Surface and Depth: Tony Hawk as Tetris

Submit your own resources!

Dylan Romero   (Dec 07, 2006 at 02:41 GMT)   Resource Rating: 3

Quote:
"Tetris and Tony Hawk are the exact same game."
Joshua Dallman

I thought that was going to be your headline Josh. You're backsliding! Backslider!
Edited on Dec 07, 2006 02:42 GMT

Jeppie   (Dec 07, 2006 at 03:00 GMT)

Eh, I dunno Joshua. I agree about your point about evaluating your favorite games and trying to understand the essence of them to take that in a different direction. That's an interesting thing to ponder. But you gotta try really hard to find similarities between Tony Hawk and Tetris. They both start with "T", yay me!

I suppose if you generalize them enough you can, just like you could probably argue that Doom is just a jazzed up Pong (... no, I don't believe that) but c'mon, that's really pushing it.

Also I don't agree about the comparisons to the film industry. In the movies, it's really rare that a sequel lives up to the original, but in games you expect it (doesn't *always* happen, but more often does). Doom 2 was unquestionably better than Doom 1. Madden 2 was unquestionably better than Madden 1. Balder's Gate 2 was unquestionably better than Balder's Gate 1, and so forth. In fact I would go so far as to say that generally when a sequel game is worse than the original it's because it significantly departed from the original formula. But it's just the opposite in film. I think the reason is that games are less dependent on an original and fresh narrative. You can take a game, double the number of levels, jazz up its graphics, add in new multi-player options and so forth, and you've certainly improved it over the original. You can't do that in a movie, not even close. Maybe some day when narratives become more important in games that will happen, but we're not there yet.

Anton Bursch   (Dec 07, 2006 at 05:00 GMT)

@Joshua

I think Steven Spielberg is a great example of what happens when you really understand your art medium.

Tom Bentz   (Dec 07, 2006 at 05:20 GMT)   Resource Rating: 5

Nice insight! Understanding games at a fundamental and deeper level, about what the player is experiencing is one of those chewy chunks of enlightenment that can separate a great game designer from a so-so designer.

Tom Eastman (Eastbeast314)   (Dec 07, 2006 at 07:43 GMT)

Dylan's right - you said that you would argue that Tetris and THPS are the exact same game.

But anyway. I agree with most of the lessons you present, but not the core of your argument, that:

Quote:

---

And the real game -- the genes -- are exactly like Tetris.

---

If you're going to say that, then I only have to provide one compelling counter-example to send all the blocks tumbling down ;)

If you believe that the "genes" that you presented are in fact basic elements of gameplay, then I submit that there is one of similar nature that Tony Hawk has that Tetris doesn't : a Risk/Reward System. In THPS, the combo system encourages longer, more complicated tricks by making them worth more points, but you also lose them all if you fall.

Oh...wait. Tetris has a "similar" mechanic - the more rows you eliminate at once, the more points you get. So perhaps they really are the same...

Not so. By distilling entire gameplay mechanics into a few words, you can easily distort two things until they look like each other. I can make a fork and a spoon look the same - all I've got to do is put them in a really dark box. If you look too closely at something, you'll miss some factors that are truly important.

gameplay/rule complexity
The complexity of a game's rules cannot be ignored. A player must take them into account to succeed. Tetris has very, very few things for the player to take into consideration while pondering a move. On the other hand, THPS has at least an order of magnitude more. Making the decision whether you have enough time for a 180 kickflip (or one of at least 100 other options) or only enough to return to the rail with a BS 50-50 is non-trivial in a force-based physics system, especially compared to the left/right/down options in Tetris, which brings me to my next point.

input/control
There are few things as fundamental to a game as the manner in which the player interacts with the game. A single frame of animation can be the difference between a game feeling "right" or not. The length of time between a key press and response in-game can have the same effect. Therefore, you cannot discount the fact that controlling Tetris is completely and utterly different from controlling THPS. Being a great Tetris player in no way necessitates being a great THPS player.

