don't like the killers however they understand that they're there for a reason which is to make achievements meaningful.
The next article that I read was MDA Framework by Robert Zubeck. As I've read this article before I was familiar with how MDA's work and what they are however this is a good article that goes into depth about MDA framework. Each component of MDA framework is thought of as a "lens" or a "view" of the game. Mechanics give rise to the dynamic system behaviors according to the designers. The article also discusses the aesthetics of MDA's in games and provides examples such as charades which includes components such as fellowship and expression while Quake contains components such as challenge and sensation. Dynamic models work to create aesthetic experiences for both the game and the gamer. An example of this is the aspect of challenge which is composed and created by time pressure and opponent play.
Mechanics are various actions, behaviours and control provided to the game player within the game context. MDA is summed up as a formal, iterative approach to both design and tuning.
Overall I enjoyed these articles and learned more about these subjects within the gaming world.
I look forward to keeping these in mind as I create my own game.
Links:
MUDs
MDA framework
Achaea
Image here
No comments:
Post a Comment