What IS Game Design?

Well that goes back to "An activity engaged in for the sole purpose of having an enjoyable experience" except as Misterselmo points out, it cannot be "for the sole purpose" since sometimes the games are actually engaged in for other reasons such as profit or perhaps simply to "win". Although, I think there is a big difference in the football games I play and ones pro athletes play. The ones I play around here are simply to "have fun" win or lose.

 

Then don't. However, I happen to think we can.

 

I think there's truth here, but I dont think it's necessarily the key.

 

The participants (including spectators) are participating, or at least were participating at one time, to have an enjoyable experience.

From that we can conclude the activity is perceived to be enjoyable by the participants (I am fairly certain it was perceived to be enjoyable initially by the pro athlete although they no longer view it that way).

This discussion is very good. Because it is making me think deeper about something I always took for granted. The analogy being used made me think about "bad" video games. Even though the game is not fun to me, you or whoever, does not change the fact that it is indeed a game.

So that adds another point for the idea of a game being an activity that is intended to be enjoyable.

 

I am leaving the discussion to focus on my game project. I will drop back in later when hopefully you all will have this nailed down. ha ha!

 

I liked a definition I found in Introduction to Game Development by Steve Rabin et al.:

"A game is a series of interesting choices made in pursuit of a clear and compelling goal."

I personally struggle with qualitative terms like 'enjoyable' or 'fun', because it's nigh-on impossible to quantify them. If I'm enjoying Terraria, I never put a number to that, it just doesn't work like that ("Ooh boy I am at 68.3% fun while digging for Iron Ore!") That being said, fun isn't a boolean either, there are shades of fun (Thing A is boring. Thing B is OK. Thing C is really frickin' fun!)

What's more, some games aren't fun. For instance, Spec Ops: The Line is a game that specifically attacks the modern military shooter genre and its players by the simple act of taking the genre to its logical conclusion. Papers, Please gives a great glimpse into what a person living in a freer nation can expect the choices that totalitarian regimes force on their innocent civil servants, who are trying to just live.

 

I think we can say that this is part of the definition, that games are engaged in "primarily" for enjoyment.

 

I always hear definitions of games that do just that, though, they attempt to define games in terms of their relevance to human acitvity and social relevance. They try to qualify/quantify experience. Much of this is pure opinion.

In technical terms, though. There is a mechanical element to games. Something makes them tick. There's a pattern to things. Just like people discovered chemistry, there's got to be something solid behind games.

That's what I'm after.

 

"A game is a series of interesting choices made in pursuit of a clear and compelling goal."

Flappy Bird has no clear goal. You don't get any choices. It's tap or die. Is death a choice within the game?

A lot of these definitions can be dismantled with little effort.

 

No one here can give a conclusively answer on what game design should be defined as. The texts and teachers did not fail me, they all just had different approaches to it. I learned a lot from all of the courses, and it makes me look at games from different angles. Some talk about it as a very practical thing where writing a thorough and precise GDD make you a godly game designer, others think that understanding 'Play' as in 'Playing a game' and your specific game space makes you understand your design space better and thereby makes you able to create more well designed games for your audience.

All i am saying is that its not all black and white. Having a deep understanding of play theory while being practical and organized enough to create good GDD's is a good thing (and a great imagination is important too of cause!). My teachers focused on different areas, and i am glad i got all the angles on it.

 

I disagree. You have to judge *when* to tap to navigate through a pipe pair, or how long to go without tapping in order to fall to the height of the next pipe pair. It's a simple choice, and you can choose wrong.

The mere presence of a loss condition doesn't provide a choice, however a choice is necessary to trigger a loss condition. I feel that you're getting too caught up at looking for a high-level choice in Flappy Birds; it's all low-level, split-second decision-making in pursuit of simply not triggering the loss condition, such that you can beat your personal best.

 

Rock paper scissors, it's one choice. Not a series.

*when* to do the single action presented to you is not a choice, if the only alternative is losing the game. That's a bullet headed your way and you're trying to dodge it. If it were merely a matter of choosing not to be hit, how could anyone ever lose? Clearly something is missing.

You brought up "when to press the button", so now we're going to bring "time" into this.

I believe time is an element of every game.

 

Ohh yeah and my teacher would like this:

"A game is a form of play with goals and structure." - Kevin J Maroney.

 

As much as I wouldn't disagree, I'm not sure you intended to strikeout all educational games in one go. Just replace primarily with often. It keeps the same meaning, but makes it easier to see that it no longer serves any purpose in actually defining a game.

 

True. Extremely high level. I think this is a good definition. It lacks any depth, though.

