Players play: extending the lexicon of games and designing for player interaction

PDF

Download

Open document

Transcript (if available)

Content Copyright
2013
Simon
Wiscombe

PLAYERS
PLAY:

EXTENDING
THE
LEXICON
OF
GAMES
AND
DESIGNING
FOR
PLAYER
INTERACTION

by

Simon
Wiscombe

__________________________________________________________________________________

A
Thesis
Presented
to
the

FACULTY
OF
THE
USC
SCHOOL
OF
CINEMATIC
ARTS

UNIVERSITY
OF
SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA

In
Partial
Fulfillment
of
the

Requirements
for
the
Degree

MASTER
OF
FINE
ARTS

(INTERACTIVE
MEDIA)

May
2013

ii

Acknowledgements

A
thesis
of
this
kind
would
not
have
been
possible
without
the
assistance,

collaboration,
consultation,
and
support
of
many
countless
individuals
over
its

course.
All
of
the
following
have
been
integral
to
the
process;
this
thesis
couldn’t

have
been
done
without
them.

I’d
like
to
thank
my
committee,
not
only
for
their
continual
support,
but
also

their
individual
and
invaluable
contributions
to
the
project.
Much
gratitude
goes
to

Peter
Brinson,
my
committee
chair,
as
his
perspective
on
art
and
game
creation

helped
focus
and
scope
my
piece
in
order
to
both
refine
the
experience
and
keep

myself
sane.
Steve
Anderson’s
critical
media
perspective
was
incredibly
important

in
establishing
a
theoretical
framework,
and
his
willingness
to
engage
in
discussion

greatly
crafted
not
only
this
project
but
also
my
perspective
on
media
studies.
Kellee

Santiago’s
unique
experience
with
crafting
meaningful
experiences
in
games
gave

me
early
insight
into
potential
design
pitfalls
to
avoid.
And
finally,
Jeffrey
Lin’s

feedback
on
player
interactions
was
a
massive
help
as
the
project
developed.

And
of

course,
the
huge
number
of
faculty
and
mentors
who
have
given
me
time
and

feedback:
Tracy
Fullerton,
Mark
Bolas,
Jeremy
Gibson,
Chanel
Summers,
Richard

Lemarchand,
and
Martientina
Gotsis.

During
the
past
three
years,
I
have
learned
more
from
my
peers
than
I
could

have
ever
imagined.
I’d
like
to
thank
the
entirety
of
the
Interactive
Media
class
of

2013
for
all
our
time
together,
from
the
critically
vigorous
to
the
social

engagements.

iii

A
game
can’t
be
made
without
collaborators
and
consultants,
so
a
huge

thanks
to
Evan
Stern,
Claire
Hosking,
Chris
Muriel,
Ben
Young,
Andres
Villarreal,

Jason
Gibson,
Bryan
Edelman,
Jason
Mathias,
Loan
Verneau,
Kedar
Reddy,
Evan

Sforza,
and
Alex
Beachum.
I’d
like
to
thank
Sarah
Brin
for
being
someone
with

whom
I
could
discuss
often
inane
and
unformed
ideas.
I’ve
also
been
fortunate

enough
over
the
last
few
years
to
collaborate
on
projects
with
Jeff
Watson,
who
has

become
both
a
trusted
professional
colleague
and
a
personal
friend;
I
look
forward

to
working
together
in
the
future.

And
finally,
I
thank
my
family
for
their
continued
and
unwavering
support.

iv

Table
of
Contents

Acknowledgements
ii

List
of
Figures
vi

Abstract
vii

Introduction
1

1.0
The
State
of
Game
Design
Frameworks
4

1.1
The
Current
Framework
of
Game
Design,
Critique,
and
Research
4

1.2
Observations
and
Analysis
5

2.0
A
New
Framework
for
Games
and
Play
10

2.1
Components
of
a
New
Framework
10

2.2
Considerations
12

2.3
Implications
and
Areas
Addressed
13

2.4
Others’
Work
in
this
Area
15

2.5
Works
Reimagined
16

3.0
Exploring
the
New
Framework
in
Personal
Designs
18

3.1
Three
Generations
18

3.2
Reality
Ends
Here
20

3.3
Building
to
Thesis
Work
23

4.0
(A
game
for)
TWO
29

4.1
General
Description
29

4.2
Conceptual
Foundation
30

4.3
User
Experience
32

4.3.1
The
Greater
World
33

4.3.2
Trials
34

4.3.3
The
Narrative
Arc
38

4.4
Review
of
Social
Relationships
and
Partnerships
in
Games
39

4.5
Evaluation
Methods
44

5.0
Discussion
46

v

5.1
The
New
Framework,
Applied
46

5.2
Two
Discussion
Points
48

5.3
Future
Considerations
for
Two
51

6.0
Conclusion
53

Bibliography
54

vi

List
of
Figures

Figure
1:
Elements
of
Games
11

Figure
2:
Three
Generations,
The
Board
Game
19

Figure
3:
A
Card
Packet
from
Reality
Ends
Here
21

Figure
4:
Bond
Cards
23

Figure
5:
Company
Logos
in
Window
Shopping
25

Figure
6:
Abstract
Communication
forming
Abstract
Worlds
27

Figure
7:
Island
Survival
Prototype
28

Figure
8:
Intensity
Curve
of
Two
31

Figure
9:
Early
Island
Concept
33

Figure
10:
World
Line
Progression
(Concept)
34

Figure
11:
Early
Working
Iteration
of
The
Climb
35

Figure
12:
Early
Iteration
of
The
Find
36

Figure
13:
The
Cliff,
after
Path
Masking
37

Figure
14:
Two
Players
playing
Journey
40

Figure
15:
The
End
of
Us
42

Figure
16:
Distant
Shore
43

vii

Abstract

This
document
establishes
a
framework
for
design,
development,
research,

and
criticism
in
games
that
is
comprised
of
five
main
elements:
Mechanics,

Aesthetics,
Player
Affordances,
Context,
and
Dynamics.
It
was
developed
through
a

series
of
design
experiments
and
an
analysis
of
games
whose
success
hinges

primarily
on
social
and
cultural
components
not
mentioned
in
current
frameworks.

Drawing
on
these
new
elements,
this
document
presents
a
case
study
of
the
entire

development
process
of
a
game
made
with
this
new
framework.
Two
is
a
game
that

models
how
two
people
form
partnerships
and
relationships
in
a
series
of

challenges,
relying
on
the
interactions
of
players
to
guide
its
gameplay
experience.

The
development
of
Two
presents
a
strong
argument
for
the
incorporation
of
social

and
cultural
elements
in
both
the
creation
and
analysis
of
games
as
a
means
to

enhance
the
experience
and
impact
of
play.

1

Introduction

I
still
remember
the
day
I
stopped
playing
little
league
baseball.
I
had
just

started
attending
high
school,
when
the
phone
rang.
Coach
was
on
the
line,
asked

about
how
I’d
been
in
the
off-‐season,
and
then,
after
a
few
minutes
of
small
talk,
he

asked
me
if
I’d
be
returning.
“No,”
I
decided,
“I
don’t
think
I’ll
be
coming
back
this

year.”

It
stays
with
me
because
I
felt
enormous
pressure
to
keep
playing.
The
social

structure
of
this
league
was
intense,
so
much
so
that
my
last
year
consisted
of
a

terrible
batting
average
and
an
almost
permanent
spot
in
right
field
(for
those

blissfully
unaware,
right
field
is
traditionally
the
lowest
positional
rung
in
the
ladder

of
skill
in
the
minors),
even
though
I’m
not
a
terrible
player.
It
was
a
highly

competitive
and
very
talented
league.
It
was
a
terrible
place
for
a
child
to
play,
and
it

wasn’t
fun.

Current
game
frameworks
would
suggest
that
every
game
of
baseball
is
more

or
less
played
in
the
same
way,
from
the
high-‐paying
Major
League
Baseball
to
the

neighborhood
sandlot.
It’s
a
set
of
rules
by
which
all
players
are
expected
to
perform

to
their
abilities.
Fun
names
are
given
to
the
equipment
used
(bats,
balls,
and
bases),

scoring
is
called
a
“run”,
and
a
well-‐padded
man
sits
behind
the
catcher
traditionally

yelling
indeterminable
words
like
“STEEEEWWAAAAHHH!”
and
“HWWOOOLL!”

How
each
game
plays
out
can
vary
wildly
due
to
chance
and
skill,
but
the
team
with

the
highest
score
after
nine
innings
wins
and
both
teams
go
home.

2

Anyone
who
has
played
a
game
of
baseball
knows
otherwise.
The
context

dramatically
affects
the
resultant
dynamic
of
play.
A
state
little
league
championship

game
will
play
out
in
a
completely
different
manner
than
a
pick-‐up
game
in
a
back

yard.
Those
with
money
and
equipment
may
emphasize
team-‐based
winning,
while

those
with
just
a
bat
and
a
ball
may
care
more
about
who
can
hit
the
farthest,

putting
importance
on
personal
moments
of
glory
and
discarding
the
score

completely.

Baseball
also
has
an
amazingly
flexible
system
of
rules
and
player-‐
interactions.
Any
of
the
groups
mentioned
beforehand
can
easily
modify
rules

during
play
to
better
support
a
sense
of
fairness.
Players
can
influence
each
other
by

cheering,
booing,
heckling,
and
supporting.
A
coach’s
personal
style
can
dramatically

alter
the
game
dynamic,
and
a
bad
umpire
can
lead
to
a
frustrating
experience.

These
considerations
are
missing
from
game
frameworks,
that
tend
to

consider
games
as
a
system
of
formal
elements,
an
aesthetic
layer
on
top,
and
the

run-‐time
behavior
of
these
two
combining
with
the
players
themselves.
While

viewing
games
in
this
manner
is
a
strong
foundation,
failing
to
consider
the

potential
influence
of
a
player
and
their
sociocultural
context
leaves
out
the

strongest
appeal
of
this
medium:
the
interactivity.

This
document
seeks
to
amend
this
by
expanding
the
current
definitions
of

modern
accepted
frameworks
by
including
two
new
areas:
Context
and
Player

Affordances.
It
runs
through
a
number
of
games
that
take
on
new
meaning
when

exposed
to
these
new
elements,
including
designs
and
experiments
I
created
over

3

the
last
few
years.
Finally,
it
discusses
a
case
study
of
a
game
prototyped
and

designed
with
the
entire
new
framework
in
mind.

This
game
Two,
models
the
way
by
which
two
people
form
relationships
into

a
game.
It
places
two
players
onto
an
island
and
tasks
them
with
making
it
to
the

other
side
in
order
to
leave.
Along
they
way,
their
path
will
be
gated
by
a
series
of

three
challenges,
all
based
in
various
means
of
player-‐player
interaction,
and
each

requiring
them
to
communicate,
work
together,
and
trust
one
another
in
order
to

progress.
Two
is
designed
from
a
player
affordance
and
interaction
perspective,

which
necessitates
the
new
framework
proposed,
and
playtests
of
Two
make
a

compelling
argument
for
the
consideration
of
these
new
areas
as
a
means
of

enhancing
players’
experience
and
impact
of
play.

4

1.0
The
State
of
Game
Design
Frameworks

1.1
The
Current
Framework
of
Game
Design,
Critique,
and
Research

In
2004,
Marc
LeBlanc,
an
educator
and
designer
of
video
games,
gave
a

lecture
at
Northwestern
University
entitled
“Mechanics,
Dynamics,
Aesthetics:
A

Formal
Approach
to
Game
Design”.
Building
off
of
this
presentation,
LeBlanc
joined

with
Robin
Hunicke
and
Robert
Zubek
to
write
a
“formal
approach
to
understanding

game[s]
[…]
which
attempts
to
bridge
the
gap
between
game
design
and

development,
game
criticism,
and
technical
game
research.”
(Hunicke
et
al,
2004).

They
outlined
a
new
method
by
which
to
discuss
games
and
their
components:

mechanics,
the
particular
components
of
the
game
represented
by
data
and

algorithms,
aesthetics,
the
emotional
responses
of
play,
and
dynamics,
the
run-‐time

behavior
of
mechanics
(LeBlanc,
2004).
In
brief,
the
paper
aimed
to
define
a

common
vocabulary
that
would
be
used
by
all
those
who
wished
to
create,
analyze,

or
discuss
games.