I could probably go on for a while, but those two points alone should show my point. Simplification is a powerful tool, but not at the cost of the differences that end up differentiating a good game from a great game. That's why we polish games instead of leaving them as raw compositions of genes.

In the end, the comparison you did could probably be done for any two games, which only means that games share elements as games themselves.

Anyway, I should be sleeping ;) Thanks for the interesting post.

Robert Norris   (Dec 07, 2006 at 09:56 GMT)

I agree with Joshua.

Although he mentions the mechanics behind the gameplay, he has extracted the gameplay and is making a comparison on that basis. He mentions 'constant motion' inducing 'excitement' and 'attention', the action is 'cyclic' and 'rhythmic' which enhances 'excitement', and the logic requires 'creative' thinking so the player is 'engaged'.

One of my favourite books ist 'Patterns in Game Design'
Patterns in Game Design Excerpt

I do not have the book to hand but I am sure that the patterns Joshua has mentioned are in that book.
Edited on Dec 07, 2006 10:03 GMT

Mark McCoy   (Dec 07, 2006 at 21:44 GMT)

I will agree with this point: "figure out why you love it on a deep level instead of just cloning..."

But eh... I like Tetris, it appeals to my spacial mind and it's desire to arrange/align things and put them in order. Odd that, seeing how as an artist, that is one of the main things I do for a living.

Tony Hawk doesn't have that, nor do I enjoy playing the game. So on a deep level, these games do not resonate with me in the same way. And for me, on a fundamental level, these are not the same game.

Speaking of Tetris, I love this game: Triptych by Chronic Logic

Thomas Buscaglia   (Dec 08, 2006 at 01:29 GMT)

Sorry, I gotta call bunk on this. I was looking forward to reading it since you first told me about it, but I just don't buy it. As Tom said, if it just takes a few similarities to allow you to decide to label two things identical, you're really just discarding what makes them unique. I'm similar to Mark in that I'm hopelessly bored by Tetris, but I really enjoyed THPS. A lot of the fun of THPS for me was the feeling of moving around and exploring. Saying that Tetris has the same quality would be ignoring their obvious diferences for the sake of making an argument.

Sorry, Josh. No sale.

Dylan Romero   (Dec 08, 2006 at 01:42 GMT)   Resource Rating: 3

Thomas is hell on solicitors.


Edited on Dec 08, 2006 01:44 GMT

Tom Bentz   (Dec 08, 2006 at 01:48 GMT)   Resource Rating: 5

All points are good and valid to argue against. But if you look at the main argument Surface and Depth: Tony Hawk as Tetris and what Josh is saying is true. On the surface they are entirely different games as they are intended to be including controls, graphics, motions, interface, etc... But the parallels that Josh gives about the core mechanics whether they are simple or advanced games is insignificant IMHO. Some people are more stimulated by advanced graphics, sounds, reactions, which is the surface of THPS while others are stimulated by simple and intriguing gameplay - Tetris. This is a pretty abstract concept but I can understand what Josh is saying. You have to separate the look of each game from what the game's logic is doing and you will see the similarities in the basic game logic.

@Thomas - Josh never wrote anything about quality...

Thomas Buscaglia   (Dec 08, 2006 at 02:39 GMT)

@ Tom Bentz - I didn't say anything about quality either. Am I missing something?

Exploration is a core mechanic of THPS and not of Tetris - regardless of how it looks. Exploration is not a quality that's exclusive to 3D environments, if that's what you were trying to imply. Speaking on a strictly 'gameplay experience' basis, Tetris and THPS are completely different.

Tom Bentz   (Dec 08, 2006 at 08:38 GMT)   Resource Rating: 5

@Thomas - Ummm... yea "Saying that Tetris has the same quality would be ignoring their obvious diferences for the sake of making an argument."

I think to clarify things it would be better to say that the games are not exactly alike in look and feel, but in plain text if you were to break it down as Josh did those are valid comparisons.

