A Look at Negative Game Mechanics
This article by Josh Bycer really stands out to me, it covers the negative aspects of games as opposed to the more mundane and traditional topics predominately written about in today's gaming blogs. However, in today's video gaming industry this topic is more relevant than ever.
The blog talks about negative gameplay mechanics purposefully put into to games for usually cynical reasons, a classic example of this that is mention by Josh in his blog is the use of difficulty spikes in old vintage arcade machines like Pac-Man and Street Fighter, these games worked by charging per go, so for example you'd pay 50c for one turn. So these games would generate money by having players play numerous times, as opposed to the modern one off payment of 50-70 euro. This would mean that game developers had to consistently keep their customers coming back for more. They would do this by making the games significantly more difficult as the game went on. This lured the gamer into a sense of fun before they lost the game and lost their turn, which fueled an addictive cycle that made this method so effective.
In more modern games this method is employed differently. In mobile games the developer would cause the games to require a certain amount of points to perform an action, these points would be available by either waiting until they renewed or by real life payment. As the game would progress actions would cost more points to perform, eventually halting the player in a stalemate and encouraging them to pay money or have the game they put their time into become unplayable. This is extremely common in mobile games and would become known as micro transactions. Another form of micro transactions would be made famous by game developer EA, in EA's game FIFA 19 for example players would be encouraged to buy packs for real money with the slim possibility of packing a top player and making their team on the game better. This has brought millions of dollars to EA along with plenty of controversy due to its similarities for gambling. Finally the blog also mentions social games, a famous example of this being Club Penguin, in which access was free but 90% of the games features were reserved for "premium players" of course requiring real money. These types of mechanics hinder the game but do so to encourage players to toss their money at them.
(Promotional image of FIFA 18)
Source: Flickr.com
When Digital Versions of Board Games Surpass The Originals
This blog post written by Soren Johnson talks about how the board games of old have been replaced by digital versions on modern day consoles such as PlayStation, PC and/or iPad. Soren mentions how this isn't necessarily a bad thing. The majority of digital board games outsell their original counterpart, some even outsell them 3 times over, this means more money for the games developers and overall a better economy for the gaming industry. A lot of these board games such as Carcassonne and Ticket to Ride were well past raking in any money from a vastly adjusting audience and their digital crossovers completely revitalized their sales.
The improvements brought upon by these digital adaptations are significant. On screens and monitors the actions within the game can be animated and shown to the player as opposed to being represented by an immobile playing piece, this can add a layer of excitement and immersiveness to the players experience. A huge setback of board games is the challenge of getting multiple players to sit down for long hours of uninterrupted play to finish a match, digital games like Sid Meier's Civilization have eliminated this issue by allowing the players to save the game and replay it from the exact point they left off at. In summary the digital era has revitalized board games and has created an entirely new market in the gaming industry, one for players who favor the strategy and skill required by a vintage board game.
Ways to Reflect The "Fog of War"
This is a blog written by Lewis Pulsipher, in the post Lewis details his experience with a game mechanic known as The Fog of War. Fog of war is a common game mechanic used in strategy games that involve player vs player combat, it is used to hide information from the opposing player. For example an enemy player may not be able to see your soldiers when they are past a certain distance, or perhaps he can see the soldiers but he cannot see what level they are, meaning that if he chooses to engage with those units he faces a level of uncertainty about whether he can win that battle.
Its this uncertainty that Lewis talks about in his post, he talks about how uncertainty is a necessity in any good real time strategy game. He details how he ordered a naval board game when he was younger and how each battleship was distinguishable from each other. However this meant there was very little uncertainty in the game, a destroyer would also destroy a cruiser, a warship would always destroy a destroyer and so on. It made the game dull and inspired Lewis to come up with ways to implement the fog of war mechanic. He says how he used concepts such as upside down pieces and block pieces with four sides in an attempt to make this happen, but every attempt had its faults and difficulties. Lewis then goes on to remiss about other board games and how they implemented too much or too little unpredictability before ultimately stating that it all depends on the players preference, with "classic" gamers preferring less unpredictability while "romantic" gamers favored more unpredictably in search for that elusive big play.
Its this uncertainty that Lewis talks about in his post, he talks about how uncertainty is a necessity in any good real time strategy game. He details how he ordered a naval board game when he was younger and how each battleship was distinguishable from each other. However this meant there was very little uncertainty in the game, a destroyer would also destroy a cruiser, a warship would always destroy a destroyer and so on. It made the game dull and inspired Lewis to come up with ways to implement the fog of war mechanic. He says how he used concepts such as upside down pieces and block pieces with four sides in an attempt to make this happen, but every attempt had its faults and difficulties. Lewis then goes on to remiss about other board games and how they implemented too much or too little unpredictability before ultimately stating that it all depends on the players preference, with "classic" gamers preferring less unpredictability while "romantic" gamers favored more unpredictably in search for that elusive big play.
Hi Adam,
ReplyDeleteI thought it was good to see that the digital transition for board games was a great way for developers to revitalize their games and also make them more money. I think it would be a shame if they just remained physical board games and developers stopped making profit from their own creations. I also think games that have micro transactions which can improve a players playing resources can really ruin games. This makes it unfair for your average player who isn’t using these transactions.
I look forward to reading your future blogs on game design.
-Ciaran