Examing Brian Fargo on the Road to Mastery

     I recently read Mastery, by Robert Greene. In the book, Greene explores masters of their craft, and the paths they took to get there. Obtaining the title of "Master" is not done overnight, but there are daily strategies you can employ to get there. After reading this book, I noticed a lot of similarities in the attributes of a master in someone in the video game industry: Brian Fargo. Fargo is highly accomplished in the video game industry and so I decided to examine his path to mastery to see how it aligned with Greene's theories. I went through interviews, presentations, and even my own personal correspondence with Mr. Fargo to examine the path of success in the video game industry.

My Game Design Philosophy

My approach to game design is based on the philosophical benefits that can be gleaned from video games. Everything I try to accomplish through design revolves around providing the player with a challenging experience that promotes creativity through new occurrences. It is a breakaway from the typical design patterns used in this medium, as it is built upon the neurological functionalities that occur when playing a game. This methodology avoids shallow methods seen in the industry at large and instead focuses on the experience being delivered to the player. It is entirely about their fulfillment, on a biological level. Through neuroplasticity, players can be exposed to stimuli in games that give them a fulfilling experience.

Thesis Project

There are three tenants to this game design philosophy that I have designated as “The Three A’s.” They are Adaptive Gameplay, Active Learning, and Achievement. Adaptive Gameplay refers to constantly changing the challenge presented to the player. One of the key components to promoting plasticity in games involves constantly matching the player’s skill level (Medeiros, 2017). Video game players are used to a typical system where the better the get, the easier the game is. This actually results in a “autopilot mode” on behalf of the player, as no new stimuli is introduced (Kurtzman, 2013). So instead, I implement an adaptive staircase method that challenges the player by making the game more difficult, or stimulating, as they get better. The goal is constantly push the player further, initializing plasticity in the brain (Medeiros, 2017). 

            The second “A” pertains to Active learning, a way of presenting stimuli to the player in a manner that promotes an obtained knowledge through a three-step process (Gee, 2007, pp. 1-27). Game progression should follow a sequence of learning, thinking, and action (Gee, 2007, p. 78). Not only should progression follow this pattern, but it should offer multiple solutions for advancement (Gee, 2007, p. 134). Understanding the different ways that people learn is essential to avoid bottlenecking player’s through a supposed “right” methodology of learning. The way to truly analyze this is to consider all types of problem solving methods and experiment with new ones as well. Innovation on the designer’s end promotes innovation from the players as well.

            The final thing we need to accomplish through game design is to deliver a sense of Achievement to the player. Being able to step back from a game and feel a sense of real accomplishment is vital (Schell, 2015, pp. 133-146). Without this sense of achievement, a player would not continue to play the game (Schell, 2015, pp. 133-146). A lot of games focus on extrinsic, or external, rewards. Instead, design should be focused on intrinsic rewards to help support creativity and self-actualization in the player (Gee, 2007, p. 223). Once the player knows what they want from the game, they can explore creative avenues to get there instead of aimlessly wandering.

These three aspects all work together in unison to help promote an environment that stimulates the player. Through this methodology the player is constantly being challenged in ways that promote active learning and achievement, thus providing them with a truly enriching interaction not seen commonly in the industry at large. Experimentation is paramount in progressing a medium forward and should be cultivated more. This design philosophy fosters freedom for designers to implement new types of gameplay and change how they are able to interface with the player.

References

Gee, J. (2007). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy: Revised and updated edition (2nd ed., pp. 1-27, 78, 134, 223). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Kurtzman, L. (2013). Training the Older Brain in 3-D: Video Game Enhances Cognitive Control. UC San Francisco. Retrieved 10 June 2017, from https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2013/09/108616/training-older-brain-3-d-video-game-enhances-cognitive-control

Medeiros, J. (2017). How to 'game your brain': the benefits of neuroplasticity. Wired UK. Retrieved from http://www.wired.co.uk/article/game-your-brain

Schell, J. (2015). The art of game design (2nd ed., pp. 133-146). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

User Experience Feedback

A few months back, you might remember a post here about my participation in helping run a Student Game Expo (SGX). Since then, the monthly expo has grown exponentially and pulls in a good crowd every month. Though not actively running the SGX anymore, this month I did contribute by developing a way to get feedback from SGX attendees. One of the most valuable tools at a dev's disposal is the player. Understanding who your target audience is and what they think of your game could dramatically guide the direction of development. Thus I saw the SGX as an opportunity to gather feedback directly from the player, that I could then turn around and disseminate back to the teams.