This
framework
is
a
formalization
of
concepts
and
definition
of
games
that

had
been
explored
and
similarly
suggested
by
other
game
designers
and

researchers.
In
their
text,
Rules
of
Play,
Katie
Salen
and
Eric
Zimmerman
outlined
a

definition
of
games
as
“a
system
in
which
players
engage
in
an
artificial
conflict,

defined
by
rules,
that
results
in
a
quantifiable
outcome”
(Salen
et
al,
2003).
In
his

pioneering
book,
The
Art
of
Computer
Game
Design,
Chris
Crawford
outlines
four

qualities
of
games:
representation,
interaction,
conflict,
and
safety,
the
first
three
of

which
mirror
the
MDA
framework
almost
exactly
(Crawford,
1984).
Johan

Huizinga’s
study
of
play
in
culture,
Homo
Ludens,
provides
insight
into
what
he

5

describes
as
play:
a
free
activity
that
is
outside
ordinary
life,
proceeds
according
to

rules,
takes
place
in
its
own
boundaries
of
time
and
space,
and
is
utterly
absorbing

(Huizinga,
1955).
Despite
his
book,
Man,
Play,
and
Games
being
a
direct
response
to

Huizinga,
Roger
Caillois,
a
French
sociologist,
still
agreed
that
games
were

“uncertain”,
“make-‐believe”,
and
“governed
by
rules”
(Caillois,
2001).
In
her
book,

Game
Design
Workshop,
Tracy
Fullerton
echoes
a
similar
sentiment
of
MDA
when

looking
at
games
through
the
lens
of
a
designer,
breaking
games
down
into
formal

elements
and
dramatic
elements
that
interact
through
system
dynamics
(Fullerton,

2008).
These
shared
connections
make
MDA
a
very
convenient
representation
of

the
current
model
of
how
the
world
of
games
formally
perceives
its
own
medium.

1.2
Observations
and
Analysis

For
all
its
popularity
and
ubiquity,
MDA
is
not
without
its
share
of
critics.

Soon
after
it
was
published,
Jesper
Juul,
a
video
game
studies
theorist,
noted
that

while
he
approved
of
many
points
outlined
in
the
MDA
framework,
it
remained
very

system-‐oriented,
separating
too
much
the
idea
of
mechanics
and
aesthetics.
He
also

took
issue
with
the
idea
that
the
player
and
designer
work
from
opposite
ends
of
a

spectrum,
arguing
that
he
feels
players
experience
the
game
as
a
multi-‐layered

package
where
aesthetic
pleasure
could
result
from
interactions
between
dynamics

and
mechanics
(Juul,
2004).
More
recently,
game
designer
Borut
Pfeifer
makes
a

valid
claim
that
MDA
is
very
much
a
product
of
its
time,
referring
to
leaps
and

6

bounds
made
in
the
world
of
design
by
independent
and
innovative
designers
that

push
the
boundary
of
how
games
are
perceived
and
defined
(Pfeifer,
2011)
1
.

While
I
agree
with
the
criticisms
of
Juul
and
Pfeifer
listed
above,
I
believe
that

this
is
not
necessarily
an
issue
with
the
vocabulary
outlined
in
MDA.
The
framework

that
LeBlanc
originally
penned
works
well
when
one
studies
games
as
entities
in

and
of
themselves
—
as
a
standalone,
independent
artifact.
But,
if,
as
is
claimed
in

the
paper,
that
the
vocabulary
of
mechanics,
dynamics,
and
aesthetics
is
meant
to

bridge
the
gap
between
design
and
development,
criticism,
and
research,
it
would

be
hard
pressed
to
do
so
without
considering
the
game’s
context.

Not
acknowledging
the
importance
of
the
cultural
and
social
implications
of
a

game
undermines
the
great
history
of
games
and
play
as
objects
of
retrospective,

bastions
of
community,
and
gatherings
of
great
importance.
The
art
world
uses

games
and
play
regularly,
whether
it
be
the
play-‐qualities
of
the
Fluxus
movement,

the
philosophy
of
which
was
adopted
by
a
wide
array
of
artists
from
the
60s
to
the

late
80s
(Friedman
et
al,
2002),
the
act
of
repurposing
a
space
through
play
that
was

espoused
by
the
Situationiste
Internationnale
(Debord,
2006),
or
the
modern
day

work
of
Eddo
Stern
that
“stills
and
examines
some
of
the
pervasive
tropes
of
video

games
and
their
larger
implications
in
the
real
world”
(Mizota,
2012).
Modern

sports
games
are
a
point
of
communal
celebration
and
gathering;
the
Super
Bowl,

the
championship
game
of
the
National
Football
League,
gathered
just
over
110

million
viewers
in
2011
and
2012
(Statista).
The
New
Games
Movement
was
formed

alongside
the
civil
rights
and
feminist
movements
as
a
response
to
the
Vietnam
War

1

It
should
be
noted
that
while
I
agree
with
this
specific
claim
by
Pfeifer,
I
do
not
agree
with
many
of

his
other
points
of
criticism,
such
as
the
idea
that
MDA
should
account
for
game-‐player
feedback.

7

(Pearce
et
al,
2007),
and
the
type
of
games
created
would
have
had
far
less

significance
of
an
effect
without
this
cultural
and
social
context.

From
the
design
perspective,
it
is
difficult
to
not
imagine
a
game
creation

process
without
assessing
the
current
climate
of
play.
The
aforementioned
New

Games
Movement’s
design
principles
were
established
from
their
desire
to
create

non-‐zero
sum
play
to
shred
the
overly
masculine
and
war-‐like
takeover
of
common

games
(Pearce
et
al,
2007).
These
were
the
founding
principles
that
would
lead
to

the
games
created,
and
similar
considerations
should
be
minded
when
engaged
in

the
process
of
design.
Who
will
play
the
game?
From
where
do
they
come?
What
will

they
take
away
from
the
game?
Will
my
targeted
demographic
have
access
to
the

technology
or
space
required
for
play?
Current
game
frameworks
directly
address

none
of
these
questions.

Another
major
criticism
of
the
mechanics-‐dynamics-‐aesthetics
interaction
is

the
lack
of
player
consideration.
Similar
to
the
inattention
to
social
and
cultural

status,
MDA
also
places
far
too
little
emphasis
on
the
relationships
of
players
in-‐
game,
lacking
a
personal
dimension
that
drives
some
of
the
most
compelling

innovations
in
contemporary
game
design.
This
makes
it
hard
to
classify
such

experiences,
as
we
lack
the
vocabulary
with
which
to
formally
address
and
discuss

them.
An
example
is
the
TV
game
show
Survivor,
the
first
season
of
which
was
won

not
by
succeeding
in
the
string
of
mini-‐games
provided
by
the
show’s
creators,
but

rather
by
manipulating
the
social
fabric
of
the
teams
of
players
(Salen
and

Zimmerman,
2003).
2

2

For
more
discussion
on
Survivor
and
games
like
it,
see
Section
2.5:
Works
Reimagined.

8

In
his
Ph.D.
dissertation,
Jeff
Watson
proposes
the
idea
of
an
“environmental

game”
to
describe
the
project
Reality
Ends
Here
3
.
Unlike
other
games,
the
idea
of
the

environmental
game
refers
not
just
to
a
formal
quality
of
the
game
system,
but
also

to
the
“setting
and
the
purpose
of
the
game.”
He
discusses
the
game
in
a
larger

context
than
simply
the
daily
actions
of
play;
the
game
itself
was
designed
to
be
as

much
crafted
by
the
players
by
interacting
with
the
system
as
by
the
designers

themselves
(Watson,
2012).
Such
a
phenomenon
is
extraordinarily
difficult
to

describe
using
current
game
frameworks.
While
dynamics
could
describe
the
run

time
behavior
of
the
system,
there
is
no
place
in
which
to
discuss
the
idea
that
the

game
is
constantly
evolving
with
the
players,
and
that
these
affordances
for
a

flexible
system
are
designed
into
the
system
itself.
MDA,
and
others
like
it,
takes
a

far
too
rigid
approach.
It
encompasses
system-‐centric
designs
rather
than
those

designed
for
player-‐player
interaction.

Despite
being
a
good
foundation
and
laying
the
groundwork
for
a
holistic

overview
of
the
components
of
games,
current
frameworks’
exceptions
leave
an

area
that
has
yet
to
be
defined
or
explored
in
a
purposeful
way.
It
is
too
system-‐
dependent,
separating
the
players
and
the
creators
to
an
extent
that
isn’t
applicable

in
many
games.
It
fails
to
take
into
account
the
allowances
for
player
interaction
in

the
game
and
play
space,
focusing
mostly
on
the
interaction
between
a
player
and
a

system
rather
than
the
interaction
between
the
player(s),
system,
and
play

experience.
And
finally,
by
looking
at
a
game
as
an
entity
that
exists
only
within

itself,
it
ignores
the
greater
social
and
cultural
context
of
the
game
and
leaves
out
a

3

Disclaimer:
I,
too,
worked
on
Reality
Ends
Here
and
will
discuss
it
again
later.

9

possible
wealth
of
information
that
not
only
affects
how
a
game
is
designed
but
also

how
a
game
is
played,
received,
observed,
and
remembered.

Given
these
deficiencies,
I
intend
to
propose
a
new
framework
for
game

design,
research,
and
criticism
that
takes
a
view
of
games
as
social
and
cultural

mediums
of
participation.
It
builds
on
the
already
strong
foundation
that
MDA
and

other,
but
adds
player-‐centric
elements
that
are
vital
components
when
observing,

creating,
or
interpreting
the
entirety
of
a
game’s
experience
and
impact.

10

2.0
A
New
Framework
for
Games
and
Play

2.1
Components
of
a
New
Framework

In
games,
a
system
is
constructed.
Methods
of
communicating
with
that

system
are
designed.
Affordances
for
players’
interactions,
both
with
the
system
and

with
each
other,
are
developed.
An
aesthetic
is
usually
applied
over
the
system
to

make
it
approachable
for
the
users,
whose
sociocultural
backgrounds
can

dramatically
alter
their
play
experience.
These
components
interact
with
each
other

to
create
a
dynamic
system
that
can
be
interpreted
through
experience
and
yet

remains
unpredictable.
This
new
framework
seeks
to
build
from
and
expand
upon

the
formalized
structure
of
the
MDA
to
better
and
more
holistically
address
the

aspects
of
a
game
that
are
necessary
to
a
fundamental
vocabulary
for
the
creation,

criticism,
and
research
of
games.
It
consists
of
5
main
components:

1. Mechanics
are
the
rules,
behaviors,
and
defined
actions
that
the
player
may

take
combined
with
the
response
and
state
change
of
the
system
in
which
the

player
plays.

2. Aesthetics
are
the
accouterments
that
add
sense
appeal
and
invite
the

intended
type
and
degree
of
emotional
and
stylistic
investment
from
players.

3. Player
Affordances
are
the
freedoms
granted
to
players
to
interact
with

each
other
both
inside
and
outside
of
the
game,
and
the
ability
players
have

to
manipulate
the
game
system
itself.

11

4. Context
is
the
greater
social
and
cultural
implication
of
the
game’s
elements

and
style
of
interaction.
This
exists
on
both
a
personal
level
for
each

individual
player
and
a
greater
societal
implication.

5. Dynamics
are
the
real-‐time
interaction
of
all
aforementioned
elements
of
a

game
when
it
is
being
played.

Figure
1:
Elements
of
Games

Three
of
these,
the
mechanics,
dynamics,
and
aesthetics,
are
very
similar
to

their
counterparts
in
the
MDA
framework.
Mechanics
still
largely
refers
to
the
game

system
that
dictates
how
the
diegetic
components
interact
on
mathematical
and

mechanical
levels.
Aesthetics
refers
to
the
narrative,
the
stylized
game
components,

and
what
Greg
Costikyan
refers
to
as
color:
the
“pageantry
and
detail
and
sense
of

place
[that
can]
greatly
add
to
a
game’s
emotional
appeal”
(Costikyan,
1994).

