Casual vs. Hardcore

After making my opinion known about this touchy subject on my recent podcast, I figured I should shore up that opinion with some reasoning.

First, this is Raph's Post that started the discussion.

The question is, where does a player sit on the continuum between casual and hardcore? I think you can best figure this out by looking at the player's emotional investment in the game in question. This is very close to Damion Schubert's definition.

If you establish the casual-hardcore continuum only in terms of numbers of hours played, you misrepresent players who would play more, but are prevented from playing (because of illness, parents, social pressure, etc.). Number of hours played is a good indicator, but it's not the whole story.

If you base the continuum on how failure-tolerant a player is, you misrepresent players who play a game with great intensity, but who don't happen to take as many risks. For example, much ado is made about care bears vs. PVP'ers. Having watched players at various points on the care bear - player killer axis, I think it's safe to say that they're looking for different sorts of emotions, but the players' actual level of emotional investment is not necessarily affected by one play style or the other.

If you label players based on what kinds of games they play, you misrepresent players who are heavily engaged in games that just happen to be given the "casual" label. I agree with Raph in that the "mass market" label might be better here.

What we are left with as an accurate measure is the level that players feel like they are emotionally invested or engaged with a game. People who are heavily invested in a game are hardcore players, and those less heavily invested are casual players. Regular players fall somewhere in-between.

A Podcast!

I've just participated in my first podcast.

Just to make sure my bases are covered, I want to say again that my opinions stated in the podcast - like my opinions stated here - are solely my own, and not necessarily those of my current or past employers.

Official Forums: Yes or No

Should MMOs have official forums? The question has been debated for years.

This is the most recent incarnation of the question, as posed at the Stargate Worlds forums.

And this is Darren's take on the situation, along with many interesting comments made by his readers.

Also, Jaye writes in defense of official game forums. Given my experience on the development side of Vanguard, and my pro-newbie stance, I generally agree with Jaye.

MMOs are huge, constantly evolving games. As developers, we need to complete the circle of communication with our players. And we can't expect to accomplish that by solely relying on fan sites.

When Vanguard launched, the beta forums were taken down and no official forums came up in their place. Players had been warned, and they were given a list of fansites to visit instead.

Players, now offered a score of potential communities, didn't have an obvious place to give feedback. Because the barrier to player entry increased, the fansite-only system weeded out those less familiar with using forums - people who could have given valuable feedback.

Designers now had a similar barrier. We needed to comb through dozens of fansites to find new feedback. In order to meaningfully respond to players, we had to set up dev accounts in multiple places.

Regardless, without the familiar official channels to post in, players offered less feedback. Players seemed to think that without the official forums, they weren't being heard. Many players posted on fansites as though their only audience was other players.

While 'noise' was reduced, so too was 'signal.'

My argument is this:

Encouraging good player-player and player-developer conversation is so important to the health of an MMO, it's well worth the publisher's effort to have official forums.

Official forums provide players with a familiar, safe and reliable place to find information, give feedback, and receive developer responses. They show that the developer cares, and is listening.

As well, compared with most fansites, game publishers are better equipped to take advantage of modern media and proper information design to avoid losing 'signal.' Also, they can afford responsible moderators (and search technology) to help bypass 'noise.'

Are Designers Playing Too Many Games?

Game designers tend to agree that playing games helps you learn about how to design them.

For example, in Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals, Katie Salen and Eric Zimmerman write, "Students should play every possible kind of game, digital and non-digital, contemporary and historical, masterpiece and stinker."

They give several good reasons why, including the fact that designers need to learn how games function to create experiences, and they need to see what does and doesn't work about design choices.

Yet, Raph Koster offers a word of warning in his book, A Theory of Fun for Game Design.

He writes, "They [game designers] build up encyclopedic recollections of games past and present, and they then theoretically use these to make new games."

So what's the problem? Essentially, due to the way human brains work, designers are more likely to pull from their existing mental library of game design solutions than they are to try to innovate new ones.

Raph writes, "The most creative and fertile game designers working today tend to be the ones who make a point of not focusing too much on other games for inspiration."

So, the very library of knowledge that designers must build in order to understand and design games can prevent them from exploring new potential game designs.

How do we get around this?

Game designers, of all people, need to "stay ahead of the game." Not playing as many games probably isn't going to help.

Perhaps simply having an awareness of our 'mental game libraries' can help designers choose whether or not to select a solution from them.

Perhaps, too, we can be mindful of fun wherever it occurs. For example, it might be worthwhile to make note when you see yourself or others having fun outside of a formal game environment, and ask yourself how you could bring that experience into a game.