With a thorough background in user experience, flow state, and video game heuristics, I set out to develop a feedback form that would provide the developers with valuable information. To this end, I pulled upon previous research I had conducted and used The Play Experience Scale: Development and Validation of a Measure of Play by Pavlas, Jentsch, Salas, Fiore, and Sims as a starting foundation. I also used Game Usability Heuristics for Evaluating and Designer Better Games by Heather Desurvire and Charlotte Wiberg to determine a sustainable formula for measuring heuristics.

Next, I developed the feedback form online using Google Forms and set it up for the SGX. I was there facilitating the feedback station to help the SGX attendees provide their thoughts. I also had a section on the form that would allow players to provide their own feedback directly to the developers. After the event, I consolidated the raw data collected and started charting and graphing the results. My ultimate goal was not to just dump the raw data to the team, as they might not have the same experience and understanding of video game UX. The information should be easy to read and understand by the teams, to ensure they can get the most out of it. After I was done, all that was left was providing the data to the teams. Below is a sample of how I presented the feedback to a team.

Automaton assault from Alexander Rybak

User-generated feedback should always play a part in informing the developers what people want from their product. Even just making the team aware of things they might have overlooked can be extremely helpful for teams that inadvertently suffer from tunnel-vision after months of working on a project. Got questions about obtaining UX feedback for your game? Comment below and I'll be glad to help!

Student Game Expo (September 2016)

In September of 2016, I was fortunate enough to be given the opportunity to help facilitate a Student Game Expo for current game development, undergraduate students. While I got to run and facilitate the SGX, I did have valuable assistance from fellow classmates Cardell King, Brian Vazquez, Justin Hentges, Jessica Lin, and Wade Martin. Additionally, there were a couple core faculty members that really did everything in their power to help us throw a great event. Nick Carver, in particular, was very passionate and motivational in helping us provide a unique, fun experience.

In addition to showcasing undergraduate game projects, the event included trivia (with awesome prizes), extreme video game music, food and drinks, photo opportunities with a polaroid camera, and lots of other fun activities. I was also able to secure a venue close to campus to host the event, Campus Cards and Games II. They were instrumental in coordinating with me to make sure we had the location and necessary furniture (tables and chairs) and really helped to build a solid relationship that helps both parties. Here is a flyer we used to help advertise the event online and around Orlando, FL.

The event had an amazing turnout with well over a hundred people coming in to experience the event. We got some great footage of the event to use as future promotional material (thanks to Marvin Welch for capturing and editing this video).

This was a great opportunity to practice running an event with many different attributes and aspects to cover. I was responsible for coordinating everything (with the help of my team) to ensure that the undergraduate students presenting had everything they could possibly need. These leadership and management skills will make a great addition to my skill set and I hope to utilize them again soon in the future.

Special thanks to Katherine Rybak for her volunteer work on this expo.

Mastery Journal Research Topic: Impact of Flow State on Monetization Design

            Several months of research, brainstorming, compiling, and editing have helped to present a finalized topic for my mastery thesis project. My thesis dwells in an established convergence of both Design and Monetization fields of video game development ("GDC 2017", 2016). With the rapid evolution seen over the past several years in the way games generate money, pugnacious realities can wreak havoc on a game for simply not utilizing the correct monetization structure (Rose, 2016). While monetization is one of the most vital aspects of game design, it is often the most overlooked in the industry today and not considered by many game designers (Rose, 2016). My thesis will aim to show the importance of monetization as a part of any game’s foundational design.