12

Dynamics
is
the
allusion
to
how
the
four
other
pieces
fit
together
in
the
game,
and
to

what
extend
they
interweave
themselves
to
deliver
an
interactive
experience
to
the

user.

The
new
additions,
Player
Affordances
and
Context,
directly
address
the
gaps

in
current
frameworks
by
expanding
it
to
player-‐centric
contributions
to
Dynamics.

Context
refers
to
the
social
and
cultural
biases
that
players
inevitably
bring
to
the

gameplay
experience
before
they
engage,
while
they
play,
and
after
they
have

finished.
It
speaks
to
all
references
to
historical
material,
social
situations,
and

cultural
bastions
that
may
color
their
experience.
Player
Affordances
speak
to
the

manner
and
degree
to
which
players
can
manipulate
and
interact
with
each
other.

“Players”
in
this
case
refers
to
anyone
or
anything
that
interacts
with
the

mechanically
driven
system.
In
most
analog
and
board
games,
this
consists
of
the

persons
playing
the
game.
In
most
digital
games,
however,
there
is
commonly
some

form
of
computer-‐assisted
decision-‐making
process
that
also
interacts
with
the

system,
whether
it
is
a
complexly
programmed
AI
or
a
simple
random
number

generator.
The
ability
of
one
agent
to
influence
another,
whether
human
or
not,

needs
to
be
accounted
for.

2.2
Considerations

It
is
important
to
note
that,
while
the
non-‐Dynamics
components
are

separated
by
name,
it
is
very
difficult
to
separate
them
in
the
analysis
of
game
play.

By
their
very
nature,
the
aesthetics
of
a
game
will
inherently
alter
the
context
of
the

game’s
affordances,
and
the
aesthetics
of
a
game
can
iterate
around
to
affect
the

mechanics
of
play.
In
addition,
allowing
players
the
freedom
to
alter
formal

13

elements
of
the
game
can
dramatically
affect
the
mechanics
of
the
game,
much
like
it

does
in
the
card
game
Fluxx.
While
dynamics
is
the
construct
that
is
only
observable

during
an
interaction,
it
is
important
to
note
that
the
other
categories
remain

flexible
even
when
comprehensively
designed
or
considered.

The
other
caveat
with
this
new
framework
is
to
acknowledge
that
all
games

exist
on
a
spectrum
of
polarities
within
these
three
areas.
Some
games
are
heavily

mechanics-‐based,
where
a
rigid
system
exists
with
little
Aesthetic
or
Dynamic
flair

(puzzles
can
be
an
example
of
this),
while
some
have
hardly
any
rigid
Mechanics
at

all.
Calvinball,
a
fictional
game
constructed
in
the
mind
of
cartoonist
Bill
Watterson

illustrates
this
well,
as
the
only
rules
that
exist
are
those
which
say
that
any
rule
is

allowed
to
be
made
up
as
the
players
play
(Watterson,
2005).
The
same
can
be
said

about
Aesthetics
and
Player
Affordances.
A
game
like
Tetris
has
few
Player

Affordances,
while
a
game
like
Survivor
has
many.
A
mighty
adventure
through
the

jungle
in
Uncharted
is
filled
with
layers
upon
layers
of
cinematics,
while
a
game
like

Spelltower
has
far
fewer
(albeit
still
a
healthy
number
of)
visual
and
audio
cues.

While
games
are
comprised
of
all
five
elements,
they
are
likely
to
be
heavily

influenced
by
one
or
more
of
them,
and
can
occasionally
lack
emphasis
in
one
of
the

others.

2.3
Implications
and
Areas
Addressed

The
extension
of
MDA
to
a
vocabulary
that
both
broadens
the
scope
of
a

game’s
formal
elements
and
creates
an
emphasis
on
players’
experiences
leads
to
a

number
of
greater
implications
and
considerations
in
both
the
design
and
study
of

games.
First,
it
expands
the
vocabulary
of
games
to
better
address
those
that
are
less

14

system-‐dependent
yet
still
have
a
large
range
of
possible
dynamics
emerging
out
of

the
structure
of
play.
It
also
suggests
that
designers
and
developers
consider
a
few

more
points
during
their
design
process
(many
of
which
do
already):
the
greater

cultural
and
social
context
of
play
in
their
game,
what
players
will
bring
to
the
game,

what
they
will
take
away,
and
to
what
degree
players
will
be
able
to
interact
before,

during,
and
after
play.
It
also
suggests
that
individual
players
will
bring
as
much
to

the
meaning
of
a
game
as
the
design
of
the
game
itself.

In
addition,
the
Mechanics,
Aesthetics,
Player
Affordances,
and
Dynamics

framework
acknowledges
the
greater
presence
and
effect
that
games
have
had
on

audiences
and
opens
a
formal
avenue
for
this
discussion.
This
idea
is
not
completely

novel
in
terms
of
the
formal
study
and
criticism
of
games.
Alexander
Galloway,
a

media
theorist,
made
the
declaration
that
“games
absolutely
cannot
be
excised
from

the
social
contexts
in
which
they
are
played”
when
discussing
the
idea
that
realism

in
games
comes
from
a
social
realism
through
actions
(Galloway,
2006).
Basketball,

despite
the
National
Basketball
Associate’s
ascension
to
a
massive
economic
and

corporate
structure,
has
been
declared
one
of
the
most
impactful
games
ever
made

thanks
to
its
achievement
of
its
mission
to
keep
kids
out
of
trouble
and
physically
fit

(Fortugno,
2011).
But
while
these
truths
have
been
claimed
through
analysis
of

games,
the
MAAD
framework
calls
for
these
considerations
to
be
made
during
the

design
and
construction
phase
and
takes
a
much
more
holistic
view
on
the
possible

impacts
of
games.

15

2.4
Others’
Work
in
this
Area

While
the
introduction
of
these
new
elements
is
a
new
vector
in
formally

incorporating
them
into
a
comprehensive
framework,
it
is
important
to
mention

that
other
game
designers
and
researchers
have
either
written
about
or
discussed

similar
concepts.

Game
designers
have,
for
a
long
time,
considered
how
players
interact
in

game-‐spaces.
The
designers
and
developers
of
Journey
have
spoken
many
times

about
how
adapting
and
modifying
the
way
players
interacted
in
the
game
space

dramatically
affected
the
style
of
play
(Chen,
2012),
and
regularly
comment
on
how

dynamics
can
be
altered
by
designing
different
levels
of
Player
Affordances
for
the

players
(Santiago,
2012).
Raphael
Koster,
who
has
designed
multiplayer
games
for

decades,
outlines
what
he
calls
“multiplayer
mechanics”
in
a
talk
from
2011,
which

outlines
a
combination
of
Mechanics
and
Player
Affordances
that
account
for
how

people
play
in
social
environments
and
social
arrangements
(Koster,
2011)
4
.
Social

reinforcement
systems
are
even
designed
into
some
games
in
order
to
directly
affect

the
behavior
of
communities
in
a
game
environment,
such
as
League
of
Legends’

Honor
Initiative,
which
was
designed
to
reinforce
good
behavior
rather
than
the

traditional
method
of
simply
punishing
bad
(Lin,
2012).

Research
done
on
games
has
also
given
credence
to
the
idea
that
player

interactions
can
heavily
alter
their
gameplay
experience.
A
study
done
in
2002
on

the
first
person
shooter
game,
Counter-‐Strike,
showed
how
text,
voice,
and
the

bending
of
game
rules
allowed
players
to
communicate
in
ways
that
severely
tipped

4

Koster
doesn’t
use
the
term
“Player
Affordances”,
but
many
of
his
concepts
fall
under
its
definition.

16

the
competitive
advantage
of
play
(Wright,
2002).
Tony
Manninen
outlined
a
large

variety
of
potential
interaction
forms
in
multiplayer
games
and
how
they
can

contribute
to
different
types
of
actions
in
games,
from
the
strategic
language-‐based

communication
to
inform
and
bluff
to
the
dramaturgical
appearance
of
one’s
avatar

(Manninen,
2003).
Even
modern
games
situated
in
social
networks
(e.g.
Farmville)

rely
on
the
ability
of
said
networks
to
connect
players
with
each
other
in
order
to

continue
gameplay,
and
research
has
shown
that
players
rely
on
these
games
to

maintain
and
elongate
friendships
by
sharing
experience
together
(Wohn,
2011).

While
the
addition
of
Player
Affordances
and
Context
do
much
to
widen
the

scope
of
modern
frameworks
for
games,
they
incorporate
concepts
that
have
been

acknowledged
as
important
by
a
number
of
professionals
and
researchers
in
the

field.

2.5
Works
Reimagined

Given
that
this
framework
suggests
an
additional
method
of
addressing

games,
there
are
a
few
already-‐made
games
that
well
illustrate
examples
of
play

whose
elements
either
did
not
completely
fit
within
or
are
radically
reimagined

when
considered
from
an
affordance
perspective.

Survivor,
a
television
game
show
that
premiered
in
the
US
in
2000,
is
a
good

example
whose
first
season
of
play
is
indicative
of
an
extreme
example
of

wonderfully
designed
player
affordances
that
would
come
to
dominate
the
outcome.

As
Salen
and
Zimmerman
describe
in
their
book:

The
role
Richard
Hatch
assumed
as
the
self-‐proclaimed
leader
of
“the
alliance”
in
the
first

season
of
the
television
series
Survivor
created
a
sharp
divide
among
the
three
other

members
of
the
group,
culminating
in
feelings
of
bitterness
and
betrayal.
Although
the

alliance
was
originally
conceived
as
a
collaborative
game
strategy,
the
emergence
of
one
of

17

its
members
as
a
cutthroat
competitor
forced
a
re-‐evaluation
of
social
(and
strategic)
roles

within
the
game.
(Salen
et
al,
2004)

The
creators
of
Survivor
made
the
conscious
decision
to
allow
the
players
a
large

degree
of
freedom
to
interact
with
each
other.
Whether
this
choice
was
made
in

anticipation
of
better
TV
ratings,
game
design,
or
a
combination
of
both,
the
winner

of
the
game
arguably
managed
to
rout
his
competitors
in
a
broader
social
play

rather
than
just
in
the
weekly
mini-‐games
(Parsons,
2000).
While
Survivor
could
be

described
in
a
purely
system
and
mechanics-‐based
approach,
this
description
fails

to
adequately
describe
the
considerable
impact
of
the
player-‐player
interactions

that
affected
the
gameplay
dynamic.

Games
such
as
these,
with
a
heavy
social
interaction,
take
on
a
completely

new
meaning
when
Player
Affordances
and
Context
are
taken
into
account
in
their

description
and
design.
These
types
of
games,
as
well
as
those
that
rely
heavily
on

cultural
knowledge,
are
granted
a
better
set
of
vocabulary
by
which
to
frame
their

discussions
and
designs.

18

3.0
Exploring
the
New
Framework
in
Personal
Designs

Over
the
past
few
years,
I
have
developed
a
number
of
projects
as
part
of
a

greater
research
vector
that
eventually
led
to
the
development
of
the
new

framework.
These
designs
are
largely
about
investigating
the
ways
in
which
people

interact
with
each
other
in
a
game
and
how
this
influences
and
is
influenced
by

relationships
outside
of
the
play
space.

3.1
Three
Generations

The
first
game,
Three
Generations,
was
a
board
game
about
the
California

eugenics
movement.
Together
with
immersive
journalist
Nonny
de
la
Peña,
I
wanted

to
model
an
abstraction
of
the
broken
social
system,
based
on
questionable

interpretations
of
Darwinian
theories,
which
would
have
led
to
the
general

acceptance
of
eugenics
in
the
state
at
the
beginning
of
the
20
th

century.
The
game

was
played
by
two
pairs
of
people
squaring
off
against
each
other,
taking
turns

asking
questions
that
would
allow
them
to
build
up
their
portion
of
the
city.
These

questions
were
taken
from
the
culturally
and
socially
biased
IQ
test
of
the
1920s

that
was
used
in
determining
whether
someone
was
mentally
able;
getting
too
many

of
these
wrong
would
irreversibly
label
a
player
‘unfit’.
This
status
would
then
place

a
massive
drain
on
the
team’s
resources,
as
the
unfit
player
became
a
burden.
It

would
dramatically
alter
the
game
system,
breaking
it.
The
other
person
on
the
team

was
then
given
the
option
of
sending
the
player
away
(removing
them
from
the

game)
to
Sonoma
for
“correction.”

