Chapter 3: Meaningful Play 5
Consider a strategy game in which the player has a number of units scattered all over a large
map. The map is so large that only a small portion of it can fit on the screen at once. If a
group of the player's units happen to be off-screen and are attacked but the player is not made
aware of it by the game, the player will become irritated. Consider an RPG where each
member of the player's party needs to be fed regularly, but the game does not provide any
clear way of communicating how hungry his characters are. Then, if one of the party
members suddenly keels over from starvation, the player will become frustrated, and rightly
so. Why should the player have to guess at such game-critical information?[2]
If you shoot an asteroid while playing a computer game and the asteroid does not change in any way, you are
not going to know if you actually hit it or not. If you do not receive feedback that indicates you are on the
right track, the action you took will have very little meaning. On the other hand, if you shoot an asteroid and
you hear the sound of impact, or the asteroid shudders violently, or it explodes (or all three!) then the game
has effectively communicated the outcome of your action. Similarly, if you move a board game piece on the
board but you have absolutely no idea whether your move was good or bad or if it brought you closer to or
farther away from winning-in short, if you don't know the meaning of your action-then the result of your
action was not discernable. Each of these examples makes clear that when the relationship between an action
and the result of that action is not discernable, meaningful play is difficult or impossible to achieve.
Discernability in a game lets the players know what happened when they took an action. Without
discernability, the player might as well be randomly pressing buttons or throwing down cards. With
discernability, a game possesses the building blocks of meaningful play.
Integrated
Another component of meaningful play requires that the relationship between action and outcome is
integrated into the larger context of the game. This means that an action a player takes not only has immediate
significance in the game, but also affects the play experience at a later point in the game. Chess is a deep and
meaningful game because the delicate opening moves directly result in the complex trajectories of the middle
game-and the middle game grows into the spare and powerful encounters of the end game. Any action taken
at one moment will affect possible actions at later moments.
Imagine a multi-event athletic game, such as the Decathlon. At the start of the game, the players run a
footrace. What if the rules of the game dictated that winning the footrace had nothing to do with the larger
game? Imagine what would happen: the players would walk the race as slowly as possible, trying to conserve
energy for the other, more meaningful events. Why should they do anything else? Although one of them will
win the footrace, it will have no bearing on the larger game. On the other hand, if the players receive points
depending on how well they rank and these points become part of a cumulative score, then the actions and the
outcomes of the footrace are well integrated into the game as a whole.
Whereas discernability of game events tells players what happened (I hit the monster),integration lets players
know how it will affect the rest of the game (If I keep on hitting the monster I will kill it. If I kill enough
monsters, I'll gain a level.). Every action a player takes is woven into the larger fabric of the overall game
experience: this is how the play of a game becomes truly meaningful.
Meaningful play can be realized in a number of ways, depending on the design of a particular game. There is
no single formula that works in every case. In the example of the asteroid shooting game, immediate and
visceral feedback was needed to make the action discernable. But it might also be the case that in a
story-based game, the results of an action taken near the beginning of the game are only understood fully at
the very end, when the implications are played out in a very unexpected and dramatic way. Both instances
require different approaches to designing meaningful play.
Meaningful play engages several aspects of a game simultaneously, giving rise to layers of meaning that
accumulate and shape player experience. Meaningful play can occur on the formal, mathematically strategic
Chapter 3: Meaningful Play 5
6 Chapter 3: Meaningful Play
level of a single move in Chess. It can occur on a social level, as two players use the game as a forum for
meaningful communication. And it can occur on larger stages of culture as well, where championship Chess
matches can be used as occasions for Cold War political propaganda, or in contemporary philosophical
debates about the relative powers of the human mind and artificial intelligence.
The next three chapters elaborate on the many ways that game designers construct spaces of meaningful play
for players. Among the many topics we might select, we cover three core concepts that form several of the
fundamental building blocks of game design: design, systems, and interactivity.
[2]Richard Rouse III, Game Design: Theory and Practice (Plano, TX: Wordware Publishing, 2001), p. 141.
< Day Day Up >
< Day Day Up >
Summary
• Meaning, play, and games are intimately related concepts. The goal of successful game design is
meaningful play.
• There are two ways to define meaningful play: descriptive and evaluative. The descriptive definition
addresses the mechanism by which all games create mean ing through play. The evaluative definition
helps us understand why some games provide more meaningful play than others.
• The descriptive definition of meaningful play: Meaningful play in a game emerges from the
relationship between player action and system outcome; it is the process by which a player takes
action within the designed system of a game and the system responds to the action. The meaning of an
action in a game resides in the relation ship between action and outcome.
• The evaluative definition of meaningful play: Meaningful play is what occurs when the relationships
between actions and outcomes in a game are both discernable and integrated into the larger context of
the game.
• Discernability means that a player can perceive the immediate outcome of an action. Integration
means that the outcome of an action is woven into the game system as a whole.
• The two ways of defining meaningful play are closely related. Designing successful games requires
understanding meaningful play in both senses.
< Day Day Up >
< Day Day Up >
6 Chapter 3: Meaningful Play
Chapter 4: Design
Design is the successive application of constraints until only a unique product is left.
-Donald Norman, The Design of Everyday Things
Introducing Design
"Design" is half of "game design." As a concept and as a practice, the idea of design sits at the center of an
exploration of games and meaningful play. Yet it is difficult to define. Like the term game, design is a concept
with many meanings, "Its definition depends on whether design is considered to be an idea, a knowledge, a
practice, a process, a product, or even a way-of-being."[1] Lacking a neat consensus, is it possible, or even
appropriate, to offer a general definition of design? Where do we go from here?
We could begin by listing familiar kinds of design practice: graphic design, industrial design, architecture,
fashion design, textile design, urban planning, information architecture, design planning . . . the list could go
on. Each of these practices involves the "design" of something, be it an object (such as a chair or a typeface)
or a plan (such as a transportation system or an identity system). What else do these practices share in
common? People, of course. Each design practice has a human being at its core. Although this might seem
obvious, it an often overlooked basic feature of design. We think it is of particular importance to game
designers, for people are at the heart of the games we create.
[1]Alain Findeli,"Moholy-Nagy's Design Pedagogy in Chicago, 1937-46." In The Idea of Design, A Design
Issues Reader, edited by Victor Margolin and Richard Buchanan (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1995), p. 29.
< Day Day Up >
< Day Day Up >
Chapter 4: Design 1
2 Chapter 4: Design
Some Definitions of Design
Unfortunately, a list of design practices doesn't bring us closer to a general definition of design suited to our
study of games. For precedents of such general definitions, we can look to design theory, as a way to map the
territory of possible approaches. We have assembled a number of definitions within a comparative list, in
order to emphasize their differences.
"The etymology of design goes back to the Latin de + signare and means making something,
distinguishing it by a sign, giving it significance, designating its relation to other things,
owners, users, or gods. Based on this original meaning, one could say: 'design is making
sense (of things).'"[2] This definition places making (sense) at the center of design.
Richard Buchanan argues that "design is concerned with the conception and planning of all of
the instances of the artificial or human-made world: signs and images, physical objects,
activities and services, and systems or environments." Such a perspective situates design
within the artificial. [3]
Herbert Simon's definition emphasizes action, which is fundamentally related to his theories
of management science: "Everyone designs who devises courses of action aimed at changing
existing situations into preferred ones." [4]
John Heskett employs a more traditional definition, emphasizing the visual appearance of
products as things: "design, the conception of visual form." [5]
Donald Schon regards design as a material conversation with the forms, substances, and
concepts of a design problem as they are bGeorge Nelson's definition emphasizes design as
communication: "Every design is in some sense a social communication, and what matters
is…the emotional intensity with which the essentials have been explored and expressed." [6]
eing used. His design approach is process-driven and reflective, emphasizing the iterative
qualities of design."In a good process of design, this conversation is reflective . . . the
designer reflects-in-action on the construction of the problem, the strategies of action, or the
model of the phenomena, which have been implicit in his moves." [7]
Designer Emilio Ambasz gives a descriptive but intellectually powerful definition,
emphasizing poetic thought: "It has always been my deep belief that architecture and design
are both mythmaking acts." [8]
Design historian Clive Dilnot suggests that design transforms by exploring the tension
between the existing and the potential. "What design, as a mode of transformative action,
allows us to see is how we negotiate the limits of what we understand, at any moment, as the
actual. In design, in other words, we begin to see the processes whereby the limits of the
actual are continually formed and re-formed." [9]
Design as making; the artificial; action; visual appearance; communication; a reflective process; thought;
transformation: each definition offers valid and useful ways of understanding the practice of design by
focusing on particular qualities or characteristics. Taken as a whole, the definitions point to a range of
concerns affecting designers and help to bring the field of design as a whole into view. But what about game
design? Is there a definition that addresses game design's particular territory, the design of meaningful play?
In order to answer this question, we must ask another: What is the "design" in game design and how is it
connected to the concept of meaningful play? As an answer, we offer the following general definition:
Design is the process by which a designer creates a context to be encountered by a participant, from
which meaning emerges.
2 Chapter 4: Design
Chapter 4: Design 3
Let us look at each part of this definition in relation to game design:
• The designer is the individual game designer or the team of people that creates the game. Sometimes,
games emerge from folk culture or fan culture, so there may not be an individual designer or design
team. In this case, the designer of the game can be considered culture at large.
• The context of a game takes the form of spaces, objects, narratives, and behaviors.
• The participants of a game are the players.They inhabit, explore, and manipulate these contexts
through their play.
• Meaning is a concept that we've already begun to explore. In the case of games, meaningful play is
the result of players taking actions in the course of play.
This connection between design and meaning returns us to the earlier discussion of meaningful play. Consider
a game of Tag. Without design we would have a field of players scampering about, randomly touching each
other, screaming, and then running in the other direction. With design, we have a carefully crafted experience
guided by rules, which make certain forms of interaction explicitly meaningful. With design a touch becomes
meaningful as a "tag" and whoever is "It" becomes the feared terror of the playground. The same is true of
computer games as well. As game designer Doug Church puts it, "The design is the game; without it you
would have a CD full of data, but no experience." [10]
[2]Klaus Krippendorff, "On the Essential Contexts of Artifacts or on the Proposition that 'Design is Making
Sense (of Things)'." In The Idea of Design, A Design Issues Reader, p. 156.
[3]Richard Buchanan, "Wicked Problems in Design Thinking." In The Idea of Design, A Design Issues Reader,
p. 6.
[4]Herbert Simon, The Sciences of the Artificial (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1968), p. 55.
[5]John Heskett, Industrial Design (New York: Oxford University Press, 1980), p. 7.
[6]Richard Buchanan, "Wicked Problems in Design Thinking." In The Idea of Design, A Design Issues Reader,
p. 8.
[7]Donald A. Schon, The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action (New York: Basic Books,
1983), p. 79.
[8]Emilio Ambasz, Emilio Ambasz: The Poetics of the Pragmatic (New York: Rizzoli International
Publications, 1988), p. 24.
[9]Clive Dilnot, The Science of Uncertainty: The Potential Contribution of Design Knowledge, p.
65-97.Proceedings of the Ohio Conference, Doctoral Education in Design, October 8-11, 1998.Pittsburgh
School of Design. Carnegie Mellon University.
[10]Doug Church, "Formal Abstract Design Tools." <www.gamasutra.com>, July 16, 1999.
< Day Day Up >
< Day Day Up >
Chapter 4: Design 3
4 Chapter 4: Design
Design and Meaning
When we ask what something "means," particularly in the context of design, we are trying to locate the value
or significance of that instance of design in a way that helps us to make sense of it. Questions such as,"What
does the use of a particular color mean on a particular product?" or "What does that image represent?" or
"What happens when I click on the magic star?" are all questions of meaning. Designers are interested in the
concept of meaning for a variety of reasons, not least of which is the fact that meaning is one of the basic
principles of human interaction. Our passage through life from one moment to the next requires that we make
sense of our surroundings-that we engage with, interpret, and construct meaning. This very human movement
toward meaning forms the core of interaction between people, objects, and contexts.
Consider the act of greeting a friend on the street. A wave, a nod, a kiss on the cheek, a pat on the back, a
warm hug, a firm handshake, and a gentle punch in the arm are all forms of interaction meaning, "Hello, my
friend." As a participant in this scenario, we must make sense of the gesture and respond appropriately. If we
fail to make sense of the situation, we have failed to understand the meaning of the interaction. Game
designers, in particular, are interested in the concept of meaning because they are involved in the creation of
systems of interaction. These systems then give rise to a range of meaning-making activities, from moving a
game piece on a board, to waging a bet, to communicating "Hello, my friend" with other online characters in a
virtual game world. This question of how users make sense of objects has led some designers, in recent years,
to borrow insights and expertise from other fields. In particular, the field of semiotics has been instructive.
Semiotics is the study of meaning and the process by which meaning is made. In the next few pages, we will
take a slight detour into semiotics, in order to more carefully build our concept of meaningful play.
< Day Day Up >
< Day Day Up >
Semiotics: A Brief Overview
It is…possible to conceive of a science which studies the role of signs as part of life…We
shall call it semiology (from the Greek semeîon,"sign"). It would investigate the nature of
signs and the laws governing them.- Ferdinand de Saussure, Course in General Linguistics
Semiotics emerged from the teachings of Ferdinand de Saussure, a Swiss linguist, in the early twentieth
century. Originally formulated under the term semiology, Saussure's theory of language as a system of signs
influenced many later currents of thought, including the anthropology of Claude Levi-Strauss, the philosophy
of Jacques Derrida, and the social mythology of Roland Barthes. [11]Each of these writers shared an interest in
understanding how products of human culture, from languages to funeral rituals to games, could produce
meaning.
In a general sense, semiotics is the study of how meanings are made. The question of what signs represent, or
denote, is of central concern to the field. If a high society dinner party was framed as a semiotic system, for
example, we would be interested in understanding the meaning of the different elements that make up the
dinner party. We could look at the way the table-settings denote a space for eating. We could look at how the
presence of fine china or silverware represents the idea of social class, or the representation of status in the
arrangement of chairs around the table.We might look at how the event represents concepts such as
"elegance,""power,""high-society," or "fine dining," or reference the idea of eating as an activity of survival,
sensual pleasure, anxiety, or community. We might even consider what the act of attending the event
represents or what it means to those who were not invited. Each of these perspectives contributes to our
understanding of the dinner party as a system of meaning, one comprised of signs that refer to things familiar
to us from the world "out there." But what do we mean when we say "sign"?
4 Chapter 4: Design
Chapter 4: Design 5
Semiotically speaking, people use signs to designate objects or ideas. Because a sign represents something
other than itself, we take the representation as the meaning of the sign. The smell of smoke (sign) represents
the concept of "fire," for example, or the tallest piece in Chess denotes the "King." In the game
Rock-Paper-Scissors, an outstretched hand means "paper," a fist means "rock," and two fingers spread in a
V-shape means "scissors." Our capacity to understand that signs represent is at the heart of semiotic study.
