Bibliographies

As the course I study at University is natural academic, there are a certain number of conventions and skills I am expected to grasp and understand. One such concept is the Harvard format for compiling bibligraphies of any writings that I utilise or referance in any work I produce. With that in mind, below I have created a short bibliography to show this paticular format at work as best as I can:

Chris Bateman, 2006. 100 Principles of Game Design. Charles River Media.

Jeffries, K.K., 2011. Skills for creativity in games design. Design Studies 32, 60–85.

Jesse Schell, 2008. The Art of Games Design:A Book of Lenses. Morgan Kaufmann.

Parsons, S., 2010. Critical Play: Radical Game Design. The Knowledge Engineering Review 25, 353–354.

Reiner Knizia, 2004. Commissioned Essay, in: Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals. MIT, pp. 22–27.

Will Wright, 2005. Foreword by Will Wright, in: A Theory of Fun for Game Design. Paraglyph Press.

Formal Abstract Design Tools

In 1999, Doug Church wrote an article, entitled 'Formal Abstract Design Tools', outlining a particular method he had come up with for talking accurately and academically about specifically the design of games. 

He begins by briefly discussing one of the main issues that has appeared from the lack of any clear language for games design. He talks about the technology behind physically building games and that, because games technology has a clear path for evolution, it is far ahead of the actual design behind games. To combat this issue, Doug Church puts forward his suggestion.

Formal Abstract Design Tools 

• Formal - Precise, explainable definition
• Abstract - Underlying ideas
• Design - For use with the design of games
• Tools - Common vocabulary

He then goes on to analyse specific examples of games and extract some 'FADTs' from them, which can then be applied to other genres and games.

•   Intention
• Consistent, clear game world reaction to player
• Player can create own plan in response to a situation and game world mechanics
• Perceivable Consequences
• Visible Feedback
•  The player should be aware of consequences before making choices
• Consequences do not appear arbitrary
• Story
•  Narratives created by player and gameplay, or specific writers creations. 

Doug Church does note that these tools cannot, by themselves, be used to build a game; instead they are to be used in order to shape and guide the rest of a game's creation. Moreover these tools can act in conflict with each other if not properly understood and utilised. He does spend a large section of his article talking about one particular solution to the issue created by having story and perceivable consequence in opposition. Giving a player a multitude of choices in a game makes it significantly harder to create a powerful and effective story, interactive storytelling is one of the most difficult aspects of games design. Church outlines the solution used commonly in the series Final Fantasy. In most of the entries in that series, the player has little to no control over the decisions made regarding the story the characters pursue, however the combat choices are entirely under the control of the player, who is capable and empowered to shape and create a team of characters and combat styles however they wish. This solution effectively separates these two tools into two sections, so that they never work in opposition. 

To conclude his article, Church reiterates that these tools are to be common to all genres and that any evolution in one genre can also support, and further, the evolution of an entirely different style of game; thereby catching up with the evolution of games technology. The very last note is that the tools provided in the article are just examples of how one might come up with a number of tools by analysing and dissecting a particular game, and that this article is just a start. 

With regards to my own opinions on this article, I firmly agree that games design would surely benefit from a common, accurate language that could be used to talk cross-genre about various features of games and how they can be improved. However I also share Church's concerns that these tools could become just as subjective and meaningless as the term 'fun', if they are not fully understood and used correctly. 

As I noted at the beginning of this post, the article was written in 1999, which does mean that we who are currently blessed to be living a decent number of years after this article was written, can reflect upon the success of the ideas put forward in it; and see if the lessons here were taken onboard. Unfortunately, as I look upon our more modern collection of games, I must admit that games technology is still far in advance of actual design. These games are certainly incredibly popular, the focus of large game companies must necessarily be on selling their games to a wide audience, and this goal is achieved perhaps more easily by concentrating on the technology behind games rather than the gameplay itself. But that's a conversation best saved for another day. Suffice to say that although there are certainly innovations going on in the design of games recently, generally speaking the 'Formal Abstract Design Tools' Doug Church put forward in this article are either being largely ignored, misused, or ineffective.

