[game_edu] Why define a game? (was Re: Definition of a Game)

[Chris Oltyan]

This question influences all my designs, and I specifically actually
choose the Game/Story/Mechanic/Play theory before I do any design.
With a set definition I am able to define what my goals are, and
formulaicly attempt to achieve those goals.  It provides me with a
means of measuring success as I develop the game, and helps keep focus
on features and capabilities required to meet the goals of the game.
Lastly, it allows me to communicate the specific vision of the game to
a large group of people, and enables me to argue on changes based on
its adherence to a central theme versus a pointless discussion of "My
opinion is better than yours".

Furthermore, if there is any academic research on any theory, it
usually is a gold mine for mechanics or concepts that can be leveraged
to improve the game along those axis.  Anything that helps me refine
an idea in a field as vague as game design is incredibly welcome.  My
current design is being informed by Zero Story Delta Theory as
proposed by Kim Swift and Erik Wolpaw.  It really helps me refine
everything from UI elements to gameplay and camera choices.

On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 3:59 PM, steve graham <skg at dsu.edu> wrote:

> I have certainly spent my share of time thinking about what a game is and

> the myriad choices of definitions and defining characteristics. I even have

> my own theories and favorites. However, while I spend time on defining

> characteristics and feel it is time worth spending, I often end up coming

> back to the question:

>

> What difference does it make?

>

> Or to frame this question in a way that may be a bit more constructive:

>

> How does any particular theory or definition of games inform my design and

> development of a game?

>




-- 
Chris Oltyan
Scrum Guy
-----
"Simplicity--the art of maximizing
the amount of work not done"
  --AGILE Principle