21st Century Game Design, by Chris Bateman and Richard Boon, 2005.
Part I - Games exist primarily to satisfy the needs of an audience
ch1 - Zen game design
Zen Buddhism can not be learned, it can only be experienced. There is no objective perspective on anything. Hence zen game design's tenets: game design reflects needs + there's no single method to design + there exist methods to game design. These methods are:
- first principles: what you want to do -> game world abstraction -> design -> implementation
- clone and tweak: most common method. existing design -> tweak -> implementation
- meta-rules: goal = provoking debate. meta-rules -> design -> implementation
- expressing technology: in teams without actual game designers. technology -> game implementation
- Frankenstein: art or technical materials -> design -> implementation
- story-driven: narrative -> design -> implementation
Participants in the game project: audience, publisher, producer, programmers, artists, marketing/PR, license holder. Example: saving for causal audience is vital; for hardcore audience, it should not break gameplay; for programmers, it's a technical detail; for producer, it's looking at how other games do it.
ch2 - Designing for the market
The commercial success for a medium clears the way for artistic expression, not the way around
A game design is successful when the target audience is satisfied. This justifies the need for an audience model. Existing models: simple distinction hardcore/casual, distinction by genre (but genres are too vague), EA's model, and ihobo's model.
Simple hardcore/casual distinction
| hardcore
| casual
|
|---|
| plays lots of games
| plays few games
|
| game literate
| game illiterate
|
| plays for the challenge
| plays to relax, kill time, and just for fun
|
| segment can be polarized: many can buy the same title
| hard to polarize, diverse and disparate
|
EA's model:
EA's model take-away: do not ignore hardcores because they are the ones pushing a game to broader segments. Corollary: no TV ads are needed if the game is not made for casuals.
iHobo's model:
Evangelist clusters = gaming press, mainstream press, and the 3 million of hardcores in the world. Target clusters = Testosterone (9M players worldwide), lifestyle (30M), and family (90M) gamers.
Design tools for market penetration (aka demographic game design
):
- Looking for good gameplay (ie the game being
performance-oriented
, with stats, clear goals and victory conditions) vs good toyplay (unorganized
). Hardcores are driven by gameplay, but lifestyle and family gamers are driven by both.
- Controls should remain accessible for casuals.
- The minimum play session length is usually expressed in terms of the duration of a level or the time between two save points. For casuals, it should be below 15 minutes, but hardcores do not mind core activities of a game taking at least an hour or two. Ex: a typical DotA match takes 45 to 60 minutes, whereas a (small size) Mine Sweeper can take less than a minute. Nintendo games are also famous for allowing the player to quit at any time and provide core activities of at most a few minutes.
- The average play session length is also lower for casuals: they may complete one level at a time, whereas hardcores can aim at 10 levels per play session.
- Play window: total time spent playing the game. The longer the play window, the longer hardcores will spend evangelizing the game. Therefore, despite most of the players not completing the game, content is crucial! The play window can also be extended by introducing hidden features, higher difficulty levels, variety in characters to play with (to increase replayability), and online PVP (although that only works for Testosterone and hardcore gamers).
Phases of penetration: taking the example of The Sims.
- Hardcore penetration: the game needs challenge, progress, and depth.
- Hardcore evangelism: the game needs to appeal to the Lifestyle gamer, easy to reach fun, strong marketing, and a strong license.
- Casual penetration: the game needs fun, toys, short minimum play session.
- Casual evangelism: the game needs to get the attention of the mainstream press.
ch3 - Myers-Briggs typology of gamers
Assumption: nature of games people enjoy and frequency of play vary with player personality and reaction to situations. The Myers-Briggs model was developed in the 1940s and indicates how an individual would prefer to react to situations in general. See the Myers-Briggs type frequencies in the US. Four pairs of traits:
| Type
| Opposite type
| Game design
|
|---|
Introversion (50% of pop)
think then act, needs private time, 1-to-1 communication and relationships
| Extroversion (50% of pop)
act then think, likes people, deprived when alone
| Most games are played by introverts. Extraverts can take long breaks from the game, so provide a todo list for them when they come back to play, otherwise they'll forget what they had to do in their previous play session. Extraverts like DDR because of its performance aspect.
|
Sensing (70% of pop)
live in the present, apply common sense, based on prior experience, likes clear and concrete info
| iNtuition (30% of pop)
live in near future, new and imaginative approaches, based on theory, comfortable with fuzzy information, seek for patterns)
| Learning and problem solving are frequent gameplay elements in many genres. Learning: in tutorials, S will accept linear series of lessons, but N would rather guess by themselves. Problem solving: S will use trial and error, while N will like to use their lateral thinking skills. Therefore, make lateral thinking puzzles (at most) secondary objectives, or allow the player to progress without having completed all of them. Ex: Super Mario 64 only requires 30 stars to unlock new levels. S want simple and usual mechanics, while N won't mind having to guess the rules and a steep learning curve.