"A Critical Vocabulary for Games"

That is what Greg Costikyan attempts to establish in his article I have no words, I must design; a critical vocabulary for games. He begins his writing by explaining that it is particularly difficult to talk intelligently about games, as in particular the term 'gameplay' has lost all real meaning. After noting that games are an immensely broad and encompassing notion, Costikyan sets out on a task to accurately define what games actually are, and what makes them good. As I recently read this particular article, below I have included the notes I made on the matter.

In a structure that I find to be particularly clear and engaging, he derives each element in his definition from various topics clearly segregated by their own titles and ending with his developed definition for games:

Interaction

• Interaction is the player's ability to alter the state of the game
• Without interaction, a game is a puzzle

Games are interactive...

Goals

• Gives the interaction a purpose
• Decisions make a difference, and matter 
• Can be explicit or implicit
• Implicit - User defined
• Explicit - Given by the game directly

Games are goal-directed interaction...

 Struggle

• There is no joy in reaching a goal without struggle
• Struggle can be created in a variety of ways:
• Competition between players is an excellent source of struggle
• Obstacles within a game creates struggle
• It is unique to games
• We don't demand difficulty in any other aspect of life.

A game requires players to struggle interactively toward a goal...

Structure

• Provides a rule set to manage the game
• It shapes player behaviour
• Good games provide a lot of freedom in their structure
• Designers must understand the structure they are creating
• Players tends to find the most efficient way to reach their goal
• It shouldn't decide player behaviour, but it should guide.

A game is an interactive structure that requires players to struggle toward a goal...

Endogenous Meaning

•  Self-Contained
• Items within the game lose the point and value outside their respective system
• The game's structure creates its own meaning 

A game is an interactive structure of endogenous meaning that requires players to struggle toward a goal.

This is the final definition to describe all games that Costikyan came up with, and I find myself in complete agreement with all the points that he made.  What is perhaps not represented in my notes given above, is that I found the sections he wrote on 'Structure' and 'Endogenous Meaning' to be particularly interesting. The previous three sections seem to be fairly self-explanatory and evident when thinking about what games are; but a few remarks that were made about 'Structure' and even just the consideration of endogenous meaning, seem to be a far more subtle analysis. 

With regards to the structure of games, Costikyan compared two graphical 'MUD's (Multi-User-Domains) specifically in their elements of controlling player behaviour. He noted that it is never ideal to force players to behave in a particular way towards one another, but that you can subtly persuade players to act as such by creating a structure that rewards players more for behaving in the way you intend. I have few things to say about Endogenous meaning other than the fact I had never really considered it before, and that I find it an intriguing notion in itself; that games might have attainable items or statistics that mean so much to a person, even though they are entirely meaningless outside of the system they are found in.

Costikyan does then go on in his article to talk about what makes particular games more engaging than others by referring to LeBlanc’s Taxonomy, but my intention with this post is to focus on the idea of creating a suitable definition for games around the points that Costikyan laid out so very eloquently.

Dicing With Destiny: Part 1

Last week I was shown episode 1 of the BBC series Games Britannia, entitled "Dicing With Destiny", presented by Benjamin Woolley. As the name implies it is a series revolving around the notion of exploring Britain’s history with regards to gaming, and as a former student of Classics (namely ancient history and archaeology); this is of particular interest to me. As such I felt the need to watch said programme again, and now that I have I would like to share what I thought to be of significance.

 The format of the programme was such that a certain amount of time was dedicated to a selected game from Britain's past; in the spirit of organization and clarity I shall here echo that notion.

The Stanway Game

From what I could gather from the programme, the 'Stanway Game' was one of the earliest examples of a game in Britain. Dated to around 45AD, the game appears to be from the Romano-British period of the country’s history, and was found at a burial site with a body on top of it. I know from experience that grave goods are a particularly important and useful source of information to find out about the actual people that lived during a particular period of history, within their respective culture. In this case, the board game was placed directly beneath the man in the burial which suggests it had particularly importance to him; but also perhaps that those who buried him had no real need or use for the board themselves, and they felt it would be better off left with the man - maybe believing that he would therefore have it with him in the afterlife. In this show they explore the notion that perhaps the board wasn't simply used as a game, but also as a spiritual tool of some sort, used for prophecy. As it seems impossible to actually determine what the rules of the game were, it is difficult to know for sure.

