What is a video game? Rules, puzzles and simulations.

So on Thursday we took the time to tap into this thought mainly through the work of Newman J. (2004) Videogames Routledge: London. It raises some fair points and while there were some smaller documents up for discussion, this seemed to be the one most chose to stick too.

For anyone interested in games design it might be worth a look, here's some points from different segments that I felt the need to break down and dispute or agree with;

What truly defines a videogame? Surely things such as Furby and Tamagotchi can be considered to be computer games due to their electronical nature and use of technology?

Not true, while they do involve playing and have similarities to a videogame the essence of the device is subjective; video games primary function from a designers point of view is to deliver an experience through the median of a game, I would argue electronical devices for play such as Tamagotchi are the experience themselves, and while they may be using a median for the experience, it’s a wholly different kind of experience. Video games that create experiences from scratch immerse the player, removing them from their plane of existence, and throwing the player into another. Something like furby does no contribute the same outcome. At the same time the generic and broad concept of the word 'video' at its origins as a Latin word shouldn't be overlooked, for if we scope that far back we can see the word is in fact derived from the word see, this ensues an argument about terminologies and their ability to change definition over time and whether their original description is mute or of relevance.

Are video games an extension of a certain industry?

I personally consider them to be a combination of many different industries, and each industry will inspire ideas and innovation in one another. While you could compare a good narrative to an interactive movie, the difference between watching the movie and playing the game is the freedom, a film is set on a linear sequence of events that once seen once, will continue to happen. A game however is a variable, you can choose to do everything the exact same way, or you can vary your choices, even games that have very little split from a linear story technically still have decisions, even if it is something as simple as should I kill or be killed?

Classifying videogames

Genres might simply be a way of labeling a game within a generic category, but there are constantly new categories being created, more to the point the definition and embodiment of a genre will change over time, most peoples definition of a shoot ‘em up now would be along the lines of a Call of Duty game, where as someone like me would immediately identify it with something like Space Invaders, while my identification of the genre is technically correct by categorized standards, to someone from a different, younger generation, something like Space Invaders means nothing to them, and they instead immediately relate the genre to something they've grown up with, this would once again have to bring in to argument the point of whether a words origins still should be taken into consideration after the generalized use of the term changes.

The point about the importance of a celeb game designer being tagged with a project is contemporary and subjective, it can have an effect on people’s drafted opinions before a games release, but will it make the game better? Or worse? Most sequels never live up to their former because they fail to innovate enough, but if you were to identify a celeb dev with a project at for example its third game in a trilogy, people suddenly start paying attention and either view it in a different light or lose faith in their favourite celeb dev. 

In relation to the point about making a game you want; It is important to make something you feel comfortable with, something that you actually enjoy, everyone wants that and thanks to the indie market boom it can work. But in most cases, especially after your first major game… you have a market to appease, you have to consider other peoples thoughts and opinions of a game, what they will feel, what they will think. When you enter the business side of the industry and aim to make money, it is no longer about your wants. PLAYER PLAYER PLAYER, the customers have to come first, that’s a sacrifice you have to make, only a few celeb devs can have it their way because people respect them, most devs don’t have that luxury.

Coin-op

Coin-op games have to deliver reasonable experiences in small quantities to engage their players, they need the social interaction along with the competitive edge support by the aura of the area of play to actually function. Without these features the whole thing becomes null. The difference is that video games at home don’t need these parts to be successful, you can pace yourself according to your choice, and the game is yours, no one elses, you can choose to share, when to play and aren't hindered by any requirement past the purchase. Also in terms of challenging, surveying and learning from players; with the big move towards online gaming, these elements can now be provided from the parameters of your own house, you no longer need physical, tangible socialising to analyse a players style because most of it is visible in games thanks to the way they are laid out, this further deducts from the need for coin-op games anymore! Also with recordings being a consistent and notable thing, and games creating their own systems that allow you to monitor yourself or others performances (such as COD elite) coin-op’s unique experiences become of even less care to the player.

