Adventure Game Studio

My personal definition:

Game - an activity that is both fun and challenging.

Fun means that it makes me want to continue doing it.
Challenging means that it tests my skills or abilities.
No more attributes are required for the activity to be a game.
If you take away either of those attributes the activity stops being a game.



          (http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z69/space_boy_album/gamedef.png)



So, what do you call a game?

Painting is an activity I find fun and challenging. Is that a game? What about web designing, writing, cooking, sowing, etc.? Is sex a game :D?

(Edit: I basically agree with ildu, that your definition is too broad.)

A never ending question in game studies... it's a difficult one because it's so clouded by semantics. In every day usage the word refers to so many different things that any definition can be argued with. I think you're right to ask what people think of as a game, rather than what IS a game. I wouldn't personally disagree with either of your conditions, but I would add more, because it's a very broad definition that includes a lot of things I don't consider games.

A lot of people would add another set to that venn diagram, the requirement that there should be a responsive adversary (be it algorithmic, or human). A crossword is both fun and challenging, but you don't "play" a crossword, you solve it, so most people differentiate between puzzles and games in their definitions. So the question is if you consider a crossword a game. I wouldn't.

Another popular and related one is the requirement for an uncertain outcomes. That's pretty much a given if you include the adversary one, because the things you do will be reacted to, presenting you with different paths. If the progression is always forward towards a defined goal state then many people wouldn't call it a game. Is sudoku a game? Not to me, but I think this condition is redundant.

Most people would require an agreed ruleset. Your day may have been fun and challenging, but there wasn't a well defined ruleset, or a win condition, or a scoring system. I find that requirement important.

Another set people like to differentiate is competition (like a 100m sprint). Sure, it has other players, and rules, it is often fun, and generally challenging, but because the players can't influence each other, most people don't consider them games. I think this one is covered in the reacting adversary condition.

So for me it comes down to: challenging, agreed ruleset, reactively adversarial, participated in for entertainment.

The last bit can go if we want to take an extremely broad view of games and say large components of our every day lives are in fact games, but that isn't what I personally think of when I think "game".


The interesting thing is when I look at certain things like linear, story based adventure games, even though I call them games (probably because they run on a computer, they come on cds like other computer games, I play them for fun, they look like games), they just don't fit. Something like Monkey Island is a lot more like Sudoku than Chess. It proceeds through a sequence of set puzzles, solved with logic, or luck, and very little in there is a response to my actions. Should I stop calling them games?

That said, there are some parts in "adventure games" which I would consider games, and most "computer games", in any genre, are a conglomeration of puzzles, games, narrative, social aspects, artworks... it's not necessarily a good approach to look at them and say that on the whole "this is a game" or "this isn't a game". They're variety shows, and one of the things they often employ is games.

I very much like Greg Costikyan (http://www.costik.com/)'s definition in I Have No Words & I Must Design (http://www.costik.com/nowords.html) in which he first distinguishes games from puzzles (static), toys (no goals) and stories (linear) before stating:

QuoteA 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.

And then going on to explain what that entails. If the definition sounds a bit wobbly on its own, it's because of some assumptions made in the rest of the document not explicitly stated here. Nevertheless, I find it an interesting read and recommend it to everyone.

Note that according to this definition most adventure games are just a combination of a (linear) story with lots of puzzles and not games, like scotch already suggested. Not that there's anything wrong with that. An adventure game probably has more in common with a movie and a sudoku than with chess, but that's OK since those things can also be enjoyable.

Of course, one might argue that if something is constantly being referred to as a game that doesn't fit the above definition of a game then the definition should be changed rather than the use of the term. On the other hand, most adventure games can easily be described as "story with puzzles" without having to use the term "game", something that's much more difficult to do for other games like chess.

I also like scotch's definition, which sounds more natural, but I think is overall very similar to the above one with "challenging" being implicit in (non-trivial) decision making, "agreed rules" implying a goal (and a goal in turn implying a set of rules) and "reactively adversarial" being largely equivalent to what Mr. Costikyan broadly refers to as opposition (what it is that forces the player to make decisions to achieve their goal).

Regarding space boy's definition I'd also say that it's too broad as it's lacking those attributes. Furthermore, I'm not happy with the set of fun activities summarily labeled as "toys", because many fun (reading,...) can hardly be labeled as such and because games aren't be a subset of toys (see above).

Interesting thread Spaceboy! I think the difference between the posts are just a question of optical. Spaceboy graphx is more about feelings research by someone who already plays something.

If I followed the posts, and adding my point, the schemata starts looking like that :

(http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w128/danthedanuniquely/game.png)
(Don't move this to the Critique Lounge, please)  :)

I removed the fun factor : I believe you can be in presence of a 'game' without it. Expressions such like 'political game', and 'mind game' will fit better.

I don't know really how to fill all the colors. Maybe it's a failure of that schemata. What/ where can you fill into it? Does it matters if it's unfillable (exemple : pink)?