Tom Bentz   (Dec 08, 2006 at 11:06 GMT)   Resource Rating: 5

This topic inspired me to write some more.

I hope this doesnt get off topic and confusing but a comparison of character archetypes comes to mind and here's my humble attempt to convey why this is relevent...

In mythology and psychology (thanks to Jung) there are four main forms of character archetypes (and more, extended archetypes) that every single person on this planet can unconsciously relate to. It doesnt mean that everyone is the same obviously. What it does mean though is that everyone shares a certain sameness because they can relate to certain core type(s). All people are human but its their presentation, details, and complexities that are different.

Note in the link the second sentence under 'Archetypes in fiction': "A model for Neo, the nearly godlike hero of The Matrix, can be found in the Ancient Sumerian character, Gilgamesh." Yea, they look different, but fundamentally at their core they work the same in their respective stories. They are in fact the same character type but yet the presentation, details, and specifics are completely different. Just as the presentation of THPS and Tetris, or any game for that matter, are different. Do you think that the Terminator movies and the Matrix movies are different? I think most people would say yes. I argue that they are the same. At the core both movies are about the human struggle to survive machines' ability to exterminate the human race.

How a writer presents an archetyped character in their respective story is the same idea that a developer presents his/her spin on a type of core game. The presentation and details are what the developer changes to make the core game look different. Sure you can argue that a spoon and fork are different. But fundamentally they are eating utensils plain and simple. Think about prototyping. You have to start somewhere. What are the basics? You can't throw in a hodgepodge of game ideas at once unless you want to have a schitzophrenic game (or unless youre either lucky or really good at visualizing it). Prototype certain aspects of a games flow on paper. Nothing more than describing the basic actions of what happens to objects and player interaction in the game. No descriptions of visuals, sounds, or anything that specifically is part of the presentation of the game. You will be able to find parallels in many different games by doing this.

How many core game types are there? No idea. I dont know of anyone who is studying game types the way Joseph Campbell studied mythology. It might take decades before significant research is done on something at this level especially since interactive games are a fairly new art medium compared to literature and film. This may be irrelevant but I look for inspiration wherever I can. I have a philosophy book called Finite and Infinite Games that is a pretty deep read and it presents the angle that 'There are at least two kinds of games: finite and infinite.' Heres a summary of it. Once you start stripping the presentation and superficial details of a game you can start to see the basics of it and apply it to yours or other games.

If this doesnt make sense then please disregard but I agree that games do share core ideas. You just have to look past the visuals and how its presented to see the basic functionality and interaction of the objects.

Wow I feel like I just wrote a paper for school or something.

Edit from apostraphes jacking up the submission
Edited on Dec 08, 2006 12:01 GMT

Thomas Buscaglia   (Dec 08, 2006 at 21:44 GMT)

Wow.. I thought it would've been obvious in context, but I'll go ahead and spell it out:

qual i ty
-noun
1. an essential or distinctive characteristic, property, or attribute: the chemical qualities of alcohol.

-not-

4. high grade; superiority; excellence: wood grain of quality.

So, yea this whole discussion is about the qualities (1) of games that make up the experience. I never said anyhting about the quality (4) of either game. And on the topic, Matrix and Terminator are completely different. The characters in the two stories go through much different struggles, even on the simplest level. It's another case of ignoring their obvious differences to make a point. They really only have that one thing in common. They both have robots.. so... same movie, right? No. By that logic, I, Robot is also the same movie, and so is Transformers. I'm sorry, I don't buy it.
Edited on Dec 08, 2006 21:53 GMT

Mark McCoy   (Dec 08, 2006 at 23:15 GMT)

I'll buy into the fact that there are archetypes in games. Boil away the surface and you will get down to some core quality that we respond to on a fundamental level. Even games that are vastly different could very well be very similar games.

But, the examples given are 1: Not turn based. 2: Pacing. 3: Dynamic playfield.