Why players play

The problem with true immersion is it isn't technically possible, while we may become immersed in a game, we still know it’s a game. Small things make this obvious to start with, which escalate into bigger things, because games are all about mechanics, rules and limitations it stands to reason that we will eventually be hit in the face by the realisation that it is a game because it can’t do a barrel roll or eat a chocolate bar, silly things matter to a person, I've personally seen so much entertainment out of something as simple as a slide to cover system that lets me trip over enemies, small things tend to make the difference, you learn over time that people will pay much more attention to the small defects in the long-term than the large ones. I know it sounds insane, but next time you're nit-picking a game, think about it.

Rules, winning and losing

All games have rules, with digital games these are usually set in place by the limitations of the software, the program created. However limitations still exist even in real world games, a six year old could be playing super heroes, and the child can change the rules of the game all they want, but there are limitations to rule changes that can occur; a child might say they’re superman, but they know they aren't really flying, they’re simply immersing themselves in their imagination to pretend they are, the fact is their movement on a Y axis will still be limited whether immersed or not.

Paidea and Ludus

Ludus (rule based) rules are important, more games are focusing on paidea (freedom) as their primary pivot for innovation; players are less bothered about flashy features and more worried about play time, games such as Minecraft, SimCity and DayZ are the logical path for the games industry to proceed. They offer limitless player time because the player creates their own story, their own choice, and while they’re still controlled to a lesser degree by the rules and mechanics, the games possibilities are huge in number because for example Minecraft is all about the players interpretation of the experience.

Types of game: Puzzles are not games!?!

Not at all; Puzzles are more generic a thing than most realise, a puzzle could be induced as the game as a whole. It presents a mess of a kind, something that needs fixing or breaking, whatever. The point is it creates a challenge you have to overcome, that you must solve or resolve. A puzzle is simply something created to test someone, and a game in general is a test, because there is a challenge to passing it.

Also another way that games have been categorised in the past is Agon (Challenge), Alea (Chance), Mimicry (Simulations, RPG's etc) and Ilinx (Movement). Some of these categories are more or less generic than you'd actually expect and the degrees to which they are Ludus(Rules) or Paidea(Free 'play') is varied.

Minecraft - Minecraft is by far one of the most Paidea games out there at the moment, it provides you almost limitless freedom (especially thanks to plugins/mods) in a seemingly limitless world (most peoples computers give up before the world generation does). I'd say this one can prove fairly hard to categorise into one or two of the four above as it's quite varied; For one thing I might consider placing it in Mimicry due to its RPG elements, it's ability to be who you want to be, and its focus on doing tasks others would in a similar way (dumbed down mind you). I would also place it in Agon; even if you're playing it in peaceful you could be challenging yourself; for example 'I made building A, now let's see if I can make building B even more impressive. It's very subjective but then again so are most things!

XCOM: Enemy Unknown - A more recent game XCOM is more central between ludus and paidea; it offers you freedom within a degree to the choices you make, but there are many choices and you can choose the speed everything progresses. XCOM fits into Agon; you have to defeat the enemies and survive to win, Alea; 90% chance to hit yet you miss? Perfect example of chance, and lets not forget random generation of enemies at map entrance, and last but not least Mimicry; you can customise and modify your characters in a whole bunch of ways, change their equipment and level them up.

just two more and then I'll let you go back to your own copy of XCOM or PayDay. ;)

Tony Hawks games - These games focus mainly on movement and thus they're Ilinx games, they can present Agon when you compete with friends or proceed with the story, but the fact is this is not required; you could choose to free roam in an area never having progressed therefore the games main focus makes it an Ilinx mainly Paidea type games.

Mirrors Edge - Right away you're probably thinking it's a paidea games right? Wrong, while the game might involve parkour or 'free-running' as it is referred to in game, there isn't a whole lot free about the experience; your missions while fun and varied in approach are basically linear, you're set on a linear path with a few small branch offs that eventually bring you back, there is no free roam in this Ilinx game it simply drives you on in a story based environment.

Well I think that about covers it for this post, we've covered a lot here and if your head has exploded then don't worry we'll be sending Ramone around with the dust pan and brush and he'll mail it back to you in a doggy bag, toodle pips old chap and chaperettes!