Rules are an important part of game design. They contribute to many aspects of multiplayer games, both within the game environment and out. They provide a certain level of conformity to an established environment, and you could even go so far as to say that it is human nature to establish rules, and even to compromise them.
Some factors to which rules build upon are the enjoyment of the game. For starters, rules make losing feel more justifiable; if the mass of players can pin point "why" they lost a game, it will be easier to return to the game and enjoy playing it again. Rules are also a bridge to conversation during game play; whether through discussing the rules and learning them together, or through debating the details, the rules are an irreplaceable part of interaction and game play. To some people, picking up a new line of logic and learning how to manipulate it -with the rules- are a strong attraction to multiplayer games.
On the downside, if rules are too complicated they can narrow the possible audience for a game. They can control the level of competition, and often the time frame of game play; this can be an element to keep general audiences coming back, or it can deter more competitive players. In the case of many TCG's and tabletop RPG's, the rules are updated frequently, and with many specific rulings on certain pre-established rules; this may appeal to those who enjoy those specific logic systems, but can also deter many players due to confusion or the monetary cost of keeping up with them.
Fluxx is a game with dynamic rules, yet it appeals to many types of players. Although strategy is minimal, the constantly changing rules appeal to those who enjoy following a new system of logic by simply keeping up with them, and having a hand in changing them as well. Since the basic rules are always draw card(s), play card(s), discard card(s) the game is not so complex that it would attract a selective audience, and its winning or losing terms are easily justifiable. Even the socialization during game play can be influenced by the rules as players keep each other up to date on the current set in play; an important interaction during game play to advance the game, as discovered in class. Fluxx is a prime example of just how important rules are to the design of a multiplayer game.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Cheating is Circumstantial
Cheating is an inveterate part of playing games. I remember playing go fish with my dad, lying about the cards in my hand when he asked, then waiting a few turns to ask for them; he taught me that trick. This is the most important aspect of cheating, being able to do so well. It is not only important to the cheater, but also to the other players when cheating is maintained as a part of enjoyable game play. This may seem unorthodox, but it is true nonetheless. This holds true in MMOG’s, there are many methods of cheating in video games, as defined by many players.
There is blatant hacking, which in moderation can level gamers looking for the "get rich quick" version of gaming, or it can have unwieldy results on the servers. They can create custom character stats, and they can vac hack to aid farming. It is not too harmful if done covertly, and although it may be complained about extensively by players who can't hack, it is only that individual gamer's choice in optimizing their experience. On the extreme, there have been hacks in the past that crashed servers. Of course this technically details editing their software with your own, which is copyright infringement.
Less honorable than hacking is the purchase of characters from other users. This is again just that particular players method of getting the most out of their gaming experience, albeit cheaply. On the downside for the player in question, they will have to spend time adapting to the account that they just purchased. This even stretches to sale of in game currency, and items for physical money. It is also an illegal resale according to the user agreements of many MMOG's.
There are certain misconducts in MMOG's that are the result of social ineptitude, often viewed by the victims as cheating. These include kill stealing, and hand in hand with this is "ownership" of virtual space; that is to say, which character has the right to be in a farming area due to being there first. Although not technically cheating, it is a blatant disregard for the socialization of multiplayer gaming.
Last but not least are exploits and glitching. These are often techniques used to take advantage of discrepancies in the game. This may be a sniping spot some hundred feet in the air, or an environmental tweak in which a boss character may become physically stuck. Again, these are not technically cheating, but are often proclaimed as such by players who do not know how to take advantage of them.
A mix between misconduct and exploiting is Kazzak Does Stormwind1. The players kited him2, and were banned for such repeated actions.
In the end, cheating in MMO's has come down to what is fair or unfair to specific players. It is a dynamic definition that is dependant on any one individual's outlook and circumstances.
1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jl0VWJdE01M
2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stYUrIk8Iu0
There is blatant hacking, which in moderation can level gamers looking for the "get rich quick" version of gaming, or it can have unwieldy results on the servers. They can create custom character stats, and they can vac hack to aid farming. It is not too harmful if done covertly, and although it may be complained about extensively by players who can't hack, it is only that individual gamer's choice in optimizing their experience. On the extreme, there have been hacks in the past that crashed servers. Of course this technically details editing their software with your own, which is copyright infringement.
