« Working At Cross Purposes? | Home | Slayers Beware »
Puzzling It Out
By Corvus | July 10, 2008
Rubes pointed out in the comments of my last post that it sounded like Chris Crawford and I might just agree on something…
This is kind of fascinating when you consider it in relation to Chris Crawford’s definition of game, and that “if a challenge has no active agent against whom you compete, it is a puzzle,” as opposed to a game.
Does this mean, then, that single-player videogames are actually more accurately referred to as puzzles, not games?
I think, like so many things, it depends on your definition of puzzle. I tend to think of puzzles as finite, solvable cognitive challenges. I can’t think, off the top of my head, of anything I would call a puzzle that specifically and directly challenges your dexterity and/or hand eye coordination. Traditional puzzles include crosswords, cryptograms, word jumbles, those interlocking wooden challenges, the rings on a string challenges and, lest we leave out the obvious, the time honored jigsaw puzzle. These puzzles are typically devoid of any fictional context and generally have a single correct solution.
A great many single-player video games contain puzzles. So do many multiplayer video games, for that matter. I haven’t played a Bioware game yet that hasn’t asked me to prove my awareness of basic color theory, usually by tossing purple rocks in a pool, or tossing red and blue powder at something. That’s pretty clearly an example of a puzzle inserted into the game-scape.
A great many casual games are based solely on puzzles (this list obviously includes Jigsaw Detective, the Pogo.com jigsaw puzzle game for which I write monthly serialized mysteries). Bejeweled is an endless field of puzzles and by extension, Puzzle Quest (Ooo, that title–what a giveaway!) relies on puzzles for its core combat and crafting mechanic.
For that matter, a lot of old arcade games had some pretty puzzle-esque hearts, with ideal paths through levels, pattern recognition challenges, etc. Pacman, which Rubes mentioned specifically in his comment, is a perfect example, but Tetris, Shinobi, R-Type and Dragon’s Lair are also clear examples of games that rewarded a cognitive approach while challenging your hand-eye coordination.
But does this mean that all single player video games ought to be considered puzzles, and not games? Well… no, it doesn’t. Not in my opinion anyway. And I feel this way because of one thing–Story. I’ll stop a moment and give you all time to pretend to be surprised over that revelation.
Even the most plot-free of games–Tetris–provides more context than a puzzle. With soundtrack and classic Russian architecture adorning the screen, with scoring and progressive difficulty, Tetris provides the barest outline for creation of story. Certainly Pacman provides enough context for creation of story, otherwise the indomitable little disk wouldn’t have become such a huge cultural icon. Shinobi and Dragon’s Lair include an actual plot, which is always the hallmark of a designer engaging in storytelling.
We must recognize that single player games also include non-puzzle elements, such as hand-eye coordination challenges, plot, character development and context (whether that’s cultural and/or storyworld context, or merely tracking a score). I believe that to say single player video games aren’t games, but merely puzzles, would be akin to saying the oceans are made of salt, or all humans are born in China.
Additionally, most video games allow for multiple solutions to a given puzzle. Or, allow you to pick and choose your puzzles, or allow the decisions made while solving puzzles to influence the overall outcome of the game. This level of complexity goes far beyond the scope of a single puzzle. I’d argue that if you took a sequence of “real world” puzzles, like the ones I referenced at the opening of this post, and created a system by which you determined which puzzle you’d play next upon completion of a puzzle, or timed the event, or scored yourself based on a set of criteria, then you’d have made a game for yourself.
So, yes, it’s true that in an effort to evolve our medium into a culturally recognized narrative art, video game designers frequently use puzzles as artificial active agents. And frankly, you don’t have to go much further than the entries to last month’s Round Table on Relationships in Games, or to the April ’06 Round Table on Friendship in Games to see that the single player video game is substantively more than a mere puzzle.
Tagged:puzzles, storytelling, videogames. | 6 Comments »
July 10th, 2008 at 8:14 am
I think, like so many things, it depends on your definition of puzzle.
Personally, I think the definition hinges on the term “active agent”.
The things, like the Bioware color puzzles; pushing block and light-ray puzzles in 3d platform games, and so forth are substantively different than say, bejeweled or tetris, where there’s an ongoing random component chosen by the computer. Or where the computer runs some part of the challenge.
Those types of puzzles are set pieces that are static within the game. I played a jigsaw puzzle where the pieces were flowed out randomly, and needed to be placed on the puzzle before they reached the end of their track. Is that a puzzle, or a game? The random element — chosen by the “active agent” of the computer makes it more game-like than puzzle-like, in my opinion.
