The Nature of Play
While reading about the nature of game play for my graduate class in game design, the adjectives used to describe this experience are all free-wheeling and open-ended. "Boisterous", "non-directed", "spontaneous", etc. It is clear the nature of play is an invitation for the player to experiment and explore.
But I was wondering how much the needs and perspectives of a player coming into to a game affects his/her game experience. Can a competitive player who thrives on beating other players be thoroughly engaged in a chance-based game? Can a player who thrives on achieving levels and responding to incentives enjoy a game focused on make believe?
Psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi interviewed a wide variety of people when researching the elements of enjoyment, and identified conditions that made activities pleasurable to people:
But I was wondering how much the needs and perspectives of a player coming into to a game affects his/her game experience. Can a competitive player who thrives on beating other players be thoroughly engaged in a chance-based game? Can a player who thrives on achieving levels and responding to incentives enjoy a game focused on make believe?
Psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi interviewed a wide variety of people when researching the elements of enjoyment, and identified conditions that made activities pleasurable to people:
- Confidence in chance to complete a task
- Ability to focus on the activity
- Goals are clear
- Feedback is immediate
- Opportunity for "flow" - total immersion in the game and escape from daily life
As long as there is a balance between frustration and boredom, challenge and ability, then a player can remain thoroughly engaged and in the flow. So despite the diversity of player perspectives and types of games, game designers can provide challenging goal-directed activities to appeal to a variety of players.
Comments
Post a Comment