IP #8

Ex. 1 (Exercise 2.3: Objectives, P. 34)

Objectives are fundamental to the game experience. Being highly involved in achieving a game’s objectives is a cardinal and irreplaceable part of the uniqueness and the joy of the play experience.

Ex. 2 (Exercise 2.4: Rules, P. 35)

There are no games without rules because then there would be no way for the game to function. There aren’t any games with a single rule either. I thought so hard, and I even did a search and read about games which people claim have one rule only, but upon taking a closer and deeper look, it turns out there are definitely many more rules than one to those games. This exercise is very difficult because it’s impossible to find a game with a single or no rules. It’s a smart way to prove that rules are essential to games. No rules, no game!

Ex. 3 (Exercise 2.6: Challenge, P. 39)

Scrabble is challenging because it allows each player a limited number of tiles with which to form words.

5 Second Rule is challenging because of the extremely limited time it gives the player to come up with the names of the required items.

Heads Up! is challenging because of the very limited time frame within which the player has to describe as many words as possible to their teammate without saying the words themselves.

Rules restrict the actions players can make in a game thus creating conflict and challenge. This, however, increases the fun! Challenge is what players usually look for in a game, for if a game was too easy and straightforward, there wouldn’t be much joy in playing or winning it. The same of course is true for when a game is too hard. Many players will lose interest in the game if it’s impossible to win. A good game is designed to find the sweet spot where challenge is just the right amount.

Ex. 4 (Exercise 2.9: Applying What You Have Learned, P. 49-50)

  • There are 2 players in this game who do not necessarily need to have any special knowledge. The need to be able to draw dots and lines & to think logically. Their roles are limited to taking turns drawing dots and lines.
  • The objective of the game is to be the last player to move, i.e., the last player to draw a dot or a line and not the player who is out of moves.
  • The procedures of this game are as follows:
  • Draw three dots randomly on paper.
    • Choose a player to go first.
    • The first player draws a line from one dot to another dot.
    • Then that player draws a new dot anywhere on that line.
    • The second player also draws a line and a dot.
    • The players take turns until one player cannot make a move.
  • The rules of this game are the following:
  1. The new line that the second player draws must go from one dot to another
  2.  No dot can have more than three lines coming out of it.
  3. Also, the new line cannot cross any other line.
  4. The new dot must be placed on the new line.
  5. A line can go from a dot back to the same dot as long as it does not break rule no. ii.
  • The conflict in this game stems from three rules:
  • No dot can have three lines coming out of it.
  • Every new line must go from one dot to another.
  • Every new dot must be drawn on a new line.
  • The boundaries of this game are more conceptual than physical. The players are not physically bound by any of the rules except that they need to continue to draw dots and lines until they are out of moves. They are bound by the social agreement that they will not leave the game until it is over and one of them wins.
  • The potential outcomes of this game are measurable and unequal: there will be a winner and a loser.
  • The challenge in this game is to keep drawing new dots and lines. That is, it is to keep making moves despite the limitations created by the rules.
  • This game offers a very limited sense of play. There is not much freedom within its very rigid system. It does not offer the players opportunities to use their imagination, social skills, fantasy, or any types of interaction.
  • Premise, character, and story are not present in this game.

The dramatic element that can add to the experience of this game could be play. If the game became less rigid, then more free-form play could take place.

This exercise is amazing because it gave me the opportunity to turn the theory I have learned into practice thus enhancing and solidifying my understanding of the formal elements of games.

Ex. 5 (Exercise 3.11: Boundaries, P. 91)

The physical boundaries of D&D are the tabletop that players gather around to play the game. Its conceptual boundaries are much wider, however. They are fantasy settings that can be anywhere from dungeons to temples, cities, and even whole continents.

The choice of D&D in this exercise is clever as it shows how boundaries can immensely differ in games, and that so many times, games help us use our imaginations to extend the boundaries to wherever we want thus creating infinite opportunities for discovery and meaning making in multiple settings and within various boundaries.

References:

Fullerton, T. (2014) Game Design Workshop: A Playcentric Approach to Creating Innovative Games, NY: Taylor & Francis (CRS Press)/ Chapters 1, 2, & 3 https://doi.org/10.1201/b22309

IP # 1

Summary of Article 1

The author starts by making the claim that good videogames can be good learning engines especially when they rely on the aspect of discovery in play, which the author clarifies through his analogy to cats at play when they explore the world around them, discover something intriguing, become aware of new possibilities, and use these new possibilities to their advantage.

Then the author moves on to discuss how play mimics reality in that people engage in similar activities in both (play & reality) such as using complex language which in itself is a tool that humans can use in order to surmise new possibilities and manipulate it to build and transform knowledge.

The author concludes by reiterating that games and virtual worlds enable us to create tools that we can use to manipulate properties of possible worlds that can become niches for words which then can lead to discussions about new possibilities, new technologies, and unprecedented innovation.

Summary of Article 2

The authors begin by emphasizing the importance of human experiences through explaining how humans shape their futures through running mental simulations in which they play different roles in different scenarios based on prior experiences to plan courses of action, make decisions, and solve problems, which is exactly like playing videogames.

After that, the authors argue that playing videogames is an activity organized through affinity spaces-self-organizing spaces which allow people who share a passion to come together to share and discuss knowledge and learn from each other- which are one element of DTAL systems (distributed teaching and learning systems) that are the new form of informal, interest-driven teaching and learning of the 21st century.

Finally, the authors conclude by clarifying that DTAL systems enable us to create new worlds with which we can have conversations that can teach us things about ourselves and the real world; however, DTAL systems can have a dark side for two reasons: firstly, they can be used for anything including crime, and secondly, they may contribute to widening the gap between people of different learning ecologies.

            Bridge

             The two articles intersect in their emphasis of the importance of good videogames and well-designed, well-mentored experiences in both the virtual and the real world as they can lead to good learning and higher-order thinking. However, they diverge since the first, which builds on the aspect of discovery in play, focuses mainly on the learning that happens inside the virtual worlds themselves and how playing videogames is a form of practice for reality while the second article, which draws on theories about how the human mind works and the role of human experience in learning, extends the focus to include learning that happens outside these virtual spaces and how it is mediated through real social interactions with other people and through conversations with the world through actions.

             Burning Question

               In the first article, the author talks about learning that happens through an individual’s own discovery of new possibilities and new worlds, and in the second article he talks about learning that happens as a result of social interactions usually in affinity spaces and DTAL systems. Which of these two forms of learning is superior or more relevant today?