Bibliography

These are the texts that I either referenced or used for source information to aid my own understanding;

Fullerton, F. (2008) Game Design Workshop: A Playcentric Approach to Creating Innovative Games. 2nd ed. Burlington, MA: Morgan Kaufmann.

Salen, K. and Zimmerman, E. (2003) Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Juul,Jesper. (2005) Half-Real; Video Games between Real Rules and Fictional Worlds. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Isaaman, Marie-Claire (2010) Introduction to games studies

NUCA Lecture, 8^th October 2010

Goodswen, Chris (2010)

NUCA Lecture, 8^th October 2010

Isaaman, Marie-Claire (2010) what is a Game?

NUCA Lecture, 15^thOctober 2010

Isaaman, Marie-Claire (2010) Interactivity

NUCA Lecture, 12^th November 2010

Wargames. (1983) Directed by John Badham [DVD]

Red White and Blue. (2010)Directed by Simon Rumley [DVD]

Wikipedia (2010) Metal Gear Solid 4 Available from:

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal_Gear_Solid_4:_Guns_of_the_Patriots >

[Accessed 13^th October 2010]

Wikipedia (2010) Croc: Legend of the Gobbos Available from:

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croc:_Legend_of_the_Gobbos >

[Accessed 13^th October 2010]

Wikipedia (2010) Super Mario Kart Available from:

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_mario_kart >

[Accessed 13^th October 2010]

Wikipedia (2010) Pokémon Red and Blue Available from:

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pok%C3%A9mon_Red_and_Blue >

[Accessed 13^th October 2010]

Wikipedia (2010) Final Fantasy VIII Available from:

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Fantasy_VIII >

[Accessed 13^th October 2010]

Wikipedia (2010) Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic Available from:

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars:_Knights_of_the_Old_Republic >

[Accessed 13^th October 2010]

Wikipedia (2010) Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion Available from:

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elder_Scrolls_IV:_Oblivion >

[Accessed 13^th October 2010]

Wikipedia (2010) Grand Theft Auto 3 Available from:

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Theft_Auto_III >

[Accessed 13^th October 2010]

Wikipedia (2010) ModNation Racers Available from:

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ModNation_Racers >

[Accessed 13^th October 2010]

Interactivity

Interactivity as a word can have multiple meanings, with no set wrong or right answer. Last week’s lecture explored interactivity and a variety of meanings. These are just some of them.

An Active relationship between two different things/ the defining of a relationship between two communicants
The participations of Agents in the reading of a text
The ability to meaningfully influence outcomes within a representation

A crucial issue with attempting to define what interactivity is that it is a vague term. Is it that all media or experiences are interactive by definition? There is no structure or clear indicators of what is or isn’t interactive. Furthermore, designers who are aiming for interaction have to ask themselves; How, Where and By Whom.


Zimmerman’s Model of Interactivity breaks different forms of interactivity down into distinct brackets:

1.       Cognitive Interactivity  

2.       Functional Interactivity

3.       Explicit Interactivity      

4.       Beyond object               

(In relation to interactivity in games)
Cognitive interactivity is the acceptance and immersion of a player physically into a game. This could be through storyline, gameplay or other means.
Functional Interactivity is the interaction of the player with the user interface. Was the response time correct? Is the interface easy to use or confusing? It can also mean the direct experience of physically playing the game.
Explicit Interaction is the closest to describing what is meant when it is said that games are interactive. When a player follows the rules of the game, takes part in programmed random events and choices or participates in a constructed simulation it is all considered to be explicit interaction between the players and the game.
Beyond Object interaction is when a universe or storyline is expanded upon outside of its original format. The most obvious example of this is the Star Wars Universe. Beginning as 6 films, it has since expanded into graphic novels and video games (amongst other media). For the audience to have a complete view of the fictional world depicted, they would have to play the games, watch the television program and read the graphic novels. Currently Viral advertising is the most common of this form of interaction – with sites created purely for the purpose of advertising the game/film/TV series by approaching a fictional element of the series.