Less honorable than hacking is the purchase of characters from other users. This is again just that particular players method of getting the most out of their gaming experience, albeit cheaply. On the downside for the player in question, they will have to spend time adapting to the account that they just purchased. This even stretches to sale of in game currency, and items for physical money. It is also an illegal resale according to the user agreements of many MMOG's.
There are certain misconducts in MMOG's that are the result of social ineptitude, often viewed by the victims as cheating. These include kill stealing, and hand in hand with this is "ownership" of virtual space; that is to say, which character has the right to be in a farming area due to being there first. Although not technically cheating, it is a blatant disregard for the socialization of multiplayer gaming.
Last but not least are exploits and glitching. These are often techniques used to take advantage of discrepancies in the game. This may be a sniping spot some hundred feet in the air, or an environmental tweak in which a boss character may become physically stuck. Again, these are not technically cheating, but are often proclaimed as such by players who do not know how to take advantage of them.
A mix between misconduct and exploiting is Kazzak Does Stormwind1. The players kited him2, and were banned for such repeated actions.
In the end, cheating in MMO's has come down to what is fair or unfair to specific players. It is a dynamic definition that is dependant on any one individual's outlook and circumstances.
1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jl0VWJdE01M
2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stYUrIk8Iu0
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Risk...or was it Guess?
The experience of playing Risk was the most unique board game experience I've had -which is of course, one of its strengths. Risk was one of the first board games with non-linear movement1; that combined with the multiple game components, and the unique strategies involved it was quickly a game that corporations wanted to license, and that people wanted to buy.
Among its strengths are the universality of human ambition to conquer and gain. It is a challenging game, as opposed to games based around gambling or movement as dictated by a die or spinner. Although Go, Chess, Stratego, or Checkers also require strategic know how and provide a healthy, enjoyable challenge, they have the restriction of being two player games; Risk outshines these by providing an environment that can accommodate up to 6 players, or more if it is altered and played by house rules. In more recent times, another element of universality has been added to Risk by releasing special editions of it pertaining to specific themes: such as Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, and Transformers2. Despite the necessity for strategy, there are still random elements to even out game play; these include attack success based on the roll of dice, the ability to gain armies by drawing cards and attaining poker like combination, and the fact that territories are distributed randomly based on what cards are dealt at the start of the game. This makes it more appealing to weaker players.
All of these are certainly elements that make the game of Risk an ongoing classic, but it is not without drawbacks. The game play itself, and the accompanying rules, are quite confusing to pick up. The limitations to attacking each turn need to be more clear in the rule book; also, starting a game and just running with it through the rule book from there is no simple matter to a group of inexperienced players. My experience playing in class, with two other people who had not played the game before either, was interesting but not engaging. There were many details to the rules that we did not get to, and keeping track of the protocol of our turns in how much we did read about was tedious at best. The best possible experience of learning the game would probably be to have a well seasoned player guiding a group of new players through the turns.
In summary; Risk needs to have an abridged and clearly written set of rules, but is other wise a stimulating and fun board game.
1: http://www.hasbro.com/risk/default.cfm?page=history
2: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/24292
Among its strengths are the universality of human ambition to conquer and gain. It is a challenging game, as opposed to games based around gambling or movement as dictated by a die or spinner. Although Go, Chess, Stratego, or Checkers also require strategic know how and provide a healthy, enjoyable challenge, they have the restriction of being two player games; Risk outshines these by providing an environment that can accommodate up to 6 players, or more if it is altered and played by house rules. In more recent times, another element of universality has been added to Risk by releasing special editions of it pertaining to specific themes: such as Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, and Transformers2. Despite the necessity for strategy, there are still random elements to even out game play; these include attack success based on the roll of dice, the ability to gain armies by drawing cards and attaining poker like combination, and the fact that territories are distributed randomly based on what cards are dealt at the start of the game. This makes it more appealing to weaker players.
