tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20730596773547731922024-02-08T08:20:22.874-08:00PerspectivesOnVideoGamesJohnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18201872126392041605noreply@blogger.comBlogger77125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2073059677354773192.post-21833550431133955972014-11-19T09:53:00.003-08:002014-11-19T09:55:15.628-08:00PauseI have to pause on this blog because I have to review the next few books before I post anything about them. I read them a few years ago and need to refresh my memory. Unfortunately, I am a bit swamped at the moment with other things which I need to tend to first. If you are interested in this thread, you can check back now and then to see if something new is posted. Or you can follow me onTwitter (@DrJohnArtz) . I don't tweet what I had for breakfast. So you won't be flooded with Tweets from me. I do send out Tweets when I've added something to one of my blogs. I only have four active blogs and don't post with any regularity to any of them. So, you won't get a lot of unwanted traffic. Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18201872126392041605noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2073059677354773192.post-53730292410075795172014-11-14T09:53:00.000-08:002014-11-14T09:53:39.990-08:00The Grasshopper: Games, Life and UtopiaThe Grasshopper: Games, Life and Utopia is a philosophical investigation of games by Bernard Suits. It is a dense, and, at times, difficult read. So, it is more for the stout-hearted, philosophically inclined reader, than it is for the casual reader. Nonetheless, it does make some very important points. So, I will summarize it here, very briefly, and emphasize a couple of its most dramatic contributions.<br />
<br />
The book is structured around a very different interpretation of Aesop's Fable The Grasshopper and the Ant. In the original Aesop's Fable the grasshopper plays when the weather is nice while the ant works putting food away for the winter. When winter comes, the ant has plenty of food but the foolhardy grasshopper has nothing because he played all summer. So, the ant survives while the grasshopper starves. In Suit's interpretation, the grasshopper argues that he is merely acting according to his nature and if he did differently he would no longer be the grasshopper. This was a little difficult to follow and I probably should read it again and wrestle with the ideas a bit more. But, the re-interpretation is not relevant to this post. So, I will keep going.<br />
<br />
Along the way in discussing the role of play and games, Suits makes two rather astonishing observations. First, he asks about a utopian world in which people had all their needs met what would people do with their time? He suggests that they would play games. This seems right, on the face of it, as games are entertaining and will fill time not being spent on surviving. He then goes on to suggest that because of this games are the highest good for people. That is, it is the thing they would do if they could do anything they wanted to do. This, then, leads to the observation I made in a previous post that games are the only activity that people do for its own sake. Thus, putting play on a par with happiness as a thing people pursue for no other reason than to achieve it.<br />
<br />
The second rather astonishing contribution that Suits makes is that he provides a workable definition of games. You might recall how, in the previous post, Wittgenstein said that games defy definition. The concept of games, according to Wittgenstein is held together by Family Resemblances and there is nothing that all games have in common. However, Suits defines a game as a voluntary attempt to othercome unnecessary obstacles. That seems to be a pretty good definition and one has to ask why Wittgenstein got it wrong while Suits got it right.<br />
<br />
The answer, I believe, is that Wittgenstein was looking for a definition based on attributes whereas Suits provided a teleological definition. That is to say that Wittgenstein was looking for features common to all games whereas Suits defined games in terms of the purpose they serve in our lives. This might even be a part of a larger patterns as we progress from natural science to social science to sciences of the artificial. Categories in natural science tend to be defined by attributes. In social science we see more of a mixture of attribute and teleological definitions. In sciences of the artificial more categories are almost always teleological. Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18201872126392041605noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2073059677354773192.post-73666489234020613702014-11-07T06:41:00.000-08:002014-11-07T06:42:56.385-08:00The Metaphysics of GamesIf you really dislike philosophy you should skip this post. It is not necessary for understanding subsequent posts and may just confuse you if you do no have philosophical leanings. But, for those who may be interested, I thought I would write a few words about the metaphysics of games.<br />
<br />
Perhaps one of the most enduring and perplexing problems in metaphysics arises from the seemingly simple question - how do you know a tree is a tree? The problem here is that we have a specific thing that we assign to a group or category. We use the word "tree" for both the category and the individual instances that populate that category. In metaphysical terms the individual instance is referred to as a particular, and the category is referred to as a universal. In normal conversation we do not distinguish between particulars and universals, as that would just make conversation awkward. But, if we were being precise, the above question would be qualified - how do we know a tree (particular instance) is a tree (member of the universal category).<br />
<br />
But, where do these universals come from? And how do we know a particular instance belongs to a category? Are categories defined bottom up based on common attributes? If so how do we select the attributes? Or are categories defined top down based on essences? If so, how do we determine the proper essences? These questions make up one of the most vexing problems in metaphysics known as The Problem of Universals.<br />
<br />
Philosophers as far back as Plato and Aristotle have attempted to tackle this problem. In the last century, Ludwig Wittgenstein offered an interesting perspective using a family resemblances analogy and used games as an example category. If you go to a family reunion, you can see that the members of the family share some facial features. But, not everyone has the same set of common features. For example, a few people may have the family nose. Others have the family chin. Perhaps others have the family brow. The family is held together visually by a collection of interlocking facial features but no family member has the full set of common features. According to Wittgenstein, many concepts are held together in the same way.<br />
<br />
In the case of games, we see a category held together by family resemblances. Some games have a strategy. Some games have winners and losers. Some games involve competition. And so on. But no game has a full set of common attributes. This assertion that 'games' is a poorly defined category would hold for nearly a century, until Bernard Suits would offer a precise definition of games. We will get to Suits in the next post. But for now we will leave it off by saying that the intellectual foundations of games is anchored deeply in the heart of metaphysics. Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18201872126392041605noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2073059677354773192.post-1701109494062758432014-11-01T07:20:00.001-07:002014-11-07T06:41:49.144-08:00The Literature on (Video) GamesAs I mentioned in the last post, I write book and article reviews for ACM's Computing Reviews. I have been doing this since 1986, almost three decades. For most of that time I have been reviewing items in Information Systems. About five years ago, I started reviewing items within the domain of video games. And I can attest to the fact that the literature in (video) games is so far superior to the literature in Information Systems that the field of Information System should be crimson red with embarrassment. If ever there were a poor cousin, it is the field of Information Systems.<br />