(via http://cdn.quotationof.com/images/mihaly-csikszentmihalyis-quotes-7.jpg)

          Flow, a mental state that elicits enjoyment accompanied by a precise and powerful focus, is the primary objective of all games and thus the most powerful apparatus in a designer’s toolbox (Chen, 2006). Since flow is an established element of the core purpose of a game’s design, it is logical to identify a relationship with monetization design. My thesis, in addition to providing data to support the importance of flow and monetization in design, will show how the two can work together in a mutually beneficial way. Being able to understand how these two aspects interact will give designers a way to reap the full potential of their creation. My proposal will show a how each monetization structure should be implemented with the flow aspects of game design. And since the video game industry generates over 16 billion dollars a year, there is limitless potential.

            While there are yet to be any major, established research in this specific area, there are several influential voices that handle these topics individually. Monetization, specifically in the mobile and social marketplaces, has been covered in-depth by Tim Fields of Kabam (Fields & Cotton, 2012). Other industry leaders such as Kate Flack, Ethan Levy, and Martin Koppel have also shared valuable information in regards to the impact of monetization on video games (Rose, 2016). Flow state in games has also been explored extensively by several industry voices. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, who first discovered Flow as a construct in the 1980’s and 1990’s, has spoken at length about the components of flow in games (Chen, 2006). Jenova Chen is also a notable voice who has explored flow in video game design, making large leaps forward in integrating the two together (Chen, 2006). I will use these voices and many more as I continue to build upon my thesis in the coming months.

_________________________________________________________________________________

References

Chen, J. (2006). Welcome to Flow in Games. Jenovachen.com. Retrieved 30 October 2016, from http://jenovachen.com/flowingames/introduction.htm

Fields, T. & Cotton, B. (2012). Virtual Goods. Gamasutra.com. Retrieved 31 October 2016, from http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/135067/virtual_goods__an_excerpt_from_.php

GDC 2017. (2016). Gdconf.com. Retrieved 28 October 2016, from http://www.gdconf.com/conference/

Rose, M. (2016). Understanding the realities of video game monetization. Gamasutra.com. Retrieved 30 October 2016, from http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/205412/Understanding_the_realities_of_video_game_monetization.php

Immersion in Video Games

Immersion in Video Games (Topic #4) 

Being able to completely immerse a player into a game requires several different factors involved in the game design process. The narrative of the game can influence immersion. It can also be influenced by the physical hardware the player uses. Being able to immerse players seamlessly in a video game has been a constant goalpost in the video game industry.

a. Immersed in virtual worlds and minds: Effects of in-game storytelling on immersion, need satisfaction, and affective theory of mind

i. I learned that storytelling within the game can create a more immersive experience for the player. Need satisfaction, the intrinsic sense of accomplishment when aspirations are fulfilled, also becomes positively affected. This ultimately leads to players being able to take on the roles, beliefs, and convictions of others (theory of mind). This strongly indicates a causation between immersion, needs satisfaction, and theory of mind being accomplished.

ii. As a game designer, understanding the impact of your work is very important. By understanding the causal relationships listed above, a game designer can recognize the potential effect his creation might have on an audience. Additionally, a designer could share unique experiences with others who would be able to truly relate, thanks to an unbridled immersion level.

iii. Understanding immersion can help me with my project this month, coordinating a Game Expo. Understanding what types of environments and factors result in higher levels of immersion and entertainment will allow me to facilitate a conducive environment for the expo. I will further research how I can make the expo environment more appealing and immersive to players coming to attend.

b. Video Games, Immersion, and Cognitive Aggression: Does the Controller Matter?

i. This article gave a good amount of information on the impact the seemingly inconsequential factors can have. In this case, something as simple as the controller a player uses can have a positive impact on the player’s sense of immersion and their cognitive (or planned) aggression. In this scenario, players felt more immersed in a boxing game while using a controller that mimicked a boxing glove. Due to the realism, they were also more prone to “aggressive” behavior. In this case, boxing.

ii. Understanding how the hardware used can affect a player’s experience is vital in the gaming field. This industry is constantly evolving and changing, with new consoles and controllers being developed all the time. As a designer, it is important to take into consideration all of the potential factors that might be affected by external aspects of gameplay, such as a controller.

iii. This article does not directly relate to my project this month.

