Paul Bellezza

I read this article on Gamasutra this morning entitled the "Bill of Player's Rights" by Ernest Adams. Of course, he is specifically referring to electronic gaming. It makes for an interesting read on some design decisions that should be thought over when creating a video game.

In particular, I gave a hearty "hear hear" after reading this section:

"The Right to Make Decisions. There's a carnival game called “Whack-a-Mole.” You stand in front of a table with a lot of round holes in it, and at irregular intervals a mechanical mole pops up at random from one of the holes. You have to hit it with a big rubber mallet before it disappears again. You get points for every mole you hit, and the game ends when you have missed a certain number of them. There's no decision-making at all. That might be OK as a three-minute, one-dollar game for little kids, but as a video game, it won't do.

The right to make decisions is related to Sid Meier's definition of gameplay as “a series of interesting choices.” Personally I think his definition is a bit too vague, but if a game is nothing but a series of physical challenges with no decision-making, it's lame. It takes almost no design effort to incorporate some decision-making into a game. With “Whack-a-Mole,” all you have to do is make some moles worth more points than others; then the player has to decide whether the optimal strategy is to wait for the high-value moles to be sure of getting one, or whack away at everything and risk missing the valuable ones. "

How many games are designed with the mantra: And if they collect 'x' number of items, they can unlock a game art gallery? *Cough, cough- Robots for Console/PC" Interesting decisions and rewards are essential to games.

The Bill of Player's Rights is also a more refined musing on game design than the Gamer's Manifesto. Still, the Gamer's Manifesto has some decent points regardless of its crudeness. Its funny too, in a juvenile sorta way..