Versus match

Battlefield 3 vs. Planetside 2

Hello there! Please forgive my absence during this past week but I have discovered a new game that has kept me really busy. The name of that game is Planetside 2. I am a very traditional gnome and as such I tend to stick with one game for quite some time when playing. Since I was already playing Battlefield 3 and was truly enjoying it, I became confused. What game should I stick with for a while? Well in order to find out I am going to compare the two games with each other and see which one comes out as the winner!

Let us start with the similarities between the two games:

• They are both FPS games and have a very strong focus on multiplayer. Planetside 2 does not even contain a single player campaign.
• Both games feature class systems where the player chooses a class to play as during each spawn.
• Both games feature RPG mechanics where the players gather experience and uses that experience to unlock weapons and/or customisations.
• Both BF3 and PS2 contain several different vehicles that play a large part along with classical infantry fighting.

Battlefield 3 is developed by DICE. Planetside 2 is developed by Sony Online Entertainment.

At first glance these two games might appear almost identical, causing many to utter the words "Planetside 2 is just an up scaled BF3 with worse graphics and a free to play model". It is true that both games are similar as a natural consequence of sharing the same genre. However, they differ substantially in three aspects. Those aspects are pacing, scale and team play. I am going to compare the games in these three aspects to see how they differ and how that affects the game play.

Pacing

Battlefield 3

In Battlefield 3 you are never more than a minute from a fight. Distances are short, combatants are often within 50 metres from each other when they start shooting at each other. The short distances combined with the rather low health in relation to weapon damage means that player get fast rewards for taking an enemy out and are punished quickly when being shot themselves. Example: An assault rifle does 25 damage up to  8 metres and fires 800 rounds per minute. This gives an effective DPS of 333. A player has 100 health in normal mode. This means that a player can potentially be killed in 0,3 seconds if all bullets are on target.

Respawn timers are set to 15 seconds by default and as such a player is never out of the game for long. It is possible to spawn on all squad members, this has given rise to the term "squad bombing" where one person suddenly becomes four persons. Players also carry enough ammunition to last for quite some time, provided the player does not go around shooting at walls and health regenerates after not taking damage for a few seconds.

Maps are rather small to accommodate the need to fast paced action and as such players seldom need vehicles to move around in an efficient manner. The control points that the players battle for control over are usually placed close to each other and in the center of the level. This funnels most players into the middle of the level, further increasing the intensity of the battle.

Planetside 2

Logistics are central to Planetside 2. The control territories player battle for are far apart from each other and it is not unusual to have a shoot out with another player several hundred metres away (damn those pesky snipers). This means that players need vehicles to get around the map in a timely fashion and for supplies to reach the front lines. 

Ammunition is sparse and health does not regenerate over time, meaning that the players will periodically need to go find a way to replenish these resources in the middle of a battle. This substantially reduces the game's pacing.

Weapons have more recoil than in BF3 (making it harder to stay on target during long bursts) and all players are equipped with a shield. The shield regenerates quickly after not taking damage after a few seconds, health does not. This makes it possible for a player to retreat when the shield is down in order to regenerate it. The shield regenerates quicker than health in BF3, from zero to full in just a few seconds, ensuring that the player can get back into the fight quicker and makes it more difficult to finish a player off.

Players can only spawn in territory they own, similar to spawning on control points in BF3. However, to further complicate spawning in PS2 it is not possible to spawn on squad members. This means that a player spawn away from the fighting and will need to hustle to the front line.

Territories are spread across continents in PS2, and it is important to hold all of them since they give resources that are used to purchase vehicles and equipment. No resources means no tanks or grenades. This leads to fighting taking part all over the continent, not just in the middle of the level as is the case in BF3.

Scale

Battlefield 3

Battlefield 3 supports up to 64 players per server, 32 per side. Each side has a number of tickets that gradually decrease as players are killed or control points are held. The side that first reach zero tickets lose. When a side lose the round is over and the map is reset for another round.