Basing
the
design
of
this
game
on
the
traditional
MDA
framework
caused

some
problems
when
it
came
to
design.
While
the
aesthetic
of
the
game
was
defined

19

simply
by
the
nature
of
its
topic,
this
was
my
first
attempt
at
what
I
then
labeled
a

dynamics-‐centric
design.
There
were
a
number
of
problems
with
this,
the
largest

conceptual
one
being
that
dynamics
are
run-‐time
elements
and
cannot
be
directly

designed,
since
they
must
be
observed
before
being
assessed.
Second,
this
left

mechanics
in
an
awkward
state
of
the
chicken-‐egg
paradox:
apart
from
trial
and

error,
how
could
one
identify
an
interworking
system
that
led
to
the
correct

meaning?
Where
would
one
start?
Eventually
the
design
led
through
iterations

where
I
brute
forced
mechanics
until
they
led
to
the
correct
player
affordances

intended
in
the
final
game,
though
at
the
time,
I
did
not
recognize
this
as
a

potentially
new
area
of
design.

Figure
2:
Three
Generations,
The
Board
Game

The
standard
MDA
framework
also
was
unable
to
predict
how
this
game’s

cultural
and
social
context
would
so
strongly
dictate
the
style
of
play
by
each
player.

While
we
expected
some
hesitancy
from
the
players,
we
had
clearly
designed
the

20

game
with
a
notion
that
a
specific
play
dynamic
would
exist
until
a
purposely-‐
designed
point
where
the
game
system
would
crumble.
This
could
not
have
been

more
false.
Many
players
sensed
an
inequality
in
the
game’s
rules
from
the
onset,

and
given
the
ability
to
create
“house
rules”
—
a
wonderfully
specific
affordance
to

board
games
—
some
players
thwarted
the
written
rules
in
order
to
force
a
sense
of

fair
play.
Others
absolutely
refused
to
participate.
One
mother
exclaimed,
“I’m
not

going
to
send
him
to
Sonoma,
he’s
my
son!”
when
playing
the
game
within
a
family

setting.
A
professor
at
Cal
State
Fullerton
expressed
interest
in
using
the
game
to

assist
in
teaching
an
undergraduate
class
about
the
history
and
ethics
of
science,

where
they
incorporate
student-‐suggested
game
rules
into
the
teaching

environment.
These
player-‐system
affordances,
coupled
with
the
greater
cultural

and
social
context,
has
led
to
a
dramatic
increase
in
not
only
student
participation,

but
also
engagement
in
class
activities.
The
impact
of
players’
social
structure
going

into
and
the
cultural
context
through
which
they
perceived
the
aesthetic
of
the

game,
which
should
have
been
heavily
considered
in
the
game
design
process,
is

absent
from
current
game
frameworks.

3.2
Reality
Ends
Here

Reality
Ends
Here,
a
game
played
by
all
undergraduate
students
in
their
first

semester
of
USC’s
School
of
Cinematic
Arts,
was
designed
and
implemented
in
the

summer
of
2011
and
rolled
out
in
the
succeeding
fall.
A
small
team
was
tasked
with

creating
it
as
a
push
to
reimagine
the
film
school
experience
for
a
contemporary
era

of
media
creation.
In
order
to
increase
the
longevity
and
engagement
of
the

experience,
the
game
was
tiered
to
allow
for
different
levels
of
interaction.
At
the

21

core
there
existed
a
media-‐making
card
game:
cards
can
be
put
together
in
a

structured
manner
to
describe
a
media
artifact.
The
students
then
made
the
project

described
by
the
cards,
submitted
it
to
a
website
(which
is
a
small
social
network),

where
other
students
could
rate
and
comment
on
it.
Point
values
were
assigned
to

the
deal
based
on
the
cards
used,
and
the
top-‐scoring
players
from
each
week
were

rewarded
with
a
meeting
with
a
well-‐established
film
school
alumnus.
In
addition,

there
was
a
cryptic,
subversive
narrative
encompassing
the
entirety
of
the
game;

Reality
Ends
Here
drew
players
in
through
secret
communication
and
puzzles,
and

we
created
activities
throughout
the
game
in
which
they
participated
by
moving

around
physical
spaces
and
finding
artifacts
or
clues.
5

Figure
3:
A
Card
Packet
from
Reality
Ends
Here

5

For
a
wonderful
overview
and
analysis
of
Reality
Ends
Here,
see
my
co-‐designer
Jeff
Watson’s
Ph.D.

dissertation,
in
which
he
discusses
much
further
the
context,
design
considerations,
and
impact
of
the

game.

22

Overall,
the
impact
of
the
game
was
incredible:
in
the
first
year
of
play,
122

projects
were
submitted,
and
in
the
second,
201.
Out
of
approximately
150
possible

students
each
year,
almost
all
have
been
signed
up
and
at
least
half
have
actively

participated
in
the
game
while
a
core
group
of
at
least
45
players
have
been
heavily

invested
and
involved
each
year.
And
now,
as
we
expand
and
iterate
the
game,

dozens
of
students
have
volunteered
to
assist
with
the
implementation
in
future

years.
It
has
radically
reclaimed
the
creative
media
space
and
dramatically
impacted

the
future
of
not
only
the
school,
but
also
these
students’
individual
trajectories

(Watson,
2012).

Like
the
issues
encountered
in
the
design
of
Three
Generations,
the
old
MDA

framework,
while
outlining
many
of
the
game
elements,
was
not
able
to
completely

encompass
both
the
design
and,
more
importantly,
how
the
intent
was
implemented

in
the
game.
Reality
Ends
Here
was
largely
an
intervention
into
an
education
system

and
culture
that
was
beginning
to
lag
when
compared
to
the
greater
environment
of

media
creation.
As
such,
it
was
important
to
design
the
players’
interaction
with

both
the
game
and
each
other
—
their
affordances
of
interaction
within
and
to
the

system
—
as
well
as
considering
their
social
and
cultural
contexts
in
media
creation.

We
made
much
more
impactful
decisions
regarding
the
large
freedom
of
play
in

Reality,
only
intervening
in
the
space
when
we
thought
it
was
crucial
to
maintaining

the
integrity
of
culture
(we
have
intervened
a
total
of
four
times
over
two
years).

Reality’s
scope
also
required
a
reevaluation
of
traditional
roles
within
a
play

space.
The
game
took
place
over
the
entirety
of
the
film
school
and
involved

everyone
who
has
an
investment
in
said
school’s
well-‐being.
This
runs
from
the

23

students
who
play,
the
students
who
help
run
experiences,
the
designers,
the
dean,

and
the
faculty
who
play
coy
about
the
game’s
existence.
The
suggested
behaviors
of

these
“players”
are
not
defined
in
a
mechanical
sense,
and
while
some
partially
exist

as
the
aesthetic,
they
are
nevertheless
non-‐static,
thinking
individuals
who
have
a

noticeable
impact
on
the
course
of
the
game.
By
outlining
a
design
framework
that

incorporates
these
player
types
and
affordances,
we
are
better
able
to
achieve
the

intended
dynamic.

3.3
Building
to
Thesis
Work

These
missing
components
of
the
current
game
frameworks
were
apparent

to
me
when
I
began
exploring
possible
avenues
for
my
thesis
work,
and
the

prototypes
I
then
created
were
an
attempt
to
not
only
solidify
the
specific
areas
in

which
I
would
endeavor,
but
also
the
greater
design
philosophy
with
which
I
would

strive
to
work.

Figure
4:
Bond
Cards

24

One
of
the
earliest
interaction
experiences
I
created
was
an
experiment
in

peoples’
evaluation
of
others
called
Bond.
Working
with
the
premise
that
the
quality

and
expanse
of
one’s
social
connections
would
act
as
a
new
form
of
status
or

currency,
I
evenly
distributed
a
number
of
“Bond”
cards.
I
then
instructed
every

participant
to
hand
these
out
to
participants
as
a
means
of
recognizing
a
meaningful

social
connection.
These
could
vary
from
an
acknowledgement
of
a
favor
once

performed,
to
a
sign
of
respect,
or
to
a
token
of
friendship.
There
was
one
main

catch:
I
limited
the
number
of
Bond
cards
each
person
originally
possessed
to
just

over
half
of
the
total
participants
in
the
group,
which
numbered
15
people.
This
was

an
experiment
designed
solely
with
player-‐player
interactions
in
mind;
there
were

minimal
mechanics
and
almost
no
embedded
aesthetic.
Without
being
removed

from
pre-‐established
social
connections,
no
one
felt
comfortable
handing
out
Bond

cards
to
others;
the
tension
of
potential
social
judgment
was
evident.
Those
in
a

professor
or
mentor-‐like
position
felt
as
if
receiving
these
tokens
was
a
form
of

bribery
and
giving
them
out
was
a
form
of
favoritism.
Among
peers,
whenever
any

cards
were
given,
an
immediate
normalization
took
place
whereby
those
who

received
the
fewest
cards
were
given
some
to
equate
the
overall
distribution.
It
was

a
remarkably
uncomfortable
situation.
This
was
a
first
major
indicator
that
previous

social
and
cultural
context
had
to
be
taken
into
account
when
designing,
whether

the
purpose
was
to
design
them
away
as
much
as
possible,
or
to
embrace
them
and

interweave
their
effects
into
play.

25

Figure
5:
Company
Logos
in
Window
Shopping

In
a
second
experiment,
titled
Window
Shopping,
I
wanted
to
experiment

with
asynchronous
play,
hidden
information,
and
varying
forms
of
competition

within
the
same
game
space.
Based
on
the
current
trend
of
store-‐membership

programs,
where
companies
would
track
past
purchases
to
better
anticipate
those

in
the
future,
I
set
up
a
game
for
six
people.
Four
of
them
would
be
the
consumers,

who
each
had
a
unique
turn-‐based
income
they
could
choose
to
spend
on
LEGO

pieces
to
build
whatever
they
desired.
The
other
two
players
would
assume
the

roles
of
“LEGO
department
stores,”
that
would
attempt
to
maximize
their
profits
by

anticipating
what
the
consumers
would
purchase.
Separated
visually
and

acoustically,
the
department
stores
would
only
be
able
to
see
the
supply
and

demand
of
their
LEGO
products.
However,
department
stores
were
allowed
to
invite

players
to
join
their
membership
clubs
giving
them
whatever
incentive
they
so

desired.
When
the
consumers
joined
their
clubs,
they
were
allowed
to
watch
that

specific
consumer
over
a
web-‐cam.
All
other
freedoms
were
given
to
both
parties
to

do
whatever
they
saw
as
fair
and
fit
outside
of
these
rules.
This
experiment
made

26

immediately
apparent
that
imbalance
between
two
players
led
to
possible
hostilities

and
tension,
even
if
activities
were
essentially
the
same.
While
some
of
this
was
due

to
purposeful
design
decisions
on
my
part,
it
also
made
clear
that
asynchronous
play

was
a
topic
that
I
had
little
interest
in
pursuing
further.
It
also
introduced
me
to
a

situation
that
I
would
constantly
struggle
against:
different
players
naturally
have

different
play
styles
and
internal
objectives,
and
that
aligning
these
variances
in
a

game
for
multiple
people
would
take
some
clever
design
tricks.

It
was
at
this
time
that
I
decided
to
experiment
with
a
project
involving
two

people
and
what
it
means
to
meaningfully
relate
to
another
person
in
a
digital
play

space.
I
quickly
assembled
a
number
of
experiments
that
iterated
on
each
other.

Initially,
I
wanted
people
to
have
a
dramatically
abstract
form
of
communication
—

different
piano
keys
—
so
I
experimented
with
how
people
would
interact
in
an
area

where
they
were
literally
confined
to
this
simple
ability.
I
then
iterated
on
this

prototype
further
by
placing
the
two
players
in
a
world
where
they
could
only
see

and
interact
with
objects
that
were
the
same
color
as
themselves,
despite
being
able

to
see
the
other
players
in
the
setting.
By
communicating,
these
players
would
be

able
to
create
a
new
world
that
was
a
blend
of
both
their
colors
(in
this
case,
blue

and
red
mixed
to
form
purple).