All of these seem to me to be more design choices than archetypes. Would a turn based tetris be a fundamentally different game archetype? Each of these could be changed and it would still be basically the same game. Are the attributes listed really the core that you find when you strip away the superficial? Or are they some of the attributes that should be stripped away?

To use the story telling analogy: The Lion King and Strange Brew are both retellings of Hamlet. Different packaging, different pacing, different settings, but basically the same story.

So is Hamlet the same as Romeo and Juliet? I mean they were both written by Shakespeare and have 5 Acts with a pause between the acts, and the characters are constantly talking and the periodically the main characters have monologues to let us know what they are thinking.

Are they the same story? Or are they using the same storytelling devices to tell different stories?

In a peer reviewed blog plan like this, Josh has not sufficiently proved his case with the evidence that he's using. I'm still not sold that on a deep fundamental level that Tetris and Tony Hawk share the same core appeal. I don't dismiss that these archetypes exists, but IMO, Tetris and Tony Hawk are not good evidence of this.

Beware lest we embrace conjecture just because we want it to be true: The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next

heh.

Mark McCoy   (Dec 08, 2006 at 23:19 GMT)

Oh, and I believe all games can be boiled down into one main gameplay mechanic. And that mechanic is best demonstrated by the casual action puzzle shooter game Phantastia. Available now in the game store for $14.95.

Tom Bentz   (Dec 09, 2006 at 00:51 GMT)   Resource Rating: 5

I guess I didnt get the context since I dont look at game design decisions having a 'quality' to them until they are prototyped and played. Since we were discussing core ideas and not final gameplay I missed the connection. My bad.

I mentioned "At the core both movies are about the human struggle to survive machines' ability to exterminate the human race." If one can argue valid points against that specific statement without bringing the details (characters) into it then I'd love to see another point of view and will understand why they are considered different movies. The 'nuh-uh' logic doesnt work. I studied screenwriting for a couple years so I'll break the movies down to the core elements.

Protagonist in the Matrix: Neo
Antagonist in the Matrix: Agent Smith
The Matrix Movie Premise in its most basic idea: Protagonist saves the human race from the antagonists goal of human extinction.

Protagonist in the Terminator: Sarah Connor
Antagonist in the Terminator: The Terminator
The Terminator movie premise in its most basic idea: Protagonist saves the human race from the antagonists goal of human extinction.

Both of those movies share the same basic idea. If one has counterpoints to those basic elements or disagree with what the core premise is then I would love to see them. The characters are the details and and are the things that allow variation on that core story premise and have nothing to do with the core story idea.

I agree that a THPS and Tetris comparison is not the best way to explain this. But the specific comparisons that Josh made between the two are true. Whether there's more (like exploring in THPS) is irrelevant. The idea was to show that two totally different games share core ideas whether they look alike or not. If you break a game down to its core elements without getting lost in the details like this you can find an endless source of game variations by just applying your own ideas in 2d/3d/text/whatever after you have the core game concept.

Oh and yes - Phantasia has the core game idea that all other games should take notice from ;)
Edited on Dec 09, 2006 01:31 GMT

Joe Maruschak   (Dec 09, 2006 at 02:01 GMT)

just wanted to add my quick two cents.

whilst things may be compared on ideas, it is important to think about whether or not the ideas being compared are relevant and if the 'core' being analyzed is actually 'the core'.

At it's base, I see tetris as a fast paced spatial reasoning puzzle. It is simple geometric postive and negative space matching.

In tony hawk, I see the interactive part as more or a exploration and matching our actions to the in game actions based on real world analogues of our understanding of physics and the limits of the human body (which we intuitively possess).

At a higher level, there are similarities, but at the base, they are actually different activities in the brain.

When I look to game design inspiration, I look to other forms of interactive study, such as architechture, as they are more 'base' in their study of how humans interact with 'stuff'.