You could argue that the computer isn’t an active agent, but that just begs the question. After all what if the programmer/game designer that implemented the rules system is the active agent, but not a present one?
July 10th, 2008 at 8:28 am
You know, I typed and deleted the phrase, “It also depends on your definition of active agent” before I decided that the post didn’t need an extra paragraph or four.
But I do think it’s a greater mistake to arbitrarily dismiss single-player video games as “puzzles” because they contain, or utilize, puzzles. Any given Pacman screen may represent a cognitive puzzle, “What is the most efficient path through this maze?” but add in the ghosts and the need for absolute precision and quick reaction times and you’ve got something more than a puzzle–you’ve got a game.
July 10th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Awesome discussion. Let me start by apologizing for an inexcusably long comment.
I should also preface this by saying that I personally don’t agree with a whole lot of what Crawford has to say; he is tirelessly dogmatic and concrete, and seems to view the world in terms of clear dichotomies. I respect that he has strong opinions and voices them, but I think he is often too narrow, both in general and with this topic in particular. I don’t necessarily think he is right (nor did I suspect the same of you); I just wanted to point out the interesting contrast.
Now, of course it stands to reason that everything depends on your definition of puzzle. Crawford’s definition of game is based on his definition of puzzle, so if you don’t care for his definition of puzzle, you’re not going to like any of the downstream consequences.
I think it’s safe to say that puzzle and game are two terms that are difficult to define in ways that are satisfyng to everyone. A typical dictionary definition of puzzle is “a problem or enigma that challenges ingenuity.” That’s a pretty broad definition, of course, and you could easily fit a large number of things under that umbrella, including many games. Crawford’s definition of puzzle is essentially “a piece of entertainment that is interactive, has goals, and has no active agent to compete against.” Once you add an active agent, then you have a conflict, which can be either a competition or game depending on whether players can impede the progress of their opponents.
(As pointed out, that also depends on his definition of “active agent”, which is not specified anywhere that I could find, so it becomes a bit difficult to know for certain if or which single-player video games contain active agents.)
The point of all that, I suppose, is to highlight that what constitutes a puzzle is quite broad. That said, I wouldn’t go so far as to say the discussion “arbitrarily” dismisses single-player video games as puzzles because they contain puzzles, since I don’t think anyone has implied that.
I think just about everyone agrees that many story-based single-player video games contain within them one or more of what we would generally think of as puzzles. These are, in fact, problems that challenge ingenuity; they are interactive, have a goal, and have no active agents to compete against. They are also self-contained, in that the player, during the course of play, is presented with a challenge that requires solving in order to advance in the game. But it should be pointed out that, just because an activity contains a puzzle, it does not automatically follow that the activity is or is not a puzzle itself; it depends on the activity. There certainly can be puzzles contained within games, just as there can be puzzles contained within puzzles (a simple example of the latter being the classic “Jumble” puzzle in many newspapers). So in that sense, it still may very well be valid to say that single-player video games are in fact puzzles, many of which contain sub-puzzles within them; it just depends on how you describe and define the overall activity.
Which brings me to the larger point, which is I think what you are getting at: at what point is a puzzle no longer a puzzle but a game? It sounds as though you are saying that Puzzle + Story = Game, where Story is supplied by elements like plot, character development, and context (through such things as graphics and sound).
I’m not sure I completely agree that “more context than a puzzle” necessarily elevates what is basically a puzzle to something larger. Does adding a specific soundtrack and visuals to Tetris really give it any particularly larger status? Does providing a plot-based context to a match-3 game make it somehow no longer a series of match-3 puzzles? I’m not convinced.
A great set of examples to consider are the games of Cliff Johnson, the creator of “The Fool’s Errand” and my favorite, “3 in Three.” For those who haven’t played them, I highly recommend them, particularly the latter. In that game, you play the number 3 as she gets trapped inside the maze of a computer by an electrical glitch, and you must solve a long series of puzzles one after the other in order to make it back to your home inside a spreadsheet. It works as a nice narrative, although the game itself is really a puzzle containing a long series of individual, self-contained puzzles (as well as puzzles contained within larger puzzles). It has plot, character development, and context — all non-puzzle elements, as you say — but it’s still, to me, just a puzzle. In reality, I call it a puzzle game, although I’d now have to sit down and think about why I do that.