Similarly, understanding that signs mean "something to somebody" is at the core of any design practice. A
graphic designer, for example, uses typographic signs (letterforms) representing words to design a book; a
fashion designer uses silk as a sign representing "beauty" or "femininity" in a new spring line; a game
designer uses the classes of Fighter, Wizard, Thief, and Cleric in a fantasy role-playing game to denote four
kinds of player-characters within a game.Thus, signs are the most basic unit of semiotic study and can be
understood as markers of meaning. As David Chandler notes,
We do not live among and relate to physical objects and events. We live among and relate to
systems of signs with meaning. We don't sit on a complex structure of wood, we sit on a
stool. The fact that we refer to it as a STOOL means that it is to be sat on; it is not a coffee
table. In our interactions with others we don't use random gestures, we gesture our courtesy,
our pleasure, our incomprehension, our disgust. The objects in our environment, the gestures
and words we use, derive their meanings from the sign systems to which they belong. [12]
[11]Ellen Lupton and J. Abbott Miller,"Laws of the Letter." In Design, Writing, Research: Writing on Graphic
Design (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1996), p. 55.
[12]Daniel Chandler, Semiotics for Beginners. <www.aber.ac.uk/~dgc/semiotic.html.>
< Day Day Up >
< Day Day Up >
Four Semiotic Concepts
The American philosopher and semiotician Charles S. Peirce defines a sign as "something that stands for
something, to somebody, in some respect or capacity." [13]This broad definition recognizes four key ideas that
constitute the concept of a sign:
1. A sign represents something other than itself.
2. Signs are interpreted.
3. Meaning results when a sign is interpreted.
4. Context shapes interpretation.
[13]Charles S. Pierce: Selected Writings, ed. P.O. Wiener (New York: Dover, 1958), p. 37.
< Day Day Up >
< Day Day Up >
Chapter 4: Design 5
6 Chapter 4: Design
A Sign Represents Something Other Than Itself
A sign represents something other than itself; it "stands for something."The mark of a circle (O) in the game
of Tic-Tac-Toe, for instance, represents not only an action by player "O" (as opposed to player "X") but also
the capture of a certain square within the game's nine-square grid. Or consider the interaction between two
players in a game of Assassin. A tap on the arm might represent "death" or "capture," depending on the rules
of the game. In either case, the tap is meaningful to players as something other than a tap.
This concept of a sign representing something other than itself is critical to an understanding of games for
several reasons. On one hand, games use signs to denote action and outcome, two components of meaningful
play.The marks of an "X" or "O" in Tic-Tac-Toe or the taps on the arms of players in a game of Assassin are
actions paired with particular outcomes; these actions gain meaning as part of larger sequences of interaction.
These sequences are sometimes referred to as "chains of signifiers," a concept that calls attention to the
importance of relations between signs within any sign system.
On the other hand, games use signs to denote the elements of the game world. The universe of Mario, for
example, is constructed of a systems of signs representing magic coins, stars, pipes, enemies, hidden
platforms, and other elements of the game landscape. The signs that make up the game world collectively
represent the world to the player-as sounds, images, interactions, and text. Although the signs certainly make
reference to objects that exist in the real world, they gain their symbolic value or meaning from the
relationship between signs within the game. We can illustrate the idea of signs deriving meaning from within
the context of a game with an example drawn from the history of Scrabble.
In late 1993, a campaign was initiated against Hasbro, the company that owns and distributes Scrabble,
requesting that the company remove racial and ethnic slurs from The Official Scrabble Players Dictionary
(OSPD). This rulebook of officially playable or "good" words contained, at that time, words such as "JEW,"
"KIKE," "DAGO," and "SPIC." As a result of pressure from the Anti Defamation League and the National
Council of Jewish Women, Hasbro announced that fifty to one hundred "offensive" words would be removed
from the OSPD. As Stefan Fatsis writes in Word Freak: Heartbreak, Triumph, Genius, and Obsession in the
World of Competitive Scrabble Players,
The Scrabble community went ballistic. A handful of players, notably some devout
Christians, backed the decision. But a huge majority led by a number of Jewish players,
accused Hasbro of censorship.Words are words, and banning them from a dictionary would
not make them go away, they argued. Plus, the players tried to explain, the words as played
on a board during a game of Scrabble are without meaning. In the limited context of scoring
points, the meaning of HONKIE, deemed offensive in the OSPD, is no more relevant than the
meaning of any obscure but commonly played word.[14]
Within the context of a game of Scrabble, words are reduced to sequences of letters-they literally do not have
meaning as words. Rather, the letters are signs that have value as puzzle pieces that must be carefully arranged
according to the rules of spelling. Thus, although the sequence of letters H-O-N-K-I-E has meaning as a racial
slur outside of the context of a game of Scrabble, within it the sequence has meaning as a six-letter play worth
a number of points on the board. Within Scrabble the chain of signifiers represent words stripped of
everything except their syntactical relationships. Outside of Scrabble, however, the words represent racial
animosity.
Looking at chains of signifiers within a game means dissecting a game in order to view the system at a
micro-level to see how the internal machinery operates. But entire games themselves can also be identified as
signs. Viewing them from a macro- rather than micro-perspective allows us to look at games from the outside,
seeing them as signs within larger sign systems. The game of Tic-Tac-Toe, for instance, could be seen as a
sign representing childhood play, whereas the game of Assassin might stand for college mischief in the 1980s
or the film The 10th Victim, which inspired the game.
6 Chapter 4: Design
Chapter 4: Design 7
[14]Stefan Fatsis, Word Freak: Heartbreak, Triumph, Genius, and Obsession in the World of Competitive
Scrabble Players (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2001), p. 149.
< Day Day Up >
< Day Day Up >
Signs Are Interpreted
Peirce's definition suggests that signs are interpreted; they stand for something to somebody. It was one of
Saussure's fundamental insights that the meanings of signs are arrived at arbitrarily via cultural convention.
The idea that the meaning of signs rests not in the signs themselves but in the surrounding system is critical to
our study of games. It is people (or players), after all, who bring meaning to signs. As semiotician David
Chandler notes,
There is no necessary reason why a pig should be called a pig. It doesn't look sound or smell
any more like the sequence of sounds "p-i-g" than a banana looks, smells, tastes or feels like
the sequence of sounds "banana." It is only because we in our language group agree that it is
called a "pig" that that sequence of sounds refers to the animal in the real world. You and
your circle of friends could agree always to refer to pigs as "squerdlishes" if you wanted. As
long as there is general agreement, that's no problem-until you start talking about squerdlishes
to people who don't share the same convention.[15]
Chandler's point has resonance when we consider players as active interpreters of a game's sign system.
Children playing Tag during recess may change the sign for "home-base" from game to game, or even in the
middle of a game, if circumstances allow. A tree in the corner of the playground might be used one day, or a
pile of rocks another. Although a home base does have to possess certain functional qualities, such as being a
touchable object or place, there is nothing special about the tree or rocks that make them "home base" other
than their designation as such by the players of the game. Thus signs are essentially arbitrary, and gain value
through a set of agreed upon conventions. Because "there is no simple sign = thing equation between sign
systems and reality, it is we who are the active makers of meanings."[16]
[15]Daniel Chandler, Semiotics for Beginners. <www.aber.ac.uk/~dgc/semiotic.html>.
[16]Mick Underwood, CCMS. <http://www.cultsock.ndirect.co.uk/MUHome/cshtml/semiomean/
semio1.html>.
< Day Day Up >
< Day Day Up >
Meaning Results When a Sign Is Interpreted
Peirce's definition suggests that meaning results when a sign is interpreted; a sign stands for something, to
somebody, in some respect or capacity. Although this may seem like an obvious point it is important to note,
for it calls attention to the outcome of the process by which signs gain value within a system. Consider sitting
down to eat a bowl of soup at a formal dinner party and finding a pair of chopsticks next to the bowl. One
response would be to disregard the chopsticks as a sign for "spoon," and instead ask the waiter for the missing
utensil. Within this scenario we are interpreting a set of signs within the sign system representing "soup
Chapter 4: Design 7
8 Chapter 4: Design
utensils," of which spoons -and not chopsticks-are part. Within this system, the sign for spoon has value,
whereas the sign for chopstick does not.
Another example: If player A in a game of Rock-Paper-Scissors holds up three fingers in the shape of a "W"
instead of two in the shape of a "V," she has failed to create a sign that has value, or meaning, within the rock,
paper, scissors sign structure of the game. Player B might say, "What is that supposed to be?" in an attempt to
infuse the sign with value within the system of the game. If player A responds, "Scissors," then player B has
two choices. She can either accept the new sign as representative of "scissors" or she can reject the
interpretation. If she accepts the new representation, the players have, in effect, added a new sign to the
system; a three-fingered sign that now means "scissors."
< Day Day Up >
< Day Day Up >
Context Shapes Interpretation
Context is a key component to our general definition of design. It also is a key component in the creation of
meaning. Design is "the process by which a designer creates a context to be encountered by a participant,
from which meaning emerges." This definition makes an explicit connection between context and meaning.
When we speak of context in language we are referring to the parts of something written or spoken that
immediately precede or follow a word or passage that serve to clarify its meaning. The phrase "I am lost," for
example, can mean many different things depending on the context in which it is used. If a player of the text
adventure game Zork says,"I am trying to install the game and I am lost," we understand that she is having a
difficult time making sense of the game's installation instructions. If that same player were to say, "I am in the
second chamber and I am lost," we can ascertain that she is actually playing the game, has lost her way, and
needs help navigating the fictional game space. In each instance the phrase "I am lost" is given context by the
words that follow.
We can also understand context in relation to the idea of structure, which in semiotics refers to a set of
regulations or guidelines that prescribe how signs, or elements of a system, can be combined. In language, for
example, we refer to structure as grammar. The grammatical rules of a sentence create a structure that
describes how words can and cannot be sequenced. We might refer to these rules as invisible structure, as we
are not always aware that they are there. In games, this concept of grammar takes the form of game rules,
which create a structure for the game, describing how all of the elements of the game interact with one
another. Structure (in language or games) operates much like context, and participates in the meaning-making
process. By ordering the elements of a system in very particular ways, structure works to create meaning. The
communication theorist David Berlo uses the following example to explain how structure supports
interpretation:
Structure:
Most smoogles have comcom
We don't know what smoogles and comcom are, but we still know something about them: we
know that a smoogle is something countable and can be referred to in the plural, unlike, say,
water or milk. We know that smoogles is a noun and not a verb. We know that more than one
smoogle is referred to in this sentence. We know that comcom is a noun and that it is a quality
or thing which most smoogles are claimed to have. We still don't know what is referred to,
but the formal properties of English grammar have already provided us with a lot of
information.[17]
8 Chapter 4: Design
Chapter 4: Design 9
Although the structure of any system does provide information that supports interpretation, context ultimately
shapes meaning. In the following example, Berlo shows how structure and context work together to aid
interpretation:
Context:
My gyxpyx is broken
From the structure of the language you know that gyxpyx is a noun.You know that it's
something that it makes sense to refer to as broken.
One of its keys is stuck
Now we're getting a bit closer-a gyxpyx is maybe a typewriter, calculator, or musical
instrument; at any rate it's something that has keys.
and I think it could do with a new ribbon, as well
Well, that pretty well clinches it. We're still left with the question of just what the difference
is between a typewriter and a gyxpyx or why this person has the odd habit of referring to
typewriters as gyxpyxes, but we can be reasonably sure already that a gyxpyx is something
typewriter-like.[18]
Berlo goes on to note that the meaning we have for gyxpyx comes partly from the structure. We know it is a
noun and we know it can be broken, that it has keys and a ribbon. But structure can only take us so far in our
search for meaning; context must often be called upon to complete the quest. Consider the experience of
playing a game of Pictionary with friends. Much of the guessing that occurs early in a turn relies on structure
to provide clues. A player attempting to draw "Frankenstein" may begin by drawing a head and eyes, as a
means of establishing the structure of the human form. This structure helps players to make guesses such as
"eyes," "face," or "head," but it soon becomes clear that more information is needed. In response, the player at
the drawing board may begin to create a context for the head by drawing a large body with outstretched
"zombie" arms, stitch marks denoting surgical scars, and a Tesla coil crackling in the background. Although
players might not initially understand what these marks represent (the stitches might just look like squiggly
lines), the context created by the other elements of the drawing supply the marks with the meaning they would
otherwise lack. Once the players recognize the context "zombie" or "monster," the stitch marks become
"scars" and Frankenstein is brought to life.
This relationship between structure, context, and meaning tells us that the act of interpretation relies, in part,
on the movement between known and unknown information. Players of Pictionary, for example, will often
come across a sign for which they don't have a meaning (stitch marks) within the context of signs for which
they do (zombie or monster). The meanings that are known and familiar generate other meanings due to the
formal relations between the known and the unknown signs. Keep in mind that the actual elements that
constitute structure and context are fluid. The drawing of a head might operate as structure early in the
guessing period (if it is the first thing drawn), but when it serves to help identify the squiggles, it becomes part
of context.
To design is to create meaning. Meaning that can thrill and inspire. Meaning that moves and dances and plays.
Meaning that helps people understand the world in new ways. Designers sculpt these experiences of meaning
by creating not just one isolated signifier but by constructing whole systems of interlocking parts. As Saussure
points out, in language the value of one sign only arises in relation to other signs. In Rock-Paper-Scissors the
concept "rock" has identity only in opposition to the concepts "paper" or "scissors."The meaning of a sign
does not reside within the sign itself, but from the surrounding system of which it is part. The meaningful play
you provide for your players emerges from the designed system of a game- and how that game interacts with
larger social and cultural systems. What is it that game designers design? Systems. This is the key concept we
Chapter 4: Design 9
10 Chapter 4: Design
introduce in the next chapter.
[17]Ibid.
[18]Ibid.
< Day Day Up >
< Day Day Up >
Summary
• There are many general definitions of design. Each emphasizes different aspects of the vast range of
design practices.
• Our definition of design emphasizes the creation of meaningful experience:
Design is the process by which a designer creates a context to be encountered by a participant, from
which meaning emerges.
• Semiotics is the study of meaning. It is primarily concerned with the question of how signs represent,
or denote.
• People use signs to designate objects or ideas. Because a sign represents something other than itself,
we take the representation as the meaning of the sign.
• Charles Pierce identifies four semiotic concepts:
1. A sign represents something other than itself.
2. Signs are interpreted.
3. Meaning results when a sign is interpreted.
4. Context shapes interpretation.
♦ A sign represents something other than itself: In a game, gestures, objects, behaviors, and
other elements act as signs. In the game Assassin, a tap denotes a "kill."
♦ Signs are interpreted: A sign stands for something to somebody. Meaning emerges in a
game as players take on active roles as interpreters of the game's signs.
♦ Meaning results when a sign is interpreted: A sign stands for something to somebody in some
respect or capacity. The meaning of a sign emerges from relationships between elements of a
system.
♦ Context shapes interpretation: Context is the environment of a sign that affects
interpretation. The related phenomenon of structure also shapes interpretation. Structure is a
set of rules or guidelines that prescribe how signs can be combined.
< Day Day Up >
< Day Day Up >
10 Chapter 4: Design
Chapter 5: Systems
The system is partly a memory of its past, just as in origami, the essence of a bird or a horse is both in the
nature and order of the folds made. The question that must be answered when faced with a problem of
planning or design of a system, is what exactly is the system? It is therefore necessary to know the nature of
the inner structure before plans can be made.-Wolfgang Jonas, "On the Foundations of a 'Science of the
Artificial'"
Introducing Systems
Games are intrinsically systemic: all games can be understood as systems. What do we mean by this? Let's
begin our investigations of games and systems by looking at some common understandings of the word
"system."