While it can be defined into these 4 brackets, Interaction is not as simple as it seems. For example someone may interact with an object on a desk, causing it to fall off. This may not be deliberate – but yet it is still Interaction. But when it is interacting with an object out of choice or to follow rules (roll of the dice, dealing cards, etc.) these are all Designed interactions. This is because it is in a system or set of rules that the particular thing has to be interacted with.

Additionally a series of interactions when playing a game can be broken down further into Micro Choices (Tactics) and Macro choices (Overall strategy). By using Micro choices to build an overall strategy, it completes the multi-layered process that translates into a full experience.



How was my App reflective of the Zimmerman’s model of interactivity?

The Cognitive interactivity of my game wasn’t as important in my app design due to the nature of the concept. The game is a racer which is set in the future when racers would partake in an underground league known as ‘Flush’. For the player to get immersed and cognitively interact with the game the characters would have to have strong personalities and the world would have to be explained.
However as this is only a small app that focuses on addictive gameplay, the ‘story mode’ wouldn’t be the focus of the game. This isn’t uncommon in games, as I have noticed several games which have little or no narrative and story behind the action – the most notably being Soul Calibur IV (which has little story stages and an incoherent or unexplained storyline). This doesn’t mean that play suffers – in fact many games that focus on gameplay are better in that area because of it. However as a fan of single player narrative driven games it was a little disappointing to not focus on story. That said, lack of narrative seems to be evident in almost all apps. They need to have a small file size so narrative is often forsaken – and a scenario is set in place of a storyline. So on that basis I would say that players don’t really have much cognitive interaction with my game.

The fact about designing a game for a platform where screen ‘real estate’ is paramount is that achieving a good level of Functional Interactivity with the player is almost as important as the Explicit interactivity. This is because, while conventional games systems have a set ‘controller’, in the iPhone or iPad there is just a screen. The developer has to build their own controller just knowing the features of the platform and the screen size.
This is why I chose to have no ‘controller’. The player has to physically turn the iPhone to turn their bike. The only interaction they have with the screen during game play is by tapping the bike to shed parts or holding down for a second anywhere else to pause. By doing this the screen isn’t overwhelmed with buttons, each role is clearly defined with no room for error and will be easy for players to remember in one play. This removes the need for repeated tutorials. The app would have one single tutorial that could be turned off or on in the options menu (or when the screen first appears). Overall I would think that the player would feel the app has a good functional interactivity should it play as I intended.

Explicit interactivity would be the programmed choices that the player could make in my app, be it to turn a particular way, shed bike parts, and choose to save / not to save. I would feel that my app offers strong explicit interactivity between the player, the bike and the track. Since the game is fast paced, the player will constantly have to make choices that would affect the overall outcome of their characters. As all games by their very nature offer high levels of Explicit interactivity it would be hard to say ‘my app has one of the highest levels of explicit interactivity’ as I would say that all games offer around the same – it just varies between games what the player is actually interacting with (Their avatar, The story, The fates of NPCs, Etc.).

At this point in time my app offers no Beyond Object interactivity. This is not because it doesn’t have the capacity to. I would say because of the strong Japanese art connection in the character design that some form of Graphic Novel or Anime would never be out of the question so that the player could interact with the fictional world created beyond the app (it would likely increase the players cognitive interactivity with the story also). However, due to the nature of the platform, this is not probable.


What of the Micro and Macro interactions that the player would have with the app?
Well I would say that the Macro intentions of the user would always be along the lines of;
- Beating friends at a game-mode
- Unlocking new characters
- Breaking old time trial records
- Progressing in the story
- Completing the track

The Micro interactions would probably involve the character selection (different characters for different tactics) and also all of the split-second choices made in the gameplay (avoid that obstacle, go for that particular time trial clock, shed at this point as there are less obstacles, etc.).