When one starts comparing games to stories or film, I kind of think the dicussion heads off into the weeds, as while things like rhythm and pacing are relevant, archetypal story types are not necessarily as relevant.

I think that any two comparisons of any two things have to be taken in context. A fork is like a spoon (you use them both to eat with). A spoon is like a cup, in that they both hold liquid.. I can cup my hands and hold liquid, and I can open my fingers and make my hand look like a fork. All of these comparisons are subject to the context of the comparison.

We can compare until the cows come home, but we should endeavor to keep in context the nature of the comparison.

In this comparison, I do not think the analysis went deep enough to uncover the core elements.

again, tetris is a spatial reasoning game.. at it's core is a base human function of us drawing like geometic shapes into a 'group'.. and then manipulating the shapes to complete what our mind has already done. I get how it works, because I spent the better part of my school life understanding how and why visual 'tricks' like this work. I don't see this happening in tony hawk.. so, at the base level, I don't see the comparison holding up.

I have more thoughts, but I need to run. If anyone is interested in delving deeper, I can go into more detail.

and I love discussions like this, so keep it going.

Thomas Buscaglia   (Dec 09, 2006 at 02:27 GMT)

"I guess I didnt get the context since I dont look at game design decisions having a 'quality' to them until they are prototyped and played."

I wasn't talking about game design descisions and I'm not interested in getting into a debate about semantics. I was talking about the qualities of the two games, which is exactly what Joshua was comparing. You're obviously not ignoring the qualities of the two games because that's exactly what your argument is based on. Are you saying that Tetris and THPS have not been prototyped and played, or that you are unwilling to analyze parts of a whole unless it specifically supports your argument?

Yes, Matrix and Terminator have things in common, but to point out that they are both hero's stories that involve robots does not make them identical. Josh made some good points, and I agree that it's important to look at what fundamental characteristics make a game fun, but they are not the same game, and that was his original claim.
Edited on Dec 09, 2006 02:28 GMT

Joe Maruschak   (Dec 09, 2006 at 18:15 GMT)

I just wanted to add some followup comments.

In terms of comparing game design to movies, or stories.. I think it would be wise for game designers to dig deeper into the more interactive parts of the presentation of the stories.

In acting, there is a concept of the actor-audience contract. It deals with the concept of the interaction of the actor and the audience and the connection that they share, and how it works. This concept is more applicable to game design than story arc as it deals with the interactive part of the telling of a story. As we seek to become masters of our craft, my opinion is that we must seek to become masters of the concepts of perception and interaction. Story and archeatypes are more complex concepts that are built on top of the base levels of interaction and perception, and based on how we understand ourselves in the world in a social context. This is important stuff, but I think it functions at a higher level than the basic issues of perception and reaction to stimulus.

If we want to become masters of the craft, we need to seek to understand and gain control of the most basic level that we can.

in josh's presentation, I think he has it backwards. The 'deeper level' he refers to, is, in my opion, actually higher level than the spatial awareness part of the equation.

Tom Bentz   (Dec 10, 2006 at 01:08 GMT)   Resource Rating: 5

Awesome Joe - Thats what I was trying to understand.

It seems there are several levels that we need to be aware of in game design that wasnt brought up and from what I understand now the realm of game design basically comes down to these 3 topics:

1. How our brain works and interprets the game when actually playing.
2. How we develop the game mechanics from a developers standpoint.
3. How we present the final game in its playable form.

Does this make sense or is this wrong?

I was thinking and wondering last night also since there are several different perspectives going on here. Can game design in an art sense be subjective or is it objective from these 3 points? I can relate to the comparisons that Josh gave because that is basically how I think about game design when I brainstorm and come up with ideas.

Joe Maruschak   (Dec 10, 2006 at 02:03 GMT)

@Tom,

there is a great book you should read called The Visual Story

this book is the best book I have found that outlines the fundamentals of visual design, and what a lot of art school training is based upon.

