« See Game. See Game play. Play Game, play. | Home | Post GDC Stuph »
Ways to Play–Puzzles, Toys, and Sport
By Corvus | March 19, 2009
Game is a set of rules and/or conditions established by a community and intended as a bounded space for play.
Yesterday, while writing about games that predominately rely on a single simple mechanic (link), it occurred to me that it might be useful to broadly categorize the types of game dynamics that video games mechanics produce. I’m not suggesting that this is a complete taxonomy by any means, but I am interested in building upon the foundation of my rather inclusive definition of game to better define the means by which the community communicates within the gamespace. Too many definitions attached to video games are exclusive, ruling out “toys” and “puzzles” as being non-games. I prefer my definitions to be inclusive, allowing for creative approaches to surprise and delight us as they challenge us to expand our suppositions.
Puzzles: The first two games I linked to yesterday, Perspectite and Coign of Vantage, are pure puzzles. Classic adventure games rely predominately upon puzzles as well. Puzzles typically challenge the player’s mind or try to trick their perceptions. Puzzles are pretty easy to spot within a game’s design and draw upon a rich history–logic, jigsaw, spatial, and linguistic to name a few.
Toys: Video games that rely upon toy dynamics are the most commonly dismissed as somehow failing to be actual games. Electroplankton, The Sims, Animal Crossing, Wii Music, even Katamari Damacy are typically seen as “toys.” It makes sense that sandbox games, like their analog counterparts, are typically full of toys. I personally find toy dynamics to be more conducive to a pure “game” state than the baggage of challenge and competition most people saddle video games with. After all, the video game itself provides the bounded space and the very fact that the toys are governed by a series of set behaviors, lends itself well to my definition of game.
Sport: I’m suggesting sport as a rather catch all category that refers to the competitive aspects of video games, particularly where the game dynamic requires rapid reflexive responses and/or puts you in competition against other players, AI constructs, or environmental factors that require precision navigation. Adding a timer to a toy could be considered an introduction of a sport dynamic.
Play is any pastime with a primary goal of self-guided exploration of possibility within a bounded space.
There is of course, one remaining type of game dynamic that isn’t covered by those three broad categories. This is a game mechanic included specifically and solely to communicate meaning, or describe a relationship within the gameworld. Passage is comprised exclusively of these sorts of dynamics–they do not directly fall into any of the above categories and yet are no less important to the gameplay or less compelling. I’m not entirely sure how I want to frame this category, though. I know a lot of people’s first instinct would be to call them “Story” dynamics, or “Narrative” dynamics, but I resolutely stand by my contention that all of the above dynamics communicate meaning, and are therefore part of the story, so that doesn’t work for me.
So… I’m thinking perhaps of calling them Expositional Dynamics. It’s possible that Foundational dynamics might be an even better category title, as many of these dynamic are related to basic movement and are only transformed by the inclusion of other dynamics that modify their purpose within the gamespace.
And with that conundrum, I’ll turn the conversation over to you…
Tagged:game, game dynamics, play, puzzles, sport, toys. | 11 Comments »
March 19th, 2009 at 10:41 am
I would go with Expositional. Although they may tie in to basic movement within the game space, they have a specific meaning. Although mechanics do communicate meaning, I feel that there are many instances where that meaning is left up to the player. Expositional mechanics, in turn, are those used by the game’s designer to communicate a specific message to the player.
I’d feel that Foundational dynamics is actually the aggregate of puzzle, toy, sport, and expositional dynamics.
March 19th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
Mmmmhhh, interesting. May I ask what category is The Marriage on?
Easy, one could think, it belongs in the Expositional Dynamics category. But it’s also a toy isn’t it? There’s no especific goal stated by the game, you are just thrown there with nothing to do but play around and get feedback on your actions (or inactions).
But then again it could be considered a Sport, since you can “die” in the game and so the player will set himself the goal of lasting as long as possible.
Another game might be a toy and a puzzle game at the same time. I can imagine how something like that would play, but I can’t think of an example of such a mechanic. Oh! How about World of Goo? That game may be a Puzzle at it’s heart, but there’s a hell of a lot of detail on the goo balls, enough to make playing around with them a joy in and off itself.
So, in a nutshell, none of those categories are exclusive, even Puzzles. Although I’m really hard-pressed to think of a game that has the components of all the categories at the same time.
Or in other words, GTA doesn’t count, because it’s a collection of other simpler games woven together. This could be considered the “easy approach”: Just build separately a toy, a puzzle, a sport and another sub-part that uses Expositional Dynamics and get them all together under one roof.
Or perhaps this way of making games could be considered as another category?
March 19th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
I do not intend these to be categories for video games, but of video game dynamics. In other words, I’m suggesting these base categories for the analysis of the systems that comprise a gamespace.
So your assessment of World of Goo is pretty spot on. I wouldn’t consider any of The Marriage’s dynamics to fall under the category of sport, however. But all that proves is the Sport category needs a more rigorous definition..
March 19th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
Aaahhh, alright then.
I guess almost any dynamic can be considered as a sport if we consider player defined goals, don’t you think?
Would the dynamic of tetris still be considered a sport if we remove the points system?
March 19th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
No, I don’t think that’s the case when we’re talking about the design, not the playing, of a game.
And I think the question is–would the dynamic of Tetris be considered Sport if the blocks didn’t fall at an ever increasing rate dictated by the designer.
March 19th, 2009 at 5:00 pm
Fair enough.
If Tetris played that way, it would be changing reflexes for endurance. Arcade mechanics for basic grinding. Taken it in that context, no, I don’t think it could still be considered as a sport dynamic, but that depends on your definition of sport.
Let me rephrase my Tetris question: What happens to a sport dynamic when you remove the reward but keep the punishments? Does it become a toy? Probably.
Then again, can you punish a player if you don’t reward him first?
If you remove the scoring system and the increasing speed of the falling blocks, then the only punishment left is to erase all your beautifully placed blocks when you reach the top. But since there is no goal, can it still be considered a punishment?
That’s The Marriage to me. A game based around a sport dynamic lacking any explicit reward. A playground where there are no goals but you can “die”.
Doesn’t the main implicit goal become “stay alive” then?
March 19th, 2009 at 8:46 pm
I would consider Tetris’s core dynamic to be a puzzle, as there’s nothing emergent about the behavior of the pieces. You fit them together (like puzzles pieces) to achieve a goal.
March 19th, 2009 at 11:36 pm
[...] an interesting conversation with Corvus in the comments over at Man Bytes Blog. Sports, puzzles and toys as categories for [...]
March 20th, 2009 at 7:29 am
I plan on writing a few posts, each examining a specific game through this particular lens… after GDC, of course.
March 20th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
You big teaser =)
December 1st, 2009 at 1:46 pm
[...] used Corvus Elrod’s definitions for the game terminology in the lecture. I’m sure there could be some discussion on how I explained game dynamics vs. [...]