<br />
I put the word (video) in parentheses here for a reason and should explain that reason. The literature on video games only dates back to the first video games which was sometime in the 1960's. There are at least two wonderful books on the history of video games, neither of which are handy at the moment. So, I will check that date later. But, the literature on games and play goes back much further and requires almost no adjustment in order for it to provide a solid philosophical, sociological and psychological foundation for video games. In upcoming posts, I will introduce as many of these foundation works as I can. This is not to say that all the good work happened before the invention of video games. There are many excellent works on video games as well. I hope to get to all of them as well. But, for now, I am going to laying down some foundation.<br />
<br />
We can think of the literature of video games in terms of the following categories: philosophical, sociological, psychological, historical, empirical, and engineering or design. I have many books lying around and none of them have category stickers on them. So, I just made up those categories. But, I think they will work for the time being. And, in the next post, I will begin with some of the philosophical grounding. If philosophy gives you a headache, you may want to skip the next few posts. But, I encourage you to, at least, glance at them as the foundation work is important so you should, at least, be aware of it. Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18201872126392041605noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2073059677354773192.post-78708308169649673762014-10-22T06:05:00.002-07:002014-11-01T07:00:50.320-07:00BackIt has been over three years since I posted to this blog. I guess if you are looking for a daily feed you are pretty disappointed. But, daily posts are clearly not my blogging style. There are several problems with daily posts. First, it is a major challenge to come up with something worthwhile to say every day. And if one is forced to write something every day they will become shallow in their observations. Second, I prefer to write when I feel like writing. This is because I like to think about things and hold off writing until I have something that I think is worth saying. And, third, if you write everyday, then the posts you wrote a year ago are probably no longer worth reading.<br />
<br />
My approach is to take a longer view of blogging. I write when I have something to say. And I write things that are, hopefully, as worthwhile to read years later as they are on the day I post them. I view a blog as a long term effort where I share my thinking about various topics. Sometimes you can see how my thinking evolves on specific topics. Sometimes I can see how my thinking evolves. Hopefully, the things I write will stimulate your thinking about the topics that I write about as much as they stimulate my thinking..<br />
<br />
This particular blog captures my evolving thinking about video games. If you are interested in my thinking on more general topics, you can check out my main blog <a href="http://drartz-rantingandreflecting.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">Ranting and Reflecting</a> . I think about a lot more things than video games. And that blog captures a wider range of topics. I also contribute, on a regular basis to LinkedIn forums such as the American Philosophical Association forum and The Future Role of IT. You will notice a similar style on Ranting and Reflecting. I start thinking about something, post a few bits about it, and then disappear for a while. If you look at this from the perspective of daily blogging it makes no sense. But, if you look at it as a record of thinking that evolves over decades, it makes a lot more sense.<br />
<br />
Now that I am back on this blog again I am going to do three things. First, I am going to review what I said before and see if it needs any reflection or commentary. Then, I am going start reviewing the foundation literature of video games. Along the way I will toss in some observations about where the field of video games has come from and where it is going. In the past five years or so I have reviewed over fifty scholarly books and articles for The Association for Computing Machinery's online review journal <a href="http://www.computingreviews.com/" target="_blank">Computing Reviews</a> and I have played way too much <a href="http://us.battle.net/wow/en/" target="_blank">World of Warcraft</a> . So, it isn't like I haven't been doing anything. And since video games are only one of my many interests I have been involved in a lot of other things as well. But my style of work is to work on whatever I happen to be interested in until I am no longer interested and then drop it and come back when I am interested again. I think it is time to pay attention to video games again.Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18201872126392041605noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2073059677354773192.post-30259933948371097642011-05-04T05:10:00.000-07:002011-05-04T05:10:47.053-07:00What Does It Mean to be Meaningful?This sounds like a weird philosophical digression, and perhaps it is. I am not above getting distracted. But, if the ultimate goal of a video game is to be meaningful, then we need to decide what we mean by meaningful. I am going to work into this via analogies from other media. Do books and films have to be meaningful? And if they are, what does that mean?<br />
<br />
I should mention, if it isn't already obvious, that I am thinking this think through as I go along. So, what I decide further down the line may look very different from my initial impressions. At the same time, my conclusions may look very much like my initial impressions. I just don't know at this stage.<br />
<br />
First, I think there are varying degrees of meaningfulness. A thing is minimally meaningful if it adjusts your in some way so that you are better prepared to cope with your life. A thing is maximally meaningful if it helps you to make sense out of your life and your experiences, or if it brings your life and experiences into perspective. I am flirting with a connection with the transcendental here but am not going to go quite that far.<br />
<br />
That's not too bad for a start. We will see where it goes. Next, I will apply the definition to books and films. I will see if tha exercise helps me to refine or solidify the definition. Then I will apply it to video games. This is not, I should hasten to mention, just a quixotic philosophical pursuit. If I am right about what I am thinking here the ultimate design goal for a video game should be that it be meaningful. We'll see how it goes.Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18201872126392041605noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2073059677354773192.post-15216879046734157312011-04-26T04:23:00.000-07:002011-04-29T04:58:01.099-07:00Does a Video Game Have to be Meaningful?Asking whether or not a video game should be meaningful sounds like a silly question. But it is a very serious question that I plan to explore. The short answer is - no. A video game does not have to be meaningful. Just being fun is enough. However, if a goal of the game is to be memorable and enduring, then, I would argue, it does have to be meaningful. One might say "the goal of a game is make money"", and there is some truth to that. But few game designers, as creative artistic people, are satisfied with just making money. They want their work to have larger meaning. And few players are satisfied, in the end, investing endless hours in a game unless they feel it has some larger significance. So, in order for a game to be memorable, significant and worthwhile, it must be meaningful.<br />
<br />