The book outlines how certain forms and combinations of forms affect people, and then, from a film editing perspective, talks about how to assemble these forms in sequence to create certain effects in the 'viewer'.

these are some of the base building blocks that are a start of what one can work with. Reading it, you come to understand how the brain works, how we 'see' and associate things, and what sorts of things mean 'what' from a visual perspective. One then has to endevor to understand the same thing from a sound perspective, and finally, from an interactive perspective.

for an interactive perspective, I have read some architechtural texts, which go into detail how people respond to, and interact with, spaces they live in. The is a book called 'A pattern language' that is quite good to open the mind in this area.

the 3 topics you have outlined are good ones, although I would switch the order and add more description .

1. how do we present the game in its final form and what is the intended experience.
2. how do we develop mechanics to arrive at the result
3. what do we know about how the brain works and perceives things that can be used and manipulated to achieve what is desired.

I think of it as architechting an experience. What do we want the experience to be? what can we do to create that experience?

it is using whatever we have at our disposal to help understand that experience better, and to develop control over whatever we can to fine tune that experience to what we intend it to be.

that probably did not make a bunch of sense.. it is an experiential thing.. some of it visual (what do we see and how do we feel ).. aural (what do we hear and how do we feel) and movement (what is the pace, what is the contrast in pacing of elements) and how does it make us feel. then you layer on puzzles and movement, using either logic, spatial reasoning, or some sort of 'mapping' of expectations of real world analogues into the game world (game 'gravity' as an example)

you then take these base elements and try to craft an experience. when you mash them together, you can't really say for sure what you are going to get.. but the more you have control over each element... the more you can manipulate, and, at a base level, understand what might be a good candidate to experiment with.

make sense? probably not.. I am trying to think of a way to explain it eloquently.

Tom Bentz   (Dec 10, 2006 at 02:39 GMT)   Resource Rating: 5

Wow thanks for the info Joe. Actually this makes a lot of sense. And I'll look more into those books.

In film, music and other art forms I tend to take away the experience that a piece of work gives me. That is what leaves a lasting impression with me and I can see the same thing with games also. I think the experience that we try to create with games in general is the 'fun' factor. Which brings up another question. Is 'fun' the main experience that games have with people or is it more than just fun? What comes to mind is learning as well. Im trying to think of other experiences that games can potentially provide. But is fun the main experience that we have to have in order to make a lasting impression?

I can see computer based learning having its purpose, but building a learning experience on top of a fun interaction will have more of an effect on an individual. A friend recently sent an article about how IBM is using an online computer 'game' to train new or potential employees worldwide on the culture, benefits, etc... They acknowledge the social capabilities and the popularity of online worlds and I think this is a fascinating idea for IBM. They also recognize the collaboration potential of using this as part of the work environment.

I like your idea of architecting the experience. Especially in regards to how people respond to space. Now I can see any form of entertainment has that at its roots whether its unconcious or intended.

It would be great to explore those 3 topic outlined more indepth now that there is a structure.
Edited on Dec 10, 2006 03:34 GMT

Thomas Buscaglia   (Dec 10, 2006 at 12:41 GMT)

"I'm trying to think of other experiences that games can potentially provide."

I can think of tons of games that aren't fun. ;)

To be serious for a minute: it's something to think about, but aside from only the most pretentious artsy 'experimental' games, I would expect that most games would strive to be at least enjoyable ('fun'). I would hate to have to suffer through a conversation with someone who decided to try to make the least enjoyable game possible. And at that point the game itself kinda stops being the medium and becomes the artwork, doesn't it?

What I mean to say is that all storytelling has to be 'fun' to be received, otherwise the story is lost. Whether the story is 'this hedgehog defeated an evil engineer' or 'this is how to add and subtract, kids', if the telling of the story (or really, the experience of witnessing the story) isn't at least moderately enjoyable then the story won't be heard.

Joe Maruschak   (Dec 10, 2006 at 16:17 GMT)

I see 'fun' as being too broad.