Topic #4 References

Bormann, D. & Greitemeyer, T. (2015). Immersed in Virtual Worlds and Minds: Effects of In-            Game Storytelling on Immersion, Need Satisfaction, and Affective Theory of Mind. Social            Psychological And Personality Science, 6(6), 646-652.                                                                            http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1948550615578177

McGloin, R., Farrar, K., & Krcmar, M. (2013). Video Games, Immersion, and Cognitive                        Aggression: Does the Controller Matter?. Media Psychology, 16(1), 65-87.                                        http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2012.752428

Flow Theory in Video Games

In the week of August 28th, 2016, in Project and Team Management class, I was prompted to find four topics to research in the video game industry. After picking 4 subjects that I was passionate about, I found two peer-reviewed, scholarly resources for each one. Below I will list the areas I have chosen to investigate, the scholarly resources used, how I would apply the information once in the industry, and how the data can be utilized in my Month 3 project.

Flow Theory in Video Games (Topic #1) 

Flow Theory was first thought up and named by Mihaly Csikszentmihayi’s in 1975 (Snyder & Lopez, 2009). So when you’re in a state of flow, you are intrinsically motivated by the activity for its own sake, according to Csikszentmihayi’s work in the field. In this state, you will perform at your ABSOLUTE BEST and become engrossed in the activity and be flooded with positive emotions (Snyder & Lopez, 2009). Klasen, Weber, Kircher, Mathiak, & Mathiak state that there is a general understanding that flow effects video game players and their enjoyment too (2011, p. 486).

This means there is a neurological response in your body when you become immersed in a video game for hours at a time, often putting off food or sleep. That response allows you to act and think at a subconscious level, where button combos become reflexes. You’re no longer consciously thinking about the fact that you are pressing buttons on a controller. By using flow theory, we can research what those underlying neural connections are, thus understanding how the process works (Klasen, Weber, Kircher, Mathiak, & Mathiak, 2011).

a. Neural contributions to flow experience during video game playing

i.I learned that there is conclusive evidence of neural activity correlating to flow state via brain scans, as seen in the figure below.

ii.                           (via Klasen, Weber, Kircher, Mathiak, & Mathiak, 2011)

iii. The information in this study will be vital in my approach to the video game industry. Understanding the involuntary, instantaneous reactions that players undergo will allow me to influence the experience being shared with the audience.

iv. For my project this month, I will be working with a group to plan a Game Expo for the Game Development undergraduate degrees at an off-campus location. The teams will present games to the public for testing to get feedback. I will be involved in coordinating the event with the off-site location, vendors, merchants, and students. Advertising, budgeting, and strategizing an effective marketing campaign are some of my roles. By understanding these primal, neural reactions, I can then market the event in such a way to trigger positive responses. Additionally, understanding what elements trigger which corresponding synapse will be vital in understanding the feedback given.

​

v.                                  (via Associated Press, photo ID #040821015084)

 b.Measuring Video Game Engagement Through the Cognitive and Affective Dimensions

i.This report detailed research conducted on the flow state of video game players and laid a solid, validated foundation for further research to be conducted in this field (Sharek & Wiebe, 2014). The main achievement of the project was the production of an enhanced, methodological measurement tool to access the many different facets of the flow state. This tool was a game-clock device used during load screens and intermission periods to calculate the player’s motivation for reengagement. This tool, coupled with the NASA-TLX cognitive load questionnaire, provided a validated overview of Cognitive-Affective Outcomes (Sharek & Wiebe, 2014).

ii.Here’s a great table showing the correlation between cognitive load and motivation for reengagement. Understanding these different relationships will be vital tools in the video game industry, especially during the game design process, allowing designers to share the best experience possible with the audience.