System
1. A group of interacting, interrelated, or interdependent elements forming a complex whole.
2. A functionally related group of elements, especially:
a. The human body regarded as a functional physiological unit.
b. An organism as a whole, especially with regard to its vital processes or functions
c. A group of physiologically or anatomically complementary organs or parts: the nervous
system; the skeletal system.
d. A group of interacting mechanical or electrical components.
e. A network of structures and channels, as for communication, travel, or distribution.
3. An organized set of interrelated ideas or principles.
4. A social, economic, or political organizational form.
5. A naturally occurring group of objects or phenomena: the solar system.
6. A set of objects or phenomena grouped together for classification or analysis.
7. A condition of harmonious, orderly interaction.
8. An organized and coordinated method; a procedure.[1]
Some of these definitions focus on the biological or natural idea of the word "system" (2a, 2b, 2c, 5). Others
reference mechanical systems (2d) or systems of transportation and communication (2e). Still others focus on
the social meanings of the word (4, 7) or on ideas and knowledge (3, 6, 8). Despite differences in emphasis,
there is something that all of these def-
Chapter 5: Systems 1
2 Chapter 5: Systems
initions of "system" share. Look for it in the very first definition on the list, which describes systems as "a
group of interacting, interrelated, or interdependent elements forming a complex whole." This understanding
of a system as a set of parts that relate to form a whole contains all of the other special cases of this same
concept. When understood in this way-as a set of parts that together form a complex whole-it is clear that
games are systems.
In a game of Soccer, for example, the players, the ball, the goal nets, the playing field, are all individual
elements. When a game of Soccer begins these elements gain specific relationships to each other within the
larger system of the game. Each player, for example, plays in a certain position on one of two teams. Different
player positions have roles that interrelate, both within the system that constitutes a single team (goalie vs.
forward vs. halfback), and within the system that constitutes the relationship between teams (the goalie
guarding the goal while an opposing forward attempts to score). The complex whole formed by all of these
relationships within a system comprises the game of Soccer.
As systems, games provide contexts for interaction, which can be spaces, objects, and behaviors that players
explore, manipulate, and inhabit. Systems come to us in many forms, from mechanical and mathematical
systems to conceptual and cultural ones. One of the challenges of our current discussion is to recognize the
many ways that a game can be framed as a system. Chess, for example, could be thought of as a strategic
mathematical system. It could also be thought of as a system of social interaction between two players, or a
system that abstractly simulates war.
[1]<dictionary.com>.
< Day Day Up >
< Day Day Up >
The Elements of a System
A system is a set of things that affect one another within an environment to form a larger pattern that is
different from any of the individual parts. In his textbook Theories of Human Communication, Stephen W.
Littlejohn identifies four elements that constitute a system: Let us take a detailed look at a particular game,
Chess. We will first think about Chess as a strictly strategic and mathematical system. This means considering
Chess as a purely formal system of rules. Framed in this way, the four elements of the system of Chess are as
follows:
• The first is objects-the parts, elements, or variables within the system. These may be physical or
abstract or both, depending on the nature of the system.
• Second, a system consists of attributes-the qualities or properties of the system and its objects.
• Third a system has internal relationships among its objects. This characteristic is a crucial aspect [of
systems].
• Fourth, systems also possess an environment. They do not exist in a vacuum but are affected by their
surroundings.[2]
• Objects: The objects in Chess are the pieces on the board and the board itself.
• Attributes: These are the characteristics the rules give these objects, such as the starting positions of
each piece and the specific ways each piece can move and capture.
• Internal Relationships: Although the attributes determine the possible movements of the pieces, the
internal relationships are the actual positions of the pieces on the board. These spatial relationships on
the grid determine strategic relationships: one piece might be threatening another one, or protecting an
empty square. Some of the pieces might not even be on the board.
• Environment: If we are looking just at the formal system of Chess, then the environment for the
interaction of the objects is the play of the game itself. Play provides the context for the formal
2 Chapter 5: Systems
Chapter 5: Systems 3
elements of a game.
But framing the game as a formal system is only one way to think about the system of Chess. We can extend
our focus and think of Chess as a system with experiential dimensions as well. This means thinking of Chess
not just as a mathematical and logical system, but also as a system of interaction between the players and the
game. Changing the way that we frame the game affects how we would define the four components of a
system. Framed as an experiential system, the elements of the system of Chess are as follows:
• Objects: Because we are looking at Chess as the interaction between players, the objects of the system
are actually the two players themselves.
• Attributes: The attributes of each player are the pieces he or she controls, as well as the current state
of the game.
• Internal Relationships: Because the players are the objects, their interaction constitutes the internal
relationships of the system. These relationships would include not just their strategic interaction, but
their social, psychological, and emotional communication as well.
• Environment: Considering Chess as an experiential system, the total environment would have to
include not just the board and pieces of the game, but the immediate environment that contained the
two players as well. We might term this the context of play. Any part of the environment that
facilitated play would be included in this context. For example, if it were a play-by-email game of
Chess, the context of play would have to include the software environment in which the players send
and receive moves. Any context of play would also include players' preconceptions of Chess, such as
the fact that they think it is cool or nerdy to play. This web of physical, psychological, and cultural
associations delineate-not the experience of the game -but rather the context that surrounds the game,
the environment within which the experience of play occurs.
Lastly, we can expand our focus and think about Chess as a cultural system. Here the concern is with how the
game fits into culture at large. There are many ways to conceive of games as culture. For example, say that we
wanted to look at the game of Chess as a representation of ideological values associated with a particular time
and place. We would want to make connections between the design of the game and larger structures of
culture. We would be looking, for example, to identify cultural references made in the design of the game
pieces (What is the gendered power relationship between King and Queen implied in their visual design?);
references made in the structure and rituals of game play (Was playing Chess polite and gentlemanly or vulgar
and cutthroat?); and references made to the people who play (Who are they-intellectuals, military types, or
computer geeks?). Framed as a cultural system, the four elements of the system of Chess are as follows:
• Objects: The object is the game of Chess itself, considered in its broadest cultural sense.
• Attributes: The attributes of the game would be the designed elements of the game, as well as
information about how, when, and why the game was made and used.
• Internal Relationships: The relationships would be the linkages between the game and culture. We
might find, for example, a relationship between the "black and white" sides of the game and the way
that race is referenced when the game pieces are represented figuratively.
• Environment: The environment of the system extends beyond any individual game of Chess, or even
the context of play. The total environment for this cultural framing of Chess is culture itself, in all of
its forms.
Note that there are innumerable ways of framing Chess as a cultural system. We could examine the complex
historical evolution of the game. Or we could investigate the amateur and professional subcultures (books,
websites, competitions, etc.) that surround the game. We could study the culture of Chess variants, in which
Chess is redesigned by player-fans, or how Chess is referenced within popular culture, such as the Chess-like
game Spock played on the television show Star Trek. The list goes on.
[2]Stephen W. Littlejohn, Theories of Human Communication, 3rd edition (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth
Publishing Company, 1989), p. 41.
Chapter 5: Systems 3
4 Chapter 5: Systems
< Day Day Up >
< Day Day Up >
Framing Systems
Even though we were talking about the same game each time, as we proceeded from a formal to an
experiential to a cultural analysis, our sense of what we considered as part of the system grew. In fact, each
analysis integrated the previous system into itself. The hierarchical nature of complex systems makes this
integration possible.
Because of the hierarchical nature of the critical or complex system, with interactions over all
scales, we can arbitrarily define what we mean by a unit: In a biological system, one can
choose either a single cell, a single individual, such as an ant, the ant's nest, or the ant as a
species, as the adaptive unit.In a human social system, one might choose an individual, a
family, a company, or a country as the unit. No unit at any level has the right to claim priority
status. [3]
In a game system, as in a human social system or biological system, hierarchies and interactions are scalable
and embedded, as complexity theorist Per Bak points out in the quote above. Although no single framing has
an inherent priority, there are specific relationships among the kinds of framings given here. The formal
system constituting the rules of a game are embedded in its system of play. Likewise, the system of play is
embedded in the cultural framing of the game. For example, understanding the cultural connotations of the
visual design of a game piece still should take into account the game's rules and play: the relative importance
of the pieces and how they are actually used in a game. For example, answering a cultural question regarding
the politics of racial representation would have to include an understanding of the formal way the core rules of
the game reference color. What does it mean that white always moves first?
Similarly, when you are designing a game you are not designing just a set of rules, but a set of rules that will
always be experienced as play within a cultural context. As a result, you never have the luxury of completely
forgetting about context when you are focusing on experience, or on experience and culture when you're
focusing on the game's formal structure. It can be useful at times to limit the number of ways you are framing
the game, but it is important to remember that a game's formal, experiential, and cultural qualities always exist
as integrated phenomena.
The History of Systems
The formal use of systems as a methodology for study has a rich history, which we can only quickly outline
here. Many of the ideas surrounding systems and systems theory come from Ludwig von Bertalanffy's 1928
graduate thesis, in which he describes organisms as living systems. By 1969, von Bertalanffy had formalized
his approach in the book General Systems Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications. Von Bertalanffy
proposed a systems-based approach to looking at radically different kinds of phenomena, from the movement
of particles to the cellular structures of organisms to the organization of a society. Von Bertalanffy's book
called for a single integrated science of systems that acknowledged the linkages between the way systems
operate across radically varying scales. Bertalanffy's systems-based approach contributed to the development
of the fields of information theory, game theory, and cybernetics; each of these fields, in turn, contributed to
contemporary concepts of computer science.
Although formal systems theory is no longer in common use today, sys-tems-based approaches have given
rise to a variety of interdisciplinary fields, including studies of complexity, chaos, and artificial life. Scholars
come to these fields from a wide array of disciplines, including mathematics, genetics, physics, biology,
4 Chapter 5: Systems
Chapter 5: Systems 5
sociology, and economics. We will be only be touching on their work here, but if these systems-based
investigations interest you, additional references can be found in the suggested readings for chapter 14,
Games as Emergent Systems.
[3]Per Bak, "Self-Organized Criticality: A Holistic View of Nature." In Complexity: Metaphors, Models and
Reality, edited by George A. Cowan, David Pine, and David Meltzer (Cambridge: Perseus Books, 1994), p.
492.
< Day Day Up >
< Day Day Up >
Open and Closed Systems
There are two types of systems, open and closed. In fact, the concept of open and closed systems forms the
basis of much of our discussion concerning the formal properties of games and their social and cultural
dimensions. This concept speaks not only to games themselves, but also to the relationships games have to
players and their contexts. What distinguishes the two types of systems? Littlejohn writes, "One of the most
common distinctions [in systems theory] is between closed and open systems. A closed system has no
interchange with its environment. An open system receives matter and energy from its environment and passes
matter and energy to its environment." [4]
What makes a system open or closed is the relationship between the system and the context, or environment,
that surrounds it. The "matter and energy" that passes between a system and its environment can take a
number of forms, from pure data (a thermometer measuring temperature and passing the information to the
system of a computer program that tries to predict the weather), to human interaction (a person operating and
interacting with the system of a car in order to drive down a highway). In both examples the system is open
because there is some kind of transfer between the system and its environment. The software system passes
temperature information from the outside climate. The car system exchanges input and output with the driver
in a variety of ways (speedometer, gas pedal, steering wheel, etc.).
When we frame a game as a system it is useful to recognize whether it is being treated as an open or closed
system. If we look at our three framings of Chess, which framings were open and which were closed?
• Formal system: As a formal system of rules, Chess is a closed, self-contained system.
• Cultural system: As a cultural system,Chess is clearly an open system, as we are essentially
considering the way that the game intersects with other contexts such as society, language, history,
etc.
• Experiential system: As an experiential system of play, things get tricky. Framing Chess as an
experiential system could lead to understanding the game as either open or closed. If we only consider
the players and their strategicgame actions, we could say that once the game starts, the only relevant
events are internal to the game. In this sense, the game is a closed system. On the other hand, we
could emphasize the emotional and social baggage that players bring into the game, the distractions of
the environment,the reputations that are gained or lost after the game is over. In this sense, the play of
Chess would be an open system. Framed as play, games can be either open or closed.
In defining and understanding key concepts like design and systems, our aim is to better understand the
particular challenges of game design and meaningful play. Game designers do practice design, and they do so
by creating systems. But other kinds of designers create systems as well-so what is so special about games?
The systems that game designers create have many peculiar qualities, but one of the most prominent is that
they are interactive, that they require direct participation in the form of play. In the next chapter, we build
Chapter 5: Systems 5
6 Chapter 5: Systems
directly on our understanding of systems and design to tackle this confounding but crucial concept: the
enigmatic interactivity.
[4]Littlejohn, Theories of Human Communication, p. 41
< Day Day Up >
< Day Day Up >
Summary
• A system is a set of parts that interrelate to form a complex whole. There are many ways to frame a
game as a system: a mathematical system, a social system, a representational system, etc.
• There are four elements that all systems share:
♦ Objects are the parts, elements, or variables within the system.
♦ Attributes are the qualities or properties of the system and its objects.
♦ Internal relationships are the relations among the objects.
♦ Environment is the context that surrounds the system.
The way these elements are identified in any individual game depends on the way it is framed as a system.
The four elements would be different, for example, if a game were framed as a formal, mathematical system,
an experiential system of play, or as a cultural system.
• These three framings of a game as a system, formal, experiential, and cultural, are embedded in
each other. A game as a formal system is always embedded within an experiential system, and a game
as a cultural system contains formal and experiential systems.
• Although all three levels (formal, experiential, and cultural) exist simultaneously, it can be useful to
focus on just one of them when making an analysis or solving a design problem. It is crucial when
designing a game to understand how these three levels interact and interrelate to each other.
• Systems can be open or closed. An open system has an exchange of some kind with its environment.
A closed system is isolated from its environment. Whether or not you consider a game as a closed or
open system depends on the way you frame it:
♦ Formal systems are closed systems.
♦ Experiential systems can be open or closed systems.
♦ Cultural systems are open systems.
< Day Day Up >
< Day Day Up >
6 Chapter 5: Systems
Chapter 6: Interactivity
The word "interactivity" isn't just about giving players choices; it pretty much completely defines the game
medium.-Warren Spector, RE:PLAY: Game Design + Game Culture
Introducing Interactivity
Play implies interactivity: to play with a game, a toy, a person, an idea, is to interact with it. More specifically,
playing a game means making choices within a game system designed to support actions and outcomes in
meaningful ways. Every action results in a change affecting the overall system. This process of action and
outcome comes about because players interact with the designed system of the game. Interaction takes place
across all levels, from the formal interaction of the game's objects and pieces, to the social interaction of
players, to the cultural interaction of the game with contexts beyond its space of play.
In games, it is the explicit interaction of the player that allows the game to advance. From the interactivity of
choosing a path to selecting a target for destruction to collecting magic stars, the player has agency to initiate
and perform a whole range of explicit actions. In some sense, it is these moments of explicit action that define
the tone and texture of a specific game experience. To understand this particular quality of games- the element
of interaction-we must more completely grasp the slippery terms "interactive,""interaction," and
"interactivity."
< Day Day Up >
< Day Day Up >
Defining Interactivity
Perhaps even more than "design" and "systems," debates over the term "interactivity" have run rampant.