Squads have a an upper limit of four members.

BF3 uses the traditional FPS system of having a server rotation of maps. Maps are changed after rounds and players get to play on several different levels in quick succession. The number of maps are limited however and as such there is a risk of repetition setting in quickly. Environment destruction somewhat remedy this problem by adding another layer of complexity to the level design.

BF3 focuses on fast paced action in urban areas. This is an example from the map Strike at Karkand. I am standing on a rooftop overlooking a central flag.

Planetside 2

Planetside 2 supports up to 2000 players per server. Players are divided into three factions that constantly battle for territories in a persistent world. There are no tickets or rounds in PS2, the battle is never over. 

Squads have an upper limit of 12 members. In addition squads can form into platoons consisting of two to four squads.

PS2 is a persistent world MMO. There are three continents that players can battle across and each continent contains a multitude of territories. Each territory is about the same size as the largest BF3 maps, meaning that PS2 is bloody huge.

The large scale of Planetside 2 combined with the scarcity of ammunition means that logistics is important. Simply dying and respawning for more ammunition is not recommended since it takes several minutes to get back to the fight.

Massive scale calls for massive environments. You can go anywhere you see. Battles rage everywhere. This is one of the smaller outposts on the desert continent of Indar.

 

Team play

Battlefield 3

Battlefield 3 features four classes: Assault, support, engineer and recon. Each of these classes have their own weapons and equipment. Classes are largely self-sufficient, carrying plenty of ammunition and regenerating health between fights. Each class brings something unique to the table though, whether that is supplying ammunition, motion sensors or being able to resurrect comrades.

A player can easily make her own mark on battles in BF3 due to the small scale of the battles. A successful flanking maneuver where you take out five people can turn the tide of a battle.

The small scale combined with self-sufficient classes leads to BF3 being a highly individualistic game. The fast pacing means that players are usually never in the same place even if they share a squad since it is easy to respawn at a control point and advance on your own.

Planetside 2

Planetside 2 feature six classes: Infiltrator, light assault, combat medic, engineer, heavy assault and MAX. Similar to BF3 each of these classes have their own weapons and equipment but also their own certification tree that is used to upgrade the class. The certification system is a classical RPG mechanic akin to a traditional level system. In addition to having their unique equipment that allow them to support each other as in BF3 each class also has a class ability. No class in PS2 is self-sufficient, you will always lack either health or ammunition when playing alone.

Class abilities are central to the class and really makes the classes different from each other. The infiltrator can turn invisible, light assaulters come with a jet pack, combat medics can heal themselves, engineers place turrets, heavy assaulters have a stronger energy shield and MAX units can dash quickly.

The different classes combined with large scale, logistics and slower pace means that teamwork is much more important in PS2. The players in PS2 need to work together if they are to win a fight since there is no way a single soldier is going to defeat enough enemies to break their line. 

Sony implemented several mechanics into PS2 in order to further accentuate team play. There is built in proximity VOIP for communication, support for video capture and upload to youtube, friends and outfits (clan). Squads can form into platoons and there is a separate commander VOIP channel that players can access by specialising into the squad leader certification tree.

Summary

As we can see both Battlefield 3 and Planetside 2 are traditional FPS games where you run around and shoot stuff. They differ significantly in the areas I highlighted though, meaning that they are suited to different types of playstyles.

If you want a fast paced, visceral and rapidly rewarding FPS BF3 is probably your cup of tea. It does not require a large time investment to have fun, rounds are over quickly and you get constant rewards from just about anything you do in the game. Add in great graphics and awesome audio and you have a high quality game that is sure to keep you entertained.

Planetside 2 is strategic, tactical and slow paced. It rewards the thinking player. Rewards come slowly in PS2, it takes a long time to unlock certifications and territories are not conquered easily. When you do succeed however the sense of achievement is substantial. The scale and focus on teamwork give a sense of belonging to something larger than yourself, PS2 fosters a loyalty to your faction and allies that I have not experienced in another FPS.