(via Sharek & Wiebe, 2014)

iii. I can also utilize the conclusions formed in this paper for my Game Expo project I discussed above. By understanding what factors can trigger boredom, flow, and frustration in a game, I can help understand feedback that relates to these areas of study. Before we move on to the next topic, here are the references for topic #1. The references in blue are peer-reviewed, scholarly journals selected via EBSCOhost.


​

Topic #1 References

Favre, J. (2004, August 21). Image ID 040821015084 [Photograph]. Retrieved from Associated Press        Images

Klasen, M., Weber, R., Kircher, T., Mathiak, K., & Mathiak, K. (2011). Neural contributions to flow         experience during video game playing. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci, 7(4), 485-495.                                 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsr021

Sharek, D. & Wiebe, E. (2014). Measuring Video Game Engagement Through the Cognitive and               Affective Dimensions. Simulation & Gaming, 45(4-5), 569-592.                                                             http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1046878114554176

Snyder, C. & Lopez, S. (2009). Oxford Handbook of Positive Psychology (2nd ed., pp. 195-198).            Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.

Scientific Validity behind Success in the Video Game Industry

​

     An analysis of successful video games and studios reveals that causal research, otherwise known as explanatory research, plays a very significant, scientific role. This paper will begin by explaining causal research and its two largest components: validity and reliability. Next, there are three different types of validity that will be analyzed. Construct validity, external validity, and internal validity are all methods for inferring data or compiling statistics. These tools have several threats in the form of counter-arguments they have to overcome in order to maintain validity. Once there is a solid understanding of causal relationships, that information can by synthesized and applied to success in the video game industry. A clear and present correlation will be shown between these causal research methods and the techniques employed by thriving, industry leaders.  

Causality

     The process of examining cause-and-effect is known as causal research (Trochim, 2006). Everything around us is a result of a never-ending cycle of cause-and-effect. This even includes the business world and industries such as the world of video game production. There are two main methods for deciphering the causal relationships between events: experimentation and research (Trochim, 2006). Empirical research can be conducted on gathered data to get an idea of causative changes and their impact on the industry as a whole. Opposite of statistical research, experiments can allow for specific controls to manipulate the mechanics of the experience. Regardless of which method or combination is being used, a strong understanding of validity and reliability is vital when it comes to inferring data and drawing conclusions.

Reliability

     Reliability is a fairly common word and, in the world of causal events and research, it means essentially the same thing. Being able to build or find statistical patterns adds to the reliability of a conclusion or inference (Trochim, 2006).  Since reliability is really part of a ratio, there is another component known as variance (Trochim, 2006). Variance is a measurement that shows us how much of an offset there can be from the reliable baseline. These two factors come together to complete an estimation of reliability, from 100% to 0% (Trochim, 2006).

Validity

     After reliability has been established, we can move forward to validation. While measurements or samples cannot be validated, the conclusions we infer from the data can have validity as an attribute (Trochim, 2006). The methodology of research needs to remain under constant vigilance in order to continuously guarantee both reliable and validated suppositions. A measure or consensus that is both reliable and validated can then be referred to as a dependable evaluation. Theory and observation are the two territories involved in all forms of causal research (Trochim, 2006). Because this is a cause-and-effect study, there is a cause construct and an effect construct located in the theory hemisphere that are simply theorized contemplations (Trochim, 2006). In the observational hemisphere, there is the program (what you do) and the observations (what you see) that are linked by a program-outcome relationship (Trochim, 2006). There are four different modes of validity that function when studying these causal interactions and they all have different, distinct areas of the research realm from which they pull.

Internal Validity

     Once a relationship has been established between two variables in the research, one must then examine the affiliation to see if it is causal in nature. Once a cause-effect relationship is established, a conclusion can be drawn from that relationship that is then labeled as an internal validity (Trochim, 2006). Internal validity is only relevant to the exact study being conducted. Because everything is contained with an internal validity, there is a chance for threats to arise easily. Various groups or people in a position of leadership that are involved in the study have the capacity to completely invalidate the findings because they have forced their own will upon the results (Trochim, 2006). Isolating the social threats from one another is the best course of action to avoid any potential threats to validity of your inferences.

