Play Is The Thing

    Another post based on chapter three of Casual Game Design. The theme of this chapter was 'play' and the enjoyment of it in games.
    There were a a few aspects of the chapter that caught my eye. One of the first was the emphasis on pulling out the enjoyable mechanics of a game and refining and developing it. This seems a completely logical method of creating a game that works. In doing this the designer is helping himself to discard the grey areas of his game and moving towards a product that will be as a whole more engaging for the player. Again it links in to the idea of 'killing your babies', in that a designer needs to build up an understanding of what does and doesn't work and have the ability to keep and chuck away both.
    Another was Trefry's acknowlegdment of play in every day aspects of our lives. This is something that previously I had never really thought about, yet I myself did it. Trefry gave the examples like 'How much stress can it take before it breaks?, how far can I throw this?'. This relates to humans instinct to creating some form of structured play, for example I tend to click my pen whenever I'm holding it. That in itself is play, not so much consciously or deliberately however it demonstrates Trefry's point.
    I think this is a key aspect of game design that should be tapped into more often, especially in casual game design. using play mechanics that come instincively to the player is a good method of establishing a 'pick up and play' feel to your game. A perfect example of what I'm talking about is one of the first apps that I downloaded for my iPhone, Papertoss. The game is fairly self explanatory, players throw paper balls into a bin across a room. The mechanic used in game is a finger motion used to simulate a throwing motion, which is something that we are all familar with. Within a few throws players can begin to get a feel for the physics involved, which again is exactly what you want from a casual game, a short learning curve with quick results.
   Trefry also mentioned in Chapter three about the evolution of 'casual' and 'hardcore', about how as player skill and familiarity with games grows, the boundaries for casual game complexity expand. He says something that I'm not sure I entirely agree with, perhaps due to misenterpretation I'm not sure. He states "...The casualness versus hardcore nature of a game is entirely contextual and changes as players evolve and grow more skilled..." Initially I thought that Trefry was saying that casual gaming complexity is increasing as the age of casual gaming increases, regardless of the players and their ability. However as he says 'is entirely contextual' I'm assuming he means that hardcore players who would play casual games would expect a higher difficulty than those who play casual games alone, so the complexity of the casual game is based on your demographic. So the hardcore perceive casual differently to casual gamers, which makes sense.

    He continues to break down play into catagories like Attunement play, Object play (like pen clicking), social play, imaginative, solitary play (play involving yourself, reading, collecting) etc. He also mentions that there lies a problem with simple games, in that there will liely be players with naturally stronger 'nacks' for it. For example running, there are clearly individuals who are stronger runners in life than others. The problem with running is that that is the sole skill that allows you to win and doesn't allow for other less talented players to compensate in other areas. Maybe it would be an interesting challenge to iterate the 100m sprint to give others like me a chance of winning!
    My final point about the chapter relates to a quote from Trefry that I liked saying, "Games require some level of uncertainty informed by choice..."the reason why I liked this is that it supports and arguement that I used in a discussion about how games like Magic: The Gathering are luck based games. Yes, the outcome of the game is heavily influenced by luck of the draw however it's the players' strategies based on the cards they are dealt that can win or lose the game for them. In my opinion it has just the right amount of uncertainty to allow it to be different each game but also allows enough room for choices and strategy to make you feel like the win (or lose) was down to you. Also your opponent is playing under the same rules, so the choices that you make may not always create a certain outcome that you envisaged, depending on the choice and luck of their turn, which consequently causes you to adapt your choices once again.

    Ive skimmed over alot of the chapter but I've picked out the small sections that I found most interesting.