Since I am rather old, slow and an academic I prefer Planetside 2. At least for the foreseeable future. I have had some truly awesome experiences with Battlefield 3 and it is still among my favorite games. Hopefully this analysis can help you put these games into perspective against each other. They are very similar in the core shooting mechanics with BF3 being slightly more polished and balanced. There is absolutely nothing that keeps you to playing only one of these games though, I would personally play BF3 during the lunch hour and PS2 in the evenings.

I could continue to write forever but Auraxis beckons. Loyalty until death, strength in unity. For the Terran Republic!

Announcing Cassiopeia

A new chapter begins.

Hello again friends! I have had all these marvelous ideas swirling about my head as of late and I thought I would share one of them with you. It is about one of my own projects in fact! It is called Cassiopeia. Yes, just like the constellation.

Cassiopeia is a pen and paper role playing game that has been in the making for a few years now. Granted there have been some long halts in the production during that time but things are finally coming together enough that I can see what it is going to become.

In this short announcement I want to first give a very brief description of the game and then finish with what is currently on the menu.

World

The human civilisation has fallen and the remaining humans have just about started to crawl back from the ruins. It is a new age of discovery and adventure. Cassiopeia is space opera at its finest.

The world is a mixture of the 16th century age of discovery, Treasure Planet and traditional Sci-Fi. The players will take up the role of explorers as humanity once again stretches for the stars. If you keep red-coats, muskets, native indians, unexplored wilderness, warring adventure companies and high-tech technology in mind you know the basics of the world.

I will write a lot more of the world in the future but seeing as this is just a first look I will stop here.

Rules

The rules are based on the traditional six sided die. The player rolls a certain number of dice depending on her level in various skills and/or abilites. Success is gained through rolling 5 or more on one of these rolled dice, with the result becoming even better if several dice land with success. Circumstance does of course factor into this. All in all it is a classical role playing system where you have your skills, abilites, equipment, experience and all that good stuff.

The two largest rule innovations are the melee mechanics and the diplomacy system.

Melee is played out as a duel, with both parts rolling dice and the one who rolls the most successes manages to land a blow. Instead of the classical turn-based "I hit you first then you hit me", in melee all players roll at the same time and your skill in relation with your opponents determine how well you manage to land your blows. Damage is also dependant on this roll. Melee weapons such as sabers do very little base damage, bonus damage is instead performed based on how much higher your opposed hit roll is. Meaning that a very skilled fighter will do a lot more damage against a novice fighter than a master, since the master will be able to mostly parry the strikes. All in all this creates a much higher reliance on skill than luck in melee, it will take much effort to become a skilled fencer but the payoff will be worth it.

Diplomacy and negotiation is played out like a card game where the participants play moves and counter moves with different effects until a winner emerges. The system is designed to offer the same level of complexity and customizability as the combat system. I am tired of combat always being the sole focus on role playing games and as such this system was created to give non-combatants as rich an experience as the combatants.

I will write more about the rules in the future but I hope this is sufficient as a proof of concept.

What to do now

Right now I am writing yet another iteration of the rules. Focusing on the character creation process, rules for creating equipment and starting to fill the rosters with interesting gear for the players to use. I will also start finalising the world description.

Basically the project is moving into the later stages, the concept is well iterated and solid. All that is needed now is to put the pen to paper.

That is it for this time, this will be one of the primary subjects for this blog and I hope that you will find it interesting to see how this project comes along and the thought processes behind it.

The two-piece puzzle of game design

The other part of success.

Hello there and welcome back! Please excuse my absence but I have been preoccupied with my thoughts for a few days. I was thinking about what it takes for a designer to create a great game and seem to have uncovered something that is news to me. And I have not encountered many other people discussing this. So I thought that it would be a brilliant topic for today's discussion!