27

Figure
6:
Abstract
Communication
forming
Abstract
Worlds

This
proved
far
too
confusing
and
obtuse
to
players,
and,
somewhat

unwilling
to
leave
the
abstract
space,
I
proceeded
to
design
another
space
with
a
bit

less
abstraction,
whereby
these
piano
key
communications
literally
deformed
the

space
around
the
player.
Again,
the
results
were
too
abstract,
and
I
ended
up
making

a
design
decision
to
move
toward
concretization.
My
final
prototype
in
this
direction

was
what
would
be
the
closest
to
mirroring
the
aesthetic
experience
on
which
I

would
eventually
settle.
Using
repurposed
pieces
from
Settlers
of
Catan
and

Scrabble,
I
conceived
of
a
game
whereby
two
players
would
only
be
allowed
to
use

one
letter
at
a
time
to
communicate
with
their
partner,
but
still
be
forced
to
attempt

to
survive
on
an
island
rife
with
random
chances
for
disaster.

28

Figure
7:
Island
Survival
Prototype

This
experimental
prototype
revealed
three
main
points
that
clarified
much

of
my
thesis.
First,
equal
opportunity
is
extremely
important
in
any
game
that
calls

for
collaboration
between
two
individuals
in
which
roles
are
undefined
and

emergent.
People’s
personal
interests,
motivations,
and
imaginations
were
enough

to
create
a
sense
of
uniqueness
that
felt
genuine
to
a
personality,
rather
than
being

forced
arbitrarily
by
a
game
system.
Second,
it
reaffirmed
a
move
toward
a
much

more
concrete
narrative
scenario:
people
tend
to
talk
to
each
other
if
there
is

genuinely
something
to
talk
about.
And
lastly,
in
order
to
relate,
people
need

language;
they
need
to
be
able
to
communicate
freely
and
openly.
This
prototype,

and
a
couple
other
digital
iterations
on
communication,
space,
and
collaboration,

would
be
the
lynchpin
that
pushed
me
toward
the
concept
that
would
eventually

become
(a
game
for)
Two.

29

4.0
(A
game
for)
TWO

4.1
General
Description

Two,
the
accompanying
project
to
this
paper,
is
a
game
that
abstracts
how

two
people
form
a
partnership
/
friendship
/
relationship,
and
reconstructs
it
into
a

play
experience.
It
does
this
by
tasking
players
to
move
along
a
gated
linear
path.
In

order
to
pass
each
gate,
the
two
players
must
both
participate
in
a
trial
that
aims
to

establish
and
build
upon
various
methods
in
which
people
form
trust
and
bonds:

communication,
recognition,
teamwork,
etc.
Each
is
designed
to
necessitate

conversation
and
co-‐reliance,
which
in
turn
creates
an
avenue
for
a
free,
less
goal-‐
oriented
verbal
discussion
between
the
two
participants.

The
game
colors
these
situations
by
framing
the
experience
in
a
shipwreck

narrative.
Both
players
have
washed
up
on
shore
of
a
deserted
island,
seeing

nothing
but
a
path
that
leads
into
its
heart.
At
the
far
end,
through
the
environments

and
past
all
the
gates,
is
a
village
at
which
a
boat
waits
to
whisk
the
players
away.

Straying
off
the
path,
however,
is
a
vast
island
to
discover,
and
more
and
more
is

revealed
to
the
players
as
one
clears
the
impeding
gates.
The
island,
should
the

players
decide
to
go
down
this
path,
is
a
strange,
mystical
land.

Two’s
design
goal
is
to
attempt
to
create
a
meaningful
digital
interaction

between
two
people
that
progresses
in
a
constructive
manner
as
the
game
unfolds.

Its
research
goal
is
to
observe
how
people
connect,
communicate,
and
interact
when

playing
a
game
that
is
modeled
after
relationship
development,
and
to
investigate

whether
games
can
be
constructed
to
pursue
that
end.

30

4.2
Conceptual
Foundation

Two’s
overall
experience
is
based
on
the
way
in
which
we
form
and

strengthen
relationships
with
other
people.
As
such,
it
relies
on
a
few
assumptions

and
models
that
speak
to
this.
While
I
avoided
heavy
influence
by
research
in
the

field
of
relational
development
and
social
behaviors
in
games
6
,
there
are
a
few

general
models
that
are
pertinent
to
this
game’s
development
that
had
some

manner
of
influence.

The
first
is
Knapp’s
Relational
Development
Model.
In
it,
Mark
Knapp

outlines
a
general
construct
in
which
people
come
together
and
fall
apart
in

relationships.
The
increase
in
social
relationship,
or
bonding,
consists
primarily
of

four
steps:
initiation,
experimentation,
intensifying,
and
integration.
At
any
point,

however,
the
pair
can
begin
to
separate,
where
they
go
through
four
main
cycles
of

independence:
differentiating,
circumscribing,
stagnation,
and
avoidance.
This

eventually
ends
in
termination.
(Knapp,
2005).
While
this
information
is
valuable,
it

would
serve
primarily
to
inform
the
initial
design
process
rather
than
defining
how

things
happen.
It
is
also
important
to
note
that
the
separation
cycle,
while
it
may

occur
in
Two,
is
not
explicitly
designed.

This
relationship
cycle
best
manifests
itself
in
the
designed
emotional
arcs
in

the
game.
Taking
a
page
from
Bruce
Block’s
story
structure
graphs,
in
which
he

maps
out
the
plot
intensity
over
time
and
uses
this
to
inform
the
visual
elements
of
a

narrative
experience
(Block,
2007),
I
created
an
intended
relationship
structure
that

6

This
was
a
personal
decision
based
on
the
desire
to
create
an
emotionally
driven
experience
rather

than
a
scientific
one.
I
wanted
these
principles
of
relationship
and
partnership
development
to

influence
the
design
foundation,
not
dictate
them.

31

estimated
how
an
ideal
partnership
in
my
game
would
be
challenged
over
time.

Ideally,
this
oscillating
pattern,
whereby
the
difficulty
and
necessity
of
collaboration

would
vary,
would
constantly
push
the
development
of
the
partnership
upwards

until
it
peaked
at
the
end.

Figure
8:
Intensity
Curve
of
Two

In
addition
to
this
experience
curve,
it
was
important
to
establish
some
key

principles
in
each
of
the
main
design
areas
(Mechanics,
Player
Affordances,

Aesthetic)
that
strove
to
achieve
this
intended
dynamic,
while
taking
into
account
a

player’s
Context
and
how
that
could
affect
play.
Aesthetically,
the
island
setting

reinforces
the
idea
of
isolation.
In
addition,
the
sound
and
visuals
respond
positively

to
player
relationship
progress,
moving
from
a
harsh
and
jagged
world
to
a
softer,

more
welcoming
atmosphere.
Mechanically,
the
game
trials
are
designed
to

absolutely
necessitate
player
collaboration,
regardless
of
a
player’s
video
game

32

experience,
by
creating
situations
that
test
communication
and
trust
rather
than

speed
or
skill.
Affordance-‐wise,
players
are
granted
the
ability
to
communicate
to

the
greatest
extent
of
their
abilities.
They
are
allowed
to
leave
the
main
path

together
and
explore
at
will.
The
digital
platform
also
allows
for
players
to
ignore
all

prior
associations
with
each
other
(should
any
exist),
and
be
simply
known
by
their

actions
and
their
voice.

The
original
Contexts
considered
during
the
design
process
was
(1)

balancing
and
accounting
for
player’s
experience
and
abilities
with
games
and
(2)

acknowledging
cultural
and
language
barriers
that
would
prevent
everyone
from

being
able
to
play
this
game
with
each
other.
The
first
was
solved
largely
by

designing
out
trials
that
may
have
necessitated
a
high
amount
of
skill
or
experience

in
games.
The
control
scheme
is
simple,
and
the
challenges
are
largely
cooperation-‐
dependent,
with
voice
chat
being
enabled
so
players
could
communicate
and
update

each
other
on
their
position
rather
than
instruct.
The
second
was
simply
a
design

decision
to
largely
limit
this
experience
to
people
who
speak
the
same
language
—
it

was
the
result
of
an
assumption
that
language
was
such
an
important
factor
in

meaningful
connections
and
relationships.

4.3
User
Experience

The
player
experience
can
be
separated
into
two
main
areas:
the
island
and

the
trials.
While
they
both
work
toward
the
same
overall
gameplay
objective,
their

design
is
purposely
different
to
allow
for
the
roller-‐coaster
relationship
progression

described
in
the
previous
section.

33

4.3.1
The
Greater
World

Figure
9:
Early
Island
Concept

Framing
the
whole
experience
is
the
notion
of
a
mystical
island
whose

passage
is
gated
by
trials
that
require
two
people.
Everything
between
the
players

and
these
barriers
is
completely
free
to
explore,
although
there
is
a
central
path

leading
to
the
“goal”.
The
world
itself
is
tuned
to
react
to
the
progress
players
make

during
their
travels:
the
audio
builds
upon
itself
to
develop
a
composition
tuned
to

the
specific
interaction
of
each
partnership,
and
the
visuals
shift
from
sharp
edges

and
hard
lines
to
a
much
softer
look
and
feel.
The
colors
shift
from
cooler
to
warmer,

and
the
suffocating
fog
slowly
moves
further
and
further
away
to
reveal
more
and

more
of
the
space.
In
essence,
the
players’
growing
and
playing
together
slowly
yet

dramatically
alters
the
world.

34

Figure
10:
World
Line
Progression
(Concept)

4.3.2
Trials

The
game
consists
of
three
gates
and
three
corresponding
trials.
Each
of

these
are
in
turn
designed
to
specifically
target
a
different
aspect
of
partnership

bonding,
though
mostly
they
exist
to
allow
players
to
further
enhance
their

relational
binding.
Each
trial
allows
the
players
to
not
only
discover
a
gameplay

objective,
but
also
progress
in
their
relational
development.
Unlike
the
greater

island,
each
trial
offers
a
much
more
structured
experience,
with
increasing

emphasis
on
using
a
new
gameplay
mechanic
to
navigate
some
obstacle
in
order
to

overcome
and
surpass
the
trial
space.

35

Figure
11:
Early
Working
Iteration
of
The
Climb

The
first
trial,
The
Climb,
establishes
the
basic
foundation
of
codependence

and
suggests
the
need
for
communication
in
order
to
progress
easily.
It
challenges

players
to
ascend
a
shaft
of
rock
to
the
exit
at
the
top.
Along
the
way,
they
will

encounter
three
sets
of
rotating
platforms
(in
yellow
above)
that
threaten
to
spin

and
throw
them
off
if
they
become
unbalanced.
While
the
first
one
is
easily
passable

by
one
person
at
a
time,
the
second
and
third
are
much
more
difficult,
requiring
two

people
to
act
as
counterbalances
in
order
to
cross.
While
the
concept
is
somewhat

36

simple,
the
actual
act
of
coordination
is
what
becomes
the
most
difficult
factor.
A

little
bit
of
timing
and
a
lot
of
communication
is
necessary
to
proceed.

Figure
12:
Early
Iteration
of
The
Find

The
second
trial,
The
Find,
is
chiefly
about
recognition,
collaboration,
and

creative
problem
solving.
The
players
are
placed
in
a
space
where
many
copies
of

both
are
spawned,
some
copying
their
respective
player
and
some
simply

performing
random,
scripted
actions.
Like
The
Climb,
the
objective
is
again
simple:

find
the
other
player.
This
is
more
difficult
than
one
may
first
imagine,
as
the
fog
is

dense
and
there
are
few
if
any
land
features
available
to
use
as
a
reference
point.
In

addition,
if
the
players
combine
for
5
incorrect
guesses,
the
entire
scenario
restarts.

