Language of Game Elements
After browsing the readings about Game Design Language and understanding the point of this in relation for our projects I decided to give some opinions on this topic.
After reading the feature called "Formal Abstract Design Tools" it became clear that we, as in us gamer's and developers don't really have a language to describe games other than 'good or 'that was interesting'. This is shown in the post an is questioned and represented to us as a thing we should solve.I found this interesting as from what I've seen and experienced, I've never really felt that we had a deep 'formal' way of properly communicating to talk about games and their design. In a way we just talk about the way the games play or look but never but these two together
On the second page of this Feature, we go further into depth about this and I feel that we could be onto something here. We can talk about how the game feels or how it makes us feel but fundamentally speaking, there is no way of talking about design in a broad way. We could use a way of ascertaining and defining these using workable terms like how a system can mainly focus on rewards but gives a fundamental change to the games core.
Here, In the third part of the feature, they talk about how Mario 64 used multiple objectives in each world to give more depth and game play to the game; And I can see this definitely now that it is mentioned because I've grown up around games with this in mind and never saw it as a major Design decision and how it impacts the games formal language. These other objectives encourage early on to explore all the worlds for secrets backed up by the controls and how planning and deeply understanding how the mechanics work is a really cool way of showing a games tricks off.
 |
| Learning Game Design and Game Elements The Knowledge Guru Link Here |
After reading the feature called "Formal Abstract Design Tools" it became clear that we, as in us gamer's and developers don't really have a language to describe games other than 'good or 'that was interesting'. This is shown in the post an is questioned and represented to us as a thing we should solve.I found this interesting as from what I've seen and experienced, I've never really felt that we had a deep 'formal' way of properly communicating to talk about games and their design. In a way we just talk about the way the games play or look but never but these two together
On the second page of this Feature, we go further into depth about this and I feel that we could be onto something here. We can talk about how the game feels or how it makes us feel but fundamentally speaking, there is no way of talking about design in a broad way. We could use a way of ascertaining and defining these using workable terms like how a system can mainly focus on rewards but gives a fundamental change to the games core.
Here, In the third part of the feature, they talk about how Mario 64 used multiple objectives in each world to give more depth and game play to the game; And I can see this definitely now that it is mentioned because I've grown up around games with this in mind and never saw it as a major Design decision and how it impacts the games formal language. These other objectives encourage early on to explore all the worlds for secrets backed up by the controls and how planning and deeply understanding how the mechanics work is a really cool way of showing a games tricks off.
Comments
Post a Comment