Knowing this definition, could you create your own game? Could you make your game better by studying this definition?

 

I thought about it since, and you make an excellent point. I think you have to remove enjoyment, because that has to do with how people respond to games and nothing to do with the elemental composition of the game itself.

Imagine if we said "a movie is something you watch while eating popcorn"... :/

 

I see your point - but yes i guess you can if you understand each term (play, goals, structure) in cohesion.

 

A productive 45 minutes of game dev.

So, let's see where we are now on the good ole game definition...

Ah... still in the searching phase.

I think the issue may be there is not just one definition that will apply to all cases.
Maybe "game" is simply too loose of a term. After all, if someone asks, "would you like to play a game?" most people would say "what kind of game?" if they were willing to consider it at all.

Although, personally, when I play a game I am doing so to have fun... to have an enjoyable experience. Even if it is an educational game, I would have chosen that delivery mechanism in the hope that it would be an enjoyable learning experience.

 

Some might grind their teeth at this one, but I am the guy with the llama gif. So, I'll put up Dragon Warrior I or the early Final Fantasy. Those are turn-based games. How does time figure into a turn-based setup...or, is a turn actually a measure of time? (Genuine question, this is one I've had for a long time.)

 

I admire your persistence. But, the movie Saw. It was a game that those people played.

 

Time is an element of everything (well depends on your belief i guess).
However in a game i simply think its a part of the structure. For example a turn in a turn based game is structed to be performed within no to infinite time, which defines how your game is played a lot.

 

Time is just the thing that prevents things from happening all at once. First one thing, then another... bam. Time. Turn based breaks time into chunks (like a Toblerone). Real time is literally real time. Without the passage of time, no game.

 

Ok, so if we go with what you just said, then what you mean by time is 'a sequence of events'. Since a game can be a single choice, or a series thereof, we could have a sort of interim definition like so:

"A game is a collection of at least one event with a goal that is meaningful to the player(s)."

Am I understanding the ideas you're putting forth a little better?

And, does this accomodate what @GarBenjamin et al. were saying about fun? Fun can either give a goal meaning (holy crap that boss fight was fun!), or it could be the goal (I just wanna have some fun tonight. I'm on the level with the Giant Enemy Crab, let's pwn it!) Other emotions, like a desire for romance, or the feeling of mystery can be a similar motivator/goal.

I think we all agree that, however hard it is to quantify, the end-user has to get something of value from the experience, and really all we can do is give the user feelings they want to experience.

 

Soooo, a game has to have a story? (defining story as a series of related events. not a good story granted, but something that a person could make a story out of at least)

 

One word: Tetris. And, it's not a disease, or something you eat.

 

Yes to some extend. Thats why i like play as a definition, as it covers why we play games for both fun or for learning and so on.

 

Excellent point about Saw and that led me to the same conclusion as Asvarduil.

An enjoyable experience is only one reason to play a game. But it is not necessarily the point of all games.

So, let me try this again now that my view has been expanded thanks to you good folks...

A game is basically what Asvarduil stated above.

I think I would word it like this.

A game is an activity that produces an outcome desired by the participant.

For our "burnt out" pro sports player, that outcome would be to earn money.
For me, the outcome is to have an enjoyable experience.
For the participants in the Saw games, the outcome is to survive / escape.

Looking at all of these forms of games we could probably go a bit further and say...

A game is an activity with defined rules and obstacles to achieving one or more rewards desired by the participant.

 

And lo, the angels' choir did sing, and the heaven's radiance did glow, as god sent forth his only begotten line block to live with the lowly, unwashed masses and bring peace.

The only difference between the bible and tetris is word count.

 

Even with that latest revision of the definition, I am still not certain it can be clearly defined as to what exactly a game is because I think a "game" is a sort of abstract thing. Sometimes the "game" is only in our mind.

That last revised definition could just as easily apply to advancing at your career, going to the moon, or "playing" the stock market. And that term "play the stock market" is what shows that sometimes the game is only in our minds. It is not meant to be "a game" but many people turn it into a game by viewing it as such.

So, I think we still have not concretely defined what a game is. And I wonder if it is possible to make it specific for the reasons listed above.

 

@Misterselmo, I would like to hear your definition. What is a game?


And I know I am beating this horse to death but I still keep going back to the enjoyable experience.

In the case of the pro sports player, receiving the money would be an enjoyable experience.
In the case of the Saw game participants, surviving would certainly be an enjoyable experience.

So, I believe ultimately, in all games, the reason a player participates is to receive an enjoyable experience (even if it only comes at the end of the game).