Interactivity is one of those words that can mean everything and nothing at once. If everything can indeed be
considered interactive, then the concept loses its ability to help us solve design problems. In corralling this
runaway word, our aim is to try and understand it in its most general sense, but also to identify those very
particular aspects of interactivity that are relevant to games. To this end, we look at several definitions of
interactivity.We begin with a general question: What is "interaction?" Here are some basic dictionary
Chapter 6: Interactivity 1
2 Chapter 6: Interactivity
definitions:
• interaction: 1. intermediate action; 2. mutual or reciprocal action or influence;
• interact: to act on each other; act reciprocally
• interactive: reciprocally active; acting upon or influencing each other; allowing a two-way flow of
information between a device and a user, responding to the user's input.[1]
In the most general terms, interactivity simply describes an active relationship between two things. For our
purposes, however, we require a slightly more rigorous definition, one that takes into account the particular
nature of games. Instead of asking about interactivity in the abstract, what does it mean to say that something
is "interactive?" More specifically, how does interactivity emerge from within a system?
Communications theorist Stephen W. Littlejohn defines interactivity this way: "Part and parcel of a system is
the notion of 'relationship'…. Interactional systems then, shall be two or more communicants in the process of,
or at the level of, defining the nature of their relationship."[2] In other words, something is interactive when
there is a reciprocal relationship of some kind between two elements in a system. Conversations, databases,
games, and social relationships are all interactive in this sense. Furthermore, relationships between elements
in a system are defined through interaction.
Following this definition, digital media theorist and entrepreneur Brenda Laurel brings the concept of
representation to an understanding of the term: "…something is interactive when people can participate as
agents within a representational context. (An agent is 'one who initiates actions.')"[3] Laurel's model
emphasizes the interpretive component of interactive experiences, framing an interactive system as a
representational space.
In an alternative definition of interactivity, theorist Andy Cameron builds on this interpretive dimension by
stressing the idea of direct intervention. In his essay "Dissimulations,"Cameron writes that
Interactivity means the ability to intervene in a meaningful way within the representation
itself, not to read it differently. Thus interactivity in music would mean the ability to change
the sound, interactivity in painting to change colors, or make marks, interactivity in film…the
ability to change the way the movie comes out." [4]
Cameron suggests a connection between interactivity and explicit action, a key feature of games and
meaningful play. In some sense, it is these moments of explicit action that define the tone and texture of a
specific game experience.
A final definition comes from game designer Chris Crawford, who metaphorically defines interactivity in
terms of a conversation: "Interactivity: a cyclical process in which two actors alternately listen, think, and
speak. The quality of interaction depends on the quality of each of the subtasks (listening, thinking, and
speaking)." [5]
While his definition hearkens back to Littlejohn's relational model, Crawford's definition stresses the iterative
quality of interactivity. He uses the following example for emphasis:
A conversation, in its simplest form, starts out with two people, Joe and Fred. Joe says
something to Fred. At this point, the ball is in Fred's court. He performs three steps in order to
hold up his end of the conversation:
Step One: Fred listens to what Joe has to say. He expends the energy to pay attention to Joe's
words. He gathers in all of Joe's words and assembles them into a coherent whole.This
requires an active effort on Fred's part.
Step Two: Fred thinks about what Joe said. He considers, contemplates, and cogitates.The
2 Chapter 6: Interactivity
Chapter 6: Interactivity 3
wheels turn in his mind as Fred develops his response to Joe's statement.
Step Three: Fred expresses his response back to Joe. He forms his thoughts into words and
speaks them.
Now the tables are turned; the ball is in Joe's court. Joe must listen to what Fred says; Joe
must think about it and develop a reaction; then he must express his reaction to Fred.This
process cycles back and forth. Thus, a conversation is an iterative process in which each
participant in turn listens, thinks, and speaks.[6]
Each of these definitions provides its own critical way of understanding interactivity: it takes place within a
system, it is relational, it allows for direct intervention within a representational context, and it is iterative. Yet
none of the definitions describes how and where interactivity can take place, and none of them address the
relationship between structure and context, two key elements in the construction of meaning. These questions
of the "how,""where," and "by whom" are critical to anyone faced with the challenge of designing
interactivity.
In other words, none of these definitions resolve the question of whether or not all media, or even all
experiences, are interactive. If interactivity is really so ubiquitous, can it possibly be a useful term for
understanding games?
[1]<dictionary.com>.
[2]Stephen W. Littlejohn, Theories of Human Communication, 3rd edition (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth
Publishing Company, 1989), p. 175.
[3]Brenda Laurel, Computers as Theater (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1993), p. 112.
[4]Andy Cameron, Dissimulations: Illusions of Interactivity (MFJ No. 28: Spring 1995),
<http://infotyte.rmit.edu.au/rebecca/html/dissimula-tions. html>.
[5]Chris Crawford, Understanding Interactivity (San Francisco: No Starch Press), 2002, p. 6.
[6]Ibid; p. 7.
< Day Day Up >
< Day Day Up >
A Multivalent Model of Interactivity
Each of the previous definitions foreground a particular aspect of interaction; in our view, they are all are
useful ways of defining interactivity. Rather than try and distill them into a composite definition, we have
elected instead to offer a model of interactivity that accommodates each of these definitions. The model
presents four modes of interactivity, or four different levels of engagement, that a person might have with an
interactive system. Most "interactive" activities incorporate some or all of them simultaneously.
Mode 1: Cognitive interactivity; or interpretive participation
This is the psychological, emotional, and intellectual participation between a person and a
system. Example: the complex imaginative interaction between a single player and a graphic
adventure game.
Chapter 6: Interactivity 3
4 Chapter 6: Interactivity
Mode 2: Functional interactivity; or utilitarian participation
Included here: functional, structural interactions with the material components of the system
(whether real or virtual). For example, that graphic adventure you played: how was the
interface? How "sticky" were the buttons? What was the response time? How legible was the
text on your high-resolution monitor? All of these elements are part of the total experience of
interaction.
Mode 3: Explicit interactivity; or participation with designed choices and procedures
This is "interaction" in the obvious sense of the word: overt participation like clicking the
non-linear links of a hypertext novel, following the rules of a board game, rearranging the
clothing on a set of paper dolls, using the joystick to maneuver Ms. Pac-Man. Included here:
choices, random events, dynamic simulations, and other procedures programmed into the
interactive experience.
Mode 4: Beyond-the-object-interactivity; or participation within the culture of the object
This is interaction outside the experience of a single designed system. The clearest examples
come from fan culture, in which participants co-construct communal realities, using designed
systems as the raw material. Will Superman come back to life? Does Kirk love Spock?
Some of these modes occur universally in human experience, such as Mode 1, cognitive interactivity. Yet not
all of them do. For our purposes, Mode 3, explicit interactivity, comes closest to defining what we mean when
we say that games are "interactive." An experience becomes truly interactive in the sense of Cameron's "direct
intervention" only when the participant makes choices that have been designed into the actual structure of the
experience.
The rest of this chapter focuses primarily on explicit interactivity and how game designers can create the
kinds of choices that result in meaningful play. However, even though we will be focusing on Mode 3, it is
important to remember that the other three modes of interactivity are also present as players make explicit
choices. For example, choosing whether to fold or not in Poker represents a moment of explicit interactivity.
But at the same time, the material quality and size of the cards affect the functional interactivity; the fanciful
images on the face cards might engender cognitive interactivity; and notions about what it means to be a suave
card shark-or perhaps resentment at being trounced at the Poker table last week-represent forms of cultural
participation that lie outside the bounds of the particular game being played.
Interaction, even the explicit interaction of a seemingly straightforward game choice, is never as simple as it
appears at first glance. But before we dissect the components of explicit interactive choices, let's pause to
consider the role of design itself in creating interactivity.
< Day Day Up >
< Day Day Up >
But Is it "Designed" Interaction?
Interaction comes in many forms. But for the purposes of designing interactivity, it is important to be able to
recognize what forms of interactivity designers create. As an example, compare the following two actions:
someone dropping an apple on the ground and someone rolling dice on a craps table. Although both are
examples of interaction proper, only the second act, the rolling of the dice, is a form of designed interaction.
4 Chapter 6: Interactivity
Chapter 6: Interactivity 5
What about this action has been designed? First, the dice, unlike the apple, are part of a system (a game) in
which the interaction between the player and the dice is made meaningful by a set of rules describing their
relationship. This relationship, as defined by the rules of Craps, describes the connection between action and
outcome-for example, "When the dice are rolled a player counts the number of dots appearing on the face-up
sides of the dice." Even this extremely simple rule demonstrates how the act of rolling has meaning within the
designed interactive system of the game. Secondly, the interaction is situated within a specific context: a
game. Remember that meaningful play is tied not only to the concept of player action and system outcome,
but also to a particular context in which the action occurs.
The description of "someone dropping an apple on the ground," on the other hand, does not contain a designed
structure or context. What conditions would have to be present to evolve this simple interaction into a
designed interaction? The dropping of the apple does meet baseline criteria for interaction: there is a
reciprocal relationship between the elements of the system (such as the person's hand, the apple, and the
ground). But is it a designed interaction? Is the interactivity situated within a specific context? Do we have
any ideas about what dropping an apple might "mean" as a form of interaction between a person and an apple?
Do we have a sense of the connection between action and outcome?
No. All we know is that an apple has been dropped. What is missing from this description is an explicitly
stated context within which the dropping of the apple occurs. If we change the scenario a little by adding a
second player and asking the two participants to toss the apple back and forth, we move toward a situation of
designed interaction. If we ask the two apple-tossers to count the number of times in a row they caught the
apple before dropping it, we add an even fuller context for the interaction. The simple addition of a rule
designating that the players quantify their interaction locates the single act of toss-catch within an overall
system.Each element in the system is assigned a meaning: the toss, the catch, and the dropped toss. Even in
the simplest of contexts, design creates meaning.
< Day Day Up >
< Day Day Up >
Interaction and Choice
The careful crafting of player experience through a system of interaction is critical to the design of meaningful
play. Yet, just what makes an interactive experience "meaningful"? We have argued that in order to create
instances of meaningful play, experience has to incorporate not just explicit interactivity, but meaningful
choice. When a player makes a choice in a game, the system responds in some way. The relationship between
the player's choice and the system's response is one way to characterize the depth and quality of interaction.
Such a perspective on interactivity supports the descriptive definition of meaningful play presented in chapter
3.
In considering the way that choices are embedded in game activity, we look at the design of choice on two
levels: micro and macro. The micro level represents the small, moment-to-moment choices a player is
confronted with during a game. The macro level of choice represents the way these micro-choices join
together like a chain to form a larger trajectory of experience. For example, this distinction marks the
difference between tactics and strategy in a game such as Go. The tactics of Go concern the tooth-and-nail
battles for individual sectors of the board, as individual pieces and small groups expand across territory,
bumping up against each other in conflict and capture. The strategy of the game is the larger picture, the
overall shape of the board that will ultimately determine the winner. The elegance of the design of Go lies in
its ability to effortlessly link the micro and the macro, so that every move a player makes works
simultaneously on both levels. Micro-interaction and macro-interaction are usually intertwined and there are,
of course, numerous shades of gray in-between.
Chapter 6: Interactivity 5
6 Chapter 6: Interactivity
Keep in mind that "choice" does not necessarily imply obvious or rational choice, as in the selection of an
action from a menu. Choice can take many forms, from an intuitive physical action (such as the "twitch" firing
of a Time Crisis pistol) to the random throw of a die. Following are a few more examples of designed choices
in games.
The choice of whether or not to take a hit in Blackjack. A Blackjack player always has a clear
set of choices: the micro-choice of taking or not taking a hit will have the eventual outcome
of a win or a loss against the house. On the macro-level, each round affects the total amount
of money the player gains or loses over the course of the game. Playing each hand separately,
according to its probability of beating the house is like tactics in Go. Counting cards, which
links all of a players' hands between rounds, is a more long-term, strategic kind of
choice-making.
The choice of what to type into the flashing cursor of a text adventure. This is a more
open-ended choice context than the simple hit or pass of Blackjack. The micro-choice of
typing in a command gives the player feedback about how the player moves through or
changes the world. The choice to type the words "Move North" takes the player to another
location in the game where different actions are possible-perhaps actions that will eventually
solve the multi-part puzzles that exist on the macro-level of game play. Even when a player
tries to take an action that the program cannot parse (such as typing "grab rock" instead of
"get rock"), it is meaningful: the outcome of bumping up against the limits of the program's
parsing ability serves to further delineate the boundaries of play.
The choice of what play to call in a Football game. This moment of game-choice is often
produced collaboratively among a coaching staff, a quarterback, and the rest of the offensive
players. There are a large number of possible plays to call, each with variations, and the
choice is always made against the backdrop of the larger game: the score, the clock, the field
position, the down, the strengths and weaknesses of both teams. The most macro-level of
choices address the long-term movement of the ball across the field and the two teams' overall
scores. The most micro-level of choices occur once the play is called and the ball is hiked:
every offensive player has the moment-to-moment challenge of executing the play as the
defensive team does its best to put a stop to it.
As these examples demonstrate, choice-making is a complex, multi-layered process. There is a smooth
transition between the micro- and macro-levels of choice-making, which play out in an integrated way for the
player. When the outcome of every action is discernable and integrated, choice-making leads to meaningful
play. Game designer Doug Church, in his influential online essay "Formal Abstract Design Tools," outlines
the way that these levels of choice transition into a complete game experience.
In a fighting game, every controller action is completely consistent and visually represented
by the character on-screen. In Tekken, when Eddy Gordo does a cartwheel kick, you know
what you're going to get. As the player learns moves, this consistency allows
planning-intention-and the reliability of the world's reactions makes for perceived
consequence. If I watch someone play, I can see how and why he or she is better than I am,
but all players begin the game on equal footing.[7]
As Church points out, the macro-levels of choice-making include not only what to do over the course of a
game, but also whether or not you want to play a game, and against whom. If you are beaten in a fighting
game that doesn't contain clear and meaningful play, you will never know why you lost and you will most
likely not play again. On the other hand, if you know why your opponent is better than you are, your loss is
meaningful, as it helps you assess your own abilities, gives you ideas for improvement, and spurs on your
overall interaction with the game.
[7]Doug Church, "Formal Abstract Design Tools." <www.gamasutra.com>, July 16, 1999.
6 Chapter 6: Interactivity
Chapter 6: Interactivity 7
< Day Day Up >
< Day Day Up >
Choice Molecules
[The designers of Spacewar!, the first computer game] identified action as the key ingredient
and conceived Spacewar! as a game that could provide a good balance between thinking and
doing for its players. They regarded the computer as a machine naturally suited for
representing things that you could see, control, and play with. Its interesting potential lay not
in its ability to perform calculations but in its capacity to represent action in which humans
could participate.-Brenda Laurel, Computers as Theater
The capacity for games to "represent action in which players participate" forms the basis of our concept of
"choice." If we consider that every choice has an outcome, then it follows that this action > outcome unit is
the vehicle through which meaning in a game emerges. Although games can generate meaning in many ways
(such as through image, text, sound, etc.), to understand the interactive nature of meaningful play, we focus on
the kinds of meaning that grow from player interaction. At the heart of interactive meaning is the action >
outcome unit, the molecule out of which larger interactive structures are built.
