Psychology: Create, Destroy, Nurture
Author
Just a rough idea.
I've been thinking about different types of games, like ones where you run away from enemies vs ones where you kick their butt. And I think there are (at least) several types of play and different psychological rewards that they give.
Destruction. This is the typical type of combat (and Tetris) you select your moves and when you do so successfully you get a result that destroys (or harms) the opponent. Ie. Combat, where you shoot an enemy and get a point, or in Tetris where you remove a line from the ever expanding well. This process of removing pieces from the game acts as a reward for doing well, and is a positive change to the game world (it empowers the player)
Avoiding, gameplay where you run away from encroaching danger. Whether that be the ghosts in Pacman (ignore that you can get a powerpill and eat them, for the moment) there is a satisfaction in running away and avoiding being squished by things, but maybe it isn't as satisfying as defeating the opponents (because it is less empowering to the player, because it doesn't change the game world as much?).
Creative play where the player gets to make something that is sort of unique to them.
Thoughts?
I think there are games like that out there. Like Metal Gear Solid or Splinter Cell where you have the choice to destory everything in your path (in a subtle none the less) or you can sneak by.
I like the idea of having choices in games, but I guess the question is how many choices do we give the player. Do we give the player unlimited choices (should we have the ability to do so) or do we limit their choices and if we limit choices how do we limit the play to said choices?
--Ter'Lenth
I like the idea of having choices in games, but I guess the question is how many choices do we give the player. Do we give the player unlimited choices (should we have the ability to do so) or do we limit their choices and if we limit choices how do we limit the play to said choices?
--Ter'Lenth
Quote:Original post by Ketchaval
Creative play where the player gets to make something that is sort of unique to them.
Thoughts?
Creative gameplay is rather difficult under the restrictions of computer technology.
I believe a "close-enough" example can be found in the games "Pipe Dream" or "Ant Run" (basically the same thing) where there is no one solution, but the player is given a set of options and makes it work in whatever way he can.
Opportunities for creativity can be achieved by developing what I call an "elegant formula" of gameplay where the player's decisions can, within the function of the game, produce dynamic results that the designer had not considered.
I refer you to this thread for a more detailed explanation.
EDIT: It just occoured to me that games without objectives tend to favor more creative gameplay. SimCity had no real end in mind and therefore, allowed the player to construct a town or metropolis in whatever way he saw fit. Perhaps open-ended gameplay is the solution to the "creative gameplay" equation.
Another good example is Freelancer. In that game you can either choose a ship that's good at combat and has a big arsenal, or you can choose a freighter and be a merchant. If you're flying a freighter and are jumped by pirates, running is your best bet (albeit difficult). If you're in a combat vessel, you can usually take them on. I appreciate that the game lets you choose which approach to take, and makes both methods rewarding and challenging in some way.
Quote:by ishpeckI'm curious, ishpeck, how you feel your Elegant Formula is similar to/different from what the industry calls "emergent gameplay"? (My initial guess: you emphasize player "decision" as having dynamic results, whereas emergent gameplay emphasizes player "action" that affects the gameworld -- but does not action usually follow decision?)
Opportunities for creativity can be achieved by developing what I call an "elegant formula" of gameplay where the player's decisions can, within the function of the game, produce dynamic results that the designer had not considered.
Quote:I refer you to this thread for a more detailed explanation.That's an interesting thread that I hadn't yet seen. Very good stuff, thanks for referencing it.
-Razorguts
Quote:Original post by RazorgutsQuote:by ishpeckI'm curious, ishpeck, how you feel your Elegant Formula is similar to/different from what the industry calls "emergent gameplay"? (My initial guess: you emphasize player "decision" as having dynamic results, whereas emergent gameplay emphasizes player "action" that affects the gameworld -- but does not action usually follow decision?)
Opportunities for creativity can be achieved by developing what I call an "elegant formula" of gameplay where the player's decisions can, within the function of the game, produce dynamic results that the designer had not considered.
The differences are mostly academic and semantic. Actions do typically flow naturally from a decision. The most important aspect of this principle is the fact that the results of the player's action cannot be scripted or even anticipated by the designer. If any of the results of a player's decision/actions have been explicitly accomodated for by the designer, then the dynamism of the engine is in question.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