It is common knowledge among designers that in order to create a great game you must know your target audience. Call of Duty is definitely aimed at another type of player than Angry Birds for instance. Much time and energy is spent on analysing the target player and making sure that every aspect of the game is tailored towards that player.

However, I see very little discussion about how a designer reaches the conclusions that lead to the inclusion of certain mechanics in order to appeal to the right type of player. Game development is a very stressful environment. Decisions have to be made on short notice while considering and weighing many options at any given time. As if such pressure was not enough a designer faces the uncomfortable expectation of being some kind of superman. A designer should be highly intelligent with a good grasp on logics and mechanics, socially competent, a great leader, a creative genius and capable of creating impressive graphical art while also coding and scripting the mechanics themselves. At least that is the preconception many seem to have about designers.

The typical mental image of a game designer?
Source

Such a person does not exist. Period. We may try to be all those things but we will inevitably fail and when we do we blame ourselves for not being good enough. This leads to an unhealthy self-perception and may further lead to the designer burning herself out and leaving the games industry all together.

How do we ensure that the designer makes the right decision while under all this pressure? Knowing your target audience intimately is only half the puzzle. My opinion is that knowing yourself, your skills and your limitations is the other half that almost no one seems to speak of.

I am supported in that opinion by one of the greatest thinkers ever. The author of the book "The art of war", Sun Tzu. This book is mandatory reading material not only at military academies around the world but is also of great interest to corporate executives, psychologists and any other person who intends to manage people or organisations. Sun Tzu writes:

"It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle." - Sun Tzu 

Read that quote again and let it sink in. This is the essence of game development. Translated into a format suitable to designers it would be something like this:

"It is said that if you know your player and know yourself, you will not fail once in a hundred games; if you do not know your player but know yourself, you will create one great and one bad; if you do not know your player nor yourself, you will fail every single time."

So how exactly does knowing yourself help in designing a game? By knowing yourself you will know what method to use in any given instance. If you do not yet know the correct method to use you will know how best to learn it. You will be able to work in such a way that it plays to your strengths and not trying to live up to other people's unreasonable expectations.

Now that we have established the importance of knowing yourself we need to take the next step.

How do we aquire this wisdom?

There are several places to find this information about yourself, but it is up to you to find it. I will list the methods I use when trying to learn more about myself. You will need to find your own way but this might hopefully help you on your way:

• Quiet contemplation in solitude
• Discussions with people you are very close to. When in the company of such people we let down our guard and let the other person see who we really are. Such persons generally know you better than you do yourself
• Psychology litterature
• Online psychology tests

Let us do a case study of what we can learn from a certain method and see how that relates directly to game design. I will use myself for this example and the method used is the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. For a good introduction to the subject I recommend this blog post, I suggest you read it before we move on if you are not already familiar with the method.

I am classed as ISFJ. This means that I have a specific hierarchy of functions that determine how I instinctively make decisions and interact with the world. They are, in order of dominance (descriptions from Wikipedia):

Introverted Sensing (Si)

"Si collects data in the present moment and compares it with past experiences, a process that sometimes evoces the feelings associated with memory, as if the subject was reliving it. Seeking to protect what is familiar, Si draws upon history to form goals and expectations about what will happen in the future."

Extraverted Feeling (Fe)

"Fe seeks social connections and creates harmonious interactions through polite, considerate and appropriate behavior. Fe responds to the explicit (and implicit) wants of others, and may even create and internal conflict between the subject's own needs and the desire to meet the needs of others."

Introverted Thinking (Ti)

"Ti seeks precision, such as the exact word to express an idea. It notices the minute distinctions that define the essence of things, the analyzes and classifies them. Ti examines all sides of an issue, looking to solve problems while minimizing effort and risk. It uses models to root out logical inconsistency."

