Game Design Workshop Responses

GDW Chapter 5 Sidebar: A Conversation with Will Wright

Will Wright lists numerous important questions that game designers need to ask themselves as they begin thinking about the design
of their game such as what is the purpose of the creation and what universe does it live in. His emphasis on creating games with 
multiple and unique solutions is a very important distinction to make. This is because it allows players to feel more special, and more
empathy as Wright says, with what they are doing and the game itself. As a result, the game resonates with them more.
His account of complex and ambiguous rules is also another interesting thing to consider as you would expect complex rules to put off players
but Wright discusses complex rules as a means of player freedom to combine and interpret them as each player deems fit. As such, each play
experience will be different for different players who choose to interpret the rules differently. On the other hand, rules that are too hazy and
complex can serve to hinder play experience and bore players before they even get a chance to properly play.
Wright also discusses how his game The Sims works based on experimentation and mechanics which is an intriguing thing to consider when creating
games that could be puzzle based or reality based. Indeed, allowing the player to create their own model and implement it in game as they
think about it in their heads will have a more empathetic reaction from the player and, as with allowing for more solutions, will mean they
become more attached to the play experience.

GDW Chapter 9: Playtesting

It is very useful and insightful to see the different types of testing that game designers often confuse playtesting with, as there is plenty of ambiguity on what exactly constitutes playtesting. In of itself playtesting simply refers to testing something by playing it, but in game design this is a lot more complex and Fuller clarifies what may be confusing about it right from the start. 

‘Often, as teams work at a project long days and nights for months at a time, they forget the player in their own quest to make the game live up to their vision,’ This is a very important occurrence that Fuller mentions which inhibits the game design process and affects many game designers whether they like to admit it or not.

Fuller also shuts down the misconception that playtesting should occur at the late stages of the production process. This is a very dangerous and risky way of thought as it can destroy game sales and acceptance by players due to the fact that, as Fuller says, it will be too late to make any changes on gameplay. 

Zimmerman and Pozzi’s further elaboration on the elements and definition of playtesting represent an excellent and more academic way of viewing aspects of playtesting that Fuller introduced at the beginning of the chapter. Nevertheless, as precise and well worded as these elements are, the fact that they are represented in a list of definition-like descriptions makes this read more like a school textbook which serves to make this section drier than the rest of the Chapter. Indeed, it leaves the reader with feeling like they have a checklist of sorts to take note of and memorize instead of something crucial to read. 

Continuing, this section does feature the importance of taking your playtester’s experience and emotional being during the playtest seriously and gingerly. Indeed, this is often neglected due to the stress of having an unfinished game playtested, leaving game designers to be frustrated towards the testers themselves instead of on their own process.

Lastly, this section concludes by telling us not to explicitly follow the segments explained above on advice when playtesting. This creates the problem of leaving the reader with a feeling of frustration and leading them to believe they have wasted their time. Although the information is very useful, it spans numerous pages and the fact that the author eliminates their credibility by telling readers to implement their own strategies is absurd. 

In Playtesting Practice, although the type of game Fuller uses is very basic and cannot emulate an actual video game, the reader gains an insightful look at an example of the process that can go into performing a playtest and changing things to test out as you go. However, this approach takes into account that you have plenty of time to sit and make alterations while your playtesters wait for you to do them. It does not take into account that playtests can often be rapid with playtesters spending a mere few minutes on your game, depending on the stage it is in. Of course Fuller does mention that this example is more easily applied to numerous playtests, it still does not consider that these may be limited in number.

GDW Chapter 9: Playtesting (Part 2)

Fuller notes how important it is to know when to use friends and family as playtesters. More often than not, designers tend to gravitate towards going to people they are close with in order to playtest their games at any stage of the process. Fuller here correctly notes that this is only useful in the prototype stage, before you have a well rounded and working game to present to strangers. As such it is imperative that playtesters be strangers who will provide fresh and crucial feedback on a new game. 

Fuller also comments on an important element of playtesting that Zimmerman mentions in his own section in this paragraph. Indeed, this is the fact that no designer should ever fully explain their game or what they hope to gain out of it. This is very crucial advice to give as more often than not the temptation to explain a project to someone who is confused by it is very intense.

In Bill Fulton’s section on the importance of gaining insight from typical gamers, it is very interesting to see how game developers function and think when they consider developing their games, versus what a typical gamer would find fun and the chasm between these two approaches. As such, Fulton provides insightful information and analysis on the matter, as well as a graph displaying the expertise of game developers versus that of the typical gamer. It is also important to note how developers are infatuated with selling a game instead of attempting to increase its accessibility and typical fun, which will increase sales in the long run anyway once more people buy and play the game through word of mouth. 

Going back to Fuller’s description of carrying through a playtest, it feels like a better worded and fleshed out version of Zimmerman’s long list of rules and things to do in a playtest. As such, a lot of the things Zimmerman mentions, Fuller has already gone through here in detail. This makes the reader feel like they are regurgitating the same information again, with some slight changes and details here and there. Of course this is not a negative thing as all this information is hard to process from one reading. Nevertheless, placing both Zimmerman’s list and Fuller’s description of the same things seems a little overkill.

The linking of player mechanics with player emotions is an intriguing take by Nicole Lazzaro in the ‘Why We Play Games’ section. The further analysis of these emotions and how different aspects within games can affect the play experience more positively than others is very well explained and explored here. Typically, most designers and games tend to focus more on the end goal than the journey and the emotions accumulated along the way, which creates a drier play experience, similar to a bad film. Indeed, a film can have good actors, a good concept and good visual effects, but if it only leads the viewer to achieving an end goal then it becomes less memorable to the viewer after it is done. The same can be said for games; games need to maintain the emotional fun and height throughout the game rather than gear it up for a spectacular end goal. 

Overall, Lazzaro’s take on the connection and presence of different emotions in different games fits perfectly well with the way Fuller explains things in general. Indeed, it presents the reader with readable and understandable takes on why certain people play certain games, which is invaluable information to the aspiring game designer in helping them find their target audience. 

The playtest questionnaire that Fuller includes in this chapter provides a very useful framework and structure to go about playtests. As she said, one does not necessarily need to apply all the questions present on the questionnaire but can use these examples to generate their own questions whenever necessary. Often when conducting playtests, it can be difficult to generate a structured response and question system without generating one before the playtest. This one here provides an easy-to-follow example where designers can work off of.

Metrics in Game Design provides an interesting inclusion of more scientific based research methods of data collection. Indeed, behavioral and attitudinal metrics can make playtesting and the data collected from it more familiar and clear to decipher by game designers with the techniques mentioned here. Nevertheless, this section does seem like a more advanced methodology system which bigger game developer companies would use, who obviously have more resources and perhaps more time and employees to realize these features. This will seem very daunting to a new designer who is perhaps by themselves or working in a small group of people. Indeed, it may be close to impossible to adapt these techniques while also worrying about the design of the game and the playtests themselves.