Goal is to help define new methods of measuring anxiety and relaxation. Games are an amazing medium for testing responses and awareness, as these are the premises already seen in game design.
Question is how vague and open-ended do we make these criteria so that we can understand how these games fit into this new category?
It's not to say that playing solitaire isn't relaxing for some that very much can be true on the same note it is to say that while some people find call of duty I realizing experience the tendency towards the depiction of violence would be one of the things that this genre would want to step away from.
It's going to have a lot of crossovers as an example Subway surfers is a really good tick motion game at the same time they've added so much advertising and in-game purchases that it becomes overly stimulating, overwhelming and a little beyond the point of actually playing the game in the terms of this genre.
There potentially will be a large outcry about how to market and fund these video games, but that doesn't change anything in terms of how the game developer can build their game structures and systems. Most products of this concept in the entertainment section typically run on user experience and getting the game marketed to the right user group. Games in the training and edutainment typically do not appeal to the mass market and therefore do not secure funding or see a return on their investments.
They do however accomplish other goals such as furthering the study of how an Autism Spectrum mindset perceives facial recognition and a social situation. As an example the game Pokemon in and of itself wasn't a game built before neurological disorders it just so happens that the person can filter was a high level or high functioning autism spectrum and built a game that appeal to what they wanted to see which was essentially collecting cute unusual creatures. Niantic came out with Pokemon go and created an even stronger urge for people who like their patterns to break said patterns and adventure out into the world and socialize it only about Pokemon go while it may not have been niantics game design core to actually help autism spectrum break Free of some of their patterns and engage socially it's definitely an outcome. So this game still fits into the casual area but now has considerations to be a part of the mental wellness area.
There's going to be a lot of give and take and flexibility on how this genre defines itself but I think it'll be critical to have a couple of ground rules. Such as little or no violent depictions limited stimulation in the in-game advertising and in-game store fronts, finding ways to off-board the players back into reality, and control of color color changes and gain tempo and game speed.
The largest argument for having an index for games of well-being and mental wellness is the fact that the casual market or casual genre is so enormous and encompassing that these kinds of games that actually do have a direct intent on their design structure will not be easily found unless there's some kind of marker for them. ASD has been studied more grease and more intensely in recent years than in the past yet the definition continues to expand as the understanding develops.
Wanted to consider helping a game be labeled in this genre would be to connect the project to a research project. That being said, if the research project is trying to find the correlation between the depiction of violence and video games and the violent desires of an individual that's a little different. There will probably be zero clear lines on this genre, just reference this and articles like it about violence and violent depictions in video games.
The definition of an example mechanic is the relationship between the risk and the reward, and violence is an exceptional risk avoidance concept in most people's daily lives. So this just naturally finds its way into the risk reward structure of most video game design. Meaning that super Mario Bros wild cartoon violence is still depicted as violence. Even if the violence is akin to squashing bugs and fire breathing snapping turtles the idea is still you must kill to survive. So let's change the example towards a sports game. American football, lacrosse, hockey are violent sports so we'll go ahead and leave them out of this argument but we can focus on say surfing or skiing.
An interesting aspect about video game video game design is the fact that players get to separate themselves from that of the life that they live. If the gamer is a person stuck in the city working at 9:00 to 5:00 desk job underneath fluorescent lights, the idea of being a downhill skier and the Himalayas May draw extreme interest. But if we're in the Himalayas there's going to be some seriously sheer drops, steep hills and dangerous Rock outcroppings. While the act of the actual skiing or snowboarding may not be violent the act of crashing into one of the obstacles can be deemed so. Does that make this video game violent? Does the violence in the video game separate it from a casual gameplay style or experience?
Or if a surfing game adds the system of an actual shark attack in the game while definitely a violent act in the real world, does it make this game violent? Even if the percentage of chance that a shark attack will happen is in an under 10% chance of attack in the actual game design? Taking this a little further, where do we separate the games from being casual to being sport or an exciting and does a surfing game on a mobile device that has some quick coin pickups Garner itself as a casual game only to say because it doesn't exist on the PC or major console systems? Is the casual gaming market associated to the cost of the actual game development cycle itself?