EDIT : Anym, tnx for the link.

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v328/Yufster/videogames.jpg)

Quote from: LUniqueDan on Mon 09/07/2007 06:14:39
Interesting thread Spaceboy! I think the difference between the posts are just a question of optical. Spaceboy graphx is more about feelings research by someone who already plays something.

If I followed the posts, and adding my point, the schemata starts looking like that :

http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w128/danthedanuniquely/game.png
(Don't move this to the Critique Lounge, please)  :)

I removed the fun factor : I believe you can be in presence of a 'game' without it. Expressions such like 'political game', and 'mind game' will fit better.

I don't know really how to fill all the colors. Maybe it's a failure of that schemata. What/ where can you fill into it? Does it matters if it's unfillable (exemple : pink)?

EDIT : Anym, tnx for the link.

How do you differentiate games from sport in your schema?

QuoteThe interesting thing is when I look at certain things like linear, story based adventure games, even though I call them games (probably because they run on a computer, they come on cds like other computer games, I play them for fun, they look like games), they just don't fit. Something like Monkey Island is a lot more like Sudoku than Chess. It proceeds through a sequence of set puzzles, solved with logic, or luck, and very little in there is a response to my actions. Should I stop calling them games?

Personally I think it's the opposite sometimes, linear and story heavy adventure games with little puzzle or decision to make give me the impression I'm simply watching a movie or an animation. When most of what I have to do is walking around and discussing with characters, I wonder if it wouldn't fit better in another media form.

The first half of Ben Jordan 4 is a good example of this, where the 50 first points involved talking with people and talking with them again to see if a new conversation subjects appeared. Somehow, the puzzle heavy Ben Jordan 3 had more to do with games than Ben Jordan 4.

It's really obvious what a game is, I can't believe this even needs to be discussed. Can't you put your energy into discussing more important things?

I mean really, even if you came up with some definitive formula for what EXACT combination of circles on a graph define WHAT A GAME IS, is that going to be useful to anybody? Has anybody ever been stressed out because they don't know if what they're making falls into the video game genre, board game genre or plastic toy genre???

Also this thread started off badly when you forgot to even define whether or not you meant VIDEO games, or just games in general. Like Hopskotch.


This is academic wankery at it's worst.

Sometimes people discuss things not because they need to be discussed but rather because they enjoy it. For some people, such discussions are kind of like a game or a puzzle.

Some puzzles are shit and pointless.

Thanks for the link Anym!

Quote from: Anym on Mon 09/07/2007 01:38:23
Furthermore, I'm not happy with the set of fun activities summarily labeled as "toys", because many fun (reading,...) can hardly be labeled as such and because games aren't be a subset of toys (see above).

You're right, there probably should be a different collective term for the "only fun" activities. But toys aren't represented in that diagram as a subset of games.

Quote from: ildu on Sun 08/07/2007 18:42:28
Painting is an activity I find fun and challenging. Is that a game? What about web designing, writing, cooking, sowing, etc.? Is sex a game :D?

First of all sowing is not really what I would call challenging and fun. And what's challenging about sex? As for the rest, I guess under the right conditions(setting goals, scoring) they could be considered games.

Quote from: scotch on Sun 08/07/2007 18:44:25
A lot of people would add another set to that venn diagram, the requirement that there should be a responsive adversary (be it algorithmic, or human). A crossword is both fun and challenging, but you don't "play" a crossword, you solve it, so most people differentiate between puzzles and games in their definitions. So the question is if you consider a crossword a game. I wouldn't.

Whether puzzles are games probably depends on personal interpretation. A puzzle could be considered a type of game. Solving a puzzle would mean playing a game that tests problem solving skills.
(http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z69/space_boy_album/puzzles.png)
(if you don't know micropul - http://neutralbox.com/micropul/index.html)

Quote from: scotch
Another popular and related one is the requirement for an uncertain outcomes. That's pretty much a given if you include the adversary one, because the things you do will be reacted to, presenting you with different paths. If the progression is always forward towards a defined goal state then many people wouldn't call it a game. Is sudoku a game? Not to me, but I think this condition is redundant.

Quote
The interesting thing is when I look at certain things like linear, story based adventure games, even though I call them games (probably because they run on a computer, they come on cds like other computer games, I play them for fun, they look like games), they just don't fit. Something like Monkey Island is a lot more like Sudoku than Chess. It proceeds through a sequence of set puzzles, solved with logic, or luck, and very little in there is a response to my actions. Should I stop calling them games?

If non-linearity was a neccesary condition then most computer games wouldn't be considered games.

Quote from: scotch
Most people would require an agreed ruleset. Your day may have been fun and challenging, but there wasn't a well defined ruleset, or a win condition, or a scoring system. I find that requirement important.

Good point. As I said above that's probably what's missing in my definition. A ruleset that describes the goal and restrictions.

Quote from: scotch
Another set people like to differentiate is competition (like a 100m sprint). Sure, it has other players, and rules, it is often fun, and generally challenging, but because the players can't influence each other, most people don't consider them games. I think this one is covered in the reacting adversary condition.

