Week 6 of “Understanding Video Games”, a University of Alberta Course offered by Leah Hackman and Sean Gouglas through Coursera, focuses on how to interpret/analyze a game with 5 videos this week.

Overall, the premise is that massive multiplayer online games are ripe for study given the richness of information and diversity of players. The videos walk through the beginnings of MMOs with multi-user dungeon games (MUDs), and how MMOs added to it with advanced GUI and recognizable visual settings. In particular, Hackman and Gouglas work their way through Ultima (which added both positive social interactions and negative ones such as griefing), Everquest (innovation through adding 3D interfaces, but also led to selling characters in the real world and early references to online addictions), Second Life (showing that it wasn’t all about weird fantasy worlds), and the true powerhouse, World of Warcraft.

Back in Week 1, we learned about a variety of elements in games and Week 2 focused on how “games” differ from simple “play”. Week 3 introduced the contrast between linear, progressive gameplay and more emergent gameplay brought to it by the various players. Week 4 introduced us to a mechanical structure of how to break down games into component pieces, and Week 5 tried a narrative approach to explaining games.

This week stepped back a bit and pulled from literary theory to talk about a structural way of analyzing games and the interrelationships between the parts starting with:

1. Hardware, program code
2. Functionality
3. Gameplay
4. Meaning of a game (relying on semiotics, signs and symbols)
5. Referentiality (and how it represents a genre or crosslinks to other games and game types)
6. Socio-culture (how it fits within the outside world or what is brought to the game by players).

Again relying on literary theory, they add in “post-structuralism” tropes and how language defines reality, and thus a question about what can the language of a game tell you about the designer’s beliefs, arguments, views of reality, etc.? In particular, they talk about procedural rhetoric (rules, interactivity, language, mechanics to make an argument) and how the rules reflect the world view of the game designer.

However, for me, I am not convinced it is about a world view, so much as it is a slice of a world view, particularly as meaning is more than just the rules (i.e. as they note, it also includes play and agency). More importantly, when they talk about WWII fight simulators, and about what is missing due to focusing entirely on technology, I’m not convinced it represents a denial of the other pieces, just that the other pieces don’t make for interesting or fun gameplay. Often it is easier to set warfare on strange alien planets just to avoid controversy around “supposed meaning” rather than the intent of the designer which is to have warfare, but without the political arguments that might creep into the discourse, and distract from what is meant to be simpler gameplay, not a debate.

Today is my foray into week 4 of “Understanding Video Games“, a University of Alberta Course offered by Leah Hackman and Sean Gouglas through Coursera, and focuses on what they and others call “game mechanics”. It includes 7 videos (totaling 79.5 minutes) and one reading resource.

Their breakdown separates out game rules (obvious) from agents (i.e. the players) and game mechanics (i.e. the methods the agents use to interact with the game world, often in the form of verbs/actions — running, jumping, etc.). The golden age of video games — mid-70s to mid-80s — is fantastic for understanding basic concepts since a game like Space Invaders is almost entirely about game play, more so than the games that came later that included emergent gameplay. In Space Invaders, you could move left or right or fire, and that’s it, with harder versions based on changes in speed and mild complexity of gameplay.

In the first video (Game Mechanics), the most interesting part comes from Roger Ebert, and the flame wars that started when he suggested that film and literature were subject to authorial control and thus could be “art”, whereas video games had player choices i.e. interactivity, which as a structural issue meant video games could never be art. Oddly enough, I think his point that it was too interactive rather than narrative could perhaps be valid for the games of the 1980s, but I don’t think it lines up with the games you “embed” yourself in that came out in the 2000s where the interactivity is even greater but with very strong narrative elements. The second video (Interactivity) notes that some games like Tetris have no narrative whereas others have strong narrative (Tomb Raider), so they argue that narrative can’t be the sole defining characteristic compared with ways of interacting. They list 10 elements from the 60s that are interesting:

1. Purpose of the game
2. Procedure for action
3. Rules governing action
4. Number of required participants
5. Role of participants
6. Results or pay-off
7. Abilities and skills required for action
8. Interaction patterns
9. Physical setting
10. Required equipment.

That list leads them to a focus on actions/procedures that the player can do (mechanics) vs. the things they cannot do (rules). I find the third video interesting as it focuses on agency…I assumed initially that this would be just about the “player”, but it is interesting to think of the computer opponents as agents too, rather than simply part of the game itself. So it gives you the option to think of Inky, Binky, Pinky and Clyde as semi-autonomous agents within the game rather than part of the game itself.

Video 4 starts to talk about Koster’s view of the game as a “black box”, and more about game grammar — the black box spits out a scenario, the player responds, and the goal is to figure out the rules and solve the game. With “rules” as the basic building blocks, they argue that multiple blocks form the mechanics of the game, with all the mechanics together (scoring mechanics, firing mechanics, movement mechanics), forming a framework i.e. a game. And as with a “language”, you learn the language (i.e. the game) by actually using the language (i.e. playing the game).