This has only become a problem recently as experts in media studies have offered up the claim that video games should be studied as cultural artifacts just as films and novels are studied as cultural artifacts. Asking if a video game has to be meaningful is like asking if a novel or a film has to be meaningful. Certainly, there are lots and lots of junk novels and junk films. So not every one has to be meaningful. But, it is the goal of writer's or film maker's craft to produce meaningful work even though it is a rare occurrence. Similarly, it is the goal of the game designer's craft to produce meaningful work. Hence, we need to figure out what we mean by 'meaningful'.Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18201872126392041605noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2073059677354773192.post-8738808427901273362011-04-17T06:03:00.000-07:002011-04-17T06:03:34.838-07:00Lusory GoalsA game should be designed to satisfy a set of lusory goals. This may be done within a set of non-lusory goals such as the: game should be profitable; the game should work on several platforms; the game should be scalable, easy to maintain, or easy to enhance. These later items are valid technical goals but not lusory goals.<br />
<br />
I have been pondering valid lusory goals and have stumbled a bit trying to get a net over all of them. So rather than have a complete list, I thought I would start by just blurting what I am thinking at the moment. I can refine or enhance the list later.<br />
<br />
Following some of the ideas presented much earlier in this blog, it seems to me that lusory goals should all be focused on enhancing skills that have some value to the player. For example, a game might improve a player's physical or mental skills. Physical skills might include things like hand eye coordination, reflexes, or even fitness as in the case of Wii games. Mental skills cover a much wider variety of options and include things like strategy, problem solving, resource management, social skills, or leadership. This is far from a complete list but I wanted to start.<br />
<br />
The top level of the game design should articulate the lusory goals and the skills the game is intended to develop and coherent structure within which they can be developed. Quests, then, should be the means of implementing the lusory goals.<br />
<br />
I am going to toss out a few initial impression of quest design. Each quest should contribute to the lusory goals in a coherent way. Each quest should make sense within the logic of the game. Each quest should pay off proportionately to its difficulty. The pay off can come in many forms including improvement factors in the game such as loot, experience, or progression of some kind. Of it can contribute knowledge of the game which may be useful later. Quests should not be arbitrary unless learning how to deal with arbitrariness is on the skills identified in the lusory goals.<br />
<br />
Well, there it is. Its a start. It needs work but I will just keep chipping away at it.Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18201872126392041605noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2073059677354773192.post-61696688921440659892011-03-22T05:30:00.000-07:002011-03-22T05:33:26.276-07:00Reality is BrokenJane McGonigal begins her new book <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Reality-Broken-Games-Better-Change/dp/1594202850/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1300795802&sr=1-1">Reality Is Broken</a> : "Gamers have had enough of reality. They are abandoning it in droves." And that is all the farther I got on my first read. I was distracted, as I often am when reading, by an epiphany. Those lines pulled together a lot of things that were going on in my head making sense and giving focus to a number of disparate ideas. Let me explain.<br />
<br />
I have been wondering for years why people would spend so much time in virtual worlds such as Second Life or MMORPGs such as World of Warcraft. Certainly they are fun. But bowling is fun and people don't spend every waking moment in the bowling alley. People don't recount stories of their first experience bowling turning into a seven hour marathon as Tom Bissell does with his first encounter with Fallout3 in <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Extra-Lives-Video-Games-Matter/dp/0307378705/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1300796141&sr=1-1">Extra Lives</a>. Why is this?<br />
<br />
Well, here is the epiphany that struck me. In the 18th century people were leaving all corners of the world to come to America. They were leaving their homes, their families, their traditions, and their cultures to come a new place. Why? Because the old world was broken. It did not provide them with the opportunities they needed to live gainful, produce and satisfying lives. They left behind everything familiar in exchange for an opportunity to grow and seek satisfaction.<br />
<br />
Today, the place we call reality, or real life, or the real world is not providing people with the opportunities they need to live fully satisfying lives. So, they are escaping to virtual worlds, game worlds and games. Instead of seeing a mass migration from the old world to the new world we are seeing a mass migration from the real world to the virtual world. It is the same phenomenon, and probably one that have been going on since our ancestors left Africa 50,000 years ago. Searching for a better life. That is the reason. And that was my epiphany.Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18201872126392041605noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2073059677354773192.post-37982735559145805622011-03-12T05:22:00.000-08:002011-03-12T05:23:04.531-08:00A Theory of FunI just finished reading <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Theory-Fun-Game-Design/dp/1932111972/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1299935662&sr=1-1">A Theory of Fun for Game Design</a> by Raph Koster. It is a truly astonishing piece of work. I read it as an academic who reads a lot of research. I read it as a practitioner who is interested in game design. And I read it as a video game player who is just interested in playing for fun. Amazingly, it strikes chords at all levels. It is deceptively simple to read but tackles some of the most profound philosophical and psychological questions surrounding this emerging technology. I will not try to repeat any of the many insights about games that Koster provides as anything I say will just take away from the clarity of what he has said. But, I will offer one rather profound quote: "Games are powerful tools for good - they rewire people's brains, just like books and movies and music.". I would only add that the potential of games for rewiring is even greater than that of their predecessors. That is really it in a nutshell. Think about it.Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18201872126392041605noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2073059677354773192.post-11451763086133817032011-03-09T06:46:00.000-08:002011-03-09T07:07:47.031-08:00Flawed (aka majorly dumbass) QuestsBefore I get into the game master's side of the social contract I have to get the issue of majorly dumbass quests off my chest. I've been playing WoW a lot lately; perhaps a bit too much. And when you are really into the game a majorly dumbass quest is a major turd in the punch bowl. In fact, I have held off writing this piece in an attempt to get some perspective on it. I was going to go on a rant about the World of Majorly Dumbass Quests. But, thankfully, I have managed to get some perspective on the issue.<br />
<br />
First, I am going to refer to these quests by the more civil and descriptive name of Flawed Quests. Second, I am going to attempt to articulate just what it is that makes a quest flawed. This will vary from one quest to another. But, I suspect, that the list of potential flaws is not all that great. And, I think it is useful for game designers to understand flawed quests as well as well designed quests. And, finally, I am going to defend Blizzard for having flawed quests so that my observations on flawed quests does not appear as an unfair attack on the game designers.<br />