Alea Evangelii

 Although Woolley opens this particular section stating that the viewer 'may not have even heard of King Æthelstan', and I felt the need to cry out and defend my knowledge of the Saxon; Alea Evangelii, or the "Game of the Gospels", was probably my favourite game featured in this programme. Unlike the 'Stanway Game' we are aware of the rules for Alea Evangelii, and are entirely capable of playing it. This is no doubt due to the early medieval period that this game is from, and that this game is documented in the Gospels, hence it's name. It is one of the larger 'tafl' board games, all of which being strategy games based around the notion of protecting or capturing a kind, with two players taking the role of one perspective each. This game shows us that during this period of Britain's history, games were still seen as being pertinent to spirituality or religion.


Libro de los Juegos

Okay, so this isn't a game, it's a book. However it depicts three very well known games, and, according to Games Britannia, is responsible to their induction to European civilization: Chess, Backgammon, and Dice. Moreover, to me it sounds like a downright interesting book! Put together by King Alfonso X of Spain, the book's name translates as the "Book of Games". As part of a wide transfer of Arabic knowledge to Europe, the games described in the book were all originally Arabic. Libro de los Jeugos is effectively a debate between different philosophical viewpoints on the approach one should take to controlling one's own life, each game representing chance, skill, or a mixture of both respectively. I personally find this way to portray such a debate to be refreshing, and particularly engaging as a form of comparing ideologies that do not necessarily have to be in any way associated with games. 

9-Men's Morris

This particular game is one that seems to pop up absolutely everywhere, and must've therefore been very popular - the game even features as a playable minigame in Assassin's Creed III! In this episode of Games Britannia Doctor Irving Finekl, who features throughout the show, puts forwards the curious suggestions that it may appear all over the world in history because the game seems to be an obvious natural progression when one goes to make a game out of nothing. As he was aware of, and found, a very large number of games boards graffitied around particular cathedrals; during this section Woolley talks with David Sherritt about the Church's attitude towards games in this era of history. The prevailing opinion was that the Church was certainly tolerant of this behaviour, but it may have even been celebrated. I feel, however, the most important thing to take away from this section, is that as we move forwards in time, some games are being created that are tailored less towards spiritual guidance, and more towards focussing on combating humanity's 'propensity for boredom'.

 

Modern-day 9-Men's Morris action!

In the interest of organization and scheduling, I have decided to split this particular topic into two parts. Therefore I shall discuss the rest of my thoughts on Games Britannia: Dicing With Destiny, in a future post. However, I would not like to bring up a point that Dr. Irving Finkel made towards the start of the episode. about how games are one of the few things that we do not see in the animal kingdom in any regard and that this is one of the key definable things that sets humanity apart from other animals. 

In The Beginning, There Is the Designer

I recently read an excerpt from Jesse Schell's The Art of Games Design: A book of lenses (2008), specifically chapter one, entitled "In the Beginning, There Is the Designer". I would share with you the exact notes I made on the intriguing section of text, but I suspect they are somewhat incoherent to anyone but myself; so I shall put them into a more understandable format!

Firstly, however, although I didn't note these things down I would like to briefly write about how entirely correct I feel Schell was in beginning his book with a chapter talking only about the actual people who are to become the designers. I feel too many approaches jump straight into designing games, and people seem to forget that designers also have to be leaders, they must know how to work within a team, and how to view themselves and the people around them. Moreover, I am quite fond of the way Schell actually writes and chooses to address the reader. Although his tone stays largely formal, I felt a sense of his personality was displayed through his writing, and I found this to make the text far more engaging.

I tend to take most of my notes as a series of titles and bullet points, so that is how I shall present them here:

Notes on The art of Games Design, Chapter 1

•  Self-confidence
• An attitude of "just do it"
• Understand every aspect of the phrase "I am a game designer"
•  Do not fear failure, it is necessary
• A working understanding of all skills involved in making a game
• Listening is the most important skill
• Five kinds of listening, listening to:
• Team - Working together
• Audience -They are the judges
• Game - Knowing everything about it
• Client - Creating what it is they want
• Self - Source of true creativity
• Deep, thoughtful listening
• Assume nothing, think everything through
• The Gifted
• Minor Gift is the talent
• Major gift is the passion, it can create the minor gift

I confess my original notes were certainly more of a mess than what I have displayed here. however I have here captured the main essence of what I was taking note of without including my route to arrive at these key points that I feel are the main things to take away from this particular example of text.