Their largest video of the week though is dedicated to the MDA approach to understanding games — mechanics (actions, behaviours and control mechanisms in a game), dynamics, and aesthetics (emotional level). I think it’s a good paradigm from a “design” perspective…such as thinking about the impact from changing from repetitive to challenge puzzles, more exciting aesthetics, or changes in dynamics (like Mario power-ups or Pacman power pellets — which change the goal, at least temporarily). As an analytical framework, it also allows theorists to look at the relationship between the three elements, and how changes in one affects the other two, or the resulting impact on gameplay…kind of a systems approach more so than the structural elements of “game grammar”. The second element of the video is an interview with a game designer for Mass Effect, which is a nice “applied” example. A third element shown is Schell’s separate framework for mechanics (after removing technology, story and aesthetics) that has abstract space (full screen), functional space (where you can move), objects (things that move, more or less), player’s actions, rules, and skill — that are all hard-coded in the game.

The next video talks about the role of narrative and how it is balanced in various games — ranging from Tetris (no narrative) to Metal Gear Solid (full narrative, but often through exposition). By contrast, there are the RPGs — where the narrative “emerges” through game-play, “rogue-like” without a clear path that you have to follow, and often with very little dialogue.

The final video looks at the interactions between the various mechanics, where some mechanics try to PREVENT emergent play that might be frustrating or inappropriate.

It’s a pretty interesting framework to think about games, whether they be video games or role-playing games or strategy games, and what about them makes them interesting to play more than once. I know people who LOVE Monopoly for example, and while I’m willing to play it once a year (or once a decade), anything beyond that is like gouging my eyeballs out. Maybe partly as I tend to play in too small of a group to make it really interesting perhaps, or too much within the rules. I find PayDay far more interesting but like Life, there is no strategy at all really, it is just totally die-based random progress, which many people abhor. I’m the same for video games though, I’m willing to accept randomness to a high degree if there is a narrative element, something that is completely lacking from games like Monopoly.

Continuing my online learning quest, I’m moving on to week 2 of “Understanding Video Games”, a University of Alberta Course offered by Leah Hackman and Sean Gouglas through Coursera. The readings for the week are by Bo Kampmann Walther, “Playing and Gaming: Reflections and Classifications.” (Game Studies 3.1:  http://www.gamestudies.org/0301/walther, 2003). 

I started with the reading, rather than the video lecture, and I liked the article. Like the videos, it is basically predicated on the assumption that if you want to discuss “video games”, you should first define “game” in general, and equally, what is “not game” i.e. “play”. So Walther separates “what is play” (generally open-ended, few rules, malleable by make-believe and the ability to build your own world, if you desire) vs. “what is game” (generally close-ended, with rules and tactics to succeed). Of course, it doesn’t take long to hit the paradox — if play and game are different, how can you “play a game” and is “playing” and “gaming” therefore different? Can you game while playing or play while gaming? There’s a consideration in one of the referenced pieces that reality is kind of the “first order of complexity” and play is the second order; by extension, gaming becomes a third order. Not sure that helps the discussion any though, as I think it is more about the type of complexity (play being more self-imposed rules or few rules, while gaming tends to require submitting oneself to another’s pre-determined set of rules).

When I moved on to the videos, I kind of already knew what to expect from the article. And so, this first week is really about taxonomy i.e. what separates the game from play and play from the game. The video starts with a review of the type of video games that straddle “playing” and “gaming” i.e. simulator games like SimCity, The Sims, and Flight Simulator. SimCity and The Sims were interesting in part because the “game” was to build the world, not to “play” the game once created. I find it most interesting in terms of the history and linguistic elements — some languages like French and Latin use relatively the same word for both games and play. I liked their list of possible elements common to many definitions of a game:

1. Formal system or rules
2. Desirable goals
3. Consequences for cheating
4. An ending or conclusion
5. Quantifiable outcome
6. Balance between risk and reward
7. Effort on behalf of the players
8. Fun or whimsical elements.

The video suggests you need rules+goals+outcome+effort to make a game, but I’m not entirely sure about the outcome and effort. Some games are incredibly passive, and would still hold, and others where the game could go on relatively indefinitely without an outcome that “ends” the game. I think #s 3-8 are more about elements that determine if the game is “enjoyable” or repeatable, almost “playable” without the taxonomy in the way, more so than if it was only #1 and 2, it might just be a game to pass the time.

I do like their example from past theorists about breaking games into four types, each of which would have their own play/game spectrum within them:

1. Agon – competitive types, like sports;
2. Alea – chance play, like gambling;
3. Mimicry – roleplaying and simulation;
4. Illinx – thrill or adrenaline based, like a roller coaster.

Professor Brian Moriarty definition as a series of decision tree nodes is interesting (play is a superfluous action; toy is something that elicits play; game is a toy with rules and a goal; puzzle is a game with a solution), but without the full tree, it’s hard to tell if that gets you any further than the four categories above.

Overall, it was an interesting week’s materials, and while the spectrum idea (game vs. play) is interesting, I suspect it’s more multi-dimensional than that — that axis will let you define something as a basic game, but most games, and video games in particular with their interactive yet solo play, would pull you off that axis pretty quick. I had some quibbles about some of the quizzes. One place, in particular, talked about Moriarty’s theorem and referred to something has having a “purpose”, which was deemed incorrect, but that depends on whether you see purpose and goal as the same thing.

But, on to week 3…