 

I really did have Jarvis read from Play Matters, I really liked what I heard. One thing that really struck me was that he talked about a group of guys that played tag for 17 years. They played at work, at home, etc. And only they and a few others ever knew it was happening. They played with no real end in sight, no winner or loser... is that really a game?

I think you're correct, I'm getting the idea if a carrot on a stick. No carrot, no player. Play is voluntary. Enjoyment is one kind of carrot, but not the only one. Survival, prizes, bragging rights, curiosity... anything can be that carrot, the thing that makes someone play.

But that's play. I'm glad I see the difference now. You can play the stock market, or play women, or play catch.

But that's not why we're here. We're obsessed with games.

I think I like "a game is a form of play with rules and structures." That's a good one, and it's established already. But thats just on the surface.

That's like "pizza is food, consisting of bread, sauce and cheese with various toppings."

So if I have bread, sauce and cheese, do I have pizza? If I have rules and structure and I'm playing around, is that a game?

I had something I wrote down once:

"Over time, the result of player actions determines progression toward, or away from an established goal until a game over condition is met."

I think it's pretty strong, but wordy.

 

I think that does a great job of illustrating what happens during a game. Can we change it into a proper definition?

We seem to be coming up with some good stuff but it feels like we are always walking around the edge. We can define aspects of the game but I am not sure we are defining exactly what a game is.

We could take your insight and turn it into...

A game is an activity in which a player's actions progresses them closer to a desired outcome or regresses them away from a desired outcome until the game ends.

Or maybe worded better as...

A game is an activity in which a player's actions moves them closer to, or further away from, a desired outcome until the game ends.

 

"A game is an activity in which a player's actions moves them closer to, or further away from, a desired outcome until the game ends."

But we're neglecting the aspect of play.

Structured play with rules in which a player's actions move them toward or away from a desired outcome, with a definite conclusion.

 

I don't think there has to be a series of events, lemony snicket. Remember rock paper scissors is a single event, and a complete game.

 

That's the thing, I always felt starting out in Tetris that the 'I' block was the most useful one for eliminating four lines at once. My main strategy was to build the blocks into a layer with a shaft somewhere, such that I could thrust 'I' blocks in repeatedly until my score and level rose to the point that continuing was impossible. And, sometimes it worked a bit too good - Lv.12 is what was pwning me.

EDIT: That is an interesting idea on Tetris - a puzzle game as a metaphor for the New Testament? You should totally run that by some religious scholars near where I live. Either they'll go all Reverend Al Sharpton on you, or your ideas will become the bee's knees in the bible-thumpin' south.

 

A game is an activity centered around structured play with rules in which a player's actions move them toward or away from a desired outcome, with a definite conclusion.

I think we have taken it down to its core essence with that definition.

So... does that meet your requirements or do you wish to continue refinement?

 

First of all, I don't really care how you define a 'game' because we all know what it is without a definition. But as long as you're trying I should remind you of the definition of 'definition.'

A definition works both ways. If 'x' is defined as 'y' then 'y' can also be defined as 'x'. That's the point of a definition. So if you define a game as "an activity with defined rules and obstacles to achieving one or more rewards desired by the participant." then you also have to define "an activity with defined rules and obstacles to achieving one or more rewards desired by the participant" as a game. Which is not necessarily true. You can say that a game is all those things, but you're not defining it, your categorizing it. Honestly I would say that a game is best defined as:
Activity engaged in for diversion or amusement

You can try to say that some games are serious or not for fun, but I would say that those aren't really games. And games don't necessarily need to have a point (see Goat Simulator).

So yeah this is pretty hopeless.

 

I agree that it seems like we are still just categorizing it. I get that and mentioned it a couple times because it kind of annoyed me. Lol Still, I think it is worth putting some thought into this. We (a few of us) have put a good bit of thought into it and I think we all learned something from the process. That is how I view this exercise. It helps us all to better understand exactly what a game is.

 

Can you not extrapolate a single match to have a beginning, middle, and end? It's easy to simplify gameplay down to minimal detail (which was actually what the extra credits episode before last was about). Even just saying "we did this and came to this conclusion" is a story.

 

There's still a pretty big issue most of these definitions are ignoring: games without goals. Many games today don't actually have a goal! (Somebody brought up Flappy Bird here and it got brushed over) And in many games, players will keep playing even after they achieve the "goal" (beat the final boss in Skyrim? You've still only explored a fraction of the content).

I think, personally, that it is impossible to objectively define what a game really is. I think what is more valuable is to define attributes that all games tend to have (or tend to not have).