From this analysis, the ‘Flush Racing App’ complies with all elements of Zimmerman’s model in one way or another and this is a welcome sign. All games and really media in general need to offer some form of interaction between their perspective players/audience. I would say though that games are significantly more interactive as they are a much more natural form of post-modern media to that of films and games. Modern films have tried to add levels of interactivity (Time-Code had four pieces of footage running on the same screen), but often this fails to really entice audiences as reaching towards one area of interactivity (in Time Code’s case ‘Explicit’ (the audience shapes the story by what they watch – but yet still the story has been made to allow them that choice)) other areas suffer (functional – the audience struggle to watch it, Cognitive – the audience’s state of disbelief has been broken). This is not suggesting films do not offer interactivity. The definition; the participations of Agents in the reading of a text, summarises the relationship between the audience (agents) and the film (text). The strength of films is undeniably in their Cognitive Interaction.


 --------------------------------------Beyond Object Interactivity note -----------------------------------------


An interesting recent display of beyond object interactivity was Assassins Creed; Lineage, a short film which was done using a combination of real actors and computer generated backgrounds. The film delves deeper into the background of the protagonist’s father in the 2^nd game. This jump from game to another media is an interesting leap, but one that is happening all across the gaming industry.        

An example of this is in fable 3’s Kingmaker App. The app casts the user as either a Rebel or a member of Logan’s Army. The user is instructed to mark their symbol on key points around real cities, and then a tally is taken and points awarded. The app bridges the game between the console game and almost an urban sport – whilst causing the player to identify their own city with the Fable 3 game. Furthermore to give incentive, the player gains money in their game dependant on just how well their team is doing on the app.

Both of these examples show just how much emphasis is now being placed on making a game more alike to a ‘franchise’ by using beyond object interactivity as a tool. Books, Graphic Novels, Websites, and Urban Sports are all becoming commonplace for the characters and narratives of popular games to be explored (or exploited depending on viewpoint) and this is likely to grow. It would not be unrealistic to say that in a few years’ time all of the above media and more (Television, Manga, Film) will be utilised to promote games series on a regular basis.

 

Iterative Process

The iterative process is one that is heavily promoted as a crucial way of producing solid and dependable games. But what is the iterative process?

The iterative process is simple and works in 4 states that repeat in a cycle. These are; Generate Ideas, Formalize ideas, Test ideas and Evaluate the results. Should there be an issue at the final evaluation stage then the process repeats itself. By doing this, a designer is ensuring that at all stages of the project there will be no problems and that their product will perfectly tailor their target market.

As a process it is dependable and as a designer, I have used it subconsciously in both of my projects. In my board game design project when designing the Miscalculation cards, at the end of each design I would ask several people what they thought of the design, asking questions like; did it feel like the type of card they would see in a board game and (dependant on the stage of development) whether or not it fit the criteria I wanted. A clear example of this is when I was applying the writing to the cards. The writing needed to be clear – but at the same time be fitting of the design. Not including the iterative stages that the template had, it took 3 repetitions of the original cycle to create the final version

The first stage was seen as too futuristic, so in the next stage I looked at the colour of copper and made the writing look embossed – a industrial process fitting of the time. When I showed it to several people they each said that the design was hard to read and too dark. So the next stage, being happy with the overall design template, I simply increased the contrast of the writing and background so that the writing was clearer. My feedback was more positive, but still as a collective they felt that it needed to be lighter still. On the fourth stage I had lightened up almost all of the area around the writing and the response was that the writing was clearly visible and not out of place. This was exactly what I had wanted so the process stopped there.  It can be seen that there is a clear improvement from the first three stages to the last and in the end, the result was far superior than had I just kept with the first stage.

Another example of the iterative process is in the film War Games – a film I had watched in Fridays afternoon viewing. In the film it features an advanced CPU that can learn from mistakes. At one stage, the CPU plays a game multiple times, each time taking different routes, calculating the results and trying again to alter the result. This internal iterative process is repeated untill the computer realises that there is no positive outcome.

 This is something that often might happen should designers use the iterative process later in production rather than earlier. This is likely due to the face that constant feedback at each level will allow each idea to be refined into a complete working concept, rather than complete a concept, collect feedback on it as a whole and have to start from scratch. It is because of this that often it is obvious when games fail to achieve what they want that an iterative process has not been used.

