Contextual Studies - Greg Costikyan 10 points of Interest 5/10

I have never really thought about the relative redundancy of the term 'good'. In his introduction, Costikyan talks about this. He says good does very little to describe a game, book, film etc. "Saying "it has good gameplay" is about as useful as saying "that's a good book."" I agree with him on this point. Saying something is 'good' generally implies a positive outlook on the game, book, but it does not tell us what it is that is good about it. It is too vague a phrase for defining the exact features of a subject. Costikyan also says "good doesn't help us understand what is good about it, what pleasure it provides, and how to go about doing something else good". Therefore, he says if you were able to understand things with the help of better wording, you could use what makes other things great, and apply it to your own projects.

Greg Costikyan talks about how someone else, called Will Wright, held a speech at a games developers’ conference some years ago. I find it very interesting how , in the conference, Wright describes SimCity as more of a 'software toy', rather than a game. He goes on to compare the game to a ball. A ball is just a toy, until a person lays their own set of rules and clearly defined boundaries upon it. Thus making it into a game. The same can be said about SimCity, which is relatively free form. In which, the player can choose his or her own objective, and try to accomplish this goal. I think this is a good comparison, the similar nature of the ball and the game SimCity, both goalless, until the player applies his or her own goals. In addition, Greg Costikan argues that struggle is needed in a game, to generate the 'thrill of victory'. If there is no build up, no conflict, no struggle, there will be no feeling of accomplishment when you do succeed. Greg uses the example of 'Plucky Little England'. In this example, the player is presented with two simple choices A and B. Choose B, and you win. Game over. Costikyan explains with "There is no thrill of victory, of course; it was all too easy, wasn't it? There wasn't any struggle.'  I agree with Greg, when he talks about the freedom offered by RPG games, such as Dungeons and Dragons. These games are where "adventure is a plot skeleton". Where the players journey through a totally imaginary world, dictated by the Gamemaster, who acts as a kind of "referee and playwright". The participants of the game are led into a world of fiction, much more like a book than a stereotypical video game. I like this sense of freedom he alludes to. I have seen friends of mine become totally embroiled into this make-believe world, even without the digital stimulus of computer graphics. I found this to be quite a special experience of mine.

Structure is important in games. Even in children's 'let's pretend' games, they invent their own rules set. Costikyan gives the example of a child's game. "You can only transform into a bird when you’re on the climbing structure in the park. If you want to attack someone, you have to ‘tag’ them". I can think of similar instances from my own childhood. We developed our own rules and parameters when we played. We had teams with their own bases, within which, you couldn't be killed, or were safe from monsters etc. Where problems arose, was when people weren't exactly clear on the rules. “Bang bang, you’re dead.” “No, I’m not! Who says? Why am I dead?”. Situations like this are to be expected from children's simple games, but this can spell doom for games on the professional level. If not everyone is clear on what the rules are, issues can quickly arise and ruin a game.