|
Thinking (30% of women, 60% of men)
decide from facts and logic, objective, focus on task, think that conflicts are sometimes unavoidable
| Feeling (70% of women, 40% of men)
decide from emotion, subjective, focus on consequences to people, wish to avoid conflicts
| Clear goals for T. Personal encouragement for F, but T may feel patronized. Solution: useful AND aesthetic/fun items are rewards that will satisfy both T and F. Gathering collectibles give goals to T, but should not be a grind. F are motivated and rewarded when they see their actions have impact on the world or other characters. T enjoy receiving critical feedback (a game over with tips), but F will take it personally. Ex: Zelda gives clear goals (good for T), falling or getting hit results in losing half a heart (and not instant death) and Link has an impact on the game world (good for F).
|
|
Judging (55% of pop)
plan then move, single task at a time, ahead of deadlines, targets and routines to manage life
| Perceiving (45% of pop)
plan as you go, multitask, work better before deadline, avoid routine and commitment
| J want to beat the game (get all the secret bonuses) and complete objectives. P want to improve their abilities, and enjoy the process. For P, goals completed = feedback that they're on track. Non-linear structure is good for P because if they don't like a level, they can try another and keep progressing. J needs to know what to do to progress. Ex: in Tony Hawk or GTA, players need to collect points (good for J) but they can collect them the way they want (various kinds of skate figures or driving/killing missions or sandbox play, good for P).
|
TJ vs FP: TJ want challenges to overcome (what most current games provide), FP want easy fun (cf Sims or casual games).
Study hypothesis: hardcore player is a 14-28 year old tech savvy male who plays up to 8 games per month. Supposedly, he plays on his own (hence I), is methodological, goal-oriented enjoys conflicts (T), plays games until completion and looks for perfect score/overachiever (J). Previous quantitative work from the Bartle test by Andreasen showed the average hardcore MMO player is IST. Therefore, let's suppose hardcores are IT. Overall, 15% of women and 35% of men are of type IT.
ch4 - DGD1
DGD1 is intended as a tool to aid in market-oriented game design
.
Methods: between 2002 and 2004, ask 408 participants (incl 122 women) to answer a 32-question Myers-Briggs personality test, as well as questions on purchasing and playing habits, and do you consider yourself hardcore, casual, or no idea?
. Only look at people who play at least one game per year. Survey advertised on hardcore and casual websites/game portals + university students.
Results: clustering gave a sketchy and incomplete result
, and FE and SI dimensions did not help to cluster, but 4 clusters appeared anyway: conqueror (TJ), manager (TP), Wanderer (FP), and participant (FJ). Hypothesis rejected: hardcores are found in E and S (and not only I and T). Still, I and N are higher for hardcores and MMO players than casuals. For each of the four types, twice more respondents reported they were casuals than hardcores.
The DGD1 demographic model
| Type
| Hardcores Desc
| Casuals Desc
| Progress
| Story
| Social
|
|---|
| Conqueror
| ITJ. Want meaningful challenges, strategies and puzzles, want to complete the game. Want lots of content, try to beat themselves. The game is too easy if they don't die at least a few times. Anger, frustration, boredom, and fiero.
| ISTJ. FPS and racing games, they play to compete and win. Rely on genre conventions and do not like deviations from the genre. Fiero (although it's oblivious to them) and schadenfreude in PVP, or in GTA for rampages
| Rapid advancement: stats in RPG, better gear in FPS
| Focus on plot twists/events, not on characters
| Online: vocal hardcores from forums and blogs. They also like to win discussions
|
| Manager
| ITP. Strategy and tactics. Winning is less important than mastering the game systems: process-oriented, not goal oriented. Conquerors consider them rivals and targets. Patient. Look for challenging but not impossible. Don't look for hidden features but rather refine their current knowledge. Fiero. Civ series.
| ISTP. Want familiar settings and realism. Like construction and management games like SimCity. Hate being stuck even if they suck. Hate interruptions and like smooth difficulty curves.
| Steady. Give up if no reliable strategy is found quickly.
| Plot, not characters.
| None?
|
| Wanderer
| INFP. Easy fun and toyplay, not challenges. Variety keeps the fun going. Complete levels in aesthetically pleasing ways. Cf Puzzle Bobble/Bust-a-Move: simple controls, bright colors, and actions with direct and satisfying changes to the environment. See also Mario Party and Super Monkey Ball. Need to be able to give up the current task for another different task. May turn to Conqueror or Manager relatives for help. Emotions: finesse, aesthetics, wonder, awe and mystery, but no fiero.
