Monday 18 October 2010

Definining Video Games

What is the difference between 'game' and 'play'?
Apparently, according to Salen and Zimmerman;

Out of everything which can be listed as 'Play', only some are games.
Out of everything which can be listed as a 'Game', only some are play.

Basically, some form of play can be in the form of games, and some aspects of games can be  put into the category 'play' (rather than aesthetics or design and so on)

I'm trying to think of a quote that goes something along the lines of "all [A's] are [B's], but not all [B's] are [A's]... However... Sometimes..." Which is equally confusing.

Anyway, Salen and Zimmerman also decided to pool together the current definitions of existing academics and games designers to try an create some form of mutant definition. The most common concept was the presence of rules, the next most common after that was Goals and/or Outcomes.

Somewhere from those two things they came up with this:
"A game is a system in which players engage in artificial conflict, defined by rules, that results in a quantifiable outcome."

Somehow, that makes 'puzzles'' a game, but perhaps not RPG's...
RPG's - Fine, I'd say it was more of a sociable activity... 'play' rather than 'game' But puzzles?

"Yeah, Steve - That crossword was a great game!"...
or perhaps:
"Yeah, Frank - That crossword was a great Puzzle - It really made me think."...

Anyway, it would seem that the range of different types of games can cause extreme confusion when trying to pin it down - I imagine it's like having a computer that doesn't work and trying to find the component that's decided to die - Just for my benefit so I can relate to it.
and what about Tamagotchis and Furbys?

Well, let me clear that up for you - Tamagotchis; firstly; what are they?
Well, basically it's a digital pet.
Is looking after your cat/dog a game? It's the same thing after all!
I say no - You can play with your pet, But it's not a game.
Again, like the crossword, I would say it is 'Play' rather than 'Game'.

'Furbies' I hear you say. *shivers*
Again, It is a toy - It's 'Play'; unless you make a game using a Furby toy such as "Who can hit the Furby the furthest with this massive baseball bat?" It's not going to be a game.
Another example of 'playing' with a Furby: HERE

One way that Newman decides we could define video games is by genre 7 genres to be exact;
  • Action & Adventure
  • Driving & Racing
  • First-Person Shooter
  • Platform & Puzzle
  • Role-Playing
  • Strategy & Simulation
  • Sports & beat-'em-ups
Why are platform games with puzzle games?!

Anyway, he decided although everyone defines games by this type of method, it wasn't a good idea; it is used with books which have a fixed linear and unmoveable form - sometimes games are malleable and genres can change rapidly, or it may mix genres. To be fair, he has got a point - There is probably a game out there which hits every point in that above list - and more!


Newman also looks at auteurism as a defining method - This is also quite a good idea, however, you can imagine people using this method for publicity rather than defining games and subsequently plastering their names everywhere (or more than usual anyway). what happens if the authors of the game really thinks outside the box and their games have nothing in common with each other? Perhaps people would restrict their games further to compensate for this?

Newman then looks at aspects of Gameplay - He decides to use foreign words to do this (as you do);
  • Agon - Competition
  • Alea - Chance/Randomness
  • Ilinx - Movement
  • Mimicry - simulation, make-believe, role-play
Then, of course you have the problem that games often combine multiple aspects of game-play too! apart from nobody will understand you: "You know, that game was very Agon based!"

Simply put; I don't think there is a simple foolproof way of  defining video games, after all "The game is plastic"! There is always going to be a way to flow through the cracks in a defining structure within game design because anything is possible! They should put in a ridiculously strict defining method in place for people like me who will work their very best to find loopholes (hopefully creating wonderfully original games)
Meanwhile, I'm pretty sure most people define by genre.

2 comments:

  1. This is an interesting post as it draws on a range of material you have read and thought about. I think a tamagotchi is a game because there is a point to it (so it's at the ludus end of the spectrum), which is to keep your pet happy (feed it and play with it) and it will evolve and fly away. Furby is at the other end -- paidea -- as it is a toy that can be played with without rules.

    Those words, btw, that Newman and others use to discuss games, or approaches to the study of games, were first used by Roger Caillois, a French sociologist who wanted to systematically classify games. He used the terms "paidea" and "ludus" as extremes on a continuum: free play ("paidea") at one end and rule-bound play ("ludus") at the other.

    He drew on different languages to find the best words he could for various aspects of gameplay, which he managed to achieve with just four terms: "agon" (the Greek word for "struggle"), "alea" (the Roman word for games of chance), "mimicry" (the English word for taking on another personality) and "ilinx" (the ancient Greek word for "whirlpool") to take account of the various types of game play that might occur.

    While it's not about computer games _per se_ (Caillois's work was first published in 1958) it's all interesting stuff. If you want to consult the source, you'll find a copy of Caillois's _Man, Play and Games_ in the library.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Well, depends what type of tamagotchi-type-toy you get TBH! =P

    play without rules? But wasn't it said by Salen and Zimmerman that A game is a system in which players engage in artificial conflict, defined by rules, that results in a quantifiable outcome? =P

    to be honest, I'm not going to pretend I took a long time writing that, I can't imagine how many flaws it has! xD
    I just sometimes like having a bit of a rant about nothing in particular every once in a while, and also thinking about it from the view of everyone else who isn't a games designer (Which, is quite a lot of people as far as I'm aware =P)

    ReplyDelete