In order to examine this concept more closely we look at the classic arcade game Asteroids, a direct
descendent of Spacewar!. In Asteroids, a player uses buttons to maneuver a tiny spaceship on the screen,
avoiding moving asteroids and UFOs and destroying them by shooting projectiles.The action > outcome
interactive units of Asteroids are manipulated through a series of five player commands, each one of them a
button on the arcade game's control panel: rotate left, rotate right, thrust, fire, and hyperspace. Within the
scope of an individual game, possible player actions map to the five buttons:
• Press rotate right button: spaceship rotates right
• Press rotate left button: spaceship rotates left
• Press thrust button: spaceship accelerates in the direction it is facing
• Press fire button: spaceship fires projectile (up to four on the screen at a time)
• Press hyperspace button: spaceship disappears and reappears in a different location (and
occasionally perishes as a result)
Action on the screen is affected through the subtle (and not so subtle!) orchestration of these five controls. As
the game progresses, each new moment of choice is a response to the situation onscreen, which is the result of
a previous string of action > outcome units. The seamless flow that emerges is one of the reasons why
Asteroids is so much fun to play. Rarely are players aware of the hundreds of choices they make each minute
as they dodge space rocks and do battle with enemy ships- they perceive only their excitement and
participation inside the game.
< Day Day Up >
< Day Day Up >
Chapter 6: Interactivity 7
8 Chapter 6: Interactivity
Anatomy of a Choice
Although the concept of choice may appear basic upon first glance, the way that a choice is actually
constructed is surprisingly complex. To dissect our action > outcome molecule, we need to ask the following
five questions. Together, they outline the anatomy of a choice:
1. What happened before the player was given the choice? What is the current state of the
pieces on a game board, for example, or the level of a player's health? What set of moves just
finished playing out? What is the game status of the other players? This question relates to the
both the micro and macro events of a game, and addresses the context in which a choice is
made.
2. How is the possibility of choice conveyed to the player? On a game board, the presence of
empty squares or a "draw pile" might indicate the possibility of choice, whereas choices in a
digital game are often conveyed through the game's controls. In Asteroids, for example, the
five buttons on the control panel communicate the opportunity for choice-making to the
player.
3. How did the player make the choice?Did the player make a choice by playing a card,
pressing a button, moving a mouse, running in the opposite direction, or passing on a turn?
The mechanisms a player uses to make a choice vary greatly, but all are forms through which
players are given the opportunity to take action.
4. What is the result of the choice? How will it affect future choices? A player taking action
within a system will affect the relationships present in that system. This element of the
anatomy of a choice speaks to the outcome of a player action, identifying how a single choice
impacts larger events within the game world. The outcome of taking a "hit" in Blackjack
impacts whether or not the player wants to take another hit, as well as the outcome of the
game.
5. How is the result of the choice conveyed to the player? The means by which the results of
a choice are represented to a player can assume many guises, and forms of representation are
often related to the materiality of the game itself. In a game of Twister, for example, the
physical positioning of bodies in space conveys the results of choices; in Missile Command,
the result of the choice to "fire" is conveyed by a slowly moving line of pixels, ending in an
explosion; in Mousetrap, the mechanical workings (or non-workings) of the mousetrap
convey the results of moving a mouse into the trap space. Note that step 5 leads seamlessly
back to step 1, because the result of the choice provides the context for the next choice.
These are the five stages of a choice, the five events that transpire every time an action and outcome occur in a
game. Each stage is an event that occurs internal or external to the game. Internal events are related to the
systemic processing of the choice; external events are related to the representation of the choice to the player.
These two categories make a distinction between the moment of action as handled by the internal game state
and the manifestation of that action to the player.
The idea that a game can have an internal event represented externally implies that games are systems that
store information. Jesper Juul, in a lecture titled "Play Time, Event Time, Themability," describes this idea by
thinking of a game as a state machine:
A game is actually what computer science describes as a state machine. It is a system that can
be in different states. It contains input and output functions, as well as definitions of what
state and what input will lead to what following state. When you play a game, you are
interacting with the state machine that is the game. In a board game, this state is stored in the
8 Chapter 6: Interactivity
Chapter 6: Interactivity 9
position of the pieces on the board, in computer games the state is stored as variables, and
then represented on the screen.[8]
In Juul's example of a board game, the "internal" state of the game is immediately evident to the players in the
way that the pieces are arranged on the board. In the case of a computer game, as Juul points out, the internal
variables have to be translated into a representation for the player. The distinction between internal and
external events helps us to identify and distinguish the components of a choice. Within the action > outcome
molecule, stages 1, 3, and 4 are internal events, and stages 2 and 5 are external events. These two layers of
events form the framework within which the anatomy of a choice must be considered. To see how this all fits
together, let us take an even closer look at the way choice is constructed in two of our example games,
Asteroids and Chess. (Figure 1)
Anatomy of a choice
1. What happened before the player was given the choice? (internal event)
2. How is the possibility of choice conveyed to the player? (external event)
3. How did the player make the choice? (internal event)
4. What is the result of the choice? How will it affect future choices? (internal event)
5. How is the result of the choice conveyed to the player? (external event)
Anatomy of a Choice Asteroids Chess
1.What happened before the Represented by the current Represented by the current state of the
player was given the choice? positions and trajectories of the pieces on the board.
(internal event) game elements.
2. How is the possibility of choice The possible actions are conveyed The possible actions are conveyed
conveyed to the player? (external through the persistent button through the arrangement of pieces on
event) controls as well as the state of the the board, including the empty squares
screen, as it displays the where they can move.
relationships of the game
elements.
3. How did the player make the The player makes a choice by The players makes a choice by moving
a piece.
choice? (internal event) pressing one of the 5 buttons.
4.What is the result of the choice? Each button press affects the Each move affects the overall system,
How will it affect future choices? system in a different way, such as such as capturing a piece or shifting
(internal event) the position or orientation of the the strategic possibilities of the game.
player's ship.
Chapter 6: Interactivity 9
10 Chapter 6: Interactivity
5. How is the result of the choice The result of the choice is then The result of the choice is then
represented to the player via the new
conveyed to the player? (external represented to player via screen arrangement of pieces on the board.
event) graphics and audio.
Figure 1:
Although all five stages of the action > outcome choice event occurred in both games, there are some
significant differences. In Asteroids, the available choices and the taking of an action both involve static
physical controls. In Chess, the pieces on the board serve this function, even as they convey the current state
of the game. The internal and external states of Chess are identical, but in Asteroids, what appears on the
screen is only an outward extension of the internal state of the software. The "anatomy of a choice" structure
occurs in every game, although each game will manifest choice in its own way.
This way of understanding choice in a game can be extremely useful in diagnosing game design problems. If
your game is failing to deliver meaningful play, it is probably because there is a breakdown somewhere in the
action > outcome chain. Here is a sample list of common "failure states" that can often be found in games and
the way that they relate to the stages of a choice.
• Feeling as if decisions are arbitrary. If you need to play a card from your hand and it always feels
like it doesn't matter which card you select, the game probably suffers in stage 4, the effect of the
player's choice on the system of the game. The solution is to make sure that player actions have
meaningful outcomes in the internal system of the game.
• Not knowing what to do next. This can be a common problem in large digital adventure games, where
it is not clear how a player can take action to advance the game. The problem is in stage 2,
representing choices to the player. These kinds of problems are often solved with additional
information display, such as highlights on a map, or an arrow or indicator that helps direct the player.
• Losing a game without knowing why. You think that you're about to reach the top of the mountain,
when your character dies unexpectedly from overexposure. This frustrating experience can come
about because a player has not sufficiently been informed about the current state of the game. The
problem might be in stage 5, where the new state of the game resulting from a choice is not
represented clearly enough to the player.
• Not knowing if an action had an outcome. Although this sounds like something that would never
happen, there are many examples of experimental interactivity (such as a gallery-based game with
motion sensor inputs) in which the player never receives clear feedback on whether or not an action
was taken. In this case, there is a breakdown at stages 3 and 4, when a player is taking an action and
receiving feedback on the results.
These examples represent only a small sampling of the kinds of problems that a game's design can have. The
anatomy of a choice is not a universal tool for fixing problems, but it can be especially useful in cases where
the game is breaking down because of a glitch in the player's choice-making process.
[8]Jesper Juul, Computer Games and Digital Textuality. Conference at IT University of Copenhagen, March
1-2, 2001.
< Day Day Up >
< Day Day Up >
Space of Possibility
We conclude this chapter with an excerpt from David Sudnow's book, Pilgrim in a Microworld, a wonderfully
detailed personal account of one man's very real obsession with the video game Breakout. Sudnow brings
readers into the space of designed interactivity through detailed descriptions of what he
10 Chapter 6: Interactivity
Chapter 6: Interactivity 11
experi-enced-physically, psychologically, emotionally-as he played. There are remarkably few documents that
offer such a sensitive and insightful analysis of designed interaction.
I'd catch myself turning my chair into a more en face position vis-à-vis the TV. An obvious
delusion. Maybe I could rest one elbow on the set to help feel the angle of my look and
deepen a sense for the scale of things. See it from this side and that, see the invisible backside
of things through an imaginary bodily tour of the object. Nonsense. If only I could feel the
impact of the ball on the paddle, that would certainly help, would give me a tactile marker,
stamping the gesture's places into a palpable little signature so I'd feel each destination being
achieved and not just witness the consequences of a correct shot. Nonsense.
Non-sense, just your eyes way up top, to be somehow fixed on things in ways that can't feel
them fixing, then this silent smooth little plastic knob down there, neither near nor far away
but in an untouchable world without dimensions. And in between all three nodes of the
interface there's nothing but a theory of electricity. So fluid, to have to write your signature
with precise consistency in size within the strict bounds of a two and three-sevenths of an
inch of space, say, while the pen somehow never makes contact with the paper. There's
nothing much to hold on to, not enough heft in this knob so your hands can feel the extent of
very minor movements, no depth to things you can use to anchor a sense of your own solidity.
[9]
As game designers, what can we glean from Sudnow's observations? His analysis suggests that there is a
wealth of information to be gained about a game's interactivity by looking at it from the player's point of view.
One of our disappointments with current writing on games and interactivity is that much analysis occurs not
from the point of view of the player, but from the point of view of an outside spectator. This style of
over-the-shoulder journalism fails to recognize that interactivity is something to be experienced, rather than
observed. In writing a player-centric account of his encounter with the game, Sudnow calls attention to key
concepts for designed interaction. Concepts such as directed choice, player control, amplification of input,
system representation, and direct, visible feedback emerge in his poetic meditation on perception, attention,
cognition, and the body.
Creating a game means designing a structure that will play out in complex and unpredictable ways, a space of
possible action that players explore as they take part in your game. What possible actions might players take
in the course of a game of Musical Chairs? They might push, shove, tickle, poke, or fight for their seat once
the music stops and the mad scramble for chairs begins. The game designer must carefully craft a system of
play in which these actions have meaning in support of the play of the game, and do not distract or interrupt
its play.
But game designers do not directly design play. They only design the structures and contexts in which play
takes place, indirectly shaping the actions of the players. We call the space of future action implied by a game
design the space of possibility. It is the space of all possible actions that might take place in a game, the space
of all possible meanings which can emerge from a game design. The concept of the space of possibility not
only bridges the distance between the designed structure and the player experience, but it also combines the
key concepts we have presented so far. The space of possibility is designed (it is a constructed space, a
context), it generates meaning (it is the space of all possible meanings), it is a system (it is a space implied by
the way elements of the system can relate to each other), and it is interactive (it is through the interactive
functioning of the system that the space is navigated and explored).
The space of possibility springs forth out of the rules and structures created by the game designer. The space
of possibility is the field of play where your players will explore and cavort, compete and cooperate, as they
travel through the experience of playing your game. But like David Sudnow who wishes he could reach out
and touch the electronic blip of his Breakout paddle, as a game designer you can never directly craft the
possible space of your game. You only can indirectly construct the space of possibility, through the rules you
design. Game design is an act of faith-in your rules, in your players, in your game itself. Will your game
Chapter 6: Interactivity 11
12 Chapter 6: Interactivity
create meaningful play? You can never know for sure. But understanding key concepts like design, systems,
and interactivity can help bring you closer to a meaningful outcome.
[9]David Sudnow, Pilgrim in a Microworld (New York: Warner Books, 1983), p.177.
< Day Day Up >
< Day Day Up >
Further Reading
Computers as Theater, by Brenda Laurel
Although Laurel is not speaking about games directly, her discussion of a dramatic theory of human-computer
activity has many connections to the interactivity of games. The most relevant discussions to game design
focus on the mechanics of interaction and the way people interact with machine interfaces.
Recommended:
Chapter 1: The Nature of the Beast
Chapter 5: Design Principles for Human-Computer Activity
The Design of Everyday Things, by Donald Norman
Norman's book is a must read for any designer involved in the design of interactive systems. His approach has
been formalized more recently within the catch-phrase "experience design," which places the user at the
center of any designed activity. Although Norman is writing about everyday objects such as telephones and
car doors, his observations have direct application to the design of games as interactive systems.
Recommended:
Chapter 1: The Psychopathology of Everyday Things
Chapter 2: The Psychology of Everyday Actions
Chapter 3: Knowledge in the Head and in the World
"Designing Interactive Theme Park Rides: Lessons From Disney's Battle for the Buccaneer Gold," by
Jesse Schell and Joe Shochet
In this design postmortem of one of Disney's interactive theme park rides, Schell and Shochet discuss the
reasons for the ride's success. Their analysis is design-driven, and offers insight into the tools, techniques, and
psychology used to create an effective and entertaining interactive experience. Available at
<www.gamasutra.com>.
"Formal Abstract Design Tools," by Doug Church
In making one of the most robust arguments for the development of a common vocabulary for games, Doug
Church establishes a precedent for critical thinking within the emerging field of game design. "Formal
Abstract Design Tools" is written from a game design perspective and explores concrete concepts of
interactivity in the design of player experience. Available at <www.gamasutra.com>.
12 Chapter 6: Interactivity
Chapter 6: Interactivity 13
Pilgrim in the Microworld, by David Sudnow
This first-person account of one man's genuine obsession with the Atari 2600 game Breakout offers a clear
portrait of the aesthetics of interactive systems. Concepts related to the anatomy of a choice, discernability and
integration of player action, pleasure, and core mechanics are discussed in terms of player experience, making
it a valuable resource for those intent on understanding just what is happening from moment-to-moment
during game play.
Recommended:
Memory
Interface
Cathexis
Eyeball
Coin
The Art of Interactive Design: A Euphorious and Illuminating Guide to Building Successful Software, by
Chris Crawford
The Art of Interactive Design is a non-technical book about the design of interactivity. Crawford uses his
experience as a designer of games and interactive systems to discuss how interactivity works. For Crawford,
interaction is "a cyclic process in which two actors alternatively listen, think, and speak." This conversational
model of interaction is used throughout the text to good effect.
Recommended:
Part I: Chapters 1–6
< Day Day Up >
< Day Day Up >
Summary
• Interactivity is closely linked to the concepts of design, systems, and meaningful play. When a player
interacts with the designed system of a game, meaningful play emerges.