If you have a challenge and more than one player then competition is going to emerge naturally. Even if the players can't influence each other they may compete for the highest score(tetris, shooting range) or the fastest time in completing a challenge (jigsaw puzzles, 100m sprint). Challenge + many people = competition.

LUniqueDan: I don't agree about removing the fun from games. If something is to stay in games then it's the entertainment part. What you call opposition is probably the same as challenge in my definition. Goal and rules should be one element, like Anym said one implies the other.

Meowster: knowing what makes a game(and what makes a good game) can help game designers focus on the essential stuff. Even if we don't come up with a final definition and even if some people think it's really obvious what a game is, at least we exchange some ideas which may be helpful or even eye opening when designing our own games. And I meant games in general.

Also if it's obvious to you it should be no problem to put bingo and dungeons and dragons(both commonly refered to as games) under one clear definition(that is if your interest in this topic goes beyond stating how useless you find it).

I agree with scotch's post, mostly, although I do think there needn't be so much distinction between games and other similar things, such as puzzles. If anything, I think puzzles, such as Sudoku, are more fundamental logical constructs that can be used as elements of a game. Chess, for example, is an elaborate conglomeration of logical constructs. It's difficult to understand, but at its most fundamental levels it's a rather mechanistic and, dare I say, deterministic organism. Some of the competitive gamelike elements of Chess come either from external arbitrations, such as psychological manipulations and time constraints, or from the players' inabilities to grasp fully the logical and mechanical implications of the rules and moves.

Quote from: Meowster on Mon 09/07/2007 16:04:31
It's really obvious what a game is, I can't believe this even needs to be discussed. Can't you put your energy into discussing more important things?

No one is forcing you to read or respond to this thread. If you don't like it, ignore it.

Quote from: Meowster on Mon 09/07/2007 16:04:31
This is academic wankery at it's worst.

I like academic wankery. Well, I like wankery in general...

Although, it has to be said, "What is a game?" is far too broad a question to answer in any definite way beyond referring to Random House...

game /geɪm/ noun, adjective.

1. an amusement or pastime.
2. a competitive activity involving skill, chance, or endurance on the part of two or more persons who play according to a set of rules, usually for their own amusement or for that of spectators.

...etc.

A far more interesting(?) debate, would include, say, discussing a video game as a contained single-person experience...

Player identification and/or response.
Suspension of Disbelief.
The benefit/handicap of the Fourth Wall.
Etc.

Certainly wankerific in nature, but at least a little more focused. And/or useful.

But dissecting the mechanics of Chess or the psychological minute involved in solving a crossword? Meh.

Quote from: MrColossal on Mon 09/07/2007 17:52:22

Quote from: Meowster on Mon 09/07/2007 16:04:31
It's really obvious what a game is, I can't believe this even needs to be discussed. Can't you put your energy into discussing more important things?

No one is forcing you to read or respond to this thread. If you don't like it, ignore it.

similarly, nobody is being forced to respond to my post, and many people clearly don't like it and have chosen to ignore it. I just find that this thread is not only pretentious and pointless, but also doesn't even phrase the question very well.

when you post things on the internet for discussion and debate, some people aren't going to like what you say. then they'll probably respond. I read this, and it annoyed me, and I responded to it as such. since it was posted on the internet, I'm sure the thread starter won't be terribly surprised that someone, somewhere, didn't like it.

Yufster, I think if you studied what people have written about games you'd realise quite how important it can be to you, as a designer, to get even basic ideas clear in your head.  (I must admit, I found the diagrams comical though.)

While this particular question is very simple, and not too helpful on the face of it, it's usually intended to get you thinking about identifying aspects of games are fundementally important, and it's far, far from "academic wankery", for those that are interested in designing games with some idea of what they are doing.

It's quite naive, in my opinion, to assume that we all know what makes a game, that any detailed consideration is a waste of time, because it's so intuitive and simple. It's not. It's sad to me that games aren't yet respected as an area of study, even among people that respect games.  I'm pretty sure you wouldn't criticise an illustrator for trying to identify rules of image construction. But everyone knows what a drawing is, right? What a bunch of wankers! Artwork, music, writing, programming all have deep academic roots, to their benefit, and I think game design is complicated enough to deserve the same treatment.

I don't know if academia will ultimately be a large driving force towards better games, but you already see people applying ideas from it in real productions. For me, it would be nice if we can rely less on the intuition, iteration, and imitation formulas for game design, because it's clear to me there's a hell of a lot of ineffectual game design about.

Quote from: Meowster on Mon 09/07/2007 19:54:09
I'm sure the thread starter won't be terribly surprised that someone, somewhere, didn't like it.

I'm not surprised at all. I bet you're not the only one who doesn't like it. Everyone has their own way to deal with it. Some people ignore it, others draw genitalia. I just explained you the benefits I see in such a discussion. I like to approach "obvious" stuff from a philosophical point of view and i'm perfectly aware this is not everybodys thing. I'm happy there were at least some people who showed interest.

