-
Art 3160 - Understanding Games
I felt that Understanding Games was a very inventive and effective way of demonstrating the basic rules of game design. The most effective demonstration was episode 2, where it taught you the importance of setting clear objectives for the player. I feel this is why Interactive Fiction fall in the grey area between what is and isn’t a game. So far, the Interactive Games that we have played don’t follow these conventions. There are no set established goals for the player to work towards, so the player is at a loss as to why they are even playing. Based on this, IFs are not games at all, they are basically novellas or short stories, that include a simple form of interactivity. But that is an argument for another time. Episode 2 proves that you can build a successful game as long as you understand and implement the basic aspects it teated you.
I felt the least effective was Episode 4. Even their example of their argument was broken. They claim that the more ambiguous a character is, the more a player will relate to that character. While this may be true, it can’t be applied to every game design process. In their example they compare Indiana Jones to a heavily pixelated character. The pixelated character is only ambiguous due to hardware limitations. Indiana Jones is developed for the XBOX 360. It is nearly impossible to show a character, showing off that graphic prowess, and have him remain ambiguous. The exception to this rule is a first person player perspective (as long as there are no reflective surfaces.) I understand the point of lesson 4, however it isn’t a practical tool of implementation.