Construct Validity  

     Construct validity takes things a bit farther than an internal validation offers. A construct validation can only occur when two objectives are met, in addition to the objective of an internal validity (Trochim, 2006). If the program section of the study was implemented correctly and the outcomes were measured as intended; then we can claim a construct validity (Trochim, 2006). Extrapolating upon this, by labeling your conclusion as a construct validity, the argument is then being made that there was a knowledge of how the all parts of the study were constructed. The threats that arise from a construct validation often come from critics (Trochim, 2006). Being unable to adequately explain the constructs of the study, will result in a lack of widespread validation. Common issues arise when there is an overlap between constructs and their responsibilities or the observable size of a study is simply too small. These threats can be avoided by following basic protocols such as thinking through your concepts to entirety, obtaining subject matter experts to critique the conclusions you have drawn, or by utilizing methods that will help enhance your concepts (Trochim, 2006).

External Validity

     Another form of validity is referred to as an external authentication because they are only useful for generalizations. One method of achieving external validity would be through the sampling model; where one takes a sampling of the population and then infers the results and projects them onto the population at large, arguing that a wide enough sample was collected. The proximal similarity model on the other hand, is a much more accurate system because it only allows you to apply generalizations to groups similar to those you sampled. However, you still have no certain guarantee of an outcome from a study fortified with external validity (Trochim, 2006). The biggest threat opposing external validation is the ease with which a critic can question your generalized conclusion. Any stipulation or imposing specifications you must follow when conducting a study can also misrepresent themselves when generalized.

Validity and Video Game Design

     Bruce Shelley, known for his contributions to the commercially successful franchises Civilization and Age of Empires, expressed his guidelines for creating commercially fruitful endeavors in the game industry (Shelley, 2001). Shelley’s parameters can easily be coupled with the scientific validity established earlier to bring about a truly successful venture. One of the guidelines entails building upon the work of previous games. While imitating a successful game will seem lazy and uninspired, advancing and innovating upon a previous idea is a great way to take an old idea and make it fresh (Shelley, 2001). A way that a developer could follow this recommendation would be by employing the research setup that includes the cause construct, effect construct, program, and observation. This setup will allow developers to formulate a theory on consumer wants and needs, conduct the study, and then potentially validate their ideas. By knowing the desired effect, utilization of the effect construct can be used to reverse-engineer the necessary variables of the cause construct.

     Shelley covers a variety of other guidelines, but it is easy enough to boil them down to their roots: making an enjoyable experience for as wide of a fan base as possible, building upon well-known foundations of the gaming industry along the way (Shelley, 2001). The video game industry is dependent upon experimentation and growth and being able to validate a reliable variable will ultimately give developers a better idea of how to appease a widespread audience. Conducting research in this manner will present the same pitfalls, though. Developers risk over-generalizing statistics or not accounting for permutations to offset the results. Developers will have to remain vigilant in their endeavors to ensure they validate any perceived trends in the industry. The gaming world is a constantly causal system as the industry is constantly reacting to tendencies and permutations.

     Being able to approach the video game industry with a scientific outlook will provide game designers with the ability to couple two effective skills together to create a successful project. Understanding the causal system and how to attack it critically will provide you with a much better understanding on how to research and enact validity in the most effective way possible. Approaching problems or obstacles in the game world with a scientific mind will potentially yield a much higher rate of success.

References

Shelley, B. (2014). Gamasutra - Guidelines for Developing Successful Games. Gamasutra.com. Retrieved 3 August 2016, from http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/131450/guidelines_for_developing_.php?print=1

Trochim, W. (2006). Home. Socialresearchmethods.net. Retrieved 3 August 2016, from http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/index.php



Disclaimer: This blog post was originally submitted in August of 2016 to Full Sail University under my Master of Science degree in Video Game Design