This
trial
works
for
two
main
reasons.
First,
the
players
have
established
a
rapport

and
a
codependency
up
to
this
point
in
the
game,
and
this
is
the
first
time
they
are

being
forced
apart.
Their
natural
reaction
to
such
an
unknown
scenario
is
to

37

immediately
seek
that
connection
again.
Second,
the
players’
voice
chat
ability

serves
as
an
immediate
safe
space
of
interaction
both
as
they
attempt
to
figure
out

what
exactly
happened
and
then
seek
to
find
one
another.

Figure
13:
The
Cliff,
after
Path
Masking

The
third
and
final
trial,
The
Cliff,
challenges
players
to
cross
over
two
gorges

between
three
cliffs.
Again,
a
simple
goal
but
with
a
twist:
players
see
the
path
the

other
person
must
take.
While
this,
like
the
other
two,
can
be
achieved
through

brute
forcing
one’s
way
through
the
path,
it
is
much
simpler,
and
must
faster,
to
rely

on
information
from
the
other
player.
There
is
a
necessitated
codependence
in
play

here,
where
each
player
must
trust
the
other
completely,
even
if
it
becomes

unnerving
to
step
out
onto
a
precipitous
void.

38

4.3.3
The
Narrative
Arc

While
there
is
not
a
traditional
embedded
story
in
Two,
it
is
important
to

acknowledge
the
designed
experiential
arc
that
is
designed
into
the
world
to
create

a
distinct
narrative
experience
that
mirrors
the
social
development
of
the
players.

This
is
broken
into
three
major
areas:
the
control
of
sight
lines,
the
audio
landscape,

and
the
ordering
of
the
trials.

The
visuals
in
the
game
are
all
based
around
forwarding
the
designed
notion

of
the
game
itself,
starting
from
a
very
restricted
landscape
to
one
that
is
much
more

open.
The
beginning
limits
the
players
to
their
immediate
surroundings:
they
can

only
see
each
other
and
the
cragged,
spikey
rocks
that
guide
their
path
into
the
first

trial.
The
fog
is
dense
and
highly
limiting
in
the
beginning,
and
the
color
palette
is

muted
and
desaturated.
These
all
combine
to
severely
limit
what
each
player
can

see,
forcing
them
to
interact
in
the
beginning
of
the
game.
These
visuals
gradually

become
much
more
inviting
and
warm:
colors
become
vibrant,
the
landscape
terrain

changes
into
rounder
hills
and
smoother
ground,
and
the
game
fog
pushes
back
to

more
of
the
world
can
be
seen.

The
audio
in
the
game
is
also
used
to
not
only
in
a
similar
way
as
the
visuals

to
reflect
the
progression
of
the
relationship,
but
also
to
invite
the
players
off
the

main
path
of
the
three
trials.
In
the
game
world,
there
are
a
number
of
places
to
be

discovered
that
are
away
from
the
main
three
trials,
allowing
players
to
leave
the

intended
design
and
go
on
a
digital
hike.

While
a
lot
has
been
mentioned
in
the
previous
section
about
individual

trials,
the
order
in
which
the
players
experience
them
are
as
important
as
the
tasks

39

performed
within
them.
The
Cliff
trial
establishes
a
foundation
of
teamwork
and

communication.
It
is
one
of
the
simplest
trials,
but
requires
the
two
players
to
work

together
in
order
to
leave.
The
Find
plays
on
this
establishment
by
tearing
them

apart
and
obfuscating
who
is
who,
inviting
them
to
immediately
reconnect.
The
Cliff

works
as
a
the
last
challenge
to
their
teamwork,
forcing
them
to
work
together
in

order
to
cross,
trusting
each
other
when
they
are
standing
over
the
void.

The
narrative
arc
of
Two
is
directly
crafted
from
the
construction
of
the

world,
audio,
and
trial
order.
This
experience
is
purposefully
designed,
but
allows

for
players
to
break
the
flow
and
explore
on
their
own
—
something
that
is
allowed

and
designed
for
in
the
game.

4.4
Review
of
Social
Relationships
and
Partnerships
in
Games

When
looking
at
prior
work
that
attempts
a
local,
two-‐person
interaction,
it

is
important
to
assess
the
general
types
of
affordances
granted
to
players
within
the

game
space,
and
how
this
affects
the
resultant
multiplayer
dynamic.
Historically,

games
have
been
a
non-‐digital
and
largely
multiplayer
experience.
There
are
a

handful
of
exceptions,
such
as
Solitaire,
but
even
this
has
been
turned
into
a

multiplayer
game
of
sorts,
as
seen
when
Microsoft
included
the
game
in
its
Windows

operating
system,
attaching
a
scoring
mechanism
that
allowed
one
to
compare
one’s

score
both
to
one’s
own
previous
score
and
those
of
others
who
have
played
on
the

machine.
In
the
past
few
years,
there
has
been
an
emergence
of
games
that,
whether

they
be
purposely
designed
or
not,
have
emerged
to
create
meaningful
social

interactions
and
social
play
within
a
game
space.

40

Figure
14:
Two
Players
playing
Journey

(source:
egamer.co.za)

Journey,
a
game
developed
by
thatgamecompany
and
released
in
2012,

received
much
acclaim
for
its
visual
and
acoustic
storytelling,
sublime
gameplay

(Gamasutra
Staff,
2013),
and
innovative
multiplayer
interactions.
These
interactions

were
driven
by
somewhat
serendipitous
discovery
of
other
players
moving
in
and

out
of
each
others’
play
space.
Journey
offers
an
anonymous
yet
very
personal

interaction
governed
by
abstract
communication
and
mechanics
that
allow
for

faster
travel
and
greater
possibilities
of
play.
This
anonymity
and
abstracted

communication,
combined
with
the
purposeful
decision
to
design
away
possibilities

for
negatively
impacting
others’
experience,
gave
Journey
a
positive
play
experience

almost
every
time
(Santiago,
2012).
But
by
limiting
and
abstracting
forms
of

communication
in
this
way,
it
risks
stripping
away
much
of
what
gives
meaning
to

social
interaction
(Perdue,
1986).
It
also
seeks
to
create,
and
from
anecdotal

evidence,
achieves,
a
uniform
experience
with
all
players,
but
at
the
cost
of
the

41

uniqueness
of
each
player.
These
two
lead
to
my
main
differentiation
point
from

Journey:
I
believe
a
primary
component
of
meaningful
interaction
is
open

communication.
This
also
differentiates
my
work
from
games
that
use
similarly

abstracted
and
anonymous
forms
of
communication
(Coco
&
Co’s
Way,
for
example,

which
uses
a
slightly
more
concrete
form
of
communication
to
solve
puzzles),
as
this

limitation
dictates
strongly
the
intended
emotional
experience.

Journey’s
interaction
results
in
a
completely
different
dynamic
than
Portal
2’s

cooperative
multiplayer.
Valve’s
Portal
series
is
well
known
for
its
strong
puzzle

design,
and
this
highly
mechanical
style
of
play
dictated
the
dynamic.
While
the

players
have
a
wide
range
of
possible
communication,
from
specially
made

indicative
elements
to
voice
chat,
their
possible
interactions
with
the
game
system

itself
is
highly
limited.
This
is
perfect
for
the
puzzle
mechanics,
but
it
is
a
different

type
of
designed
interaction
than
Two
attempts
to
achieve.
Where
Portal
is

mechanically
driven,
Two
aims
to
be
affordance-‐driven
7
,
playing
on
players’
means

of
interaction
in
order
to
solve
situations
rather
than
their
abilities
and
skills.

7

It
should
be
noted
that
there
is
one
exception
in
Portal
2,
where
the
game
designers
included
a

puzzle
solution
that
required
players
to
directly
interact
—
i.e.
smash
into
each
other
in
mid-‐air
—
in

order
to
solve
the
puzzle.
This
is
a
good
indicator
that
more
levels
in
this
game
could
have
been

designed
in
a
player-‐interaction
heavy
method,
and,
given
its
position
in
the
story
arc
of
Portal
2,
can

be
used
to
create
important
narrative
moments.

42

Figure
15:
The
End
of
Us

While
it
is
a
single
player
game,
The
End
of
Us,
a
small
browser-‐based
game

developed
by
Michael
Molinari
and
Chelsea
Howe,
takes
an
interesting
approach
in

its
pursuit
“to
evoke
friendship,
attachment,
and
affinity
without
overt
narrative”

(Howe
and
Molinari,
2011).
One
starts
as
a
solitary
purple
asteroid
in
space
when

suddenly
you
are
joined
by
an
orange
one.
The
interplay
changes
over
time
(the

orange
one
controlled
by
an
AI),
while
the
music
score
develops
with
you.

Eventually,
after
playing,
you
must
decide
who
will
sacrifice
themselves
to
save
the

other
It
is
a
prime
example
of
how
simple
interaction
and
play
can
establish
a

connection
and
a
feeling
of
attachment
between
two
entities,
even
if
one
is
not

necessarily
controlled
by
another
person.
It
is
also
a
good
lesson
on
how
music
can

deeply
enhance
ones
emotions,
as
the
musical
score
is
well-‐suited
for
the
game
and

the
feelings
it
is
meant
to
inspire.

43

Figure
16:
Distant
Shore

There
are
a
number
of
interesting
applications
that
have
attempted
to

connect
people
anonymously
over
vast
distances.
One
excellent
example
is
The

Blimp
Pilot’s
Distant
Shore,
released
on
the
iPhone.
Each
user
was
placed
on
a

deserted
shore,
and
could
walk
along
the
beach
to
find
letters
in
bottles.
These
notes

are
from
others
on
their
own
phones,
and
the
player
has
the
option
of
replying
to

them.
It
is
a
slow,
back
and
forth
communication
between
two
people.
One
major

issue
with
Distant
Shore
is
that,
at
some
point,
one
runs
out
of
things
to
talk
about.

There
is
no
activity
to
focus
and
base
discussions
around,
and
eventually,
unless

each
player
volunteers
information,
communication
fizzles
out.
Two’s
design
was

sensitive
to
this
issue,
and
aims
to
design
experiences
that
allow
for
a
baseline
of

collaboration
on
which
to
build
an
opportunity
for
further
discussion.

44

4.5
Evaluation
Methods

Two
was
constantly
evaluated
and
playtested
throughout
the
design
and

development
process
using
primarily
qualitative
methods,
using
both
task-‐oriented

and
observational
analysis.
The
exact
method
of
evaluation
changed
as
the

prototypes
progressed.

Much
of
the
beginning
methodology
consisted
of
highly
controlled
and

monitored,
task-‐based
tests.
Given
that
the
game
itself
was
lacking
in
the
necessary

features
to
support
a
hand-‐off
approach,
it
was
required
that
a
proctor
(usually

myself,
the
designer)
be
ever-‐present
for
when
the
inevitable
technical
and,

occasionally,
conceptual
issues
appeared.
This
testing
was
also
rapid
and
frequent.

Many
of
the
results
of
these
observations
were
akin
to
results
discussed
in
section

3.3,
where
players
were
primarily
being
monitored
for
how
the
designed

affordances,
mechanics,
and
aesthetics
suggested
a
specific
dynamic
of
play.

As
the
game
began
to
become
more
and
more
concrete
in
its
design,
the

testing
processes
evolved
with
it.
Undoubtedly,
the
greatest
challenge
in
designing

evaluation
methods
for
Two
was
the
strong
dependence
on
the
specific
people
who

picked
up
the
controller
to
play.
Time
and
time
again,
it
became
apparent
that

varying
play
styles
largely
influenced
the
type
of
play
that
resulted.
This
had
two

major
impacts
in
the
resulting
playtest
format.
First,
it
was
important
to
cast
as
wide

a
net
as
possible
in
order
to
better
evaluate
the
game
outcome
between
as
many

pairings
and
partnerships
of
players.
The
second
was
to
take
a
very
hands-‐off

approach
to
play,
asking
players
to
play
the
game
as
if
they
had
just
downloaded
it

for
the
first
time.
While
this
was
very
effective
in
assessing
first
impressions,
feature

45

impact,
and
bugs,
it
was
mostly
important
to
avoid
somehow
tarnishing
the

discovery
of
the
multiplayer
experience.