<br />
There are good reasons and not quite as good reasons for the appearance for flawed quests in World of Warcraft. First the good reasons. World of Warcraft has thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of quests. Further, there is a fair amount of variety in these quests. In order to avoid flawed quests they would have to have fewer quests and less variety. While flawed quests interfere (sometimes seriously) with the player's enjoyment, this is always a short term problem. Too much sameness would result in boredom which would be a major long term problem. Hence, erring on the side of variety instead of consistency is probably a good decision. Another good reason is that new quest types are introduced into the game and debugged through usage. If you did not allow for a period of debugging it would not be possible to introduce these new types. Most of the new types do get worked out over time and do increase the player's enjoyment. So, we have to be patient with the designers as they try out new ideas. <br />
<br />
There are also a couple not quite as good (although, perhaps forgivable) reasons. First, there are superstar designers and mediocre designers. When you are designing thousands of quests, not every designer will be a superstar. And when you are on a quest created by a mediocre designer, you know it. Second, the quality assurance group should be testing every quest. Perhaps they do and it takes time to fix some of the errors. I don't know. But, I do know that, on some quests, I have the feeling that QA just dropped the ball.<br />
<br />
Well, having gotten that off of my chest, I feel much better. Now I can continue with what I was doing.Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18201872126392041605noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2073059677354773192.post-42607604388803210782011-03-01T04:26:00.000-08:002011-03-01T04:33:09.730-08:00The Player's Side of the Social ContractThe player's side of the social contract in a game is by far the easiest. So, I am going to address that first. The player's primary responsibility is to buy into the lusory goals. That is, they should play the game as it is supposed to be played. There may be prior economic requirements such as having to buy the game or subscribe to it. But, prior economic requirements are not part of the social contract of the game. It does bear mentioning, however, that the rewards derived from the game should justify the prior economic requirements or nobody is going to want to play it. But, that is an economic issue, not a game issue.<br />
<br />
If the player does not fully buy into the lusory goals of the game there are three levels of penalty. The first level is that they simply do not derive satisfaction from playing the game. Imagine a person playing the outfield in a baseball game who thinks to their self "This is a silly game. Grown men hitting a ball and running around bases" It is unlikely they will enjoy the game. However, as long as their failure to buy in does not affect the other players, the penalty is limited to their lack of enjoyment. In a video game the player must attempt to learn the game and must attempt to improve at it or the satisfaction of playing the game will elude them.<br />
<br />
Some violation of the game sphere is tolerated as long as it does not affect the enjoyment of others. In a baseball game, for example, a player may wave at an acquaintance in the stands. In a multi-person video game a player might carry on a conversation unrelated to the game in public chat. This is tolerated to a different extent in different games. <br />
<br />
If a failure to buy into the lusory goals does begin to affect the enjoyment of others, the second level of penalty is social. The members of the team of the player who was waiving at friends in the stands might ask him to pay attention to the game and frown on his socializing. If a video game player misbehaves, he might be muted in chat, criticized by fellow players, or not asked to join teams for raids. The player still gets to play, but the social aspect of the game, to the extent that there are any, are diminished.<br />
<br />
Finally, if the indiscretions of a player begin to seriously impact the enjoyment of other players they might be ejected and banned from the game. That is, they will not be allowed to play because their failure to buy into the lusory goals is so severe that is makes it difficult for other players who did buy into the lusory goals to derive the enjoyment they are seeking.<br />
<br />
So, advice to the player is simple. Play the game as it is supposed to be played. If you do not derive enjoyment from it, then find another game. If you seek enjoyment by interfering with others who have bought into the lusory goals, you might be ejected or banned.Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18201872126392041605noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2073059677354773192.post-59000889865668083342011-02-01T06:33:00.000-08:002011-02-01T06:33:55.398-08:00Elements of the Social ContractI am going to keep this as simple as I can as I work my way down from organizing concepts to operational details. The social contract in a role playing game is between a game master and a collection of players. The game master agrees to provide rewarding opportunities for personal growth and the players agree to buy into the lusory goals. A few clarifications are in order.<br />
<br />
First, this is a social contract, not an economic or legal contract. While there may also be economic benefits or legal restraints, the social contact, if satisfied, results in greater social status. The may be recognition, respect, goodwill, reputation, loyalty, or some other social capital. It is easy to see the distinction between economic and social gains. A game's high or low regard may well be inversely related to its profitability. A social contract differs from a legal contract in that a social contract is enforced in the court of public opinion rather than in a legal venue.<br />
<br />
The obligation of the game master to provide rewarding opportunities for personal growth is derived from earlier comments in this blog about why people play. Play is fun because it provides rewarding opportunities for personal growth. So, a role playing game should as well.<br />
<br />
The responsibility of the player to buy into the lusory goals is derived from Bernard Suit's definition of a game as a voluntary attempt to overcome unnecessary obstacles. We play games and games are fun because following the lusory goals of the game makes it so. It would not do to have a quarterback pull out a gun and shoot a rushing tackle. It is achieving the goals of the game within the constraints of the game that makes it fun and rewarding.Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18201872126392041605noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2073059677354773192.post-49381451955139925112011-01-28T09:07:00.000-08:002011-01-28T09:07:51.336-08:00RPG's as a Social contractI need an overarching theory for evaluating the design of a MMORPG video game. I have chosen the Role Playing Game as my unit of analysis. I don't think the size of the game is a major factor. Hence, I have ignore the MM or massively multi-player part. I do think that size will be a factor further down the line. But, initially I am going to ignore it. I also believe that the statements I am going to make will apply to role playing games that are not implemented on computers. The great thing about a blog is that I don't have to get it exactly right the first time. I can express my current thinking and change it later as I learn more or gain more insight.<br />
<br />