This gets at your penultimate paragraph, because in “3 in Three” you do get to pick and choose your next puzzle, although there also exists a system to determine which puzzle (or set of puzzles) follows the one you just completed. Is it now no longer a set of puzzles, but rather a game? Continuing on, you mention that if you time the event or score yourself, you now have a game. But one could extrapolate from Crawford’s definitions that doing so actually does add an active agent to the process: yourself (or others). You’re now competing to beat your (or someone else’s) best time or best score, even if you’re not playing at the same time. In that respect, Crawford would no longer call it a puzzle but rather a competition, which is really the sibling of game, so perhaps you don’t really disagree so much on that?
And by the way, just as a final point, there are certainly puzzles that have multiple solutions. You need only listen to Will Shortz on NPR on Saturdays to know this is true, so I’m not sure that this is necessarily a good criterium.
In the end, of course, we’re really just talking about varying definitions. Crawford would, I imagine, call most single-player video games puzzles, based on his definition; most of us would disagree because we happen to have different definitions of puzzle and game. As I said, I don’t call “3 in Three” a puzzle, just as I don’t call “Bioshock” a puzzle — I call them games (or puzzle games), but I also don’t have a firm grasp as to why that is, since I don’t have such concrete personal definitions of the terms. But it does force me to think about what separates puzzles from games, and I’m not sure I fully understand yet.
July 11th, 2008 at 9:20 am
I’m all for long comments, when they contain as much substance to chew on as yours tend to.
I find Crawford’s stance on most topics to be exclusionary and divisive. So when he relegates something to the status of “puzzle” I tend to hear that as, “I design games, you guys just design puzzles.” Right or wrong, it’s the way I interpret his comments based on my general impression of his attitude about other game designers and the industry.
I’m completely happy with the term “puzzle game” to describe Tetris and Bejeweled. Both rely more on cognitive skills than dexterity skills. But, yes, the sleight context provided by Tetris is more than enough to elevate it at least partially away from being just a “puzzle” as far as I’m concerned. If for no other reason, than as you suggest, the addition of scoring and continuous increases in challenges allow you to compete against yourself.
Perhaps saying that puzzles have a single solution isn’t entirely accurate. A single outcome is probably more what I intended. When you have solves a puzzle, it is solved. That is the outcome. I feel that the moment you add multiple outcomes (won spectacularly, won moderately, lost moderately, lost spectacularly), or multiple results (move on to a new puzzle, retry this puzzle, start the chain of puzzles over), you’re moving into game territory.
The fact that you don’t call “3 in Three” (which I intend to track down and play at some point now) a puzzle is a strong indication (to me, anyway) that I’m on to something that the addition of context, which leads to the audience creating story, is enough to elevate something beyond “puzzle” and into “game” or, at least, something other than “merely a puzzle.”
July 11th, 2008 at 11:52 am
This was such a good read, especially since I have a friend who hangs on every little thing that Crawford says. Sometimes I need to hear an objective opinion from the other side of the gauntlet.
July 13th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Either it’s because I’m playing catch-up today and getting everything at once, or because ideas are slotting into place, but this just added another layer to a theory I just started to form.
I commented on Only a Game that games may more about interesting results than interesting choices. Applied to this discussion of puzzles and games, it again suggests that the results define the game and the puzzle. I’ll try to illustrate.
In a classic wooden shape puzzle you have pieces that fit together a certain way. You pull them apart and then try to slot them together again. Each piece has it’s place. The result is that you complete the puzzle, feel satisfaction, and are able to show it to others.
In Tetris you slot 4-square shapes together to form solid lines in a grid. You can rotate the pieces, and move them side to side, but they always fall down, and cannot be moved once they land. When you slot them together correctly, lines disappear. You feel success at completing lines and are able to continue doing so, because more space is made available.
In the first example, the results are always the same. You wind up with a completed puzzle. In the second, the results are much more interesting. Because you solved the puzzle you are able to continue playing. Solving the puzzle may even lead to story-telling: you escape certain doom at the last second with a lucky part, you unlock previously hidden holes, allowing you to gain back lost ground, you reach a new high score, and so on.
In the previously mentioned Bioware example, by solving the simple colour-matching puzzle you advance the narrative by allowing the game to continue. The results are interesting because they unlock more to do.
The wooden puzzle example can be turned from puzzle to game by adding interesting results to solving it. By showing off your success and challenging friends you can make a game of solving the puzzle, solving it faster, solving it better. This is how the Rubik’s Cube has become more than a 3x3x3 grid puzzle for many people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speedcubing).
Puzzles are mechanics that can be turned into games by making the results of the puzzle interesting.