I'll start:

• A game always has rules and structure, and the state of the game is affected by players choices and actions according to those rules. Without this, it would not be a game. (I can't think of any exceptions...?)
• A game usually has a measure of progress: score, amount of content discovered, ranking among other players, in-game wealth accumulated. (Still can't think of any exceptions, although I'm sure we could find some) This measure of progress sometimes has an upper limit that we would call a "goal".
• It is usually desirable for the player to have a greater measure of progress than a lower one ("desirable" can take many forms - bragging rights, cash reward, survival in the case of Saw/Hunger Games/gladiators/etc). There can be exceptions, but those are poorly designed games. (and in those cases, it could be argued that a new game emerges where the measure of progress is inverted from what the designer intended)

 

Millions of people might beg to differ. The goal in flappy bird is EXTREMELY clear - dodge as many pipes as you can. The choice is WHEN you flap so that you make it. And, it's quite compelling. Flappy Bird meets at least three of the requirements of Flow: 1) Clear goal; 2) Immediate Feedback; 3) No Distractions. Where some people love or hate it is the 4th requirement: 4) a Balanced Difficulty.

Gigi

 

That is what we're looking for. The essence of what makes something a game and it looks like you arrived at the same conclusion. Basically...

A game is an activity centered around structured play with rules in which a player's actions move them toward or away from a desired outcome, with a definite conclusion.

It may be this is simply as close as we can get.

 

Well, millions of people have never been wrong before... cough... mumble... hmm. Let's think about how clear that goal really is. Why do I want to get to the other side of the pipes? Is there a princess waiting? A dark wizard to defeat? A world hanging in the balance?

You are placing your own meaning into an empty shell, and asking me to observe the qualities of the empty shell as you see it.

I fear that unlike Robin Williams in Hook, no person has the power to make something appear from thin air by believing in it strongly enough.

 

Let's play a game: I will flip a coin. Call it in the air. You get it right, you win.

I flip it in the air, it lands in my hand, we look at it and determine the winner.

If that's a story to you, then yes. All games can be broken down into stories.

 

I like this breakdown. However:

"and the state of the game is affected by players choices and actions according to those rules"

You can't include game in the definition of game, as it assumes that the word is already defined and understood. Then you create a time space vortex.

However, I'm a thorny bugger. No goal, no game. There's got to be a line drawn, to divide toys from games.

Rolling a slinky down the stairs could be a game, if we say "usually" has a measure of progress. It becomes a game if we count the number of stairs and compare to other attempts at the same thing.

 

"An activity engaged in for the sole purpose of having an enjoyable experience."
"A game is a series of interesting choices made in pursuit of a clear and compelling goal."
"A game is a form of play with goals and structure."
"A game is a collection of at least one event with a goal that is meaningful to the player(s)."
A game is an activity with defined rules and obstacles to achieving one or more rewards desired by the participant.
"Over time, the result of player actions determines progression toward, or away from an established goal until a game over condition is met."
A game is an activity in which a player's actions moves them closer to, or further away from, a desired outcome until the game ends.
Structured play *with rules* (rules are structure) in which a player's actions move them toward or away from a desired outcome, with a definite conclusion.
A game is an activity centered around structured play with rules in which a player's actions move them toward or away from a desired outcome, with a definite conclusion.
A form of structured play with rules and goals *and a conclusion.

I went through and grabbed all of the current definitions offered.
In red I have highlighted words that are not true for all games, and therefore cannot be part of a formal definition.
In blue I have highlighted things that I think have widespread, if not universal approval.

The reason why games outcome is not "determined by the result of player actions" is because there are games of chance.

engaged in (Played) - pursuit of a clear and compelling goal - a form of play with rules and structure - a collection of at least one event with a goal - defined rules - over time - established goal until a game over condition is met - until the game ends - structured play with rules - conclusion...

GAME:

A form of time constrained structured(defined rules) play(includes player actions/choices/etc.) in the pursuit of a clear and compelling goal.



Q. Why "time constrained"?
A. Everything must come to an end.

 

So make your mechanics tell an interesting story and you've got an interesting game. I suppose this means good games are drama whores (that slutty squiggly block).

You really want goals and a conclusion? The only thing a conclusion adds is a definite end.

 

I don't disagree this describes a game. It includes the key elements we have discussed. I am guessing goals here includes the rewards / desired outcome?

I think broken down to its essence like this it seems fairly generic and vague but considering all of the things referred to as games I suppose that has to be the case.

 

Quit being so funny, I also edited my post.

 

I edited the post.