GDC Swag

At GDC, it is a steadfast tradition that the booths at the expo offer swag to potential customers and hires.

Some booths offer buttons. Other booths offer pens, candy, notepads, toys, gadgets, cloth bags, plastic necklaces... and T-shirts.

However, none of the booths I visited had any women's styles or sizes of shirts.

I stayed hopeful, though. At each booth with clothing available, I would ask, "Do you have anything for women? Or any men's sizes that would fit me?"

The answer was no. Most booths had run out of everything "small" and "medium" on the first day of the con. Size "large" had disappeared soon after. By Thursday, the only size most booths had left was "extra-large".

The folks at one booth, though, had a story to tell that's worth repeating.

This particular booth had, in fact, stocked a significant quantity of women's style shirts - you know, the kind that are just a touch narrower at the waist. The kind that keep women from looking like amorphous barrels.

Anyway, a small group of women discovered this rare stash on the first day of the con. So pleased were they with their discovery that they proceeded to inform other female conventioners. A crowd of women soon appeared at the booth, nabbing every last shirt.

Alas, I didn't make it in time.

So, my thoughts on the matter are these: If you are in the position to stock a GDC booth with swag, do not underestimate the number of smaller-sized attendees. And, if you want more women to attend your booth, by all means offer clothes tailored just for them!

Prepare to be Tested

When I was first hired in the games industry, it was based on the merits of my portfolio. At that time, only one of the companies I applied to gave me a test. I saw it as an unusual hurdle.

This time around, however, it became the norm. Virtually every potential employer gave me one or more tests; I ended up taking over a half-dozen of them. Some tests took me only 2 hours, others took me over 2 days.

So, at this point, I feel adequately informed to offer some advice to those seeking game design work.

1) Don't be offended. If a game design company says you must pass a test (or even several tests), don't act shocked. Don't make the assumption that the company doesn't like you, even if someone else who applied there wasn't given a test. Simply, if the company is one you want to work for, take the test.

2) Be timely. Do not take more than 6 days to complete your test. If you're really interested in the company, be done in less than 3 days. If they ask for the test to be completed in a certain number of hours, finish in under the time limit. If you have schedule conflicts, discuss them with your potential employer so you don't have to rush.

3) Be clear and concise. Companies aren't just testing your game design skills - they want proof of your ability to communicate effectively. You must walk a tightrope with each of your answers. You cannot afford to ramble, yet you must explain your thought processes and math choices.

4) Research. All but one of the tests I took was "open book." If you come across something that you're not sure about, Google is there for you. Cite your sources as needed. Plagiarizing is just as unwelcome here as on any test.

5) Edit your work. When you're done with the test, go do something else, then come back and edit your answers with a fresh mind. You'll at least catch some typos (well, I sure did), and you may come across answers you'll want to rework. If it's a timed test, save a few minutes at the end to give your answers a once-over.

6) Pace yourself. Read through the whole test before you start answering questions, so you have a good sense of what you need to do. Design tests can vary widely in content, though the core of most tests will have you design a game, level, or quest/adventure. In general, if you find yourself spending too much time on one answer, come back to it later. You may find that you have fresh insight after working on other questions.

7) Don't worry. Even if you aren't offered employment, by working through the test, you've learned more about game design and you've become a better game designer.

Kicking Stereotypes in the Face

Normally, trips to ye olde gaming store are a straightforward ritual: I cast my eyes around the store for new inventory while I gab with friends.

This time, however, it was my first time visiting a gaming store in a new city, so I scoured every shelf.

After going over tons of games and minis, my eyes landed on a book - a book with pink dice on the cover.

Now, I fear pink in the same way that most goths would fear a daisy-print blouse. Yet, I felt compelled to pick up this book. I simply could not fathom it was real.

I turned it over and over in my hands, trembling, trying to disbelieve it out of existence. No, really, here it was - Confessions of a Part-Time Sorceress: A Girl's Guide to the Dungeon's & Dragons Game by Shelly Mazzanoble.

I hugged it, and I hadn't even opened the cover.

Then I did crack it open. Seeing words written by R.A. Salvatore put inside a pink border made me chuckle - he and his wife wrote the introduction. Then I flipped through and found a recipe for Initiative Rolls. That sealed it. I had to buy the book.

In a nutshell, Shelly speaks right to you about what D&D really is, and why it's fun for both genders (especially women, thank you very much). Her fantastic sense of humor and liberal use of cultural references bring her stories and explanations home.

More to the point, Shelly smacks a Chuck Norris-sized roundhouse kick to the face of the gamer stereotype.

It is so refreshing, empowering, and downright enjoyable - I can't help but recommend it to everybody.