Being
able
to
evaluate
the
narrative
of
players’
interaction
and
relationship

development
is
the
most
important
factor
in
whether
or
not
this
game
succeeded
or

failed
in
its
goals.
The
type
of
relationship
was
not
as
important
as
the
strength.

While
the
design’s
ideal
play
scenario
was
one
where
players’
strong
collaboration,

codependence,
and
communication
led
to
partnerships
bordering
on
friendships,

the
evaluation
could
have
been
fiercely
negative
so
long
as
it
was
not
ambivalent.

Players
were
not
only
observed
in
the
way
they
interacted,
but
also
asked
about

their
impressions
of
each
other,
whether
or
not
they
would
like
to
participate
in

other
activities,
and
whether
or
not
they
would
like
to
meet
the
other
player
outside

of
the
gameplay
experience.
These
notes
were
then
combined
with
the
equivalent

from
the
other
player,
compared
and
contrasted
to
produce
results.

46

5.0
Discussion

The
discussion
of
this
thesis
breaks
down
along
two
major
lines:
(1)
what
are

the
design
notes
and
observations
of
a
game
designed
to
achieve
an
Affordance-‐
driven
dynamic,
and
(2)
what
are
the
main
observations
and
criticisms
of
the

project
itself,
and
did
it
achieve
its
design
and
research
goals?

5.1
The
New
Framework,
Applied

The
major
change
when
designing
with
this
new
lexicon
for
games
is
the

incorporation
of
the
notion
of
Context
and
Player
Affordances
into
the
design

decisions.
This
breaks
down
into
two
major
respective
design
areas:
the
designing

for
player
expectations
and
sociocultural
context,
and
the
designing
for
player-‐
player
and
player-‐system
interactions.
Leading
with
these
two
vectors
as
the

primary
informer
of
design
has
both
strengths
and
pitfalls.

When
designing
from
aesthetics,
one
usually
starts
with
something
that

drives
some
pleasing
element
of
the
game,
whether
a
song,
a
character,
or
a
color

palette.
Likewise,
a
mechanically
led
design
focuses
on
some
sort
of
action
or
system

such
as
jumping,
shooting,
or
dice-‐rolling.
When
designers
want
to
create
a
specific

player-‐player
dynamic
or
situation,
such
as
the
one
I
wished
to
establish
in
Two,

Player
Affordances
provides
a
foundation
of
where
to
start:
with
the
player

interactions.
In
Two,
I
wanted
to
create
a
situation
where
players
got
to
know
each

other
over
time
in
ways
that
modeled
a
relationship.
While
the
MDA
framework

would
suggest
creating
aesthetics
or
mechanics
in
order
to
test
and
experiment
with

this
dynamic,
I
instead
focused
on
player
affordances
and
interactions,
which

eventually
informed
the
mechanics
and
the
aesthetics
of
play.
I
learned
a
great
deal

47

about
how
people
interact
in
digital
spaces,
and
a
great
deal
more
about
what
can

motivate
them
toward
certain
behaviors
that
is
more
about
altering
their

affordances
rather
than
the
mechanic
or
aesthetic.
Many
of
the
experiments
done

pre-‐thesis
were
building
toward
this
knowledge,
and
the
trial
The
Find
is
a
great

example
of
a
situation
where
players
immediately
seek
each
other
out
(which
is
the

unmentioned
goal).
This
is
driven
not
so
much
by
mechanics
or
aesthetics,
but

rather
by
the
game
dramatically
removing
their
ability
to
recognize
each
other.

This
design
approach
led
to
decisions
in
affordances
early
on.
Some
examples

that
had
a
dramatic
impact
on
the
rest
of
the
game
were
(1)
voice
chat,
(2)
only
two

players
and
all
progress-‐related
interactions
required
them
both,
and
(3)
no

mechanic-‐based
reward
structure
that
favored
one
player
over
the
other.
Always-‐on

voice
chat
informed
the
type
of
trials
and
puzzles
present
in
the
world
and
heavily

limited
the
possible
audio.
Having
only
two
people
in
a
game
led
to
narrative

choices,
such
as
the
stranded
island
scenario,
and
not
enabling
progress
without

teamwork
dramatically
changes
the
dynamic
of
the
game.
Finally,
no
mechanics-‐
based
reward
structure
meant
that
achievements
would
have
to
be
presented
in
a

way
that
was
narratively
and
dynamically
rewarding.

Given
the
framework’s
strengths
in
designing
games
such
as
this,
there
is
one

major
cautionary
problem
when
designing
affordance-‐first
games.
Given
that

affordances
are
methods
of
interaction,
and
they
can
be
highly
mechanic-‐
and

aesthetic-‐independent,
it
is
important
not
to
forget
the
power
that
mechanics
and

aesthetics
can
have
in
helping
the
affordances
achieve
their
impending
dynamic.
It

also
requires
a
greater
level
of
iteration
and
experimentation
in
these
two
other

48

areas,
as
it
can
be
very
tempting
to
simply
ignore
them
and
rely
only
on
player

interactions
to
drive
the
experience.
These
three
are
all
equal
components
in
game

design,
and
should
be
treated
as
such.

Though
to
say
that
all
five
elements
in
games
have
to
be
given
equal
weight

and
handled
in
the
same
manner
would
be
entirely
false.
The
best
example
is
how

Context
was
applied
in
(a
game
for)
Two:
a
very
tightly
controlled
factor.
Two
had
to

be
designed
for
players
of
many
different
backgrounds,
play
styles,
and
play

experience.
As
such,
it
was
important
to
limit,
as
much
as
possible,
the
influence
of

previous
games
on
players’
play
style.
This
tight
control
of
Context
manifested
itself

through
designs
in
other
elements
(voice
chat,
the
specific
design
of
each
trial,
etc.),

though
it
was
a
decision
that
was
made
as
a
fundamental
choice
when
considering

the
impact
it
would
have
on
the
game
itself.
While
this
example
is
somewhat
specific

to
Context,
it
is
important
to
note
that
the
four
other
elements
in
this
game

framework
can
be
handled
in
very
similar
means.
Each
element
is
a
variable
in
a

greater
equation
that
equals
the
game;
how
much
flexibility
they
have
it
up
to
the

designer.

5.2
Two
Discussion
Points

Two’s
design
and
research
goals
were
to
abstract
and
recreate
a
system
in

which
people
form
relationships,
and
it
would
be
evaluated
on
whether
or
not
it

created
a
meaningful
digital
connection
between
two
people
that
progressed
over

time.
In
this
regard,
Two
achieves
its
goals
fairly
well.
When
asked
about
the
other

person,
almost
all
playtesters
spoke
in
positive
terms,
often
talking
about
how
they

were
unsure
of
what
to
think
at
first
but
grew
to
enjoy
their
company.
One

49

playtester,
when
recalling
the
play
experience,
stated,
“I
felt
abandoned,
stuck
in
the

wilderness
with
this
other
guy.
[…]
But
then,
once
it
became
apparent
they
were
a

friend,
it
was
‘Oh
cool!
Friend!’”

This
general
atmosphere
was
reflected
in
many
of
the
testing
sessions,

although
in
their
own
unique
way.
Almost
every
person
claimed
that
their
partner

formed
a
good
balance
to
their
own
style
of
gaming,
even
if
the
proctors
noted
that

they
played
very
similarly
to
each
other.
In
addition,
most
claimed
they
wanted
to

either
continue
playing
with
this
person
in
some
extended
version
of
the
current

game
or
in
some
other
place.
One
even
stated,
when
speaking
with
a
proctor
after

the
test,
“Where
is
this
other
person?
I
have
to
meet
them.”
When
asked
to
elaborate

on
why,
the
tester
explained
further,
“I’ve
just
gone
through
this
whole
experience

with
someone
and
I
don’t
even
know
what
she
looks
like.”

These
results
are
echoed
when
observing
the
narrative
arc
players
take
in

the
game.
As
designed,
the
game
would
attempt
to
design
a
bonding
experience

through
the
course
of
play,
yet
allow
for
players
to
leave
this
course
and
go

exploring
should
they
so
desire.
The
mix
of
responses
when
playing
the
game

depended
highly
on
the
type
of
people
playing,
but
in
general
followed
along
these

two
vectors.
During
one
playtest,
as
an
example,
the
two
players
spent
much
of
their

time
between
trials
chatting
about
each
other
and
the
world.
So
much
so,
that
by
the

time
they
finished
The
Find
(the
second
trial),
they
had
decided
together
to
wander

off
and
climb
the
nearest
mountain.
This
eventually
led
them
to
discovering
an

abandoned
village
and
deciding
to
temporarily
pause
from
the
main
course
of
the

game
to
explore
before
returning
to
the
path
a
few
minutes
later.
While
not
all

50

playtests
resulted
in
this
move
away
from
the
main
path,
there
was
a
general
sense

of
partnership
formed
by
the
end
of
the
game,
many
times
with
players

independently
citing
the
trials
as
to
the
reason
why.

These
observed
behaviors
would
imply
that
Two
reached
its
design
and

research
goals,
but
it
has
only
achieved
them
in
a
safe
testing
environment.
In
order

to
fully
test
whether
or
not
the
game
could
succeed
in
its
goal,
the
game
would
have

to
be
finished
and
released
to
the
world,
its
play
behaviors
documented
and

recorded
outside
of
the
watchful
eye
of
a
test
proctor.
It
is
then,
with
the
safe

blanket
of
anonymity,
can
this
game’s
results
truly
be
evaluated.

There
is
also
a
large
discrepancy
between
play
styles
and
player
interactions

between
official
testing
and
displaying
the
game
in
a
gallery
setting
that
bears

noting,
and
this
is
chiefly
due
to
the
physical
set
up.
As
mentioned
previously,

players
were
separated
physically
during
testing.
Given
that
it
is
a
little
more

difficult
to
achieve
and
coordinate
this
during
a
public
demonstration,
computers

are
set
up
back-‐to-‐back,
so
that
players
can
see
each
other
and
communicate
in-‐
person,
but
they
cannot
set
one
another’s
computer.
This
allows
players
to

physically
interact
—
it
allows
them
to
high-‐five
and
celebrate
in-‐person
rather
than

virtually,
and
it
allows
them
to
look
at
read
one
another
much
easier.
This
creates
an

arcade-‐like
environment
where
players
prefer
playing
with
someone
with
which

they
already
have
an
established
social
connection.
This
somewhat
undermines
the

design
goal
of
the
game,
as
people
are
far
more
hesitant
to
play
with
those
they
do

not
know.
Despite
this,
(a
game
for)
Two,
given
that
it
is
much
more
about

51

teamwork
and
bonding,
still
remains
effective
as
it
is
still
a
relatively
novel

gameplay
experience.

I
have
one
strong
criticism
of
my
own
work
and
how
it
achieved
its
design

goal.
One
of
the
main
definitions
of
games
is
that
they
are
a
voluntary
experience

(Salen
and
Zimmerman,
2004),
and
it
has
been
noted
that
it
cannot
be
a
required

activity
or
else
it
will
fail
as
play
(Watson,
2012).
While
playing
this
game
is

completely
voluntary,
the
decision
to
interact
with
the
other
person
is
required
to

progress
through
the
game
itself.
The
outstanding
question
then
becomes
whether

or
not
this
forced
interaction
undermines
a
meaningful
relationship
much
in
the

same
way
that
forced
play
undermines
a
game?
My
personal
belief
on
this
matter
is

that
yes,
it
does,
but
not
as
strongly
as
if
it
were
overtly
forced
(much
in
the
way

that,
say
trust
falls
and
icebreakers
often
are).
The
results
from
play
tests
seem
to

give
credence
to
the
idea
that
players
bonded
strongly,
and
were
completely
willing

to
surrender
themselves
to
collaborating
with
the
other
person.
This
is
likely
due
to

the
voluntary
choice
of
choosing
to
play
the
game
in
the
first
place,
letting
players

retain
control
of
when
they
enter
the
trials,
and
allowing
them
to
quit
at
any
time.

