Malcolm Harriott
Contents
Production 1: Introduction
Hello, I am from the Digital Media, Masters of Arts, graduate program in the School of the Arts, Media, Performance & Design. My main interests are video games and animation which is my primary focus in the Digital Media program. I am currently working on a game as my major research project for the program so I believe this course would be a great help for it.
Production 2: Doing Things (Option 2)
Communication
Whether you are playing games with friends, playing online with people you do not know, or offline against computer players, methods of communication are the key driving factors for social interaction in games. Without social interaction, a player can feel isolated or alone in an empty room in their living room. In order to impose a sense of community in the game some kind of means of communication is often used in gaming. This is even true in most single-player games where communication seems like an unimportant factor.
Instead of through what would normally be deemed as communication, offline single-player games can instead provide the illusion of communication by simple dialogue computer players or non-playable characters may say. Other communication methods for single-player games can be asynchronous through the means of scoreboards or other player saved events. For example in the original Animal Crossing released on the Nintendo GameCube, players try to pay off their house debt and decorate their home. In Animal Crossing, multiple save files were able to be made; each save file would add a new house located somewhere else in the town. When playing on one save file, the player would be able to explore the other houses created from other save files that other players had created. This gave the game a sense of social interaction by making players able to see the progress of their peers on the same console.
With synchronous local multi-player games, communication is a given as players can wholesomely talk to each other directly while sitting next to each other. This gives little need for the game designers to determine how players will need to communicate in the game. This approach was very common in the beginnings of video games before online became a staple in nearly all multi-player games. Now that online play has taken over multi-player games, the type of communication method given to players must be thoroughly addressed in development. The method of communication offered to players by the designers can vary from game to game depending on the content matter. For example in most Nintendo games, communication is very limited due to their target audience being younger kids. In Mario Kart 8: Deluxe for the Nintendo Switch, Nintendo often only gives players the ability to say premade dialogue options such as “Good Luck!”, “Good Game!”, “Ah, I’ll get you next time!”, and more. This is done in order to censor foul language and to prevent frustration or offensive chat between players. However this method can often feel robot-like and not give the same sense of immersion as full-fledged free chatting. In addition to this, in team games where communication is a determining factor for whether a team wins or loses, premade dialogue options will not be enough. For example in games like League of Legends, a multiplayer online battle arena, coordinated and efficient team-play is not possible without having the ability to freely communicate between other players on the team. Therefore in League of Legends, players are able to say whatever they want in the game. This can quickly turn to offensive or toxic behaviour which creates the need for moderation. In the case of League of Legends, it uses a report system to allow players to report players who are verbally abusive. When a player has too many reports they can get banned after manual review of their chat record. Other games go as far as providing voice chat to players to talk amongst each other akin to real life communication. Voice chat is often needed in first-person shooter team-based games since players cannot type and move their character in the game simultaneously. Needless to say, these games similarly require some form of moderation to be set in place by the game developers to prevent hostile chat interactions.
References
Bogost, I. (2011). How to Do Things with Videogames (1st edition). Minneapolis: Univ Of Minnesota Press.
Production 3: Serious Play
Learning through game-hacking is a very interesting approach to learning which has hardly been researched in the educational domain (Thumlert, de Castell, & Jenson, 2018). Similar to digital game-based learning (DGBL), there can be negative stigmas to such kind of learning.
“Though many parents and practitioners alike still regard digital games to be less developmentally, socially and culturally beneficial to children than outdoor play (Agger & Shelton, 2007; Frost, 2010)” (Nolan & McBride, 2014, p. 595)
Although these ideas are becoming less prevalent in current times, in comparison to learning through game-hacking, many of these stigmas can be dismissed due to the large differences between the two. Instead of solely playing the game, students are tasked with breaking a part the game and seeing how the game mechanics in the game function together.
“Papert and Harel (1991) later refined definitions of constructionism, seeing it as an enrichment of Piagetian constructivism, where learning is best enacted when students are engaged in building and sharing artefacts with and for peers or for younger students. More recent work combines instructionist and constructionist teaching in the context of “connected” computer game design (Kafai and Burke, 2015) where coding literacies can be learned through social game making that emphasizes collaborative work and personal expression.” (Thumlert, de Castell, & Jenson, 2018, p. 706)
A major learning opportunity in game-hacking, described by Thumlert et al. (2018) for game-making in groups, similar to professional game design practices, it allows for improved social and collaboration skills. Students when paired in groups to “hack” games forces students to work together and bounce ideas back and forth in order to come up with good modifications to the game. Students are often having fun breaking a part these previous games whilst adding their own work and personal expression to the games. As defined by Nolan and McBride (2014), this is all done through “hidden curriculum” and learning unknowingly as students are engaged in the activity.
“students design games to demonstrate previous disciplinary learning, i.e., curricular content delivered through more traditional instructionist means.” (Thumlert, de Castell, & Jenson, 2018, p. 706)
As described here, akin to game-making, students are improving their knowledge in the subject matter of the game and learning from everyone in their group simultaneously.