The overarching theory will be that of the social contract. The game master enters into a social contract with the players. Usually, this contract is implied although I am going to try to make it more explicit. The game master agrees to do certain things in providing the game environment. And the player pledge certain things as well. The design of the game can then be evaluated in terms of the obligations of the game master and how well those obligations are met. At the level of the game design, a game that is way too hard or way too easy; way to simple or way to complicated; would be a poorly designed game. But, even if the game were well designed it may be implemented poorly. On the other side of the contract, players who play merely to interfere with the enjoyment of others (commonly known as greifers) are not good players. Player who do not wish to spend the time to learn the game and constantly complain are not good players either. Those are broad brush extremes that I will flesh out later.<br />
<br />
Further, the contract is hierarchical. A well designed game could have a poorly design quest, for example, or vice versa. The ideal game would have all elements contributing to and consistent with the overall game design.<br />
<br />
Well, those are my thoughts for now. I will add and/or modify as I think this through.Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18201872126392041605noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2073059677354773192.post-44220973340131949752011-01-23T06:15:00.000-08:002011-01-23T06:20:32.192-08:00CataclysmI've been a little remiss in posting to this blog. All I can say is that I have been busy and I view my blogs as on going journals where I accumulate thoughts over time rather than daily postings of current events. Whew! OK, I feel much better now. <br />
<br />
I have been focusing, almost exclusively on World of Warcraft. It is an amazing thing to study. Yeah, yeah, I know, its fun to play as well. But, I seriously doubt that it would have held my attention for this long if it were just fun.<br />
<br />
Cataclysm came out in December and this is the third majorly successful expansion of World of Warcraft. I tried out the new characters (Worgen on the Alliance side and Gobblins on the Horde side) and I have to say that the expansion designers did a pretty good job. They also fixed a number of my pet peeves which is always good.<br />
<br />
As I play this game, I am always reminded of when I first learned operating systems. There are many parallels. They are both wonderfully complex. I find myself amazed that somebody actually thought things through as well as they did. And the devotees seem to have way too much invested in the learning curve to acknowledge the flaws.<br />
<br />
My highest toon is now a 77 which has two major implications. First, I heard that the game changes dramatically when you hit 80. I have heard other such claims in the past which have turned out to be way over stated. But, I will wait and see on that one. Second, Cataclysm raised the bar from 80 to 85 and I have no idea what that will mean. Will it be just more of the same. Or will it be a whole new world. I have no idea.<br />
<br />
Most of the changes I have noticed in Cataclysm (Cata for short) are positive changes. Some very positive. It would be interesting to take them one at a time and pick them apart. I may even do that some day. But for now, I have something else in mind. As I play one of my characters and pursue quest after quest I often get a visceral reaction to the quests which ranges from "that was a really good quest" to "that was a majorly dumbass quest". In a fit of frustration, I wrote in guild chat "I am getting tired of doing quests that were designed by people who got C's in design school." One of my guildies types "Agreed".<br />
<br />
Being a reflective person I began to wonder what differentiates a good quest from a bad quest. It there some sort of theory that would allow one to assess the quality of a quest? Is a quest good because it matches a theory of good design? Or is it good because people say they like it? This has given me much to think about. I think World of Warcraft will become an object of study in the future much like, say Moby Dick or The Brothers Karamazov. Designers studying WoW will point to its major design success and its major design failures. Next time I am pursuing a majorly dumbass quest I am going to try to curb my frustration with the knowledge that this will be a good example for designers of the future of what not to do.Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18201872126392041605noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2073059677354773192.post-65915786202706977362010-09-03T12:16:00.000-07:002010-09-03T12:16:56.614-07:00Signing Off, For NowI began this blog about a year and a half ago because I was thinking about doing some research in video games. I wanted to explore some of the foundation ideas such as 1) what is play?, 2) what is a game?, and 3) how can a deeper understanding of these things improve video gaming experience. I wasn't just interested in making video games more fun to play. I was actually more interested in applying what we know about video games to making work and education more fun and satisfying. However, I have not gotten as much traction with these ideas as I would have liked. So I am putting this blog aside for now. As an academic you follow many blind paths and encounter many dead ends. At the same time, you have to follow your curiosity and nothing that I have ever learned has ever gone to waste. You never know when something you learned in one area will be exactly the thing you need to know to make progress in another area. So, I have no regrets. It was fun. It was interesting. And eventually it will all be useful.Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18201872126392041605noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2073059677354773192.post-52180057304095853562010-09-02T07:33:00.000-07:002010-09-02T07:37:04.361-07:00Come On Now, Why All the Bitching?World of Warcraft is a truly outstanding game. Not only is it the most popular MMORPG ever, it has become a cultural artifact and the object of academic study in books such as <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Warcraft-Civilization-Social-Science-Virtual/dp/0262013703/ref=pd_sim_b_1">The Warcraft Civilization</a> and <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Digital-Culture-Play-Identity-Warcraft/dp/0262033704/ref=pd_sim_b_2">Digital Culture, Play and Identity: A World of Warcraft Reader</a>. So, why am I whining about the annoyances? Well, there are two main reasons: aesthetic and economic. <br />
<br />
The aesthetic reason is that these flaws, small as they may be, tarnish an otherwise amazing creative effort. Consider your favorite classic movie, one you like to watch over and over. Now, think of how it would be with a major flaw in it such as an obvious continuity error or a character slipping briefly out of character. Over time these flaws would become major distractions and you would view the movie as a flawed classic. It might even be used in film classes as an example of what to avoid.<br />
<br />
World of Warcraft has the potential to transcend being a video game and truly become a cultural artifact. It is possible that people play this classic game long after new technology moves us to new kinds of games. It would be like King Kong coming out on Blu-Ray However, this is not going to happen with these flaws. So, fixing these annoyances it important for the legacy of the game.<br />
<br />
There are also economic reasons. Blizzard boasts 11.5 million users which is pretty impressive. But, why can't that number grow by a factor of ten or even a hundred? They have pretty well tapped out the gamer market but there people who do not see themselves as gamers who represent a huge potential market. People who play Wii, Free Cell, or Farmville are known as casual gamers and the size of this market dwarfs the size of the gamer market. But, they are reluctant to try WoW because of the steep learning curve. With decent books, documentation and customer service it may be possible to tap this potential market and break even more records for numbers of users.<br />
<br />
Going back to the aesthetic argument for a moment, there is also an economic reason behind that as well. While the preceding economic argument expands the potential market to new users, the aesthetic argument expands the potential market over time.<br />
