Game Design
Games cannot be described through one definition. After examining different definitions one could say a variety of things. Games are an activity, with rules, conflict and goals. They include decision-making in an artificial, safe world outside of ordinary life.
"The components are the hardware, the rules are the software. Both define the game. Both can exist independently from each other, but separately are not a game." - Wolfgang Kramer
(http://www.thegamesjournal.com/articles/WhatIsaGame.shtml)
In my opinion, this is a true statement. The rules and components define a game but if one varies, the game is completely changed.
Image 1: Chess Board Game
After reading about iterative nature in "Pulling the Plug: In Defense of Non-Digital Teaching and Learning" by Lewis Pulsipher,
(https://gamecareerguide.com/features/602/pulling_the_plug_in_defense_of_nondigital_teaching_and_learning.php?print=1)
I think it's much more beneficial to make non-electronic prototypes and change one element at a time to see how the outcome of the game they're changing can vary.
Non-electronic games definitely allow student's minds to explore the game play further, rather than the visuals. By eliminating graphics, the student can focus on the game itself in more detail. By creating non-electronic games first, students can save time. This time can then be used to make different variations of their game and test new things out. By doing so, their final product will be stronger.
Hi Lauren!
ReplyDeleteGreat blog, it was very enjoyable to read though. It was very factual. I liked that!
But just wondering what your own thoughts on Game Design is? Were you shocked about how much more complex it was as a whole? I definitely was after reading them few articles I definitely have a different outlook on game design!
Cant wait to hear more
Jen :)