Extraverted Intuition (Ne)

"Ne finds and interprets hidden meanings, using "what if" questions to explore alternatives, allowing multiple possibilites to coexist. This imaginative play weaves together insights and experiences from various sources to form a new whole, which can then become a catalyst to action."

Looking at this theory, I can now begin to see what happens in my mind when I encounter a problem. So, how do these functions and their order affect my thought process? And how do the functions interact with each other? Let us see!

When I first encounter a problem, my dominant Si function causes me to look inward to see if a solution is already known to me. If it is I will most probably use that solution if I deem it sufficient. I am very good at remembering rule systems, social practices and anything else that I find important and/or interesting. 

Si is like consulting your inner library.

If that is not sufficient my auxilliary Fe function kicks in to help me form a more complete picture of the problem in question. I look at the social context around me, what are the expectations and needs of the other's around me and how can I meet those expectations. Fe means that I know how to read other people and is skilled at figuring out their needs, a trait that neatly explains my interest in psychology. People close to me often accuse me of reading their thoughts! 

Fe is a powerful tool to use when attempting to gain an understanding of player psychology. It gives me a natural inclination towards empathy and lets me easily put myself in the player's position. Si ensures that I have ready access to my current pool of methods so that I can quickly match them against what my Fe discovers. This combination means that I am quickly able to find the correct method to reach the desired player response, given that the method is already in my pool of experience.

When I have gone through these first steps and still do not have the complete solution to a problem my tertiary Ti helps me logically analyse all the information gathered in the previous steps. I am then able to formulate a concrete problem statement and the requirements for solving it. In this phase I will probably be seen sitting and staring into thin air, slowly stroking my beard. I will examine the problem in detail before moving on to a more creative process.

This is when my Ne enters the scene. Ne is the classical creative, brainstorming function that allows me to seek multiple solutions to the problem. The Ne and Ti functions will together seek a solution to the concrete problem by rapidly analysing the available options and brainstorm around them. I will now get up from my chair and start moving around, waving my arms while thinking out loud and rapidly jumping between ideas. 

Conclusion
Being ISFJ means that I have a long way before my creativity kicks in but it also means that once I learn something I easily recollect it. I internalise experiences quickly and is capable of putting those experiences in a social context.

Since Ne is way down at the bottom, my creative process does not kick in unless I have figured out the solution to the problem before getting that far. I will have a tendency to stick to what I know (Si) and only challenge that when my current knowledge is insufficient.

In a project I should primarily focus on structuring (Si) other people's (Fe) creative thoughts, analyse them (Ti) and figure out how they should work mechanically (Ne). I am a structured and disciplined designer that enjoy using established practices to figure out how to best influence the player, rather than being a creative genius.

As you can see from this wall of text it is a long process to analyse yourself but the conclusions you reach may very well help you in your work and answer questions that have been gnawing at the back of your head for ages.

I wondered long and hard why I seemed to be less creative than many others around me. On the other hand I have always been very structured and a hard worker. The question that bothered me was if this trait made me a bad designer.

The answer is: No, it makes me good at certain things and not so good at others. But now that I know how I tick I will be able to play to my strengths and overcome or bypass my weaknesses.

I highly recommend that you take the time required to find yourself. It will be of great assistance to you in all parts of your life. I will finish this post with the words of another wise man:

"He who knows others is wise; he who know himself is enlightened." - Lao-Tzu

The definition and purpose of games.

What is a game and why do we play?

Welcome back stranger, a pleasure to see you again! In the last conversation I promised that we would start from the beginning. And what better place to start than with the definition of a game, since this blog is about games.

Starting by nailing down such an elusive concept as what a game is can be a daunting project, especially if you aim at creating an all-encompassing definition fit for all situations and people. I believe that I have found a definition that helps me immensely during my design sessions. So bear with me as I attempt to explain this definition.

All creatures play when they are young, this much is apparent through simple observation. The question then becomes:
Why do we play and what purpose does it fill?

