"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.