There are many games that I think are fun, but it is not the same type of 'fun'. Quake is not Wii Golf. I played the flash version of flow. and I found it incredibly engaging. I don't think I walked away thinking.. that was FUN!.. but I did think it was incredibly engaging. The simplicity, how tight the sound was with the graphics. it created a great experience that I liked, but it was not what I call 'fun'.. at least not the same type of fun that I got when playing Wii Golf.

In a very broad sense, I think that one could say I had 'fun' with flow because I enjoyed the experience, but I think breaking it down into different types of fun might be a good thing to look into.

Back in the day when I went to see punk bands.. that was a fun experience, and it is not the same as when I went to see "Dead Can Dance" play live. Both were live music, but the experience was different in nature and I walked away feeling much different about both of the experiences (and both were experiences I enjoyed).

This is not unlike movies. I enjoyed 'Independence Day'.. but I also 'enjoyed' SHindlers List'. I am not sure someone can 'enjoy' Shindlers List.. but I watched it, and it spoke to me, and I think myself better for the experience. The story and content were dark, but the second by second unfolding of the story kept me watching.

I know (for myself) I play strategy games differently than I play shooters, and that puzzle games and 'simple' games like minesweeper and tetris have a weird relaxing effect on me.

I agree that a game has to be fun.. but I think we can get more control of our craft if we ask, what kind of fun? fun for what sort of audience? Is it the content and the meaning the content adds to the game? is it the second by second feeling of the 'click' on an object?

Making an object feel good to click on is different than setting up a contextual realtionship in the mind of the end user about what a 'giant robot' is (usually a big scary powerful minion of the uber villian).. both the 'micro' design of the interaction and the larger 'meta' design of the interaction of theme and story and setting matter. These are woven together to make a complete experience.

the micro design (how it feels to play the game, actually clicking on things) has to be 'on'.. and then there is the higher level weaving of a theme into actual moving of 'things'.. and this weaving can be used to make sense of the clicking (by adding context in a real world sense that satisfies our expectations). When done artfully, it is magic.

If you take 'incredible machine'.. clicking on and moving stuff is fun.. it is enjoyable just to 'play'. The shapes and 'things' you move around have meaning to us. A balloon.. a bomb, a mouse and some cheese. These are things we know, and they behave in the world like things we know. The combination of the enjoyable 'play' and the enjoyable 'meaning' make for something greater than just a enjoyable clickfest or a brain puzzle.

so, to me, it is understanding both. What makes something fun to click on.. and then what makes something fun in a sense of my context (does it move like I expect it would).. sometimes there is a lot of overlap, sometimes the elements are so intertwined that it is impossible to tease them apart into something that can be analyzed in any meaningful way.

I does help to understand what it is about all these elements has an effect, and what that effect is. One can at least try their best, as understanding as much as one can about what is going on can offer more control over the process to help move it in a direction that is better (more fun).

I would hesitate to try to break it down too much though.. as I don't think there is a formula.. it is understanding how humans respond to things.. and it needs to have a human in the loop crafting the experience. Understanding 'experience' helps.

Tom Bentz   (Dec 13, 2006 at 00:48 GMT)   Resource Rating: 5

Thanks for the info guys this is definitely an interesting way to look at identifying and developing certain experiences. I did a search on google and found this which describes an approach to creating experiences. This relates to our discussion and it gives me some ideas on certain things to think about when trying to architect an experience. Its probably quite a bit deeper than what we need to consider but its interesting to see what other people are thinking about for interactive media.
Edited on Dec 13, 2006 00:51 GMT

Tom Bentz   (Dec 29, 2006 at 11:53 GMT)   Resource Rating: 5

Here's an interesting article I came across where research is being done to evaluate the psychological satisfaction of playing video games.

You must be a member and be logged in to either append comments or rate this resource.

Home | Products | Solutions | Downloads | Support | Search | About Us
Copyright © GarageGames.com 2000 - 2008 All Rights Reserved