- If I leave it for every 2 weeks it means I have more to write about in one go and therfore can hopefully churn out a lengthy blog post full of thoughts and insight.
- At the end of the day, I am not marked on my blog for this year and have plenty of other work to be getting on with in the meantime - my blog is hardly a priority in light of this.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We actually read 4 articles but I'm only writing about 3; why is that you ask, well it's because if I'm perfectly frank I personally didn't get much from the 4th article (I got 1 note from it which was 'Keep it new and fresh') - this was mainly because it was a case study and as I said in my previous blog post I find it hard to extract relevent general information from specific case studies.
But anyways, onto the 3 articles in question. The first 2 come from Trefry as the Matching and Play ones did previously; this time the chapters that I read about were about sorting games and seeking games and were generally rather interesting to read and provided me with food information on these game types. The final one came from Craig Brannon in the Fall 2009 issue of Casual Connect magazine and his article entitled 'Come Out, Come Out, Wherever You Are' - this was also related to seeking games and as a result I will discuss this articles alongside Trefry's seeking chapter.
So without further ado let us start with Trefry's chapter on sorting games
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorting
Trefry stated that sorting is a fun pass time for us because of the fact that we naturally sort things in our life as it is; we put socks together, we match the same types of clothes together, we even put people together. This makes sense then to turn this natural mechanic into a game, if we have a natural desire to sort as it is then there is nothing the game needs to really teach us - it is all primal instinct and it is this primal instinct that gives us the thrill of success when everything is finally sorted.
Sorting is ultimately linked to matching - where matching just has us place the same things together regardless of the outcome and purpose of it, sorting makes us put these things together and then sort them into orders, colour, size, weight or any other category - it adds logic and purpose to simply parting the same things together. It is because of this that I prefer sorting to matching as it is ultimately more complicated then matching without being complicated at all - this in turn allows you to add more depth to your games without alienating potentail players with over-complicated details, rulings and mechanics.
In light of over-complicating games, Trefry goes on to gives examples of the sorting games Solitaire and Spider Solitaire and how they are computer game phenomenons - and part of this is because they are on computers. Some games work better when they are not done electronically such as seeing the dice roll, the dealing of cards but for games like solitaire computers eliminate the tedious process of setting the game up and as a result casual players can open the game and play to their hearts content with little worry. Also in terms of over-complicating, Trefry noted how Solitaire and Spider Solitaire are ultimately the same game just one is more complex then the other (as there is more to sort in one), yet we still see them as different - no one version is better or worse than the other; it all depends on the level of challenge you are prepared to give yourself.
He goes on to use 2 other case studies however I didn't get much out of these other than the fact that every rule in a game matters; they can make or break the game and should only be used to help the game flow along and not used unnecessarily. Also, he talked about the aspect of randomness and how it makes games more interesting and allows games to not just be puzzles that you solve once and are then done with, and yet also how they can often lead to players losing a game they would not otherwise lose from their own skill at sorting - for this reason randomness is a double-edged sword.
In summary, sorting is advanced matching and Trefry sums up well how they work and how best to make them - naturally and with simplicity.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seeking
Seeking games annoy me. I understand the attraction of them as seeking is natural - Trefry even states it and uses the example of treasure hunting or looking for Easter eggs to back it up - but seeking games just... don't seem to work... in my opinion. Trefry elaborates on this point by saying that, while successful, seeking games have almost no replayability as once you have played them and found all the items or whatever you are supposed to find in the game, you know where everything is and you no longer have the thrill of finding something again for the first time. He also stated that this is where the fun in seeking games comes from, the build up of tension as you hunt for objects and can't find them and the sweet release and satisfaction you get when you finally do find them.
Trefry didn't talk as much about seeking games as he did previous game types, possibly because like me he feels that the games work but don't hold much lasting appeal and are tricky to get right. One key aspect he did draw upon for making seeking games is how he feels it is better to make seeking games where the objects you are seeking serve some narrative purpose or some purpose in gameplay rather than just seeking items for the sake of it. Seeking games are generally very artsy, with many layers of items beautifully layered on top of each other to make them difficult to find, but that's not to say the items can't relate to each other and have a purpose - Trefry uses the example of in 'Mystery Case Files' how it is illogical that an Axe is amongst general household items.
Craig Brannon's article further elaborates seeking games and how they are very artsy games, stating how hiding objects in shadows and lighting key areas as clues can help make the game more interesting and add another side to how they work. He added that seeking games need to make sure they don't 'trick' players or be unfair with item placement; your game should make players go 'Why didn't I see that before?' rather than going 'How was I supposed to notice that!?'
Linked in with Trefry, he also added how seeking games need more than just seeking to be successful nowadays - you need multiple game modes, hint features, plots, etc - this ties in with Trefey's thoughts on how he believes seeking games need to be logical and have purpose.
In summary, seeking games work but are generally flawed if they are not developed right - they are simple and easy to understand, very artsy, not overly complex in gameplay but need something more than the core mechanic to make them stick.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So there we have, another 2 weeks of reading done - hopefully I've been academic here and showed that I am taking things in from these readings and analysing them correctly.
So anyways, until next time - that's all folks!
No comments:
Post a Comment