• There are many valid definitions of interactivity. Cutting across all of them are four modes of
interactivity:
Mode 1: Cognitive interactivity; or interpretive participation;
Mode 2: Functional interactivity; or utilitarian participation;
Mode 3: Explicit interactivity; or participation with designed choices and procedures;
Mode 4: Beyond-the-object-interactivity or cultural participation.
• These four modes are not distinct categories but are instead overlapping ways of understanding any
moment of interactivity. They usually occur simultaneously in any experience of a designed system.
Chapter 6: Interactivity 13
14 Chapter 6: Interactivity
• Not all interaction is designed interaction. When an interaction is designed, it has an internal
structure and a context that assign meaning to the actions taken.
• An interactive context presents participants with choices. Choices can be micro-choices of
moment-to-moment interactivity or macro-choices, which concern the long-term progress of the
game experience.
• The basic unit out of which interactive meaning is made is the action > outcome unit. These units are
the molecules out of which interactive designers (including game designers) create larger structures of
designed interaction.
• Within each action > outcome event is a series of five stages that help construct a choice in a game.
These stages are expressed through the following questions:
1. What happened before the player was given the choice?
2. How is the possibility of choice conveyed to the player?
3. How did the player make the choice?
4. What is the result of the choice? How will it affect future choices?
5. How is the result of the choice conveyed to the player?
• Each of these stages represents either an internal event, in which the system of the game processes
and receives the choice, or an external event, in which the choice is represented to the player.
• The space of possibility of a game is the space of all possible actions and meanings that can emerge
in the course of the game. This concept ties together meaning, design, systems, and interactivity.
< Day Day Up >
< Day Day Up >
14 Chapter 6: Interactivity
Chapter 7: Defining Games
Overview
The word [game] is used for so many different activities that it is not worth insisting on any proposed
definition. All in all, it is a slippery lexicological customer, with many friends and relations in a wide variety
of fields.—David Parlett, The Oxford History of Board Games
What are games? Are they things in the sense of artifacts? Are they behavioral models, or simulations of
social situations? Are they vestiges of ancient rituals, or magical rites? It is difficult and even curious when
one tries to answer the question "what are games," since it is assumed that games are many things and at the
same time specific games are different from one another—but are they?—E. M. Avedon, "The Structural
Elements of Games"
Entering by way of meaningful play, following a path of embedded concepts connecting design to systems to
interactivity, we have arrived at the heart of our study: games. It is therefore high time to define just what it is
that makes a game a game. Should we even attempt such a definition? Perhaps, as game historian David
Parlett warns in the quote that opens this chapter, any attempt to define the word "game" is a foolish endeavor.
On the other hand, if one of our goals is to help formalize the field of game design, then it seems crucial to
define the object that is so central to the discipline.
Historically, play and games have been studied in a myriad of ways, from economists using game-like
simulations to literary theorists studying the "play" of meaning in language and literature. These
investigations study games or play in the service of another field. Our intent, on the other hand, is to study
play and games within the field of game design. A definition of "game" should help to not only distinguish
game design from other design practices, but also bring us closer to an understanding of meaningful play.
< Day Day Up >
< Day Day Up >
Chapter 7: Defining Games 1
2 Chapter 7: Defining Games
Play and Game
As a first step, let us see how game relates to the equally complex play. We begin with an obvious question: Is
there a difference between the words "play" and "game"? Do they refer to the same thing? In English, there is
a clear distinction between the two words. But as David Parlett points out in the The Oxford History of Board
Games, not all languages separate the two concepts. The phrase "to play a game," in both German and French,
for example, uses different versions of the same word for both "play" and "game." In French "on joue á un
jeu; in German, man spielt ein Spiel." [1]Although there are many ways to define play and games, we will take
advantage of the difference that English affords to consider games and play as two separate ideas with related,
but distinct meanings.
It turns out that play and games have a surprisingly complex relationship. Play is both a larger and a smaller
term than "game," depending on the way it is framed. In one sense, "play" is a larger term that includes
"game" as a subset. In another, the reverse is true: "game" is the bigger term, and includes "play" within it.
Consider each of these relationships separately:
Relationship one: Games are a subset of play.
If we think about all of the activities we could call play, from two dogs playfully chasing each
other in a grassy field, to a child singing a nursery rhyme, to a community of online
role-players, it seems that only some of these forms of play would actually constitute what we
might think of as a game. Playing Dodge Ball, for example, is playing a game: players obey a
formalized set of rules and compete to win. The activities of playing on a seesaw, or horsing
around on a jungle gym, however, are forms of play which do not constitute a game. Most
forms of play are looser and less organized than games. However, some forms of play are
formalized, and these forms of play can often be considered games. In this sense, it is clear
that "game" is a subset of "play." This is a typological approach, one that defines the
relationship between play and games according to the forms they take in the world.
Relationship two: Play is a component of games.
In a different sense, games can be thought of as containing play. This entire book is about
games, and one component of games is play. The experience of play is but one of many ways
of looking at and understanding games. Within the larger phenomenon of games, then, the
play of the game represents one aspect of games. Although play is a crucial element of the
larger concept of games,"play" is in fact a subset of "game." Rather than typological, this
pairing of the terms represents a more conceptual approach that situates play and games
within the field of game design.
2 Chapter 7: Defining Games
Chapter 7: Defining Games 3
This double formulation of play and games may sound contradictory, but it is not simply a terminological
sleight-of-hand.The point is that there are important differences between the words "game" and "play."
English may be an anomaly in the way that it differentiates between these two terms, but it is an extremely
useful distinction. A good definition of game should distinguish it clearly from play in both of the senses
described here.
[1]David Parlett, The Oxford History of Board Games (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), p. 1.
< Day Day Up >
< Day Day Up >
Comparing Definitions
One challenge of understanding the term "game" is that it has so many uses. Consider, for example, many of
the ways that the word is utilized in English: For our purposes, only a single subset of all of the possible
meanings of "game" is relevant: the category of games proper, a category that includes board games, card
games, sports, computer games, and similar activities. Put another way, games are what game designers
create. Although this is an important qualification, it does not bring us any closer to a precise understanding of
what is and what is not a game.
• limp or crippled:
• a game leg a hunted animal: game hunting season is open
• being skilled, particularly in sports or in romance: having game; "he got game"
• to partake in gambling: to spend a night gaming in Vegas
• social and psychological manipulation: playing hea games
• a procedure for gaining an end: playing the waiting game with a stubborn friend
• a field in which one earns a living: the writing game and, of course
• board games, card games, computer games, etc.
Luckily, we are not the first to attempt a definition of "game," so we will be taking a close and comparative
look at eight definitions that come from a variety of fields. In and among the definitions a handful of thorny
issues appear again and again. These issues not only include articulating the unique qualities that make a game
a game, but also differentiating games from similar phenomena, such as other forms of play, conflict, and
contestation. It is also clear that there is a difference between defining games themselves and defining the act
of playing a game.
There is one final point to make regarding the difference between "play" and "game." The definitions of
"game" to follow were written in many languages, and when translated to English there is some slippage
between "play" and "game." As a result, we look at definitions of play as well as "game" in the course of our
investigation. Bear in mind that we are not building a definition of play (that comes in a later chapter), but are
using definitions of play to shed light on an understanding of games.
Chapter 7: Defining Games 3
4 Chapter 7: Defining Games
Definition 1: David Parlett
David Parlett is a game historian who has written extensively on card games and board games. Earlier we
noted Parlett's skepticism regarding the ability to define the slippery term "game." Yet despite his assertion to
the contrary, Parlett does provide a model for understanding games.
Parlett begins by distinguishing between formal and informal games."An informal game is merely undirected
play, or 'playing around,' as when children or puppies play at rough and tumble." He contrasts this kind of
activity with a "formal game":
A formal game has a twofold structure based on ends and means:
Ends. It is a contest to achieve an objective.(The Greek for game is agôn, meaning contest.)
Only one of the contenders, be they individuals or teams, can achieve it, since achieving it
ends the game. To achieve that object is to win. Hence a formal game, by definition, has a
winner; and winning is the "end" of the game in both senses of the word, as termination and
as object.
Means. It has an agreed set of equipment and of procedural "rules" by which the equipment is
manipulated to produce a winning situation.[2]
Parlett's distinction between formal and informal games directly addresses a key challenge in arriving at a
definition of "game:" how to distinguish games from other forms of play. What Parlett calls an "informal
game" of two puppies romping about might more simply be called play. His definition of a "formal game" has
two main components:
• Ends: The fact that a "formal game" is a contest with an endpoint as its goal.
• Means: The agreed-upon rules and materials by which one wins the contest.
Both components—the idea of winning and the idea of doing so by means of rules—are key ideas in defining
games, and in distinguishing them from other, less "formal" kinds of play.
Definition 2: Clark C. Abt
In his book Serious Games, Clark C. Abt proposes the following definition of games: \
Reduced to its formal essence, a game is an activity among two or more independent
decision-makers seeking to achieve their objectives in some limiting context. A more
conventional definition would say that a game is a context with rules among adversaries
trying to win objectives. [3]
Abt's definition offers an understanding of games that emphasizes the active role of players in a game. Here
are the four key terms he highlights:
• Activity: a game is an activity, a process, an event;
• Decision-makers: games require players actively making decisions;
• Objectives: as with Parlett's definition, games have goals;
• Limiting context: there are rules that limit and structure the activity of the game.
Comparing Abt's definition to Parlett's, we have another instance where games are seen to have a goal or
objective. Abt refines Parlett's idea of rules-based means by implying that rules are intrinsically limiting. But
perhaps the most interesting component is Abt's acknowledgment that games are an activity in which players
make decisions. We know from our discussion of meaningful play that the interactivity present in games is
based on players making decisions that have meaningful outcomes.
4 Chapter 7: Defining Games
Chapter 7: Defining Games 5
Does the scope of Abt's definition feel appropriate? A definition of games can fail by being so narrow as to
leave things out that are games or by being so broad that it includes things that are not games. Abt writes, in
the same volume, that his definition fails on both accounts:
The trouble with this definition is that not all games are contests among adversaries—in some
games the players cooperate to achieve a common goal against an obstructing force or natural
situation that is itself not really a player since it does not have objectives.[4]
Abt, of course is correct. With its requirement of two or more independent decision-makers and emphasis on
adversarial contest, his definition is too narrow—it leaves out cooperative or solitaire games. And, as he goes
on to add, the definition is also too broad:
Of course, most real-life activities involve independent decision-makers seeking to achieve
objectives in some limiting context…. Political and social situations can often also be viewed
as games. Every election is a game. International relations are a game. Every personal
argument is a game. And almost all business activity is a game. Whether these contests of
politics, war, economics, and interpersonal relations are played with resources of power, skill,
knowledge, or luck, they always have the common characteristics of reciprocal decisions
among independent actors with at least partly conflicting objectives." [5]
War? Elections? Arguments? Games do bear similarity to other forms of human conflict. Although there are
some very useful concepts in Abt's definition, we still have a long way to go in demarcating exactly what does
and does not constitute a game.
Definition 3: Johann Huizinga
In 1938, Dutch Anthropologist Johann Huizinga published a groundbreaking study of the play element in
culture, Homo Ludens ("Man the Player"). Among other things, Homo Ludens provides a definition of what
Huizinga calls "play":
[Play is] a free activity standing quite consciously outside "ordi-nary"life as being "not
serious,"but at the same time absorbing the player intensely and utterly. It is an activity
connected with no material interest, and no profit can be gained by it. It proceeds within its
own proper boundaries of time and space according to fixed rules and in an orderly manner. It
promotes the formation of social groupings, which tend to surround themselves with secrecy
and to stress their difference from the common world by disguise or other means.[6]
In this definition, Huizinga asserts that play:
• is outside ordinary life;
• is "not serious";
• is utterly absorbing;
• is not to be associated with material interest or profit;
• takes place in its own boundaries of time and space;
• proceeds according to rules;
• creates social groups that separate themselves from the outside world.
One of strengths of this definition is that Huizinga manages to identify some of the more elusive and abstract
qualities of play. The idea that play is both utterly absorbing but also not serious, for example, wonderfully
describes the sense of being at play. On the other hand, it is not clear that these experiential qualities will help
define a game: just because a poorly designed game fails to be absorbing doesn't mean that it is not a game.
Other aspects of his definition, such as his emphasis on play's separation from ordinary life and the fact that
play takes place within special boundaries of time and space, point to the intrinsic artificiality of games. Is this
feature of artificiality a defining quality of games? We shall see.
Chapter 7: Defining Games 5
6 Chapter 7: Defining Games
Huizinga's definition includes many important ideas, but on the whole it has some problems. Several of the
components, such as the fact that play creates social groups, address the effects of play and games rather than
games themselves. Other elements, such as the disavowal of material gain from play, are too closely linked to
the ideological agenda of Homo Ludens. In the end, the inclusive generality of Huizinga's definition is its
greatest weakness. It does not, for example, ultimately differentiate between "play" and "game".
Definition 4: Roger Caillois
Expanding on the work of Huizinga during the 1960s, the French sociologist Roger Caillois published Man,
Play, and Games, a book that is in many ways a direct response to Homo Ludens. Caillois also presents a
definition of play, describing it as being:
• Free: in which playing is not obligatory; if it were, it would at once lose its attractive and joyous
quality as diversion;
• Separate: circumscribed within limits of space and time, defined and fixed in advance;
• Uncertain: the course of which cannot be determined, nor the result attained beforehand, and some
latitude for innovations being left to the player's initiative;
• Unproductive: creating neither goods, nor wealth, nor new elements of any kind; and, except for the
exchange of property among the players, ending in a situation identical to that prevailing at the
beginning of the game;
• Governed by rules: under conventions that suspend ordinary laws, and for the moment establish new
legislation, which alone counts;
• Make-believe: accompanied by a special awareness of a second reality or of a free unreality, as
against real life.[7]
Some of these ideas were part of the previous definitions; several are new. Every definition so far includes
reference to the fact that play is governed by rules. The ideas that play exists in a separate space and does not
create capital are borrowed from Huizinga. But Caillois extends an understanding of play by describing it as
free or voluntary, by pointing out that the end of a game is uncertain, and by associating play with a sense of
make-believe.
Do all of the elements Caillois lists really describe games? Although they seem to make intuitive sense, it is
possible to think of situations where games are not voluntary, uncertain, or make-believe. If you are pressured
by your friends into playing a game that you don't want to play, is it still a game? If a Chess master plays
against a beginner, is the outcome of the game uncertain for the Chess master? Is there a make-believe
element to Tic-Tac-Toe?
A central problem with Caillois' definition is that like Huizinga's definition, it is too broad for our purposes. In
Man, Play, and Games, Caillois includes under the rubric of play activities such as theater and informal
rough-housing. Although these activities might be considered play, we are looking for a definition that more
narrowly addresses the particular instance of games.
Definition 5: Bernard Suits
Bernard Suits is a philosopher with a strong interest in games. His playful book Grasshopper: Games, Life,
and Utopia is a retelling of the Grasshopper and the Ants fable; it is also a deep investigation into the nature
of games. Suits offers this definition of games:
To play a game is to engage in activity directed towards bringing about a specific state of
affairs, using only means permitted by rules, where the rules prohibit more efficient in favour
of less efficient means, and where such rules are accepted just because they make possible
such activity.[8]
—or more succinctly—
6 Chapter 7: Defining Games
Chapter 7: Defining Games 7
I also offer the following simpler and, so to speak, more portable version of the above:
playing a game is the voluntary effort to overcome unnecessary obstacles.[9]
Although Suit's definitions sound abstract, he is covering familiar territory. Here are the primary elements
from both versions:
• Activity: as with Abt, Suits emphasizes the activity of playing a game;
• Voluntary: games are freely entered into;
• A specific state of affairs: games have a goal;
• Rules: as in the previous definitions, Suits identifies rules as a component of games;
• Inefficiency: the rules of games limit behavior, making it less efficient;
• Rules are accepted: playing a game means accepting the rules.