 Obviously there are a few downsides to the process, in that it takes longer and is more expensive to keep bringing in outside testers consistantly – which is why some games developers don’t follow the technique. However from a personal viewpoint and looking at the long term impact, the use of an iterative process has positives that far outweigh the negatives. If a game uses the process and is far greater due to it, then reputation grows, a fan base is gained and critics might rate it highly. If a game hasn’t used it and there are faults that appear after it has gone on sale, then the opposite will happen (damage to reputation, fan base gets angry and critics will write the game down as a failure).

Red, White and Blue

Last week I attended the screening of a film by British producer Bob Portal, entitled Red, White and Blue. As a film it exhibited a unique mix of explicit horror, implicit narrative and American culture. The storyline tied 3 narratives about different characters one after another into one storyline. The way the director used camera shots, edits and dialogue meant that often it was left to the audience to piece together backgrounds of each character via their dialogue-less actions. Furthermore the actual time line for the storyline wasn’t as explicit as most films, and it becomes evident at the conclusion that the narrative takes place in a far greater timescale than you expect. Only by taking note of key dialogue and compositional focuses can this be realised.
As we are looking at Genre this week, the film had all the key representational stereotypes of the Horror genre. It was set in the suburbs of Texas, which is a common location for American horrors. Furthermore the self-destructive femme fatale, the flawed war veteran and the rash band member are all representations that are both stereotypes of such American films.
One key element that both breaks the conventions and does not, is that not one of the characters was a clear ‘Protagonist’. Each main character had flaws that made them morally unjust in the eyes of the audience. Additionally, there are two killers, one which at the end is not killed. This is something that sets itself apart from conventional horrors, however is becoming common places in Horror Thrillers such as Dead Man’s Shoes (Shane Meadows) and the Saw series – in which there is no moral ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ and often the killer will escape.
Red, White and Blue was a good all round example of both conventional and un-conventional approaches to Genre in the medium of film. Considering however, that this is a study of games, it makes me wonder whether other games have adopted a similar approach. The obvious example would be Grand Theft Auto (Rockstar) in that the player is in the place of a criminal who has to comply with dubious requests. But still this doesn’t really resonate too much with the approach of Red, White and Blue, as while Grand Theft Auto sparked huge controversy with its Viewpoint, the narrative structure ultimately remained the same.  The only way it changes is that the player begins in a state of Disequilibrium (getting shot by Catalina in a cutscene, escaping jail, etc.) to slowly progress to the main conflict and resolution. Many games adopt this tactic, such as Uncharted 2, whereby the player begins with a gunshot wound, hanging off a cliff.
The only game that really uses multiple running narratives in the timeline I would say is Resident Evil Zero (of course this is only off the top of my head – there will probably be multiple games that do this) in that you can switch between two characters in the middle of play. Furthermore each character progresses when not controlled. One may be being attacked while you play suddenly, meaning you have to switch to that character or run to save them. It is this which relates more to the convention breaking aspects of Red, White and Blue.
Having studied Genre last year in a Media course, I have a reasonable understanding of areas of it, however it is still interesting to look at contemporary films and games, and how they deal with both Genre and Narrative.

Definitions of Game and Play

Definition of Play
Play cannot truly be defined. Players will experience ‘’play’’ as the rules of a game are set into motion and experienced. It can be explained that Games are but a Subset of play, as Games are only a small part of what Play can be.
Play can be placed into three different categories:


Gameplay: The acceptance and interaction of players with the formal rules of a game.
Ludic Activities: Forms of play that are not ‘games’ such as two children playing with a ball. Ludic activities constitute being playful, but never have a formal element – such as rules
Acting Playful: Being in the state of mind that is playful and acts both in opposition and according to rules. Such things as puns, jokes and both ludic and game play all are considered in the bracket of ‘’acting playful’’.
Other ways of describing play would be to say that: Play is free movement within a more rigid structure. Play emerges both because of and in opposition to more rigid structures. (Rules of Play, Eric Zimmerman/ Katie Salen, pg311)


The best way to explain that extract is to look at both play and ‘loopholes’ players will find in games. Some players will accept game worlds and play according to the rules. Others will find ways to oppose the structure of the game (glitches/ Mods). Another way this is done is by using colloquial language (in which the person playfully challenges conventional language).
One interesting element to play is that it can be ‘Transformative’. This means some play can evolve (or transform) into something else entirely. An example of this is when you might make some form of joke amongst friends, which might then cause a series of jokes along the same lines as the joke made – which might cause an informal competition. It is at these points where play has changed shape – from acting playful to some form of ‘game’ in a matter of moments.