We need to figure out the answer to these questions in order to define what a game is. Most if not all designers I know are driven towards creating the most immersive, fun and interesting game possible. A game that will be remembered for years and years for its brilliance. This is certainly very ambitious but if we do not have the answers to the above questions we are just swinging blindly.

Most people can agree that we play because it is fun. But why is it fun? Fun is, after all, just an emotional response to something we are doing. It is a combination of different chemicals released in our brains in order to promote positive activities.

I am a great fan of Raph Koster and especially his book A Theory of Fun. If you haven't read it yet I highly suggest you do it now. It is, in my mind, essential reading for any game designer. Koster argues that:

"Fun arises out of mastery. It arises out of comprehension. It is the act of solving puzzles that make games fun. With games, learning is the drug." - Raph Koster

Mastering a skill might take a lifetime but it is time well spent.
Source 

This is by no means a new idea, and we are supported by several other great thinkers who have reached the same conclusion:

• "The most effective kind of education is that a child should play amongst lovely things" - Plato
• "Play is the child's most useful tool for preparing for the future and its tasks" - Bruno Bettelheim
• "Play is the highest form of research" - Albert Einstein

Our brains are hardwired learning machines, this is what drives us into playing. Learning gives us the tools we need in order to overcome the challenges that are inevitably part of life. Overcoming challenges gives us a sense of achievement and makes us feel good about ourselves, which creates the feeling of fun. A good game is a game that constantly challenges the player and forces her to learn.

Our definition of a game must therefore include, in some manner, that learning is at the core of why we play.

But just figuring out why we play games is not enough. If a player is not guided by the game it is inevitable that she takes the path of least resistance since that is human nature. How can we as designers prevent the players from bypassing the challenges we create and in doing so bypass the entire learning process that is central to playing? If we let the player ignore the challenges she will not learn anything and the game will not be considered fun.

In order safeguard against this it is important to be able to control what challenges are presented and what methods are available to overcome them. To achieve this we need to consider rules. Since I come from an academic background this is the time to use a couple of terms that I find incredibly useful when discussing games.

These terms are widely used but my first acquaintance with them came from the book Man, Play and Games written by Roger Caillois. This is another book I cannot recommend highly enough. These terms are:

• Paidia - Unstructured and spontanteous activites
• Ludus - Structured activity and explicit rules

It is easy to see where these two terms fit into our society at large. Paidia is what we associate with childrens' games and playing. It is about improvised, creative playing were rules are implicit and changes rapidly as the game progresses. 

Ludus on the other hand is perhaps most associated with sports, but all organised games fall into this category. Ludus is about playing within explicit rules towards a clear goal. It has the advantage that the creator can quite easily control the play experience since all players must abide by the same rules. 

Based on the facts that:

1. We play games to learn
2. It is human nature to take the path of least resistance
3. Ludus has explicit rules at its core

We can draw the conclusion that in order to guide the player within the game, to make sure that she encounters the challenges we present and does not simply bypass them, we need to stick with ludus. Our game must have enough rules to limit the player's actions while still allowing for a learning process. As such we cannot simple create rules that are so strict that the player will always act in the exact same manner. There must be room for error and improvement.

Sports is a typically associated with ludus.
Source.

We are supported in this conclusion by child psychologist Bruno Bettelheim who clearly states the difference between play and games:

• Play - "Freedom from all but personally imposed rules, no goals."
• Games - "Externally imposed rules, goals." 

Our definition must include ludus in some way since we are defining game and not play (which would be paidia).

A regular mistake when creating a definition is to focus solely on a factual specification of what something is from a purely techincal standpoint. This completely ignores that all things exist in a context, and in my opinion that context must be addressed by the definition. In my opinion a game is not so much an artifact as it is an activity. A game has no meaning until it is played. When it is played it serves as a medium for the player to learn. The act of playing and learning is an activity. This is what I mean with a game being an activity rather than an artifact.