Other definitions have included many of these elements: the fact that a game is an activity, that it is voluntary,
has a goal, and involves rules. However, Suits adds some new ideas to the mix. When he states that "the rules
prohibit more efficient in favour of less efficient means…such rules are accepted just because they make
possible such activity," he is referring to what he calls the lusory attitude, the peculiar state of mind of game
players. Part of the lusory attitude is that the rules of a game make play inefficient: if a runner wanted to cross
the finish line as efficiently as possible, she might leave the track and cut across the field—but the rules tell
her to stay within the white lines. Another component of the lusory attitude is that players accept these rules,
taking on the "unnecessary obstacles" of a game simply because they make play possible. Suits is actually
pointing to the way that games create meaning as players accept these rules, goals, and obstacles in order to
play.
As insightful as this definition is, it is important to note that Suits does not ultimately offer a definition of
game, but a definition of the act of playing a game. In fact, the definitions of Huizinga and Caillois similarly
focus on the activity of play rather than on games themselves. However, the next two definitions will bring us
closer to the territory of games themselves.
Definition 6: Chris Crawford
Chris Crawford is a pioneering computer game designer who has written extensively about game design,
narrative, and interactivity. In his influential book The Art of Computer Game Design, Crawford does not
offer a succinct definition of games, but he does list four primary qualities that define the category of things
we call games: representation, interaction, conflict, and safety. We have pulled together excerpts from the first
chapter of his book, where he summarizes these four qualities:
Representation: A game is a closed formal system that subjectively represents a subset of
reality. By "closed" I mean that the game is complete and self-sufficient as a structure.The
model world created by the game is internally complete; no reference need be made to agents
outside of the game. By formal I mean only that the game has explicit rules. A game's a
collection of parts which interact with each other, often in complex ways. It is a system. A
game creates a subjective and deliberately simplified representation of emotional reality. [10]
Interaction: The most fascinating thing about reality is not that it is, or even that it changes,
but how it changes, the intricate webwork of cause and effect by which all things are tied
together. The only way to properly represent this webwork is to allow the audience to explore
its nooks and crannies, to let them generate causes and observe effects. Games provide this
interactive element, and it is a crucial factor in their appeal. [11]
Conflict: A third element appearing in all games is conflict. Conflict arises naturally from the
interaction in a game. The player is actively pursuing some goal. Obstacles prevent him from
easily achieving this goal. Conflict is an intrinsic element of all games.It can be direct or
indirect, violent or nonviolent, but it is always present in every game. [12]
Chapter 7: Defining Games 7
8 Chapter 7: Defining Games
Safety: Conflict implies danger; danger means risk of harm; harm is undesirable. Therefore, a
game is an artifice for providing the psychological experiences of conflict and danger while
excluding their physical realizations. In short, a game is a safe way to experience reality.
More accurately, the results of a game are always less harsh than the situations the game
models. [13]
We can consider each of these four qualities separately. Crawford's notion of representation is reminiscent of
the quality of make-believe listed by Caillois. But Crawford takes the concept one step further, linking the
game's capacity for representation directly to its rules, and to its status as a system of interlocking parts. In
fact, Crawford's definition is the first to explicitly call games a system, perhaps because he is the first of these
authors writing from a digital game point of view.Tied closely to the systemic nature of games is Crawford's
element of interaction. His scheme of interactive "cause and effect" parallels the ideas of action and outcome
outlined in the previous chapter.
Crawford's definition names conflict for the first time. Although Parlett's "contest to achieve an objective" and
Abt's "contest among adversaries" imply conflict, Crawford names conflict explicitly, linking it directly to the
fact that games have goals. His final characteristic of games, safety, echoes the emphasis made in other
definitions on the artificiality of games, that they take place in a space and time separate from ordinary life.
Although these four characteristics describe games, they are not, strictly speaking, definitional.
Definition 7: Greg Costikyan
Greg Costikyan, a game designer and writer who has authored many articles on games, proposes a definition
for the term in his essay,"I Have No Words and I Must Design:" [14]
A game is a form of art in which participants, termed players, make decisions in order to
manage resources through game tokens in the pursuit of a goal.
The key terms in this definition are:
• Art: games are identified as a form of culture;
• Decision-making players: games require active participation as choices are made;
• Resource management: player decisions hinge on manipulating resources;
• Game tokens: the means by which players enact their decisions;
• Goal: a game has an objective.
Like Crawford, Costikyan is influenced by digital game design and shares an emphasis on the
decision-making, interactive quality of game playing. Although his acknowledgement of the goal of a game is
something mentioned in other definitions, Costikyan's formulation has a number of unique elements. For
example, his is the only definition to leave out the special quality of rules in defining a game. Also notable is a
detailed explication of the systemic quality of a game: the way that players manage game resources through
game tokens. Costikyan is also the only writer to link games to art, or to any other cultural practice, for that
matter. While we also emphasize the fact that games are cultural, Costikyan's decision to associate games with
"art" is less useful for our purposes. Labeling games as art embroils them in contemporary debates about
games and art, high culture and low culture, and the social status of games. Undoubtedly, this is Costikyan's
provocative intention.
Definition 8: Elliot Avedon and Brian Sutton-Smith
Brian Sutton-Smith is perhaps the most prolific and important scholar of play and games in the twentieth
century. In The Study of Games, which Sutton-Smith co-edited with Elliot Avedon, the authors present an
extremely concise and powerful definition of games:
8 Chapter 7: Defining Games
Chapter 7: Defining Games 9
Games are an exercise of voluntary control systems, in which there is a contest between
powers, confined by rules in order to produce a disequilibrial outcome. [15]
The key elements of this definition are:
• Exercise of control systems: games involve some form of physical or intellectual activity:
• Voluntary: games are freely entered into;
• Contest between powers: games embody a conflict between players;
• Confined by rules: the limiting nature of rules is emphasized;
• Disequilibrial outcome: the outcome of a game is a goal-state which is different than the starting state
of the game.
Although none of these elements are wholly original to this definition, the strength of Avedon and
Sutton-Smith's formulation is that it is compact, clear, and addresses games themselves, rather than the
activity of playing them. Elegantly narrow in scope, their definition clearly demarcates games from less
formal play activities. On the other hand, it doesn't contain all of the elements found in other definitions.
Perhaps it is time to step back and take stock.
Elements of a game definition Parlett Abt Huizinga Caillois Suits Crawford Costikyan Avedon
|Sutton-Smith
Proceeds according to rules that √ √√ √ √√ √
limit players
Conflict or contest √ √√
Goal-oriented/outcome-oriented √ √ √ √√
Activity, process, or event √ √ √
Involves decision-making √ √√
Not serious and Absorbing √
Never associated with material √√
gain
Artificial/Safe/Outside ordinary √√ √
life
Creates special social groups √
Voluntary √√ √
Uncertain √
Make-believe/Representational √√
Inefficient √
System of parts/Resources and √√
Tokens
A form of art √
[2]Ibid. p. 3.
[3]Clark C. Abt, Serious Games (New York: Viking Press, 1970), p. 6.
[4]Ibid. p. 7.
[5]Ibid. p. 7–9.
[6]Johann Huizinga, Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play Element in Culture (Boston: Beacon Press, 1955), p.
13.
Chapter 7: Defining Games 9
10 Chapter 7: Defining Games
[7]Roger Caillois, Man, Play, and Games, Translated from the French by Meyer Barash (Champaign:
University of Illinois Press, 2001), p. 9–10.
[8]Bernard Suits, Grasshopper: Games, Life, and Utopia (Boston: David R. Godine,1990), p. 34.
[9]Ibid. p. 41.
[10]Chris Crawford, The Art of Computer Game Design.
<http://www.van-couver.wsu.edu/fac/peabody/game-book/Coverpage.html>.
[11]Ibid.
[12]Ibid.
[13]Ibid.
[14]Greg Costikyan,"I Have No Words and I Must Design." Interactive Fantasy #2, 1994
<www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Bay/2535/nowords.html>.
[15]Elliott Avedon and Brian Sutton-Smith, eds, The Study of Games (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1971),
p. 405.
< Day Day Up >
< Day Day Up >
A Comparison
The chart above summarizes the elements of a game, as described in each of the definitions.
In simplifying complex ideas to a grid of common elements, much of the context and subtlety of the authors'
ideas is clearly lost. Each author defines games for particular reasons within specific contexts; for example,
with the exception of Chris Crawford and Greg Costikyan, none of the authors are operating from within the
field of game design. On the other hand, this cannibalistic dissection of their approaches to defining games
yields some interesting comparative results. All of the authors except Costikyan include rules as a key
component. Beyond this there is no clear consensus. Although 10 of the 15 elements are shared by more than
one author, apart from rules and goals, there is no majority agreement on any one of them.
It is clear that not all of the elements need to be included in a definition of game. Some elements, such as
games being voluntary or inefficient, do not seem to apply to all games. Others, such as the fact that games
create social groups, describe the effects of games rather than games themselves. Still other elements, such as
the representational or make-believe quality of games, appear in many other media and do not help
differentiate games from other kinds of designed experiences.
< Day Day Up >
< Day Day Up >
10 Chapter 7: Defining Games
Chapter 7: Defining Games 11
Our Definition
Cobbling together elements from the previous definitions and whittling away the unnecessary bits leaves us
with the following definition:
A game is a system in which players engage in an artificial conflict, defined by rules, that results in a
quantifiable outcome.
This definition structurally resembles that of Avedon and Sutton-Smith, but contains concepts from many of
the other authors as well. Here are the definition's primary ideas:
System: We introduced the concept of a system in chapter 5. Systems are fundamental to our
approach to games.
Players: A game is something that one or more participants actively play. Players interact
with the system of a game in order to experience the play of the game.
Artificial: Games maintain a boundary from so-called "real life" in both time and space.
Although games obviously occur within the real world, artificiality is one of their defining
features.
Conflict: All games embody a contest of powers. The contest can take many forms, from
cooperation to competition, from solo conflict with a game system to multiplayer social
conflict. Conflict is central to games.
Rules: We concur with the authors that rules are a crucial part of games. Rules provide the
structure out of which play emerges, by delimiting what the player can and cannot do.
Quantifiable outcome: Games have a quantifiable goal or outcome. At the conclusion of a
game, a player has either won or lost or received some kind of numerical score. A
quantifiable outcome is what usually distinguishes a game from less formal play activities.
For the rest of this book, this definition is what we mean when we say "game." It applies to all kinds of
games, from computer and video games to parlor games and sports. We can also use this definition to define
the field of study at the center of this book:
Game design is the process by which a game designer creates a game, to be encountered by a player,
from which meaningful play emerges.
Aren't you happy to finally know what it is this book is about?
< Day Day Up >
< Day Day Up >
The Puzzle of Puzzles
This definition of games is intentionally quite narrow. It is not our intent to understand the broad phenomena
of play, but instead to clearly demarcate the realm of games and game design. But is the definition too
narrow? Are there things that are clearly are games but that don't fit this definition? This chapter on defining
games concludes by looking at two kinds of game-activities that may or may not fit into the category of games
Chapter 7: Defining Games 11
12 Chapter 7: Defining Games
this definition delineates. These "limit cases" will help clarify how this definition can help us investigate
game-like phenomena.
First, puzzles. According to puzzle and game designer Scott Kim, puzzles are different from games because
puzzles have a correct answer or outcome. Think of a crossword puzzle: the puzzle designer creates the
correct answer, and the player's activity consists of trying to reconstruct that answer. This is a very different
situation than a game of Poker, for example, in which there is no fixed "right answer" posed by the creator of
the game. Instead, in Poker, players make complex decisions at every moment, taking into account the
evolving dynamics of the game.
But this does not mean that a puzzle is not a game. Recall our definition:
A game is a system in which players engage in an artificial conflict, defined by rules, that results in a
quantifiable outcome.
A crossword puzzle contains all of the elements of this definition. It is a system of squares, letters, and clues,
in which a player follows rules in order to arrive at an appropriate outcome. Although the conflict is between
the player and the system rather than between a set of players, a crossword puzzle is most certainly a game.In
fact, all kinds of puzzles are games. They might be considered a special subset of games, but they clearly meet
the requirements of the definition.
Sometimes, it is difficult to determine whether or not a game is a puzzle. In his article,"What is a Puzzle?"
[16]Kim references game designer Kevin Maroney, who points to Solitaire as a borderline case. If we think
about Solitaire as an open-ended activity that can play out in many ways, it is not a puzzle. On the other hand,
as Kim states,"in fact it is a kind of puzzle, since any given deck has a definite solution (or sometimes no
solution). Shuffling the cards is a way to randomly generate a new puzzle." [17]
We are not going to split hairs. In our opinion, all puzzles are games, although they constitute a special kind
of game. Thinking about a game as a puzzle, a game with a correct answer or set of answers, can be a useful
way to frame a game. For example, is your 3D adventure game lacking a sense of play? Perhaps it is too
puzzle-like, with all of the outcomes predetermined, and you need to ease the overall design away from puzzle
territory. Alternately, if your adventure game feels too open-ended, perhaps you can inject some puzzle-like
game play into it and better shape the player's sense of accomplishment. The idea of the "puzzle" can be a
helpful way to frame game design problems.
[16]Scott Kim,"What is a Puzzle?" <www.scottkim.com/articles.html>.
[17]Ibid.
< Day Day Up >
< Day Day Up >
Role-Playing Games
The second game "limit case" is role-playing games. Off the computer, these are games such as Dungeons &
Dragons, in which players are cast as characters in an imaginary world. Digital role-playing games can be
single-player adventures like the classic Ultima games, or multiplayer community worlds like EverQuest. In
both cases, the player controls and evolves a character over time within a narrative setting.
Role-playing games (or RPGs) certainly have the trappings of games. A paper-based, tabletop RPG usually
involves dice, rulebooks, statistics, and a fair amount of strategic play. Role-playing games clearly embody
12 Chapter 7: Defining Games
Chapter 7: Defining Games 13
every component of our definition of game, except one: a quantifiable outcome. As an RPG player, you move
through game-stories, following the rules, overcoming obstacles, accomplishing tasks, and generally
increasing the abilities of your character. What is usually lacking, however, is a single endpoint to the game.
Role-playing games are structured like serial narratives that grow and evolve from session to session.
Sometimes they end; sometimes they do not. Even if a character dies, a player can rejoin as a different
character. In other words, there is no single goal toward which all players strive during a role-playing game. If
a game does end, it does not do so quantifiably, with players winning or losing or receiving a score. Gary
Gygax, co-designer of Dungeons & Dragons, would concur: "Advanced Dungeons and Dragons is, as are
most role-playing games, open-ended. There is no 'winner,' no final objective, and the campaign grows and
changes as it matures."[18] This is true of both digital and non-digital multiplayer RPGs. (Note that
single-player digital RPGs are structured differently—usually with an adventure game-style winning
outcome.)