All of these are certainly elements that make the game of Risk an ongoing classic, but it is not without drawbacks. The game play itself, and the accompanying rules, are quite confusing to pick up. The limitations to attacking each turn need to be more clear in the rule book; also, starting a game and just running with it through the rule book from there is no simple matter to a group of inexperienced players. My experience playing in class, with two other people who had not played the game before either, was interesting but not engaging. There were many details to the rules that we did not get to, and keeping track of the protocol of our turns in how much we did read about was tedious at best. The best possible experience of learning the game would probably be to have a well seasoned player guiding a group of new players through the turns.
In summary; Risk needs to have an abridged and clearly written set of rules, but is other wise a stimulating and fun board game.
1: http://www.hasbro.com/risk/default.cfm?page=history
2: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/24292
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
What world did I live in?
edit:: The previously dead link has been replaced, should have used photobucket in the first place sorry
I remember owning Candyland as a child. Its greatest merit to me was that it was pretty; I can honestly say that I learned no lessons from Candyland, nor did I ever feel any sense of achievement if I won. As for the standard lessons one might say it provides for children: I already knew color identification by the time I could play it; and my mom ran a daycare service from home as early as I can remember, so sharing my things and taking turns were not strange concepts to me either. It was probably bought for me out of obligation to the social norm -oh, she needs Candyland- but no one seems to know who bought it.
I also remember playing Cootie, and other standard preschool games. Aside from the lessons they seem to teach on the surface, they provide early experiences with greed and gambling, and all carry undertones of gradual "advancement" as set forth by the "rules" and "environment;" in other words, acclimating people at an early age to inhibited growth under government and societal standards. If you go back and take another look at the board for Candyland, you can see a few metaphors and social stereotypes:
As long as I can remember, I would go down into the basement at my grandparents' house and watch the men playing pool rather than staying upstairs with the women; yes, that quaint segregation actually happened. The game mesmerized me, and I learned to anticipate the physics involved in kinetic energy, and to strategize where and when they would pick out shots to block. Beyond that, I have always been a people watcher; and from watching my Pop-pop, uncle, and father playing I learned appreciation for the game being played, for the players, for the human interaction, and for the strategy involved; rather than developing a one track mind for competition and winning, regardless of how structured said competition may have been with normal children's games.
I remember owning Candyland as a child. Its greatest merit to me was that it was pretty; I can honestly say that I learned no lessons from Candyland, nor did I ever feel any sense of achievement if I won. As for the standard lessons one might say it provides for children: I already knew color identification by the time I could play it; and my mom ran a daycare service from home as early as I can remember, so sharing my things and taking turns were not strange concepts to me either. It was probably bought for me out of obligation to the social norm -oh, she needs Candyland- but no one seems to know who bought it.
I also remember playing Cootie, and other standard preschool games. Aside from the lessons they seem to teach on the surface, they provide early experiences with greed and gambling, and all carry undertones of gradual "advancement" as set forth by the "rules" and "environment;" in other words, acclimating people at an early age to inhibited growth under government and societal standards. If you go back and take another look at the board for Candyland, you can see a few metaphors and social stereotypes:
- Two aryan children, a daughter and a son to make up a normal white-picket-fence American family
- Avoid the pimps (Lord Licorice), the whores (Princess Lolly), and the burn outs (Gloppy); as there are no shortcuts to land near them
- On the other hand, strive to be acclimated with family (Gramma Nut), prom queens (Queen Frostine), and government officials (King Candy)
- Shortcuts become non existent later in life.
As long as I can remember, I would go down into the basement at my grandparents' house and watch the men playing pool rather than staying upstairs with the women; yes, that quaint segregation actually happened. The game mesmerized me, and I learned to anticipate the physics involved in kinetic energy, and to strategize where and when they would pick out shots to block. Beyond that, I have always been a people watcher; and from watching my Pop-pop, uncle, and father playing I learned appreciation for the game being played, for the players, for the human interaction, and for the strategy involved; rather than developing a one track mind for competition and winning, regardless of how structured said competition may have been with normal children's games.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