<br />
So, I am not just being petty and whining about these annoyances. I think this is a phenomenal game and believe it can be even more phenomenal.Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18201872126392041605noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2073059677354773192.post-17385793197998417742010-08-25T08:23:00.000-07:002010-08-25T08:23:49.462-07:00What's So Annoying? Bored 80sThis is really a problem of meta design and it is unfair to place the entire blame on Blizzard for it. In the previous examples, a designer or design team just made some dumb mistakes and those mistakes for some reason were not caught in design reviews. At least I hope that is the case. It would be disturbing to find out that Blizzard actually saw those things as good design. <br />
<br />
World of Warcraft is a "Game World" as has come up before in this blog. And meta design deals with the design of the game world more than the design of the game. There are many games within World of Warcraft. And those games exist simultaneously within the game world.The problem of meta design is - how do you set up the world so that people playing different games can co-exist with each other without diminishing each others game experience.<br />
<br />
Most of the time this works out pretty well. So we should give credit where credit is due. However, certain kinds of game play leads to aberrant players who reject the lusory goals in favor setting their own goals. In some cases this is ok. A person may enjoy making things for friends or guild members in lieu of leveling. However, when one sets their goal as grieving others, it creates problems.<br />
<br />
What happens with bored 80s it that people have advanced to the top level without having really earned it. They may have friends they use as a body guard. They may have friends who run them through dungeons. The may have bound on account gear, armor, weapons, or spells that make them more than a match for challenges appropriate to their level. The point is that they ramped up to 80 without having really earned it and don't want to put for the effort required to advance as an 80. <br />
<br />
So, what do they do? They do the World of Warcraft equivalent of picking on little kids. They hang out in areas where they are likely to encounter people leveling at ten or twenty levels below them. These are easy kills and are not very satisfying. But the alternative is legitimate leveling which is way to hard. So, they redefine the game goals to grief as many lower level toons as they can.<br />
<br />
On one hand I feel sorry for these players. They are seeking a satisfaction from the game that they will likely never achieve. On the other hand, the are ANNOYING!!Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18201872126392041605noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2073059677354773192.post-91732560123315412362010-08-19T04:48:00.000-07:002010-08-19T04:57:03.511-07:00What's So Annoying? The Documentation!!This may be a generation gap, but I don't think so. The documentation for World of Warcraft is abysmal. There are three sources of information about WoW: books, websites, and other players. Each leaves a great deal to be desired.<br />
<br />
You would think there would a wide range of volumes available for World of Warcraft. With over 11 million players there is a ready made market. Further, it would be in Blizzard's interests to make WoW more accessible as that would mean an even larger customer bases. But sadly it is not so. The main offerings in print are Strategy guides by Brady Games. These are dense volumes that are more like a specifications manual than they are documentation. I have most, if not all of them, and rarely refer to them at all. They are simply unusable. I'm sure there are people who find them useful. But they come under the umbrella of driven singularities which I will get to in a moment. There are also numerous online guides that you can download, some free, some you pay for. The problem with that is that there is no way to know if they are any good or if the information is accurate.<br />
<br />
Websites are the primary form of documentation. This is the generation gap that I was referring to earlier. I am used to books. Younger people are used to websites. The question is - is this just a question of different modes or it is a difference of quality. I would say that it is a difference of quality. The WoW main sight is pretty good at giving you the most superficial of overviews, but getting to any depth is nearly impossible. There are sites like Thottbot that are pretty good for quest information. And there are numerous other sites that various people swear by. Nonetheless, there are several problems with all these sites. The first is that there is no systematic overview of the information available. So, figuring out even where to look is an uphill battle. Second, the information is hit or miss. If you are lucky, you may find what you are looking for. Chances are you won't. Third, these sights are organized as wikis making them nearly impossible to use. All this does not mean that people never find what they are looking for at these sites. They do. And this is again the driven singularity problem.<br />
<br />
The third source of information is other people. People ask questions in guild chat. Sometimes other people will try to answer. People ask questions in the open chat channels such as the trade channel. Sometimes other people will try to answer. But, using other people as a source of information is even more hit or miss than going to websites. First, if you ask a question in any of the channels, you are lucky if you get any answer at all. If you get an answer, you don't know if it is accurate or not. And the person providing the answer probably does not know if it is accurate. So, any information you get from other people is suspect at best.<br />
<br />
Does anybody ever find what they need when they have a question? Yes, they do. And that brings us to the driven singularities.You can say "there is no way to find where a quest is" and somebody might say "sure, just go to Thottbot". You can say "there is no way to figure out if +8 spirit is better than +8 stamina" and somebody might say, "sure just go to wowwiki.com". Just because specific individuals have had the persistence to find specific things does not mean the documentation is adequate. There are, what I am calling, driving singularities. Individual people who persisted enough to find some obscure piece of information.<br />
<br />
There are several problems with driven singularities. First, it takes way to much time to find something if you happen to be a driven singularity. Second, if that driven person doesn't happen to be within earshot when you ask a question, you just won't get an answer. Third, that person might not know what they are talking about. People often over claim their expertise. And finally, this approach only works in a very, very, very small percentage of the cases where people are looking for information.<br />
<br />
WoW brags over 11 million users and that is, indeed, an accomplishment. However, with decent documentation, that number might be ten times, a hundred times, or maybe even a thousand times the current level.Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18201872126392041605noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2073059677354773192.post-18884789410959944762010-08-11T07:35:00.000-07:002010-08-11T07:40:46.019-07:00What's So Annoying? Managing InventoryThere are many good things about the way inventory is handled in WoW. So, out of fairness, I should point a few of them out. As you advance, you get increasingly larger bags in which to store your inventory. These bags are increasingly more expensive allowing you to make rational trade off decisions about the cost of a bag versus the convenience it affords. Tailors can make bags and sell them at the Auction House providing a source of revenue for that profession. Guilds can buy Guild Vaults provide more storage and incentive to join the guild. Individuals can buy bank slots to hold bags that are not carried around, thus providing more storage and another rational trade-off decision.<br />