5.3
Future
Considerations
for
Two

While
the
short-‐term
goals
of
the
game
are
to
continue
to
iterate
and

develop,
tweaking
where
necessary
and
adding
content,
there
are
a
number
of

considerations
for
the
long-‐term
future
of
Two.
The
first
comes
from
a
comment

discussed
previously
by
a
tester
about
wanting
to
engage
with
their
fellow
player

after
the
interaction
is
over.
Should
there
be
an
attempt
to
extend
this
experience

beyond
the
environment
of
the
game?
Several
playtesters
have
mentioned
a
desire

52

to
allow
some
form
of
information
exchange
beyond
voice
—
video
chat,
email

exchange,
etc.
—
to
allow
players
to
potentially
engage
in
a
more
personal
manner.

While
I
believe
this
is
beyond
the
scope
of
the
game,
this
does
suggest
an
interesting

design-‐research
question
about
privacy
and
the
voluntary
sharing
of
information.

The
second
is
to
release
the
game
to
the
world
but
still
maintain
data
about

how
the
game
is
played
once
it
expands
beyond
the
borders
of
a
testing

environment.
Similar
to
what
was
discussed
in
the
previous
section,
this
would

allow
for
more
information
to
be
gathered
regarding
the
means
by
which
people

interact
and
whether
or
not
they
choose
to
maintain
the
connection
outside
of
the

play
experience.

53

6.0
Conclusion

Games
are
more
than
just
insular
and
completely
authored
experiences,
and

thus
the
framework
of
games
must
be
expanded
to
include
contributions
from
and

considerations
of
players.
By
adding
the
context
of
play
and
player
affordances
to

the
key
elements
of
games,
we
can
create
a
bridge
between
the
development,

criticism,
research,
and
experience
of
games.
This
new
framework
does
exactly
that

by
establishing
five
key
components
of
games
that
must
be
given
equal

consideration
when
creating
or
studying
games:
Mechanics,
Aesthetics,
Context,

Player
Affordances,
and
Dynamics.

This
isn’t
to
say
that
one
must
incorporate
all
equally
when
designing
games.

There
are
some
games
that
emphasize
Mechanics
over
Aesthethics,
and
others
that

emphasize
Player
Affordances
over
Mechanics.
But
regardless,
one
must
either

control
or
consider
each
category
in
order
to
fully
understand
how
a
game
is
played

or
experienced.

Two,
as
a
game
designed
with
this
new,
player-‐inclusive
framework
in
mind,

shows
the
potential
of
the
new
framework.
By
creating
the
Player
Affordances

before
anything
else,
Two
was
able
to
create
a
specific
player-‐driven
dynamic
much

easier
than
designing
from
Mechanics
or
Aesthetics
first.
It
created
a
dynamic
that

allowed
for
the
establishment
of
a
digital
relationship
through
play,
meeting
its

design
and
research
goals
effectively.
Such
a
game,
combined
with
a
design

approach
that
is
player-‐centric,
gives
evidence
that
meaningful
interactions

between
players
can
drive
game
designs
in
the
future.

54

Bibliography

Block,
Bruce
A.
2007.
The
Visual
Story:
Creating
the
Structure
of
Film,
Television,
and

Visual
Media.
2nd
ed.
Amsterdam ;
Boston:
Focal
Press.

Caillois,
Roger.
2001.
Man,
Play,
and
Games.
Urbana:
University
of
Illinois
Press.

CBS.
2000.
“Survivor”.
TV
Game
Show.

Chen,
Jenova.
2012.
“A
Personal
Journey:
Jenova
Chen’s
Goals
for
Games”Interview

by
Ed
Smith.
Web
Interview.

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/170547/a_personal_journey_jenova_che
ns_.php.

Coco
&
Co.
2011.
“Way”.
Computer
Game.

Corwin,
Zoe,
William
Tierney,
Elizabeth
Swensen,
Sean
Bouchard,
Tracy
Fullerton,

and
Gisele
Ragusa.
2012.
“Gaming
the
System:
Fostering
College
Knowledge

Through
Play”
(July).
http://www.uscrossier.org/pullias/wp-‐
content/uploads/2012/09/gaming_the_system_final.pdf.

Costikyan,
Greg.
1994.
“I
Have
No
Words
&
I
Must
Design.”
Interactive
Fantasy
2.

http://www.costik.com/nowords.html.

Crawford,
Chris.
1984.
The
Art
of
Computer
Game
Design.
Berkeley,
Calif:

Osborne/McGraw-‐Hill.

Debord,
Guy.
2006.
“Introduction
to
a
Critique
of
Urban
Geography.”
In
Situationist

International
Anthology,
tran.
Ken
Knabb.
2nd
ed.
Bureau
of
Public
Secrets.

http://www.bopsecrets.org/SI/urbgeog.htm.

Fullerton,
Tracy.
2008.
Game
Design
Workshop:
a
Playcentric
Approach
to
Creating

Innovative
Games.
2nd
ed.
Amsterdam ;
Boston:
Elsevier
Morgan
Kaufmann.

Fortugno,
Nick.
2011.
“Zen
and
the
Art
of
Serious
Play”.
Presentation
June
20,
New

York,
NY.

Friedman,
Ken,
Owen
Smith,
and
Sawchyn
Lauren,
ed.
2002.
The
Fluxus
Performance

Workbook.
Performance
Research.

Gage,
Zach.
2012.
“Spelltower”.
Mobile
Game.

Gamasutra
Staff.
2013.
“Journey
Wins
Out
at
16th
Annual
DICE
Awards”.
Blog.

Gamasutra.

http://gamasutra.com/view/news/186285/Journey_wins_out_at_16th_annual_DIC
E_awards.php.

55

Galloway,
Alexander
R.
2006.
Gaming:
Essays
on
Algorithmic
Culture.
Electronic

Mediations
18.
Minneapolis:
University
of
Minnesota
Press.

Howe,
Chelsea
and
Michael
Molinari.
2011.
“The
End
of
Us.
Computer
Game.

http://the-‐end-‐of-‐us.com/.

Huizinga,
Johan.
1955.
Homo
ludens.
Boston:
The
Beacon
press.

Hunicke,
Robin,
Marc
LeBlanc,
and
Robert
Zubek.
2004.
“MDA:
A
Formal
Approach

to
Game
Design
and
Game
Research.”
Game
Developers’
Conference.
San
Jose.

http://www.cs.northwestern.edu/~hunicke/MDA.pdf.

Juul,
Jesper.
2004.
“Mechanics
–
Dynamics
–
Aesthetics,
the
Whole
Thing.”
The

Ludologist.
http://www.jesperjuul.net/ludologist/mechanics-‐dynamics-‐aesthetics-‐
the-‐whole-‐thing.

Knapp,
Mark
L.
2005.
Interpersonal
Communication
and
Human
Relationships.
5th

ed.
Boston:
Allyn
and
Bacon.

Koster,
Raphael.
2001.
“Social
Mechanics:
The
Engines
Behind
Everything

Multiplayer”.
Lecture
presented
at
the
Game
Developers
Conference
Online,
Austin,

TX.

LeBlanc,
Marc.
2004.
“Mechanics,
Dynamics,
Aesthetics:
A
Formal
Approach
to
Game

Design”.
Lecture
April,
Northwestern
University.

http://algorithmancy.8kindsoffun.com/MDAnwu.ppt.

Lin,
Jeffrey.
2012.
“Introducing
Honor!”
Forum
Post.
League
of
Legends
Community.

http://na.leagueoflegends.com/board/showthread.php?p=29448823#post294488
23.

Looney
Labs.
2008.
“Fluxx”.
Card
Game.

Microsoft
Studios.
1990.
“Solitaire”.
Windows
Software.

Mizota,
Sharon.
2012.
“Review:
Eddo
Stern
Turns
Viewers
into
Players
at
Young

Projects.”
LA
Times,
July
16.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/16/entertainment/la-‐et-‐cm-‐review-‐eddo-‐
stern-‐at-‐young-‐projects-‐20120708.

Naughty
Dog,
Inc.
2007.
“Uncharted:
Drake’s
Fortune”.
Playstation
3
Game.

Pajitnov,
Alexey.
1984.
“Tetris”.
Computer
Game.

Parsons,
Charlie.
“Survivor
Season
Finale.”
2000.
TV
Game
Show.
Survivor.
CBS.

56

Pearce,
C.,
T.
Fullerton,
J.
Fron,
and
J.
F.
Morie.
2007.
“Sustainable
Play:
Toward
a

New
Games
Movement
for
the
Digital
Age.”
Games
and
Culture
2
(3)
(July
1):
261–
278.
doi:10.1177/1555412007304420.

Perdue,
William.
1986.
Sociological
Theory:
Explanation,
Paradigm,
and
Ideology.

Palo
Alto,
CA:
Mayfield
Publishing
Company.

Pfeifer,
Borut.
2011.
“On
Conceptual
Frameworks
for
Game
Design
&
MDA.”
On

Conceptual
Frameworks
for
Game
Design
&
MDA.

http://www.plushapocalypse.com/borut/?p=578.

Riot
Games.
2009.
“League
of
Legends”.
Computer
Game.

Salen,
Katie,
and
Eric
Zimmerman.
2003.
Rules
of
Play:
Game
Design
Fundamentals.

Cambridge,
Mass:
MIT
Press.

Santiago,
Kellee.
teleconference
interview
with
author.
September
27,
2012.

Statista.
TV
Viewership
of
the
Super
Bowl
in
the
United
States
from
1990
to
2012
(in

Millions).
2013.
Accessed
February
3.

http://www.statista.com/statistics/216526/super-‐bowl-‐us-‐tv-‐viewership/.

Thatgamecompany.
2012.
“Journey”.
Playstation
3
Game.

The
Blimp
Pilots.
2009.
“Distant
Shore”.
Mobile
Game.

Manninen,
Tony.
2003.
“Interaction
Forms
and
Communicative
Actions
in

Multiplayer
Games.”
Game
Studies
3
(1)
(May).

http://www.gamestudies.org/0301/manninen/.

Valve
Software.
2007.
“Portal”.
Computer
Game.

Valve
Software.
2000.
“Counter-‐Strike”.
Computer
Game.

Watson,
Jeff.
2012.
“Reality
Ends
Here:
Environmental
Game
Design
and

Participatory
Spectacle”.
University
of
Southern
California.

http://remotedevice.net/docs/Watson_Dissertation_2012.pdf.

Watson,
Jeff
and
Wiscombe,
Simon.
2011.
“Reality
Ends
Here”.
Collaborative
Project-‐
Making
Alternate
Reality
Card
Game.

Watterson,
Bill.
2005.
The
Complete
Calvin
and
Hobbes.
1st
ed.
Kansas
City,
Mo:

Andrews
McMeel
Pub.

Wiscombe,
Simon.
2012.
“Bond”.
Card
Interactive.

Wiscombe,
Simon.
2012.
“Window
Shopping”.
Physical
Game.

57

Wiscombe,
Simon
and
de
la
Peña,
Nonny.
2010.
“Three
Generations”.
Board
Game.

Wohn,
Donghee
Yvette,
Cliff
Lampe,
Rick
Wash,
Nicole
Ellison,
and
Jessica
Vitak.

2011.
“The
‘S’
in
Social
Network
Games:
Initiating,
Maintaining,
and
Enhancing

Relationships.”
In
Kauai,
HI:
IEEE
Computer
Society.

https://www.msu.edu/~nellison/Wohn_et_al2011_HICSS.pdf.

Wright,
Talmadge,
Eric
Boria,
and
Paul
Breidenbach.
2002.
“Creative
Player
Actions

in
FPS
Online
Video
Games.”
Game
Studies
2
(2)
(December).

http://www.gamestudies.org/0202/wright/.

Zynga
Inc.
2009.
“Farmville”.
Computer
Game.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This document establishes a framework for design, development, research, and criticism in games that is comprised of five main elements: Mechanics, Aesthetics, Player Affordances, Context, and Dynamics. It was developed through a series of design experiments and an analysis of games whose success hinges primarily on social and cultural components not mentioned in current frameworks. Drawing on these new elements, this document presents a case study of the entire development process of a game made with this new framework. Two is a game that models how two people form partnerships and relationships in a series of challenges, relying on the interactions of players to guide its gameplay experience. The development of Two presents a strong argument for the incorporation of social and cultural elements in both the creation and analysis of games as a means to enhance the experience and impact of play.

Linked assets