Also anyone who thinks the question is too vague or dull or whatever is free to steer the discussion in a more interesting direction or just let the topic die.

Right scotch, but an illustrator demonstrating image construction would not ask the question "what is a picture?".

And then illustrate what a picture is using a series of interconnected circles.

I read a lot about what people write about games, I still disagree with the object of this thread. There are some clever things being said, but also some wanky things. And discussing the definition of what a video game is, isn't going to help people make good ones. It's just going to stop them from accidentally making a board game, or a non-game, or maybe accidentally baking a fun cake.

Quote from: Meowster on Mon 09/07/2007 20:22:25
Right scotch, but an illustrator demonstrating image construction would not ask the question "what is a picture?".

http://people.csail.mit.edu/fredo/ArtAndScienceOfDepiction/3_WhatIsAPicture/Image.pdf

Actually they would :P It's a very good place to start. Surely an adult who is thinking about art and reading the question knows they aren't asking what a picture physically is, but the idea of starting from that point is to get under some assumptions and try breaking things apart for study.

The question "What is a game?" is a very common one (In fact it's the title of a few of the lectures I had early on in Games Studies, and they were some of the most useful, imo). It does seem kind of stupid if you read it in a casual sense, but I don't think it's a bad question.

Discussing what a video game is alone isn't going to get anyone making a better one... sure... but it does tend to give you some ideas for how to approach and critique your own designs, at least it does help me.

I'm not sure what parts you consider wankery, but I'd rather a bit of wankery sometimes than people avoiding thinking.

Edit: On topic: when it comes to game definitions, I found this one interesting, by Jesper Juul - Looking for a Heart of Gameness (http://www.jesperjuul.net/text/gameplayerworld/) because it doesn't explicitly require an adversary. It has 6 rules, but as far as I can tell, by his definition, a running race is a game, which is where it differs from my opinion. He's quite a respected guy though, so who cares what I think!

Quote from: space boy on Mon 09/07/2007 20:31:51

Quote from: Meowster on Mon 09/07/2007 20:22:25
Right scotch, but an illustrator demonstrating image construction would not ask the question "what is a picture?".

http://people.csail.mit.edu/fredo/ArtAndScienceOfDepiction/3_WhatIsAPicture/Image.pdf

It pains me greatly to think there are people in the world who need to be told what a picture is.

You do understand that by trying to define something, you always attempt to take it a step further, right? It's not really that somebody doesn't know what a game, or picture, or maybe music is. But discussing brings new ideas, and analysing helps in better creative force...

Quote from: Meowster on Mon 09/07/2007 21:06:19
It pains me greatly to think there are people in the world who need to be told what a picture is.

You know you're talking about people from MIT, right? And you know what pains me? That there are people who don't know how to use google and start a topic asking people to look for them. You really shouldn't be lecturing me about what a useful topic is, ok? Let's try and keep further posts ontopic.

I refuse to give more than a cursory glance to such a long document which doesn't even seem to take a break to tell a good "My dog has no nose..." joke.

I'm convinced there must be a way to discuss such matters without resulting in a comatose audience. Although we have yet to find it.

Having said that, anybody who feels my previous definition of what a game is (via Random House) is insufficent, really has too much time on their hands, or is simply content to waste valuble brain energy on talking about games rather than making them.

In my own humble opinion of academia of this sort, Jesper's theory really only exists to make Jesper's peers stroke their Van Dyck's, while formulating their own boring counter-theory. Or to expand upon earlier mastubatory references; An academic circle jerk.

An overabundance of such cosmic malarkey takes up valuble brain space, and really isn't going to help you improve that key-in-lock puzzle or design your HL2 deathmatch map.

Or is it?

...

No.

Quote from: space boy on Mon 09/07/2007 21:21:36

Quote from: Meowster on Mon 09/07/2007 21:06:19
It pains me greatly to think there are people in the world who need to be told what a picture is.

You know you're talking about people from MIT, right? And you know what pains me? That there are people who don't know how to use google and start a topic asking people to look for them. You really shouldn't be lecturing me about what a useful topic is, ok? Let's try and keep further posts ontopic.

Shush shush, calm down. I'm disagreeing with how useful your post is, it's not the end of the world. You won't die. Nothing will explode.

It doesn't matter where those people are from. They could be from Trinity College Dublin or from Cambridge Uni or Bristol or UCSC, it wouldn't make me automatically agree with them just because they have a swanky looking uni. In fact, that'd make me automatically more apprehensive that they're the type of person who'll spend more time waffling and less time doing.

Saying "You realise they're from the MIT RIGHT?!??" sounds kind of silly.

I see plenty of people in the industry like you, and they're very good at getting into good positions and talking at conferences and being quoted... but when it comes to actually making a game, it's pretty obvious they're all talk and don't really have an idea of what makes a game good, because they spend all their time talking theoretical bollocks and not enough time playing games and learning from the victories and mistakes of other designers. Usually those people are the ones that every else in the studio hates.

Anyway I can see I'm winding people up so I'll just go over here now and you can continue your highly useful debate... and when it's over I'll read back through it and see what you've all learned from it.

Ugh, LimpingFish :P If it's so boring to you, don't bother with it, but I find it both interesting and useful. And yes, ideas from games academia have helped me improve game ideas.

You're not the kind of person I'd expect to barge in just to take a swipe at someone else's conversation. It's useless ego stroking bollocks you don't find useful, right, I think we've had that point covered enough now.

Juul's done some interesting stuff, and although that document isn't terribly important but there were a few interesting ideas to me. Sorry to disappoint the audience so much... I wasn't aware we were performing here.

Hudders :

QuoteHow do you differentiate games from sport in your schema?

I don't : Those are games. 'Hockey games' , 'Baseball games' etc... That I don't find Fun or challenging. So I just don't compete nor watch others doing so.

Spaceboy last graph are a good attemps to define the differences between games 'sub-directory'.

Spaceboy :

QuoteI don't agree about removing the fun from games. If something is to stay in games then it's the entertainment part. What you call opposition is probably the same as challenge in my definition. Goal and rules should be one element, like Anym said one implies the other.

I agree 100% with that principle creating or playing a game. I maintain that's not a pre-requisite to 'something' to get classified under the name 'game'. 'challenge' and 'fun' are 1st person feelings, that can get applied to game you or I like. But chess is a game anyway, even when I played against my 7 yr-old cousin. And baseball too. The question was 'What is a game'.

Now inside 'game' that's a different thing. I like your graph, but, because 'puzzle' are pre-requisite, I do think that categorization will maybe need a 'table' diag.

Cheers.

EDIT:
Meowster
I just won't comment.

I do see your point, Scotch, and of course I enjoy playing devil's advoc-arse once in a while. :P

I'm not saying you can't be taught, or teach, game theory (from Tic-Tac-Toe to Crysis) on such a grand scale. What I'm saying is that such theory is superfluous to the needs of being taught, or teaching, video game theory.

There is a lot more useful, imho, facets to video game design that people could benefit from, without bloating things up with somebody's thesis on the psychological mental nuances experienced between two chess players.

Again, I'm not saying that one can't benefit from such thesis and theory, I just think a potential game designer might be better directing their energy elsewhere.

Video Game Design 101 should begin with "What is a Video Game?" not "What is a Game?". Analyze the mental responses of two Pong players, if one really must, or the psychology involved in a game of Minesweeper. Starting further back along the evolutionary scale of the "game" doesn't necessarily mean there is anymore to learn that couldn't be found by starting back in 1972 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pong).

Of course, there's no harm in it either. It's just not what I would consider...necessary. :)

EDIT: I actually took the time to read the earlier linked article by Greg Costigan. Although I may not fully agree with Costigan on several issues, he raises a number of interesting and, imo anyway, more immediately relevant points.

EDIT: Of course, we could broach the subject of "What is a Video Game?" by discussing the various ways they replicate "real life" activities (Pong vs actual table tennis) and the function they therefore serve. :)

LUniqueDan: When I try to determine what I find most important in a game I usually do it from my point of view. So if I don't find something fun nor challenging I don't call it a game, even if others do. Gaming is quite obviously a subjective experience even if more than one person participate in one game. An objective definition would just describe the mechanical parts of a game leaving out subjective sensations which I think is more important.

LimpingFish: As far as the difference between "normal" games and video games, there is none for me. Video games just make use of the possibilities of computers but the fundamental concept is the same as for non-computer games. Also scotch apparently recognized I was reffering to games in general as he was talking about Chess aswell as Monkey Island and didn't say "you didn't specify whether you mean video games only or games in general!". That's just as relevant as asking whether I talk about Mac or PC games. Also I started with a very broad and modest definition to leave people space for their own interpretations and extensions and so they could share what they think is most important in games(which some people did). With time we would/will get to the most important points. A discussion is supposed to be dynamic, but unfortunately there are people who, instead of contributing in an intelligent manner, prefer to bombard the subject with their angry rants.

Meowster: Generalizations are no argument. Just hold your judgement of my game creations skills until I have actually released a game. Then you are free to tear it apart. And yes, I do play lots of games(I have actually recently taken a break from working on my game and started playing more as I felt kind of uninspired and burnt out). If you want to count all the theoretical game discussions I have ever had just find the topics I started on this forum. Experience in gaming is very important indeed but I like to put stuff in numbers and graphs as I think displaying something graphically can sometimes reveal things that weren't aparent when only playing games. Practice is just as important as theory. If you want to talk about things that you find important in games, do so, but don't act like an angry brat.

I cant see either of Space Boy's images; I'm just seeing black boxes of eternal night.

I figured the first one was some kind of ironic statement and ignored it. Turns out that's not the case.

Scotch, funny, I came across a lot of Jesper Juul's texts about game studies when I wrote my thesis on how computer games affect people's learning.

Other people to keep an eye on are:
Arnseth (http://gamestudies.org/0601/articles/arnseth) (not to be confused with Aarseth, who's incidently also a prominent game studies writer.)
Squire (http://website.education.wisc.edu/kdsquire/)
Roger Callois (with his book Les Jeux and le Hommes, can't remember the English title right now)
Egenfeldt-Nielsen
And if you're Swedish (or can find anything translated, which I doubt) Jonas Linderoth.

Very interesting reading, all of them.

One thing I'm not sure it's been mentioned earlier in the thread is that games apparantely are limited to entertainement, and with the exception of educational games, they seem to serve no beneficial purpose (at least to the adults mind). And games are intended for children mostly, and not adults, no matter if we keep playing (but then again we keep making them as well).

I don't believe in the above paragraph, and sure enough almost every game has positive outcomes, as it's been discussed before in these forums, but still in the minds of the general population:

sports: excersize, sharpen the minds, reflexes, communication, social advancement, etc...
(Video) games: no excersize (which stands true for VG but not games), no sharpening of the mind, reflexes yes, no communication and no social advancement, since all games are perceived to be played solo in front of your screen, no matter the broadband running behind...

furthermore the chances of making money out of playing sports appear to be quite a lot, when the same cannot be said about games / Video Games.

Again, for me, all the above are bollox. simple enough playing games and VG can get you a career (as it happens to quite a few people here), reflexes and communication and social behaviour come from here the very forums, and multiplayer games, and excersize... well... Wii is here as well, so it does add a bit of excersize, but it is one thing that VG are missing...

Very interesting thread Spaceboy!

QuoteI'm not saying you can't be taught, or teach, game theory (from Tic-Tac-Toe to Crysis) on such a grand scale. What I'm saying is that such theory is superfluous to the needs of being taught, or teaching, video game theory.

Off-topic:
I just wanted to point out that the term "game theory" as it is used today has nothing to do with games how we understand them, and how you try to categorize them.
It is used to analyze situations in which rational decision makers try to maximize their utility functions while "playing" against each other.

Edit: Yeah sorry I guess the smart ass in me broke through.  ;D

http://www.kongregate.com/games/pixelate/understanding-games-episode-1
http://www.kongregate.com/games/pixelate/understanding-games-episode-2
http://www.kongregate.com/games/pixelate/understanding-games-episode-3
http://www.kongregate.com/games/pixelate/understanding-games-episode-4

I thought these were neat if somewhat basic but sometimes putting simple things into simpler terms helps think about things differently.

Cobra, yes, that's why we use the term game studies here :)

QuoteLUniqueDan: When I try to determine what I find most important in a game I usually do it from my point of view. So if I don't find something fun nor challenging I don't call it a game, even if others do. Gaming is quite obviously a subjective experience even if more than one person participate in one game. An objective definition would just describe the mechanical parts of a game leaving out subjective sensations which I think is more important.

The problem with such thinking is that it means absolutly nothing really. Even if your definition of a car is something that goes real fast and your definition of a movie is something that is fun to watch, cars that are slow are still cars and movies that aren't fun to watch are still movies, no matter what you say. Not only this, but "fun + challenge" worth absolutly nothing on an educationnal level. If we ask what a pie is and what are the fundamental ingredients for a pie and someone reply "Pies are good and sweet, they are made of something good and sweet" well, we're not really more advanced, and it will help absolutly nobody to improve their pie cooking skill.

I liked the article from the link Anym posted, but I think the guy is way off about story, toy and puzzle. A game isn't half or 10% of a game because it contains or lacks puzzles, plot or sandbox aspects, like he says about Zork. As long a game presents 5 or 6 of the elements he mentions below (decision, goal, opposition, ressource management...) then it's a game IMO.

I feel I should point out that, indeed, I have been referring to Game Studies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_studies) (thank you, Andail) rather than the larger subject of Game Theory (as defined here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_Theory)), or Combinational Game Theory, (as defined here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combinatorial_game_theory)), and apologize for any confusion caused.

Regardless, I won't deny the benefits involved in studying such theories, in a general sense.

Both above theories deal with games involving two or more players, and as such (unless we stretch the term to allow substituting of AI players), have a limited bearing on single player games, or a person's releationship to the single player experience, which is largely what I would be interested in.

People with a similar interest might find useful articles here (http://gamestudies.org/0601). :)

A theory I did find interesting is GNS Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNS_Theory), developed by Ron Edwards, regarding how role-playing games work, and contained within his larger The Big Model system.

Quote from: Hudders on Tue 10/07/2007 15:55:36
I cant see either of Space Boy's images; I'm just seeing black boxes of eternal night.

http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z69/space_boy_album/bothgraphs.jpg

Nikolas: People who say that games are just for kids and provide no practical benefits beyond entertainment are simply ignorant. Games are probably the most natural way of learning and improving skills.

Blueskirt: You're right, a definition should be objective, but as a game designer you want to make games people enjoy and a technical description of what a game is does not ensure it will be good. What if a game has tokens, resources to manage and a goal if I find it annoying or boring?

Now looking at my definition, something that's fun and challenging for you might not be for others. But that's my point. In the first place you should make the game for yourself, not for others. If you make a game you like you're going to be more enthusiastic about it and put more effort in it. Going by impersonal descriptions, cloning succesful titles or studying surveys is not the way to design good games. My definition might not be encyclopedia material but from a design point of view it's certainly useful for me as it focuses on what I think is the essence of a good game. So even if the meaning of "fun" and "challenge" varies for everyone doesn't mean that the definition has no worth for a designer.

Quote from: LimpingFish on Tue 10/07/2007 19:33:35
Both above theories deal with games involving two or more players, and as such (unless we stretch the term to allow substituting of AI players), have a limited bearing on single player games, or a person's releationship to the single player experience, which is largely what I would be interested in.

The discussion is about games in general, no matter if it's a single or multiplayer game. Just because game studies limits itself to multiplayer games doesn't mean we have to(in this discussion nobody did and nobody said we should do that). We can concentrate entirely on the single player experience if you want. Since I'm working on a singleplayer game myself I would also find that more interesting.

SpaceBoy :

QuoteLUniqueDan: When I try to determine what I find most important in a game I usually do it from my point of view.

Cool!
So, if I'm following you, your real question is :
"What is most important features in a game?"
(And it's a great question too)

But If so, can you just explain to me wtf your first graph have anything to do with that question? (precisely the 'Toy' and 'test' parts). And how do you applied it to?

So, finally you tell us, that YOU enjoy games who are Fun and challenging.

Cool!
Me too by the way.


Meowster:1 / Thread: 0.

People almost seem offended by how others can delight in theoretical discussions. Why write in this thread just to tell that you're not interested in it? It's not like we've come to your door like Jehovah's witnesses and shoved the arguments in your face.

Quote from: LUniqueDan
SpaceBoy :

Quote
LUniqueDan: When I try to determine what I find most important in a game I usually do it from my point of view.

Cool!
So, if I'm following you, your real question is :
"What is most important features in a game?"
(And it's a great question too)

Well, yes. Only the problem with this question is that is uses more words than mine while basically saying the same thing. ;D

Quote from: LUniqueDan
But If so, can you just explain to me wtf your first graph have anything to do with that question? (precisely the 'Toy' and 'test' parts). And how do you applied it to?

Like I said I like to represent stuff visually, so the graph was just a "translation" of my definition into a venn graph. My point was that if you take a toy(ball) and combine it with a test(can you get the ball into the basket?) you end up with a game(I should also add that I extended my original definition to include rules). Probably adds nothing to the definition itself but yeah, I did it anyway so sue me(or make a parody of it).

Quote from: LUniqueDan
So, finally you tell us, that YOU enjoy games who are Fun and challenging.

Cool!
Me too by the way.

Yep, simple as that. Don't we all like simple things? And for people who say "well, that was obvious!". No, it's not. When designing a game the "what would I like to play"- approach is not neceserily the most intuitive one(and I'm talking from personal experience). If you work in the mainstream game industry it might not even be very welcome to think like that. Publisher: "Who the hell cares what the designer thinks? I want to sell the game to my target group, not to the designer!". Ok, it's a business, they have make profit so they have to appeal to their target group. That might work for the automobile industry, but for games it's just degrading. If I'm ever so lucky to make money from my games I don't want to end up in the mainstream.

A great many people are and have been riled by philosophical discourse, which is a pity. The difference between Space Boy's question: "What is a Game?" and LUniqueDan's: "What are the most important features in a game?" is that the former is essentially philosophical, in that it examines our knowledge of games.

I know that I can recognise a game, so why should I ask how I am able to recognise a game? I'd say, because that might tell me something about games that I didn't already know, something that might shed light on LUniqueDan's question.

I feel that Space Boy's images overlook the significance of competition in games, which I'm not sure is inherent in the idea of a test. That said, I think his efforts to spark discussion are worthy. It's a shame that the value of the debate has not been recognised by all the contributors to this unusually uncivilised thread.