Anthropologist Roger Caillois uses ‘’four fundamental categories’’ to define play. These are:


Agon: Competitive play
Alea: Chance based play
Mimicry: Simulation or ‘make believe’ play
Ilinx: Vertigo or physically based play
And these categories can further be divided into Ludus (Rule bound play) or Paida (free form play). Caillois structure is not strict, as play is often formed from several of these elements at once.


Definition of Games


Games have had many definitions over the years. In Half Real: Video Games between fictional and real worlds, Jesper Juul has considered all of these definitions and constructed his own, which has 6 key features:

1.       Games are Rule Based

2.       Variable, quantifiable outcome: Games have variable, quantifiable outcomes

3.       Valorisation of outcome: different interactions in the game have either positive or negative outcomes

4.       Player effort: The player needs to exert some effort to influence the outcome

5.       Player attached to outcome: depending on the positive or negative outcome, the player will feel happy or unhappy.

6.       Negotiable consequences: a choice can be made whether the game will affect the players in real life.

Other theorists have had their own theories about this – such as Johan Huizinga who describes that when players begin to play a game, they will surrender themselves to the rules and social etiquette of said game, forming a ‘magic circle’ as they all follow the rules of the game – unlike the rest of society. He further says that a game cannot influence real life. This, Jesper Juul, proves to be an incorrect view of games, as many games such as Poker have tournaments. Many people create a livelihood from their success at these games. This is the reason for number 6 of his definition – in that players can choose whether the game will have tangible consequences.


For both of these definitions, I have studied and in some cases made reference to the following books;
Half Real (Jesper Juul, MIT Press, 2005)
Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals (Katie Salen/ Eric Zimmerman, MIT Press, 2004)
Games Design Workshop: A Playcentric approach to creating innovative games (Tracy Fullerton, Elsevier Inc, 2008)

Looking at my Board Game project in terms of Play and game:

1.              Games are Rule Based - Our board game has several rules. Each player must take it in turns to roll the die to travel around the board. If they land on a Build square, they collect a build card. Conversely if they land on a Star square, they must pick up a miscalculation card. A player cannot have more than one build card at once, but if they land on a delivery square the piece specified on their build card is placed on their build area. When the player passes their build area whilst holding a build card, they place the piece specified in their built area. The winner is the player who has collected all of the pieces and built their robot

2.              Variable, quantifiable outcome: There are several outcomes in this game. Win and loss are the simple ones. Then you have the smaller internal outcomes that are based on chance. They could be rewarding the player money, allowing them to place a piece back on the board or it could even be the act of no significant outcome for that turn. They are all reliant on the way the player has rolled the die or how the miscalculation cards had been shuffled in the pre-game stage

3.       Valorisation of outcome: different interactions in the game have either positive or negative outcomes – Everything in the game has a positive or negative outcome depending on the player. Picking up a miscalculation card that grants the player money would be a positive outcome to that player, but negative to everyone else. Conversely that player losing money would have the reverse outcome. Once the die has been cast the player can either land on a blank, star, build or delivery square. Each one would appear to be positive, however landing on a build square while holding a piece would be negative - As would the player landing on a miscalculation square and picking up a negative card.

4.      Player effort: Every time the player rolls the dice they are affecting the outcome of the game. In some ways while there is the illusion of control, essentially the game is luck based.

5.      Player attached to outcome: Through the effort the player has made and the act of the player submitting to the rules of play, they are immediately attached to the outcome of the game.

6.      Negotiable consequences: The players can choose amongst themselves whether or not to bet anything on the overall outcome of the game.