<br />
This is all good design and well thought out. So, what is my beef? I have two gripes with the inventory management. The first, is junk inventory and the second is recipes that requre materials you didn't think you would ever need again. <br />
<br />
Junk inventory is loot that you pick up from any of the variety of means there are for collecting things. You may loot a corpse, get something as a reward for a quest, or acquire items through one of the professions such as herbalism. Actually, mining and skinning aren't too bad for junk but herbalism is. What happens is that you pick up something and have no idea if it is good for anything. So, you put it in your inventory where it takes up space. Later you find that it is either used in a worthless recipe or is not used at all. To their credit, Blizzard added sell prices to loot items so you can make rational decisions about what to keep if your bags are getting filled. But, there are a whole host of items, especially in herbalism, where you can fill up your inventory with worthless junk and not know it is worthless. Every decision should be a rational trade off decision. And putting junk items in the collectibles is just arbitrary and poor design. Some might argue that it adds an element off randomness. I would argue that this is just the defensive claim of a mediocre designer.<br />
<br />
As you progress in your profession, you go through different levels of materials. Say, you are a miner and blacksmith. You begin with copper, then to tin, then to iron and so forth. Now, once you are at the iron level you are inclined to get rid of your copper and tin to make room for the items that are appropriate for your level. Then, when you are past iron, say at mithril, you encounter a recipe that requires copper. And you get irritated for having sold all your copper. This is just arbitrary and annoying. Since inventory is limited, you can't keep everything. And you cannot make rational trade off decisions about what to keep if you are going to encounter arbitrary requests for materials you have gotten rid of. Again, one might argue that this introduces an element of randomness. However, I would counter again with my remark about mediocre design.<br />
<br />
The problem here is that the whole conceptual design of professions and inventory management are quite well done. But, these little annoying oddities become the focus over time. You forget how cleverly done it all is, while festering over the fact that you threw something away that you needed. Not only do these decisions not add to the game experience, they seriously detract from it.Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18201872126392041605noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2073059677354773192.post-64208324604577578962010-07-28T05:36:00.000-07:002010-07-28T05:40:30.633-07:00What's So Annoying? Ralai QuestsRalai Quests (or 'Running Around Like an Idiot' Quests) are really annoying. These come in two distinct varieties. But before I get into that, I should say that I am a systematic and methodical person. I like to do things in an orderly way and I like to see progress in what I am doing. I think most people are like this although, perhaps, not as extreme as I am. I realize that there is an element of disorder inherent in WoW because different players will choose to pursue quests in a different order for a variety of reasons. So, some element of randomness and disorder is inherent in a dynamic game such as this. I have no qualms with that. It is when unnecessary chaos is added for no particular purpose that I find it annoying.<br />
<br />
There are numerous quests such as The Missing Diplomat or the Legend of Stalvan that force you to run from place to place talking with different NPCs or collecting various items. These are some of the bigger ones but there are dozens of little ones where X tells you to talk to Y, Y tells you to talk to Z. And Z tells you to talk to X again. Further, X,Y and Z are all in the same area. What is the point in that? Quests should be designed to teach you something about the game or give you a reward of some kind that enhances your play experience. Most of the time, especially on the larger Ralai Quests, the effort is way out of proportion to the effort required. One might try to argue that Ralai Quests force players to see more of the game than they would otherwise and this is a valid claim. However, if the goal to to get players to see more of the game this has be be about the most lame way to do it.<br />
<br />
The second kind of Ralai Quest is a dungeon with windy passages all of which look the same or very similar. The Den in Stonetalon is a good example of this. This quest is an unqualified disaster. There is no systematic way to explore the dungeon and even if you have done it many times, as I have, you cannot apply what you learned from previous runs to the current run. I don't expect a series of signs pointing to the quest object. But I do expect that I can reasonably figure out where I need to go. After all, there should be a logic to the game and as you acquire more experience, you should be better at figuring things out.<br />
<br />
Even if you can't figure it out you should be able to systematically go through the dungeon. Having different passages and different levels that are indistinguishable is either laziness or perversity on the part of the designers. If they made them look the same because it was too much effort to make them look different then it is just laziness. If they enjoy frustrating their account holders to the point where they drop the quest in frustration and bail out with the hearthstone then it is just perversity.Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18201872126392041605noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2073059677354773192.post-24153685508400089892010-07-21T06:02:00.000-07:002010-07-21T06:08:31.058-07:00What's So Annoying? The GraveyardsThe death model in World of Warcraft works pretty well. Your character gets killed. You get sent to a graveyard. You have to run back to where you got killed. And you have to rebuff yourself. It interrupts the rhythm of your play and causes you to loose certain buffs. And that make getting killed something to avoid. That is the good part.<br />
<br />
Here are the annoying parts. As far as I can tell, every time you go to a graveyard, your character is placed so that you are pointing in the wrong direction. Every damn time! This is such a small thing but I find it incredibly annoying. It would actually be less annoying if it were random and you had to figure out which way you were pointing. There is an important element in game design in this comment. Features of the game should all contribute to the game. That is, there has to be a rationale other than just unnecessarily making something more difficult. Challenging is fine. Random elements are fine. But annoying is not fine.<br />
<br />
Second, some of the graveyards are way too far away from the point where you got killed. I know that Blizzard has noticed this because they have added some graveyards a little closer so your character doesn't have to run so far. One example is a new graveyard near Brewnell Village in Dun Morogh. When you are a higher level and have a mount, being killed and having to run without the mount is frustrating. You want the death model to be a deterrent to being killed, but not a punitive annoyance.<br />
<br />
Third, there is some times difficult terrain to navigate to get from the graveyard to your corpse. This happens in mountainous areas and sometimes in dungeons. The problem here is that when dead you do not have the same resources available to you as when you are alive. The terrain is difficult to see because it is grayed. It may be totally unfamiliar if you just entered a new area. You can''t just bail out with the hearth stone. And you don't have use of your mount. Further, once you leave the death angel and get lost you are really in trouble. You can't find your corpse and you can't find the death angel. You are screwed!! Personally, I don't feel that running around like an idiot ever enhances my game experience.<br />
