top_image
Author Message

<  Design concepts  ~  Navigating a physical place - is it important?

Michael
Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 8:41 am Reply with quote
Site Administrator Joined: 07 Jun 2002 Posts: 8065 Location: Gent, Belgium
There's another thing I've noticed about the gender difference. While men (in general and unlike myself Wink ) may prefer linear challenge/reward structures, they tend to also be more inclined to just start playing with a game and figure it out as they go along. Women (again: in general) tend to want to know what they are supposed to do before they start exploring.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Wildbluesun
Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 6:12 pm Reply with quote
Joined: 12 Dec 2006 Posts: 4266 Location: London, Land of Tea and Top Hats
Michael wrote:
For a more nuanced "exploration" of different types of gamers, I recommend that you read Chris Bateman's article "Demographic Game Design". It identifies three distinct categories of players based on psychologic profiles (rather than simply gender). A very good read!


I'm a C3!

(And those eight pages reminded me of why I hate .pdf files.)

That IS interesting. The most interesting factoid for me was how Type 4 gamers are the rarest sort, yet Type 4 people are the most prevalent sort.

HMM.

As a female, I don't like setting off into unknown territory and not knowing what I'm doing. I prefer to explore very slowly, gradually easing my way into things and getting very good at one skill/getting to know an area very well before expanding my horizons.

Do you think there's an element of risk-taking preferences in there, too? Watching my brother play the turreted levels of Portal, I was struck by the way he dispatched the turrets: portalling next to them, picking them up, and dropping them. I used the slower but less risky method of dropping things on top of them from afar. And (in the same game) I didn't die at all in the first ten or so levels, whereas my brother and a male friend died a lot in the same levels; not due to any incompetence; just because they were taking more risks.

Opinion?
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Michael
Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 8:37 am Reply with quote
Site Administrator Joined: 07 Jun 2002 Posts: 8065 Location: Gent, Belgium
I have no idea if it's a male/female distinction. But I find "dying" in most games to be incredibly disruptive of the experience and the story. That's why I try to avoid it (in practice this means that I stop playing any game that makes me die too often -too often meaning more than twice... Twisted Evil ). I want to be immersed in the game but the "Game Over" screen destroys that. So when game designers start shooting themselves in the foot, I'm out of there.

Some people don't care about that kind of immersion and they are only interested in the game as system. In beating the game, basically. In contemporary games, "Game Over" (and save-load cycles) have become an active part of their (bad) design. Dying as a result of taking risks is often more "effficient" than playing your role and being careful. And some players like to be efficient in their games (which I personally find a contradiction in terms... Rolling Eyes ).
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Vrav
Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 9:24 am Reply with quote
Joined: 25 Oct 2007 Posts: 168 Location: Oregon
Well, if they enjoy it, it's a game. For me, as an example, trying to get through the levels of a platformer as fast as possible without touching any of the enemies or getting hit is a huge enjoyment, because it presents such a challenge. For others, their "play" might not include any challenge at all, and just running and jumping about the virtual world. I also greatly enjoy this and do it everywhere. But, adding challenges extends the life of my enjoyment of the game; in a way, I am making the game my own.

I mean, why not be creative when you play games? In Oblivion, my Argonian collected hundreds of skulls and scattered them all about his little shack. I could have just left them in the dungeon, but instead, I made a point to, have the character collect them.

Or, for example, in a game like Rune, trying to keep the same starting torch as long as you possibly can. It changes the game from simply running about and killing monsters, to something much more interesting - I have this torch, and have to figure out how to get it up this ledge, or over this pool of water... and so on.

I don't know, while I think games should be well designed, it is also important to allow freedom within the game environment for the player to have his or her own sort of fun. Though obviously, if the game is not fun to you, you should stop playing it, or cheat to make it fun, but to each their own, really. Every person plays differently.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Ymedron
Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 8:01 pm Reply with quote
Joined: 12 Apr 2008 Posts: 176 Location: Finland
I think anything which reacts to you, and follows some rule is a "game." Other's are just something you play with. Every rule has exceptions... And I can't even imagine anything without a physical space, except word-games or something. Smile

It's hard to explain in english, finnish has a word for a game and the play-thing. (Game meaning for example football or tetris or something, play-thing meaning tag or hide-and-seek and playing with toys. Very Happy
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Wildbluesun
Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 12:18 am Reply with quote
Joined: 12 Dec 2006 Posts: 4266 Location: London, Land of Tea and Top Hats
Perhaps English needs a new loan-word. Wink

Michael wrote:
I find "dying" in most games to be incredibly disruptive of the experience and the story.

You say this, and then make The Path...?

It's all right, I get you. XD I don't share this opinion, but I can see how you could feel that way. Some games, like Pathologic, do this well, though, and Portal even made (accidentally, I believe) dying a tactic; you could look around from the point you died, and so deliberately dying can be used as a reconnaissance opportunity.

I do agree that dying too often is just frustrating. It makes me stop playing faster than anything else...except skimpily-dressed women. That makes me feel simultaneously objectified and perverted.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Michael
Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 9:11 am Reply with quote
Site Administrator Joined: 07 Jun 2002 Posts: 8065 Location: Gent, Belgium
Wildbluesun wrote:
Michael wrote:
I find "dying" in most games to be incredibly disruptive of the experience and the story.

You say this, and then make The Path...?

It's one of the reasons why we deal with death in the way we do in The Path. Because it is overused in games as a mechanic of which the narrative meaning is completely ignored. In The Path, your play experience is never interrupted. It ends with death. And death is extremely predictable. Since you know the fairy tale.

That being said, death in The Path is still very much a metaphor, like it is in the fairy tale (and unlike in The Graveyard). It's a symbolic death. Possibly the end of childhood. You meet the wolf and you die. I don't need to draw a picture, do I? Wink
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website

Display posts from previous:  

All times are GMT + 2 Hours
Page 2 of 2
Goto page Previous  1, 2
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.

Jump to:  

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum