What ways can game systems encourage or create gaming communities?

Recently at work, there’s been a big debate/discussion regarding the most recent InfinityWard’s announcement of the lack dedicated server functionality within the pc version of“Modern Warfare 2”. Here’s a link of the news filled with hated ridden commentshttp://www.vg247.com/2009/10/20/bowling-seeks-to-ease-mw2-pc-tension-with-iwnet-explanation/

I can certainly understand the cause of concern for the lack of dedicated servers being the main foundation what creates online pc gaming communities in the first place but it got me thinking further, thinking and questioning about forms of gaming communities in games today. What alternative forms are there? How are they created? What game systems are in place to create or encourage gaming communities and to allow easy accessibility to interaction with other players feeling like you apart of something? Looking and exploring this topic further you may start think that maybe the lack dedicated servers isn’t such a big deal for the COD experience after all.

With me being a console gamer, (primarily – as I like pc gaming too) “Xbox live” is the ideal service for me personal as it brings every gamer I know under one umbrella and in a way it’s a service who gives gamers a sense of community who don’t necessarily want to apart of typical gaming community having to dedicate too much effect or time to feel like they are apart of something. One of most appealing features of Xbox live is the achievement system which has created the current design ethos within contemporary games of instant gratification which cleverly hides the competitive nature of completion via encouraging silly bragging rights with your friends and indiscreetly gives gamers an incentive to connect with other players comparing achievements and sharing a interest in the same games. You could argue that this is a superficial approach for creating sense of community (like a vain fashion show with women end up fighting or chatting away cause they wearing the same shoes) compared to pc communities as they created within for the love and passion of a chosen played game, but then yet Xbox live’s focus is far more ambiguous appealing broader spectrum of audiences from casual gamers to hardcore, etc. That’s what I found interesting about Xbox live is its form and purpose as a service and its functions creating that service as a service is strong as functions and tools, right? I don’t think Xbox Live service directly creates gaming communities within itself but certainly provides functions and tools as service for game devs to create gaming communities or sense of completion and reward for players in many imaginative ways.

These days retroperspective games are really popular and they have certainly have re-built a place within modern gaming within the few past years with digital distribution becoming more accepted and of course their evolutional push towards design of conventional game mechanics and patterns from their skilled developers but there’s one simple element/feature which I think make these games as vital and liberating as they were back in the day. In fact so important it could make or break a game for the lack of… Here I announce it the “online scoreboard” yes I give you a few moments to take that in, yes an online scoreboard.I remember how back in the day, the scoreboard was the secondary feature just left in from being lazy port of the arcade version and these days, it’s the main hook for the overall playability wasting hours trying to beat my friends scores on titles like “Trails HD” and “Geometry Wars 2”. I find it amazing how such a small simple bit of functionality can create such intense completion and desire to learn the mechanics coming up with new ways to gain more points. Lately I’ve been playing “Trails HD” and it has this level editor feature which can be only shared among your friends list (no way to officially publish your levels publicly, not sure why they didn’t such functionality) and recently I saw this video made by the dev team “Red Lynx” showing their favourite made levels from users, have a watch: http://www.eurogamer.net/videos/exclusive-trials-hd-user-made-levels

It’s quite cool to see “Red Lynx” are acknowledging the hard work that users have put into building some great tracks and coming up with alternative solutions for sharing content developing a small community and there are lots of videos on youtube with many users trying express and share their work. You could say that isn’t a gaming community as “Red Lynx” isn’t supporting it with forums and modding tools, etc and obviously it’s isn’t a type of game which you would associate with gaming communities as it’s no World of Warcraft but then again it’s a game for very different type of player wanting a different type of experience therefore it’s has to be different community to reflect that. Trails HD seems to have very insular but keen community although it isn’t very self-contained or organised but certainly reflects their indie roots as developers and of course the subject matter of the game being about extreme stunts and rock ‘n’ roll. It gives the game unique vibe or sense of character which makes it seem quite cute and friendly.

What I’m ultimately trying to say is that I believe that it’s down to developer’s creativity to use the tools at hand to create experience and form of community which correlates with that core experience as sense of community is a great gaming intervention as no one wants feel alone. I certainly would like to look further into gaming communities and their form as an industry we need to invent new type and styles of communities.

Jonesy

Gaming Patterns – the price of entrance to enjoy a game? - Part 2

Going back to my experience with “PixelJunk Monsters”, I’ve never previously played a tower defence game before but yet I learned the core mechanics and understood the goal of the game (rules) pretty quickly of building towers (turrets) with strategic placement to protect the village from wave after wave of enemies with own attack patterns. Although the game’s purpose/focus is simple in nature but progressively becomes quite deep and involving (in the hidden behind the curtains type of way) as you learn more about the specific turrets pros and cons against certain enemy types, the currency (money) to either use for upgrading current placed turrets or buy completely new turrets altogether and so forth. What I find interesting about this game is the way these rules are very obviously communicated to you as a player via interacting and engaging with enemy waves/patterns and there’s no misconception of what you have to do to overcome/defeat these enemies with their paper/scissors/stone damage aspect but that’s where the fun lies is preparing for these enemy waves trying to master and predict the pattern of the level.

I find this game to be very addictive and engrossing as the game has clear defined rules making the experience feel very coherent and you feel never cheated by the game system itself, when you fail its always your own fault and you can clearly see where you went wrong, learning from it making you willing to try again with a fresh different approach. The game is actually pretty difficult but when you successful complete a level, it feels rewarding mastering and forecasting the enemy patterns which continuously force you adapt to new situations coming up with new tactics/approaches to counteract these enemy waves, you feel pretty smart and good for it. The game also feels rewarding for its sense of rhythm and flow as you progress through the game you can start seeing a pattern in the enemy waves like the 1st wave of enemies are usually “pines” who are easily counteracted with cannon turrets then 2nd wave are usually “spiders” who are counteracted with cannons and arrows turrets and so forth but over wave 3, the enemy types/attack pattern become far less predictable becoming a game about unpredictability within a predictable box. Due to this you feel yourself growing as a player of the game being “in the zone” with carefully constructed enemy patterns which never betrays the flow and rules and logic of the game system and world itself. In other words, each level feels familiar but yet different which never alienates you but always feels fresh and challenging. For an example, here’s a song from one of favourite bands at the moment that has unique sound but yet very familiar song structure and rhythm (I realise that this type/style of music isn’t everyone’s cup of tea but please have a listen anyway to see what I mean):



What makes me wonder about a song like this, does the artist write the rhythm and beat first or do they write the lyrics first (context) and base the rhythm/sound around that? It doesn’t matter either way, but what I find interesting is how these two aspects fit together so seamlessly and looking at pixeljunk monsters, it’s done the same thing with it’s combined aspects of its game play of tower defence and the structure and flow of enemy waves introducing the player to a rhythm of patterns.

Its one of the few games which I play to directly engage with patterns for the achievement of mastering them like a shoot em’up I guess. As an industry I believe we are too hooked up on the contexts and themes which are our games explore rather exploring what patterns/lessons we can teach through our games. Sure the context/theme is what makes games initially appealing for audiences as we all judge things at first glance although we all know that we shouldn’t but we do. With the underlying design towards the flow of patterns, games can be enjoyed despite the context by broader audiences, for an example with old retro games like “Pacman” or “Tetris”; does anyone question where the blocks come from? Or feel alienated by it’s concept? Did people have to have prior gaming knowledge to enjoy these games? People would argue that I have a groundless argument due to the fact that we are in a different era of gaming which has never been so successful with mainstream before but I think that these principles are as important as today as back in the day as I firmly believe games can be used to teach us as well as entertain us.

Playing a game which puts me in the zone, feeling the flow and learning more and more as you keep exploring and experiencing the game is a wonderful feeling which in my eyes makes a rather beautiful game. Answering my question from previously what is my “price of entrance” to enjoy a game? A game which I can connect to that truly challenges and engages me for mastering and learning something, isn’t that what everyone wants from video games?

Jonesy

Gaming Patterns – the price of entrance to enjoy a game? - Part 1

I’m been playing a Tower defence game recently called “PixelJunk Monsters” (yeah I know its old news for you Playstation owners out there but it’s just too good). What I really enjoy about this game flow/structure with enemy patterns that continuously engage you placing me “in the zone” (or what I prefer to say is, plugged in) and that’s a rare experience for me these days.

Why is that? Am I getting old? Played too many games and I can see through the patterns presented to me making the experience unchallenging and boring? Well I certainly experienced this with certain titles I’ve played recently like “Resident Evil 5” which I thought was stuffed with predictable enemy patterns embracing typical counter tactics for your survival. You could argue that this game isn’t flawed in this area but just the simple fact that my knowledge/ pattern recognition for shooters is more developed than the game is actually designed for (casual gamers) and I require more advanced mechanics/patterns, etc to fulfil my needs as a gamer. Thinking about this got me thinking about the “price of entrance” for games. Is my knowledge/skills of gaming too high to enjoy “Wii Sports” (linear patterns and information) or too low to enjoy “Total War” on pc (complex patterns) due to my lack of experience playing historical Strategy games. As a gamer/observer I find myself within an odd position where I’m questioning myself what is my “price of entrance” to enjoy a game?

With modern games design approaches, there is a very obvious transparent line between Casual and Hardcore games where developers either add further complexity to established core mechanics towards genres like MMO’s or FPS’s appealing to the core fanbase/elite or developing relatable non-offensive subject matters with simple functionality emulating real like actions. I personally don’t think players should have to have previous knowledge or the desire to enjoy a game for its purpose and end goal result, (getting fit, learning French, building army whatever the subject matter/context is) I feel that a game should provide the knowledge and inspire the desire or an interest within the subject matter/themes that the game explores. The obvious target of such an example would be non-gamer/casual games market which (although debatable) do intend to undermine the primary purpose of why video games co-exist in the first place; to simply challenge and provide our brains with new info and patterns despite the fiction (theme/presentation). It’s easy to forget that us gamers have had years of training (playing games) to see through the fiction to master underlying mathematical patterns and objectives of the game system itself, It’s easy for us to criticize such an change of primary purpose for these games but then obviously the target demographic hasn’t had the gaming education/knowledge/background that we have obtained over the years.

Looking into this perspective further; games are effectively teaching tools although I wonder how much prior knowledge would be required to fully interact/learn and master a game or more specifically mastering the game’s patterns, rewarding the player’s effect? For an example, if I asked you to do me a painting, this may be too demanding for you but if I ask you to draw me a stickman, what would you possibly learn and experience from that or isn’t that sort of boring? This could be one of the simple reasons why typically non-gamers feel that video games are time wasters compared to other alternative mediums such as TV/film which passively informs, engage and possibly challenging them on broad levels.

Jonesy

(P.S read part two as well - I have a lot more to say!)