“As Pinto (2014) states the case, learning through making is increasingly reduced to corporate construction kits and sanctioned tools where making itself follows “prescriptive instructions” such that student “outputs”, if not identical, are predictable (and assessable) by standard measures.” (Thumlert, de Castell, & Jenson, 2018, p. 707)
A problem that can come with game-making learning practices is that students are simply following instructions to create a game rather than collaboratively forming new ideas. However in game-hacking this is not the case; students are instead presented a predetermined game. Students are then tasked with breaking down the game mechanics of the game and coming up with new modifications to make the game more interesting. So unlike many game-making practices, “outputs”, as defined by Thumlert et al. (2018), are neither predictable nor identical between students.
References
Nolan, J., & McBride, M. (2014). Beyond gamification: Reconceptualizing game-based learning in early childhood environments. Information, Communication & Society.
Thumlert, K., de Castell, S., & Jenson, J. (2018). Learning through game design: A production pedagogy, The 2018 European Conference on Games Based Learning Book: ACPI Press.
Production 4: Get Meta (Option 2)
De-Composing a Game Using Fullerton’s Book
Using Fullerton’s Playcentric Game Design Book, the multi-player fighting game, Super Smash Bros. Ultimate can be analyzed using his elements of game play:
Premise
Super Smash Bros. Ultimate has two primary modes of play depending on whether players play alone or with multiple players. The first mode, World of Light, combines a plethora of characters from different Nintendo and other popular franchises to fight off against an antagonizing source which is negatively infecting different characters in their respective series. Alternatively when Super Smash Bros. Ultimate is played with more than one player, players can fight each other in a quick-play style with no real defined premise.
Goal/Win Conditions
The goal in Super Smash Bros. Ultimate in its World of Light mode is to defeat the antagonizing source infecting the different characters in the game. In the quick-play mode, each player’s goal is to defeat the other opposing players.
Play Relations
In Super Smash Bros. Ultimate, player relations to one another are in the matches they fight with each other in the game. Alternatively players can play in teams where they try to defeat the opposing team. In the World of Light mode, player relations are to non-player characters they are trying to save in the game. Since these non-player characters originated in other popular franchises, players can grow an attachment to them and have a closer relation to the characters in the game if they have played those popular franchises in the past.
Use of Narrative
Super Smash Bros. Ultimate uses narrative in the World of Light mode via text and cinematics within the game to explain the narrative clearly to the player and increase immersion. Players progress in the World of Light mode through a map they move across; this is used to give the player a sense of progression. In order to progress, players must fight infected non-player characters from other series until they get to the final antagonizing source causing the different characters to be infected.
Use of Simulation/World Building
Events in the narrative of Super Smash Bros. Ultimate’s World Light mode are simulated via fights and encounters in the game. Players are given a sense of world building as all the non-player characters are tied together through their different appearances in the game. Using text descriptions during each non-player character’s encounter, relations to other playable characters in the game are made.
Rule Sets/Systems
Super Smash Bros. Ultimate has many different rule sets depending on what mode the player chooses. In the World of Light mode, players win a fight by successfully hitting the infected characters off the level. In the quick-play mode, players can change the rules of each match. Similar to the World of Light, players can make the win condition who ever can survive the longest on the stage. Alternatively, players can turn on “score” which gives players an infinite number of lives, where whoever hits the opponent off the level the most times wins. Lastly, players can turn on “stamina” which gives each player a certain amount of predetermined stamina at the beginning of the game. Players can lose by either falling off the level or by running out of stamina which is lost when getting hit by attacks.
Key Mechanics
There are many different game mechanics present in Super Smash Bros. Ultimate. One of the key mechanics in the game is the fighting scheme; broken up into normal and special attacks. Each character in the game has many normal attacks and three different special attacks which are taken from each character’s respective series. Another key mechanic in Super Smash Bros. Ultimate is a player’s “percent”. This percent increases "knockback" of the player making it easier to get hit off the level. Each player’s percent increases when they get hit by attacks.
Challenges/Obstacles
Obstacles in Super Smash Bros. Ultimate are the opposing players in the game that the player is fighting against. In the World of Light mode, challenges are given to players in each level with the use of obstacles using the infected non-player characters from each respective franchise that player must fight against.
How people learn through Super Smash Bros. Ultimate
When playing Super Smash Bros. Ultimate, there are a variety of ways people learn that can be identified through game play. People learn through Super Smash Bros. Ultimate through problem-based learning as explained by James Paul Gee. Super Smash Bros. Ultimate presents players with a set of variables which are possible for each character. Players learn over time how their moves and abilities work in order to construct gameplay strategies on how to beat other players in the game.
A key principle Gee talks about is system thinking through model based reasoning where players break down the game and dissect how variables in the game work together. This can be seen clearly relevant in Super Smash Bros. Ultimate, especially for more competitive players. In order to play Super Smash Bros. Ultimate at the top level, players are required to understand their characters inside out. In addition to this, strategies of how to combat other characters can be formed by breaking down other characters in the game and their weaknesses. By knowing how each matchup plays out, players can be prepared for what to expect from each character and in addition know how their character faces up against their foe. This is important to determine the best strategies to win against specific characters.
References
Fullerton, T. (2014). Game Design Workshop: A Playcentric Approach to Creating Innovation Games, NY: Taylor & Francis. 1-104.