From this description, it would appear that multiplayer role-playing games are not, in fact, games. But this
seems like a ridiculous conclusion, because RPGs are so closely bound up in the development of games and
gaming culture. Our position is this: RPGs can be framed either way—as having or not having a quantifiable
outcome. If you look at the game as whole, there may not be a single, overriding quantifiable goal. But if you
consider the session-to-session missions that players complete, the personal goals players set for themselves,
the levels of power that players attain, then yes, RPGs do have quantifiable outcomes. In this sense, an RPG is
a larger system that facilitates game play within it, giving rise to a series of outcomes that build on each other
over time. Game designer Greg Costikyan puts it this way:"No victory conditions, true. But certainly [RPGs]
have goals; lots of them, you get to pick. Rack up the old experience points. Or fulfill the quest your friendly
GM has just inflicted on you. Or rebuild the imperium and stave off civiliza-tion's final collapse. Or strive
towards spiritual perfection. Whatever." [19]
It is possible, of course, for RPGs to become more game-like. At game conventions, there are often
"tournament-style" games, in which players or teams earn points for completing certain actions and
accomplishing goals, and a single winner can in fact be declared. Conversely, there are RPGs that
de-emphasize power, statistics, and advancement and instead focus on storytelling and narrative.This form of
RPG seems very unlike games as we have defined them.
Role-playing games are not the only kind of play activity that exists on the border of our definition. A
computer program like Sim City does not have explicit goals, and in that way is more like a toy than a game.
However, as its designer Will Wright has often stated, players can turn it into a game by constructing their
own goals. Does this make Sim City an informal play activity or a formalized game? It all depends on how it
is framed.
Sometimes the answer to the question of whether or not a game is a game rests in the eye of the beholder. Any
definition of a phenomena as complex as games is going to encounter instances where the application of the
definition is somewhat fuzzy. Rather than seeing these moments as a breakdown of the definition, we view
them as valuable opportunities to understand games as a whole. The terrain along the borders of more rigid
definitions offers fertile ground for insight and investigation. In these playful and liminal spaces, assumptions
are challenged, ideas evolve, and definitions change. It is this kind of transformative play that is at the heart of
our model of game design.
[18]Gary Gygax, Advanced Dungeons and Dragons Players Handbook (Lake Geneva: TRS Hobbies, 1978), p.
7.
[19]Costikyan, "I Have No Words and I Must Design."
<http://www.geoci-ties.com/SiliconValley/Bay/2535/nowords.html>.
< Day Day Up >
Chapter 7: Defining Games 13
14 Chapter 7: Defining Games
< Day Day Up >
Further Reading
Man, Play, and Games, by Roger Caillois
A book that builds directly from the work of Johann Huizinga's Homo Ludens, Man, Play, and Games by
philosopher Roger Caillois has a similar agenda: to identify and analyze the general phenomenon of play and
locate its larger significance within culture. For our purposes, his early chapters on defining and classifying
games are the most useful, providing insightful typologies and definitions for understanding play in and out of
games.
Recommended:
I. The Definition of Play
II. The Classification of Games
< Day Day Up >
< Day Day Up >
Summary
• The words play and games have a unique relationship in the English language. There are two ways to
frame their relationship, both of which are useful:
1. Games are a subset of play: The category of play represents many kinds of playful activities.
Some of these activities are games, but many of them are not. In this sense, games are
contained within play.
2. Play is a subset of games: Games are complex phenomena and there are many ways to frame
them and understand them. RULES, PLAY, and CULTURE are three aspects of the
phenomena of games. In this sense, play is contained within games.
• A game is a system in which players engage in an artificial conflict, defined by rules, that results
in a quantifiable outcome. The key elements of this definition are the fact that a game is a system,
players interact with the system, a game is an instance of conflict, the conflict in games is artificial,
rules limit player behavior and define the game, and every game has a quantifiable outcome or goal.
• A puzzle is a special kind of game in which there is a single correct answer or set of correct answers.
All puzzles are games.
• Multiplayer Role-playing games (RPGs) do not clearly possess a quantifiable outcome. Whether or
not they fit the definition of a game depends on how they are framed. As with other open-ended
game-like experiences such as Sim City, RPGs have emergent quantifiable goals but usually no single
overriding outcome.
< Day Day Up >
< Day Day Up >
14 Chapter 7: Defining Games
Chapter 8: Defining Digital Games
Overview
[The video game] is the most complex toy ever built and is vastly more responsive than any other toy ever
invented. Compare it, for example, with its contemporary, the doll Chatty Cathy, which has about a dozen
different sentences with which to respond when you pull the string. Chatty Cathy does not take into account
the variety of your responses; the computer does. Chatty has a dozen responses; the computer has
millions.-Brian Sutton-Smith, Toys as Culture
The definition of "game" that we proposed in the previous chapter makes no distinction between digital and
non-digital games-the qualities that define a game in one media also define it in another. Most of the thinkers
whose definitions we explored were writing before the invention of computer games, let alone before the
recent explosion of the video game industry. Yet computer and video games are an important part of the game
landscape, as they bring a number of unique qualities and concerns to the practice of game design. Before
proceeding any further, in this chapter we take a brief look at the special qualities of digital games.
< Day Day Up >
< Day Day Up >
The Computer Is Not a Computer
Digital and electronic games take a multitude of forms and appear on many different computer platforms.
These include games for personal computers or TV-attached game consoles such as the Sony Playstation or
Microsoft XBox; handheld game devices such as the Nintendo Game Boy Advance or specialized handhelds
that only play one game; games for PDAs or cell phones; and games for arcades or amusement parks. Digital
and electronic games can be designed for a single player, for a small group of players, or for a large
community. For simplicity's sake, we will refer to all of these game forms as digital games.
Digital games are systems, just like every other game discussed so far. The physical medium of the computer
is one element that makes up the system of the game, but it does not represent the entire game.The computer
hardware and software are merely the materials of which the game is composed. One would not say that a
Chapter 8: Defining Digital Games 1
2 Chapter 8: Defining Digital Games
deck of UNO cards is the same thing as the game of UNO. But people often fall into this kind of thinking
when it comes to describing digital games. Take a straightforward example of a digital game: the game title
Tetris for the Nintendo Game Boy handheld platform. Is the system of the game constituted entirely by the
Game Boy console and the Tetris game cartridge? As outlined in Systems, the four elements of a system are
objects, attributes, relationships, and an environment. The identities assigned to these elements within a game
depend on how the game is framed: as a formal system of rules, as an experiential system of play, or as a
contextual system embedded within larger systems of culture.
In order to see how this analysis functions within the present discussion of games and digital technology, we
start with the widest frame-culture-and work our way in. If we view Tetris as a system of cultural context, the
actual hardware and software of the game is a relevant component, but it hardly tells the whole story. In
considering Tetris within the context of culture, we would need to include elements such as game fan
magazines (Nintendo Power, for example), the marketing, manufacturing, and economics of the Game Boy
console, the hybrid cultural identity of the game (Tetris' original designer, Russian Alexy Pajitnov and
Japanese publisher Nintendo), the demographics of players, and so on. We would need to take each of these
components into account. The exact elements to investigate depend on the specific cultural reading
undertaken. In any case, culturally speaking the technological facet of Tetris is merely one element among
many others.
Now consider the experiential play of Tetris: the cognitive and psychological, physical and emotional
relationships that emerge between a player and the game. In this case, the elements of the system are
constituted by 1) the player and 2) the Game Boy Advance console. The circuit of interaction between player
and game runs in a kind of loop as the player plays, responding to the game even as the game responds to the
player. In this picture, the digital technology itself is a part of the system, but certainly does not constitute it
entirely.
Narrowing the focus to the formal rules of Tetris, the mathematical system of the game that exists apart from
the player, are we talking just about the technology? Yes and no. The rules are embedded in the hardware and
the software, but they are also something separate from the code. For example, the enactment of the rules is
contingent on the player. The rules determine, among other things, what happens when a player pushes a
button at a certain moment in the game. In this way, the internal logic of the game is not something that can
be completely severed from the ways that the game exchanges information with the outside world. Even here,
in looking at Tetris as a formal system, considering the technology as an end in itself can be misleading.
What is the point of these multiple framings? A game designer doesn't create technology. A game designer
creates an experience. Computer and video game technology can be a part of that experience-it can even be
the focal point of that experience-but in order to design meaningful play a designer has to consider the
complete picture.
< Day Day Up >
< Day Day Up >
What Can It Do?
The key question for game designers and digital media is not, What is it? But instead, What can it do?
Confronted with a digital platform, a game designer needs to understand how to harness the technology into a
designed system that results in meaningful play. This emphasis is not unique to digital games: the materials
that constitute a game are always crucial in designing an experience.
What can digital technology do? What are the special qualities of digital media that can support gaming
experiences not possible in other game forms? We can list four "traits" of digital media. The qualities are not
2 Chapter 8: Defining Digital Games
Chapter 8: Defining Digital Games 3
mutually exclusive-there is some overlap between categories-and they do not constitute a definitive list of
traits that appear in every digital game. In fact, these traits appear in non-digital games as well. But they do
represent the qualities that appear most robustly in digital games, characteristics that game designers should
take advantage of when creating games in a digital medium.
Trait 1: Immediate but Narrow Interactivity
One of the most compelling qualities of digital technology is that it can offer immediate,
interactive feedback. Designing systems of actions and outcomes, where the game responds
seamlessly to a player's input, is a common element in digital games. Digital technology thus
offers real-time game play that shifts and reacts dynamically to player decisions.
A common misconception about digital interactivity is that it offers players a broad and
expressive range of inter-action-that a computer can mimic any medium and provide any kind
of experience. In fact, the kind of interaction that a participant can have with a computer is
quite narrow. Interaction with a home computer is generally restricted to mouse and keyboard
input, and screen and speaker output. Compare the anemic activities of clicking, dragging,
and typing with the range of possible non-com-puter game interactions: the kinesthetically
engaging athletic, perceptual, and strategic interaction of Tennis; the performative theatrical
communication of Charades; the ritualized formality of a professional Go match. So although
the immediate interactivity of digital games is a powerful element for designers to consider,
the medium is rife with limitations.
On the other hand, limitations in games help shape the space of possibility. For example, an
arcade fighting game such as Street Fighter II gives a player only six button pushes and eight
joystick directions as a means of input, far fewer than a mouse and keyboard. Yet within this
limited interactive vocabulary, players can develop highly personal fighting styles and take
part in a vast range of different game experiences. The lightning-quick response of the
program, paired with the streamlined control input, contribute to the uniquely meaningful
play of a well-designed fighting game.
Similar pairings of limited but immediate interactivity appear in non-digital games as well. A
sport such as bicycle racing gives players a very restricted set of interactions. At the same
time, players receive immediate feedback for each tiny modification of speed, steering, and
the position of their bodies on their bicycles. Much of the deep engagement that cyclists
experience while racing emerges directly from the narrow but immediate interactivity of the
sport.
Trait 2: Information Manipulation
One way of framing digital media is as machines for storing and manipulating information.
Games certainly capitalize on this capacity for what Janet Murray, in Hamlet on the Holodeck
calls the "encyclopedic" quality of digital media. [1]
Digital games can and do make good use of data: they are often filled to bursting with text,
images, video, audio, animations, 3D content, and other forms of stored data. In fact, it is fair
to say that digital games tax the data-rendering capabilities of computers far more than any
other genre of consumer software. High-end personal computers, specially configured for the
best display of 3D graphics and audio, are marketed as "gamer" machines.
But graphics and audio are not the only kind of information that a digital game manipulates.
Every aspect of a digital game, in fact every aspect of its program-the internal logic,
mechanisms for handling player interactivity, memory management-can be regarded as
information. Digital games manipulate this information in ways that non-digital games
Chapter 8: Defining Digital Games 3
4 Chapter 8: Defining Digital Games
generally cannot. For example, consider the rules of a game. In a typical board game it is
necessary for at least one of the players to learn the rules and understand them fully before a
game begins. On the other hand, with a digital game it is possible, as designer Karen Sideman
has pointed out, to learn the rules of the game as it is being played; to make the discovery of
the way that the game operates part of the play of the game.[2]
Digital games are also excellent at hiding information from players and revealing it in very
particular ways. Warcraft III, for example, is a real-time strategy game that makes use of a
"fog of war" mechanic: the game is played on a large map, and the territory and actions of a
player's opponents are initially hidden and only revealed as the player's units explore the
game map. Of course, many non-digital games involve information manipulation as well. The
simple card game Memory, in which players lay a grid of cards face-down and attempt to
pick up pairs of identi- cal cards by remembering past moves of their opponents, is a game
explicitly about the manipulation and gradual discovery of hidden information.
Trait 3: Automated Complex Systems
Perhaps the most pervasive trait of digital games is that they can automate complicated
procedures and in so doing, facilitate the play of games that would be too complicated in a
non-computerized context. In most non-digital games, players have to move the game
forward at every step, by manipulating pieces or behaving according to explicit instructions
outlined by the rules. In a digital game, the program can automate these procedures and move
the game forward without direct input from a player.
When miniatures wargamers get together to stage their battles with tiny lead figures, they
follow complex rules that determine the movement, lines of sight, and combat resolution of
their armies. Even though wargamers tend to have a high tolerance for complex sets of rules,
there are certainly limits on the degree of complexity that they can endure before the game
becomes an exercise in tedium. This is exactly the kind of complexity that computers handle
with ease. In fact, wargames created for play on computers generally take into account many
more dynamic variables than their non-digital counterparts.
This is not necessarily a good thing. As James Dunnigan, a designer of wargames on and off
the computer states, "While computer wargames had many advantages over manual games,
they had one major minus for game designers. Computer games did not reveal their internal
workings."[3] Dunnigan calls this the "Black Box Syndrome" of computer games:
Another advantage of paper games is that you know why things are happening a certain way
in the game. All the rules and probability tables are right there in front of you. Yes, it takes a
lot of effort to wade through all of that detail, but you do end up with a good idea of how the
inner workings of the game function. A popular benefit of this is the opportunity to change
the game's rules and probability tables. Many players do this, and that's how gamers
eventually turn into game designers. Computer wargames show you very little of how it does
its thing. The computer program just does it, leaving you sometimes muttering about
mysterious "black boxes." [4]
Dunnigan feels that a player's appreciation and understanding of the internal game mechanics
are a key component of the play of wargames. Because of the automated nature of digital
games, computer wargames generally leave the internal machinations out of the picture,
diminishing a player's experience of the game.
The kinds of automated complex systems that appear in digital games vary greatly, from the
evolving ecosystems of Sim City, to the sophisticated artificial intelligence opponents of
Thief, to the complex light-and-shadow rendering routines of Unreal, to the natural language
4 Chapter 8: Defining Digital Games
The words you are searching are inside this book. To get more targeted content, please make full-text search by clicking here.
cara membuat game dan perencanaannya
Discover the best professional documents and content resources in AnyFlip Document Base.
Search
fundamental rules game design
- 1 - 50
- 51 - 100
- 101 - 150
- 151 - 200
- 201 - 250
- 251 - 300
- 301 - 350
- 351 - 400
- 401 - 450
- 451 - 500
- 501 - 550
- 551 - 600
- 601 - 650
- 651 - 694
Pages: