Salen, K., & Zimmerman, E.(2004). ROP, chapters
3 Meaningful Play
Meaningful play is the goal of successful game design. Descriptive definition of meaningful play describes the means by which all games create meaning through play. The evaluative definition is used to help understand why some games provide more meaningful play than others (comparative). The meaning of a game resides in the relationship between action and outcome (compare to a narrative film structural meaning system, and what John Howard Lawson would call “the obligatory scene” which demonstrates the action of the protagonist and how that action relates to outcome in a system). For comparative purposes, meaningful play requires that actions and outcomes are both discernable- perceivable and integrated (woven in to the whole) into the larger context of the game – (compare to David Milch’s notion in narrative story of a “closed” story system and Aristotle’s Poetics).
7 Design Systems
Games can be seen as a subset of Play and Play can also been seen as a subset of games.
Salen and Zimmerman’s definition: A game is a system in which players engage in an artificial conflict, defined by rules, that results in a quantifiable outcome. All puzzles are games, and puzzles are games with a single correct answer or set of answers (think Angry Birds). Multiplayer Role-playing games may or may not fit into Salen and Zimmerman’s definition – they claim it is dependent on framing and that there are emergent quantifiable goals but usually no single overriding outcome. Compare with a screenplay’s scene structure and act structure and sequence structure – this means there are scenes and perhaps sequences and even acts, but no necessary denoument – closest in form to a serialized television series.
8 Defining Digital Games
The system of a game, if understood as such, transcends the physical medium. The digital technology is not an end in itself – is the content, use, larger system in which the physical medium is functioning (also think socio-culture from media-theory as in Gitelman’s Always Already New). The rules are embedded in the hardware, but the game is more than the pulses in the hardware. The special qualities of digital games, more robustly represented in digital games: Immediate but narrow interactivity, Manipulation of information, Automated complex systems, Networked communication. While the medium may change, core game properties can shift from medium to medium.
9 The Magic Circle
Every game exists within a frame (marked time and space). “The magic circle” refers to the frame of a game – because games are formal, the circle is explicit with distinct boundaries. Within the circle, rules create meaning and guide play. Through three lenses, games can be understood to be “open” or “closed” – considering a game as “rules” – the system is closed. As “play” a game is open (players bring expectations, hopes, social relationships, likes and dislikes) and closed (rule based/defined behaviors)- as “culture” – a game is open – ranging from political debates about the game, the culture amassment/accruing around games – culture of football, culture of “dungeons and dragons.” The Lusory attitude refers to the buy-in the state of mind players must adopt to play a game, players accept limitations of the rules becaue of the pleasure they gain through playing the game.
11 Defining Rules
All games have rules – they are a defining quality of games. Rules are not the same as the experience of play – changing names and visual forms is possible witout altering formal systems. Rules are not the same as strategy- rules are principles that aid play but do not define the formal identity of a game. Here, I disagree with Salen and Zimmerman because sound strategy requires understanding the formal system of the game at a deep level and finding an underlying implicit approach that maximizes a change of winning – there are very often formal elements necessary to strategy, which one could argue are inherent to the formal system of the game. Curious what others think on this issue. Games rules are separate from life – different than law, war, social rules. Again, I disagree in my personal definition of games (though I understand this is for Salen and Zimmerman’s definition). Many lawyers and theoreticians look at law as a formal gaming system and view law school as a game and series of games– how is it useful to rule “law” or other systems out for K and Z – is it to protect players from designers moving outside of the games not effecting the outside world? K and Z give the following rules about game rules – Rules – limit player action, are explicit and unambiguous, shared by all players, are fixed (not in Fluxx! Only the rule that rules are not fixed is fixed), are binding, are repeatable. They admit there are exceptions – I guess following the classical structure is important at first before freestyling formal systems.
12 Rules on Three Levels - operational rules are the “rules of play” they direct player behavior and are usually want would be printed out. Operational rules can have a variety of forms with a same set of Constituative rules. Constituative rules are the abstract, core mathematical rules of the game – the essential game logic. Implicitly rules are just that – implicit, unstated, including etiquette and behavior. The Operational and Constituative rules together are the systems out of which the formal identity of the game emerges. Elegant rules allow for focus on the play experience. Meaning arises out of the interaction and translation in play between the three levels of the rules.
13 The Rules of Digital Games
Rules are the formal rules that define the structure of the game, not necessarily code. The rules that structure player input and the game’s output are the game’s rules. The formal logic rules are also part of the rules of a digital game. Sometimes audio and visuals impact the formal structure of a game. The constiuative rules of a game handle the game’s internal events. The operational rules are concerned with both internal and external events – player input and game output. Implicit Rules - assumptions about the game’s plaform -- of digital games can be the source of innovative design ideas.
Juul, J. (2003). The Game, the Player, the World: Looking for a Heart of Gameness. Keynote presented at the Level Up conference in Utrecht, November 4th-6th 2003.
Juul defines a new proposed taxonomy of games drawing from previous definitions. He uses a grid to evaluate current definitions divided by the following categories:
The game as formal system
The player and the game
The game and the rest of the world
Other
He then provides his new definition based on six features which he also evaluates with the categories above:
The game definition I propose finally has 6 points: 1) Rules: Games are rule-based. 2) Variable, quantifiable outcome: Games have variable, quantifiable outcomes. 3) Value assigned to possible outcomes: That the different potential outcomes of the game are assigned different values, some being positive, some being negative. 4) Player effort: That the player invests effort in order to influence the outcome. (I.e. games are challenging.) 5) Player attached to outcome: That the players are attached to the outcomes of the game in the sense that a player will be the winner and "happy" if a positive outcome happens, and loser and "unhappy" if a negative outcome happens. 6) Negotiable consequences: The same game [set of rules] can be played with or without real-life consequences.
He concludes by using his new definition to provide a diagram of borderline cases with regards to his new taxonomy.
Salen, K., & Zimmerman, E. (2005). What is a Game? GDR, pp. 77–81.
Salen and Zimmerman set the scene for the various essays on GDR on game definition. They raise questions of the authors including the utility of definitions of Games, give a summary of the ideas rangin from Callois through Bjork and Holopainen and Juul. They stress that utilization of a definition is their chief concern while acknowledging the imperfection of definitions and cite Minksy that definitions are “things to work with.”
Huizinga, J. (1955). Nature and Significance of Play as Cultural Phenomenon. GDR, pp. 96–120.
Huizinga’s provocative essay looks at Play in the larger culture and the various ways in which play can be understood – from comics to religious ritual. He is interested in the relation of play to culture. He raises notions of play as freedom and subversion, play’s temporal nature, its spacial constraints (mobile gaming is interesting case here), play community, secrecy. At first glacne, Play for Huizinga is “not serious.” In a section particularly relevant to my studies in religion, ethnography, media and culture, Huizinga deals with a section on ritual and comparative religion, and places play with in the context of the nature and essence of ritual and mystery (109) Through his discussion of ritual, he concludes “We are accustomed to think of play and seriousness as an absolute antithesis. It would seem, however, that this does not go to the heart of the matter. (111).
Callois, R. (1962). The Definition of Play and The Classification of Games. GDR, pp. 122–155.
Callois moves from Huizinga into primarily a a more taxonomical classification along the following lines:
Play is Free, separate, uncertain, unproductive, governed by rules, make-believe (outside of the reading, it becomes evident quickly that “unproductive” knocks out many games and types of play often included – especially gambling). After this basic structure, Callois uses a categorization system to places various games on a spectrum. The system has the following components: Agon - Competition, Alea - Chance, Mimicry- Simulation or “copying”, Ilinx – Vertigo – embodied sensation, in his examples from spinning. These four categories are places on a spectrum of PAIDA to LUDUS – which is a level of structure - how structured is the play? Paida describes the more improvisatory part of the spectrum, with ludus describing the more gratuitously difficult and structured system.
Optional (obligatory for doctoral students):
Sutton-Smith, B. (1997). Play and Ambiguity. In GDR, pp. 297–313.
Sutton-Smith, B. (1997). Play and Ambiguity. In GDR, pp. 297–313.
Sutton surveys and organizes tropes in a variety of play theories. In the search for definitional clarity, he shows that games display all of Empson’s Seven Types of Ambiguity: ambiguity of reference, referent, intent, sense (nonsense), transition, contradiction, and meaning. Sutton then delineates types of play, acknowledging the limitations of listing - from private to public, mind or subjective play, solitary play, playful behaviors, informal social play, vicarious audience play, performance play, celebrations and festivals, contests, and risk or deep play. He notes ambiguity around “play” given the wide variety of scholarship across disciplines regarding play (his mention of psychology reminded me of Eric Berne’s classic work, particularly relevant for Talmud Study: Games People Play). Sutton uses an approach of cultural rhetorics to clarify the ambiguities he finds, establishing play rhetorics of: progress, fate, power, identity, imaginary, self, and frivolous. Then he provides validation steps for proving the existence of these rhetorics with the goal of scholarly cogency – including that particular rhetorical frames have their backers and disciplines.
GAME
FLUXX by Looney Labs
http://www.wunderland.com/LooneyLabs/Fluxx/
This card game in which the cards consistently alter the rules as play proceeds is a particularly fun example to consider when theorizing on the definitions of play and games, for this game is in a way paida and ludus together – structured, but constantly shifting in structure – a structured kind of improvisation in which humor sometimes trumps a direct win, and in which there is seldom a direct “win” because the goals are constantly changing as players supplant the game’s goals with new goals. Fluxx both follows and contradicts definition as play proceeds. Each player wishes to win, but the unpredictability of rule-shifting pushes the game into quickly shifting short term strategizing. Expansion packs and alternative versions such as Monty Python FLUXX also lead to placing humor above “seriousness.” Certain aspects of the game design to hold fast – conflict remains because there is always a goal in play, though the goal shifts and splits quickly. The operational rules and constituative rules change constantly, yet there is a second level of rules about how to make, change, and follow rules which remains as a kind of operating system underneath the current operational and constituative rules (these are found on the paper insert that comes with the cards including answers to “what ifs”). I think this would be an excellent game to teach operational and constitutive rules as there are simultaneously two systems of each, and they necessarily interact.
No comments:
Post a Comment