<br />
On the positive side, I find the graveyards in battle grounds to be much more effective. It is like a time out for getting killed without the unpleasant experience of having to run around like an idiot over unfamiliar terrain trying to find your corpse.Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18201872126392041605noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2073059677354773192.post-10198471232188518602010-07-13T08:57:00.000-07:002010-07-13T09:00:26.820-07:00Pretty Won't Make Up For AnnoyingI usually write this blog on Wednesdays. I have a <a href="http://doctorcosmos.blogspot.com/">Tuesday blog</a> written about Second Life by my Second Life avatar Doctor Cosmos. But, after four years, I am giving up on Second Life. While I still think there is enormous potential for virtual world technology, I think the window of opportunity has closed for Linden Labs. Anyway back to the topic of this post.<br />
<br />
Let's say that you are in a relationship with the most strikingly attractive woman you have ever know (please make any necessary adjustments for your circumstances or preferences). But, sadly, this luscious creature argues with everything you say no matter how trivial. Will this relationship last? No! Why? Because pretty won't make up for annoying. In fact, there is not enough pretty in the world to make up for annoying. Over time the impact of the prettiness fades and the impact of the annoying grows until you simple cannot stand it any more.<br />
<br />
I say this not to be a sexist or chauvinist because it applies equally as well to any other pairing combination. I say it because it is analogous to the World of Warcraft experience. There is no doubt that this is an amazing game. It never ceases to amaze me at the care that went into the design, technology, graphics, concept, all of it. After more than two years, I still notice little things that impress me. And I still love to play.<br />
<br />
However, there are also some really annoying things about the game and over time the clever aspects diminish and the annoyances grow. It doesn't surprise me that after a while people play less or move on. I am not sure if the things that annoy me annoy everyone. Maybe its just me. And I don't know if these annoyances are unavoidable given the theory of game design or if they are just bad design.<br />
<br />
Nonetheless, next time I will spell out four annoyances that will some day have me run screaming into the night. After that, my relationship with WoW will never be the same.Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18201872126392041605noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2073059677354773192.post-89183958521256122662010-07-07T14:38:00.000-07:002010-07-07T15:01:23.254-07:00The Stranger - A Solo PlayerIn some ways the solo player sounds like an oxymoron. World of Warcraft is, after all, a Massively Multi-player Online Role Playing Game. Doesn't multi-player mean, well, multi-player? How does the solo player fit into all this?<br />
<br />
The Stranger is a solo player, pursuing quests individually and leveling up strictly from individual efforts. This can be a slow way to level and it can be made event slower if the player waits until the character has acquired double experience credit. Double experience credit give your character twice the experience normally acquired from killing a mob. If you do not use double experience your character will not level quickly enough and the quests will become too difficult. However, you can level without quests by farming for goods that you can use in your profession. For example, if you are a skinner, you can kill mobs that yield leather. You get points for killing the mob and you get the leather which you can use to make a variety of useful things. The things you make in your profession can help your character and extra items can be sold in the auction house. This money can then be used to buy addition things your character might need such as amour or weapons.<br />
<br />
The Stranger with many faces is a solo player with several characters of different classes and with different professions. There are several benefits of playing this way. First, while your wait for a character to acquire double experience credit, you can play other characters. If you have a full set of characters you will have a constant supply of double experience credit. In addition, the different character can have different professions. The leather worker can supply the other characters with armor enhancers. The tailor can supply bags. The blacksmith can supply weapon sharpeners and so on. The drawback of playing multiple characters is that you have to get reacquainted with the capabilities of each one, each time you play it. It can also get confusing trying to remember the names, classes and professions of each. WoW can be overwhelming for the new player. Having a full cast of characters can make it even more confusing. <br />
<br />
It is possible to reach the top levels as a solo player. And, if you wish to go on raids you can announce your interest in the general chat and may be picked up by a raiding team for just that raid. And you can always group with other characters for specific task. <br />
<br />
The benefit of solo play is that you can advance at your own speed, play when you want to play, avoid guild chat drivel, avoid obligations, and most of all avoid drama and annoying people. If you are not a particularly social person, this may be the approach for you. If, on the other hand, you are social and like to get help from other people, maybe you could consider being a guildie. And that will be the topic of then post.Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18201872126392041605noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2073059677354773192.post-55970102823835687682010-06-30T04:31:00.000-07:002010-06-30T04:33:56.097-07:00One Game World, Many GamesBainbridge, whom I refereed to earlier, called World of Warcraft a Game World rather than a game. This distinction is becoming increasing more obvious. In this post, I would like to distinguish among several of the potential games that one might play. <br />
<br />
Game 1: The Stranger - In this game, you create a single character and pursue solo requests until you reach the desired level.<br />
<br />
Game 2: The Stranger with Many Faces - In this game, you create multiple characters to explore different capabilities and give each one different professions.<br />
<br />
Game 3: The Bastion of the Battleground - In this game, the player advances by repeatedly going to battle grounds rather than pursuing quests.<br />
<br />
Game 4: The Guildie - This person joins a guild as soon as they can find an appropriate one and focuses primarily on their role in the guild.<br />
<br />
Game 5: The Twink - This character is usually an alt and thanks to gifts from a higher level character is way over specified for their level.<br />
<br />
Game 6: The Griefer - This character focuses on harrassing newbies.<br />
<br />
Game 7: The Tag Along - In this game, a character is 'escorted' through dungeons and difficult quests by another player of advanced level and capabilities.<br />
<br />
Game 8: The Grinder - The sole purpose of this character is to hang out in an area where resources can be farmed and acquire resources. <br />
<br />
Game 9: The Vendor - The sole purpose of this character is to hang out at the auction house looking for deals and trying to get the best price for items they have to sell.<br />
<br />
This list is neither exhaustive nor mutually exclusive. However, it does provide an idea of the variety of games one might play in this 'Game World'. Over the next few posts I will elaborate on these roles explaining their game goals and providing some tips on how to play these different games.Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18201872126392041605noreply@blogger.com0