On Monday, we worked on setting up questions for a new Q-Focus Project in a Round Table (my poster with my new statement and all the student/advisor-driven questions is posted here as well). After January Day, I was left reeling with a bunch of new ideas and a ton of questions to still answer. However, I've been looking at storytelling a lot recently and how that affects the gaming experience and mechanics. So: what if we strip all of that away?
I want to look at some philosophy (and maybe reach out to Alan and Steven in the process) as well as some psychology on group dynamics (which I scraped the surface of in my first improv SDA) to see how minimalistic a game can get while still retaining value and providing players with utility when they consume it. My hypothesis, which I want to refine, is that the most perfect game is the one with the most user control. Thus, sandbox games such as Little Big Planet, Dungeons and Dragons, and Minecraft are more likely to appeal to players. That explains why Minecraft is such a phenomenon today. However, there's other questions I need to ask in the process, including:
1. How minimalistic can you get?
1a. Does this minimalism barrier change depending on whether a game is singleplayer or multiplayer?
2. What are game mechanics that need to be retained?
3. Does the ability to change control settings (for accessibility - ex/people with disabilities being able to adjust what buttons are necessary to press in games - or just individuality) significantly affect how the game is played?
4. Why do games that aren't sandbox-style still become popular? What makes them appealing?
5. Is there such thing as too much freedom/choice?