I'm not going to go for the bullet-proof theoretical definition of a game, just mention some aspects of games that have been overlooked or not satisfactorily explained to me in game theory:

We sometimes start games with people without there being a 'name of the game'. Anything, a phrase, a dialogue, any kind of challenge, can carry its own implicit rules and goal and stakes - sometimes the recipient takes up the challenge, and some sort of game evolves. Some may think it's too broad a definition, that it's the game of life, that can't be boiled down to anything functional, but I think these kind of games are important to game studies, because they're what games are going to evolve into when AI gets good enough to catch up. The thing is, we're triggered by all kinds of things as individuals. Some things, remarks, situations, call for a response. From us, depending on our focus and our temper. We involve ourselves, and there's always a risk and a goal involved. Our very interaction has risks and goals, or the refreshing disregard of either. Or they aim for humor, which is perhaps a goal in itself. We start games all the time. Any reply may be a challenge, if someone's up to it. We always want to win, to be right, abstractly - however we chose to define right. In the game of life, we're not all playing by the same rules, nor from the same starting position. Perhaps it's logical. Since starting position is unfair, we feel we have a right to influence the rules of the game or make adjustments, if we can get away with it. So according to one player's rules, the game may be already won, but the other player will find some way of changing the rules and the properties of the pieces, however abstract, and prove that indeed the game is continuing. Perhaps the good thing about actual games, in the sense they've been discussed in this thread so far, is  that they have definite rules and that they can in fact be ultimately won - something that never really happens in real life games.  Perhaps, because we play so many complicated games with each other, in which the rules are ever-changing, we need simple and solid games to establish  our sense of measurability. To re-establish our trust in logic and the rational. Maybe we need games because they let us lose or win in a fair setting, as opposed to the unfair settings of life in which we usually play?

QuoteWhat is a game?

Well, life is one, didn'cha know? A game you have no choice *but* to play.

Of course, you can play other things, like hide-and-seek all your life. Or you can play the piano - but then, life wouldn't be a game anymore, though it'd still be something you'd play.

My point? Beware not to delve too much on definitions like this, especially since, as someone pointed out much ealier, sometimes the definition must *change* to accomodate what it defines. And suddenly you have to accept a definition of game that MAY include life - seeing life defined as a game is pretty common. And seeing it defined as a *play*, too - and ain't linguistics great? These puns would be impossible in most other languages.

Well, I don't believe life is a play or a game except metaphorically, which is to say that there are game-like elements in our interaction with each other. Perhaps our understanding of the concepts of 'rules', 'challenges', 'risks', 'goals' and 'fun' in games can be expanded if we examine these phenomena broadly. We have to go to the limit of our understanding of things in order to discover something new. There will never be a 'final theory' of fun or anything similarly complicated, but there will be 'new theories' that can provide new ideas for actual games. I'm not overly interested in linguistics, a necessary evil - in fact theory and definitions only ever attract me when I sense they may provide a new idea for a game or a feature.

I noticed that the name "game" is applied to a very broad range of things(for example Ludo vs. Fallout - two "games" that are [almost] 100% different) while at the same time people seem to look for a very specific and clear definition of "game". It seems to me that most people don't want to define, but redefine games. They don't say what games are, they say what they would like games to be. There have been a zillion things people would call games without thinking twice, but so far there has been no bulletproof definition. Why? If you're not able define a concept that you come across on a daily basis then something is wrong, don't you think?

Quote from: space boy on Mon 23/07/2007 10:31:32
... but so far there has been no bulletproof definition. Why? If you're not able define a concept that you come across on a daily basis then something is wrong, don't you think?

I'm not sure I think there's anything wrong with that. There are plenty of things in life that we can't define - in fact we can't define anything in the physical realm, only pure abstracts like mathematics or similarly self-referring system. And even those have their paradoxes. The rest is approximation, although it can be very very good approximation, even to the point where we forget that it's approximation. We trust we know what for example a glass of water is, even when science continues to find smaller particles that make up the small particles that we used to think water was made of. We can still drink it, freeze it, use it for all kinds of things. the same is true with game design. Even if the chemistry of game design (http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/1524/the_chemistry_of_game_design.php?page=1 (http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/1524/the_chemistry_of_game_design.php?page=1)) is still at its alchemic state, we know enough about games to make games, and theory is only needed and interesting because it inspires 'new' ideas about games, they don't have to be definite or final.

If you look at a factor like 'surprise' in a game, I'm sure you'll find it necessary for a good game. Any game starts a psychological 'game'  of player expectations and strategizing and has feedback routines that let the player experience  rewards or punishments for certain types of behaviour. Magic moments appear when the game succesfully surprises the expectations that it has established, like when something extremely complex grows from a simple system, or when all the not-so-evident clues are laid out Sherlock Holmes-style to suddenly make perfect sense. But we can't come closer to defining surprise than saying 'something unexpected'. If we agreed to define surprise as narrowly as for example 'a head-crab in an air-duct', nobody would be surprised when they encountered it, and so it wouldn't be 'surprise' anymore.

If you look at other media, like painting, literature and movies, they have evolved from artists making partial assumptions about what the media essentially is, and then challenging those assumptions, trying to go one step further. Of course some artists could have also followed their intuition, and not an exact theory of what would be new at their time.

So my points would be: we don't need definite theories, only new ones, and as soon as something starts to look definite, there will be that much more focus on testing it, which will eventually reveal the exceptions to the rule, which will then become the basis of new definitions. We'd do better to make new, fun and interesting games in the meantime, instead of lamenting the lack of a final final theory by which all our problems as game designers would be solved. That said, I do find theory occasionally inspiring - it keeps adding stuff to my designer's toolbox.