Now that we have the technical specification, the context and the purpose we can create our definition. I suggest the following:
A game has explicit rules and goals, and is played with the primary purpose of learning.

This definition neatly ties together what we have discovered about games and the purpose behind playing. In order to test this definition to see if it actually works on a real example we need to look at an existing game. A definition must be useful in a practical context after all.

Let us look at Skyrim developed by Bethesda. A game widely praised for the amount of freedom granted to the player to creatively explore and generally do as she wishes.

• Skyrim is set in a huge world where the player is free to wander as she wishes as long as she stays inside established boundaries. - This explicitly states the arena of the play area.
• Characters can be developed and improved in a variety of ways in order to meet challenges and customise the way the player plays the game. - This gives the player choices about how to tackle said challenges while still staying within the confines of the rules.
• The player has freedom within the rules to seek out and overcome challenges via creative thinking and trial and error.

The illusion of freedom.
Source.

Skyrim gives the player the illusion of choice that feeds her creativity while still guiding her along the intended experience. This illusion of choice is somewhat of a holy grail to game designers and something that is increadibly hard to nail down in a game. Everything in the game is controlled by explicit rules that cannot be broken since it is a digital game (computers are notoriously bad at independent thinking after all).

We can see that Skyrim fits into our definition neatly. If you choose to test the definition on other games you will find that what you typically refer to as games fits into the definition while other activities leaning more towards paidia do not.

If I were to give any practical advice from this largely abstract discussion it would be that if you wish to trap a player inside the game you create, if you wish to keep them playing, you must:

• Present her with a problem that require her to learn in order to overcome a challenge.
• Create rules that are explicit enough that she is unable to simply bypass the problem.

Greetings!

Welcome to my humble abode!

Welcome stranger! Come on in, grab a cup of tea, sit down and let us speak about the wonders of games. Remember to take off your shoes since cleaning the rug is a great hassle involving several epic quests that will force me into interaction with the physical representation of people!

This blog will deal with all matters game related. Here I will write about design philosophies, review games and muse about my different projects. I, the gnome, will be your host and I would very much like for you to take part in the discussions by leaving a comment below. Interactivity is what games is about after all, and I would be a bad host if I did not want interaction to play a major part in our discussions. I guess we will see how that plays out.

Now you may be wondering: "who is this gnome and why does he assume that I would want to hear anything he has to say about games?"

The answer is quite simple. I have a university degree in computer games design and some actual experience of working in the games industry. I always try to look at games from an academic perspective through the lens of experience rather than get caught up in a hype or going with my gut feeling. This means that I will discuss the game phenomenon in a different manner from many others who write about games. For me games is a craft like any other. The only way to truly learn a craft is to live it, analyse it and figure out how it really works beneath the surface.

I am of the belief that there are no 100% correct answers just as I do not believe in right and wrong. I do however believe that every crafting method has its advantages and disadvantages and that what separates a novice from a master is knowledge about when to use what tool. 

I feel a pressing need to start from the beginning. After all, it is only good manners to provide the background of any matter that is to be discussed before said discussion. This principle is very clear in practiced law where evidence must be presented to all sides before the case is taken before the judge. All sides need to be informed of the facts, terms and purpose of the dealings so that all involved may take part in the discussion and make an informed decision based on facts in the end. The next entry will therefore be about what I believe games to be, what makes them interesting and most of all: what makes them fun?

So, if you are interested in taking part of a discussion aimed at analysing games on a deeper level than "fun lulz!" stop by from time to time or add this blog to your RSS feed. Hopefully we will all learn something along the way.

Since this is my first entry on a blog meant to increase the knowledge about games it would be rude of me to not point you in the general direction of another blog I find informative:

The Game Philosopher discusses how and why games are made. Tackling issues such as project management, social psychology and practical applications of the Myers-Briggs personality types within projects. 

/The gnome