| ENFP. Want to accomplish something in the game world without the need for challenges. Games = way to relax. Feeling of progression or else boredom. Lack of market vectors to reach them [although nowadays there's Facebook]
| New toys, colorful and imaginative environments
| Emotions. Empathy to characters or investment in world/immersion.
| Talk about what they like but avoid arguments
|
| Participant
| FJ. Games as social entertainment. Cf DDR, The Sims. Little survey data about this group.
| Narrative of group of players
| Characters and emotions, but in control of them, not just spectator.
| Multiplayer, but must face other players in person, not just online (no MMO)
|
ch5 - Player abilities
Flow = subjects believe they can complete their activity. Subjects have clear goals and direct and clear feedback. Effortless involvement. Goals should be short-term for participant and conqueror, but long-term for Wanderer and manager because they like to figure out the short-term goals themselves.
Caillois' table of the four categories of play helps understand how flow is related to toyplay. In the table, there really is a continuum between Paidia and Ludus.
The relation between the four play styles of DGD1 and Caillois' categories of games
Conqueror
Agon
| Manager
Agon (Alea tolerated)
|
Participant
Mimicry
| Wanderer
Mimicry (Alea tolerated)
|
Caillois' table of the four categories of play
| -
| Agon
(competition)
| Alea
(chance)
| Mimicry
(simulation)
| Ilinx
(vertigo)
|
|---|
Paidia
(spontaneous play)
| Spontaneous races
| Counting out rhymes, coin flipping
| Masks and disguisement
| Children whirling, swinging
|
|---|
Ludus
(structured play)
| Sports
| Betting, lotteries
| Theatre
| Skiing, mountain climbing
|
|---|
People with high Myers-Briggs Feeling scores prefer avoiding conflicts, therefore they don't like Agon. They're also more likely to like Mimicry since they focus on people. For example, Wanderers appreciate finesse, which is a component of Mimicry. Ilinx resembles immersion, it appeals to everyone.
Temperament theory gives patterns of behaviors, while Myers-Briggs gives patterns of perception or judgement.
Temperament theory
| Temperament
| Core needs
| Myers-Briggs traits
| Skills
| % of pop
|
|---|
| Rational
| Knowledge, competence
| NT
| Strategic: Think and plan ahead, identify the means to achieve a goal, coordinate actions strategically
| 10%
|
|---|
| Idealist
| Unique identity, search for meaning and significance
| NF
| Diplomatic: Resolve conflicts while recognizing individuality, empathy, find similarities through abstraction
| 15%
|
|---|
| Artisan
| Freedom to act and ability to impact
| SP
| Tactical: Read the current content and manage the situation, work out the next step and take action, improvise to overcome problems
| 25%
|
|---|
| Guardian
| Belonging and sense of responsibility/duty
| SJ
| Logistical: Organizing and meeting needs, optimizing and standardizing, protect and ensure safety
| 50%
|
|---|
Temperament, Myers-Briggs and DGD1
| Type
| Myers-Briggs
traits
| Hardcore
temperament
trait
| Casual
temperament
trait
| Flow provenance
| Examples
|
|---|
| Conqueror
| TJ
| strategic
| logistical
| Capacity to see in advance how to address problems (strategic) and iterate/repeat to improve/optimize the solution (logistical). Willingness to fail and repeat
| Production of units in RTS, monsters or bosses with patterns (cf Doom monsters)
|
| Manager
| TP
| strategic
| tactical
| Planning ahead (strategic) and reacting to rapidly changing situations (tactical). Hardcores like to get lost in their thoughts, ideally without time limitations. Casuals have flow in the action, and need short-term goals.
| RTS have both spontaneous maneuvers and long-term strategies. Civ, Chess or puzzles for hardcores.
|
| Wanderer
| FP
| diplomatic
| tactical
| Immersion, explicit short-term goals (tactical). Completion of goals is not a big thing, it happens almost as a side-effect of exploration. Give them time to explore.
| Platformers (goal is obvious and challenges relatively easy)
|
| Participant
| FJ
| diplomatic
| logistical
| Feeling of belonging, toyplay, optimize relationships (logistical) with other characters or players, immerse themselves in social situation
| The Sims, Animal Crossing
|
Casual audience is best approached with familiar settings and content, and with gameplay that revolves around optimization or thinking on your feet (tactical).
Hardcores prefer original games that give them a sense of identity (diplomatic), and problems to solve (strategic), e.g. Final Fantasy focuses on story and strategic battles.
