I haven't had a chance yet to check what the "homeplays" entail, but there are several games here if we need to play anything together that is available in the site.

[edit]
Ok, just read it, homeplay is really just homework. But still, if we need to play something together, that site is nice.

I just finished reading the Costikyan Article (the first article of our "Homeplay"), and found it fascinating to read his perspective on gaming - especially considering that the article was written in 1994! (It helps that I can clearly remember what gaming culture was like back then...not to date myself or anything...) A few interesting points:

• His definition of "cooperative game" seems quite different than how we define it today. I believe he is referring to the 1970s movement that was trying to remove all elements of competition from a game (damn hippies! lol), rather than today's games which pit the players against the game system itself. There is still plenty of competition in today's cooperative games - just not between the individual players.

• He appears to be quite the prophet when discussing the advent of online gaming as a vehicle for socialization! I wonder what Costikyan would say about XBox Live or World of Warcraft?

• He makes an offhanded remark about Candyland, and how it does not meet the "game definition" of providing decisions - same as DifferentName's comment. It seems that "race to the end games" frequently test the common definitions of games.

I enjoyed the read for the most part. I personally don't have much of an issue doing the "Homeplay," but then again I am a professor...so maybe I'm simply happy not having to grade the homeplay! Also, it does look like future modules will have us actually designing games, rather than just readings. Things to look forward to!

STRUGGLE
One of the stand-out segments of the article for me was the notion of Struggle: the idea that there are goals to attain, and the player will not simply have the goal handed to them. This filters into many decisions as a designer, and for me one of the critical components to whether or not I think a design is well done.
- Ensuring that all decisions the player makes are worthwhile, engaging, and meaningful ones. Decision points that aren't are automated or take much less time.
- Applies to how a theme adds meaning to the mechanics of a game: why choose one tactic over another? Why go through these motions?
- Develop the 'dynamics' (to use the term described in the Challenges for Game Designers text) to facilitate interaction and cooperation/competition between players and/or the game system
- Designers must gauge the levels of Struggle when in playtesting, balancing mechanics and tactics, and settling on a specific challenge level for players
- Player engagement drops if the struggle becomes too great or too easy
- Focus not on just theme or visuals, but on the level and nature of player interaction/action within a game

I think it's easy for a designer to simply rely on randomness to make a game challenging. But to me, Snakes and Ladders isn't very fun because it's ALL struggle with no decision making. To me it seems like a "pachinko" board, where eventually one player shakes out before the rest. To become a worthwhile design, Snakes and Ladders would need critical decision points added, not just a reliance on chance to grant players success.

STRUCTURE
Regarding Costikyan's remarks on Ultima Online vs. EverQuest... I wonder if this was written before or after Richard Garriott's avatar in UO had been assassinated. I don't think it changes his arguments about dynamics and Endogenous Meaning (that is, things being worth what they're worth only within the context of the game, and worth something different - if anything at all - outside of it), but it was an interesting "time capsule" moment for me while reading.

LEBLANC'S TAXONOMY
Useful for certain, and seem to clearly have given Costikyan the fuel for the preceding content of the article. As long as someone knows what the eight metrics are, they ought to be able to run each of their designs through this "grinder" and do a lot of their own work in solo playtesting before any other players set their eyes on it.

All this talk of Candyland is making me nostalgic. I used to love the game when I was a child, up until I was 5 anyways. Then I got inventive with my games. Hell, I even made a game using those battle planet toys from the 90s. It was basically warhammer 40k except you only could attack with the spring launched missiles. Ah, good times.

Anyways back on topic.

I think DifferentName is confusing tokens with resources because the author was referring to resources as anything to be used by the token in order to achieve the goal. The token in this would be a representation of the player. Without the player on the field how could he play the game?

A definition of "game" where Sim City is not a game seems rather pointless. As you say, DifferentName, if adding one little thing is all it takes to let something fall inside or outside a definition, the definition is not worth much. Similarly I don't think decision making is a key defining property of games. Most of the gameplay in a first-person shooter is based on dexterity, for instance.

I feel like a lot of times when people are trying to define games, they already have preconcieved notions and just pick a definition that best suits that notion, regardless of it being useful. Calling something "not a game" as a synonym for "it's bad", that kind of thing. Seems a bit silly, just like debating whether GIF is pronounced gif or jif.

I'd rather use the term game as broadly as possible. Snakes and Ladders is a game, just a really uninteresting game. Telltale's games are games, just very narrative-driven games. It's definitely still worth pondering what makes games 'gamelike', though, and I really enjoyed reading the article for it.