The types of play that the players would experience while playing would be Gameplay (as by playing the game they are engaging with Gameplay) Acting playful (although this might not be the case for some players, it is expected as a board game is played as a social event rather than as a forced experience of gameplay).
Whether or not the player would experience transformative play when they are playing Build it up is difficult to gauge as it could be anything (from 3D building of the robots in the game to wanting to build an object, to competition of who can build the best object, etc.). However it is not difficult to determine whether or not build it up would fit with Roger Caillois 4 areas of play;


Agon: Board-games have a set Win / Loss structure so it would definitely be competitive play.
Alea: The game is determined by chance based tools wielded by the player so it again would comply with this rule
Mimicry: While our game is in no way a simulation, some players might see fit to engage with the loose fiction that surrounds the board game, although this might be unlikely.
Illinx: The player has to physically build an object, move pieces and roll the die. This means that they have to physically interact with the game – however, whether or not the players ‘play’ with the pieces is not concrete.


As the game is rule bound Ludus is also evident when players are playing the Build It Up board game.




As you can see most games can follow the definitions that have been set by theorists Jesper Juuls and Roger Caillois, but yet does this mean that Games and Play have been properly defined yet?
Personally I think not. Games and Play are one of few subjects that I don’t think can ever be bound by words and definitions. Sure, meaning can be placed behind every area of them, but they can never truly be described.










MISC




An analysis of First Person Shooters and the varying views between Halo and Call of Duty made several nights ago after having studied the definitions of games)


Analysis of a certain area of play within a modern videogame
Having been studying what both games and play are, it has helped me analyse many different grievances a player faces. For example, players will often get angry or abusive should first person shooters not have their desired outcomes – for instance my friend will get angry if a player does not die in a specified number of bullets. This grievance has been caused from the conventional feeling of a game. Games are rule orientated. They give a player a set goal or at least groups of rules that a player will subconsciously pick up upon.  In the case of a First Person Shooter the game will allocate how much damage a character can take before being killed. This may be four bullets or one. The key point is that as a player progresses they begin to gain an understanding of how each weapon ‘handles’. By this I mean the points such as recoil, damage caused and how opposition will react to this. As this grows, as does a players expectation that the gun will abide by these rules. When gaming online the rules get ‘twisted’ by the whole online play aspect. Several players will be playing – expecting their responses to be as sharp as offline play and their guns to do just as much damage. This is the crux of the problem. When internet strength or server responsively is low, suddenly players may find that the pre-set expectation differs from the reality on screen. ‘’When playing Call of Duty I find that it may take 1 bullet sometimes or 4, depending on the game’’ (T. Bircham on the qualities of a Sniper weapon online).


I would say that the players own playing expectations often are behind such arguments between fans of certain game genres. The classic example is the Call of Duty V Halo arguments. Both games are known to have a solid fan base and huge reputations among the FPS genre. But yet fans from opposing games will often criticise the other game. Why is this? Well the key here I feel is expectations – at least when it comes to the criticising of gameplay.
When a player plays Call of Duty they will know the guns, maps and tactics of play. Conversely when playing Halo this knowledge becomes useless as another set of rules and tactics need to be employed.  And this fact is what aggravates many fans of either franchise. They will have a one sided knowledge of one style of gameplay, so when the internal rules are vastly altered for the same genre they will still try to abide to the previous games rules.
Again using Halo as an example, in the game, player characters each have ‘shields’ and health. By having two layers of health – each visible, the tactics are a little different. Four bullets from an assault rifle – something that would likely kill a Call of Duty character, will barely penetrate a player’s shield. The value to kill a shielded player is more likely to be in the realm of 15 -25 bullets. This base fact will heavily alter the balance of play for inexperienced Halo players that are veteran Call of Duty players. Furthermore if you then apply internal rules such as ‘plasma weapons’ and heavy weapons, that each have varying degrees of damage, then Call of Duty experienced players may struggle to adjust. This will lead to frustration as the game will be hard and have detrimental social implications. This may lead to switching off the game and then the player’s viewpoint will be focused upon those elements discovered on that first playing experience.


This issue of transferal of rules can be applicable to other forms of game other than video games. For example play with a pack of cards. There are numerous different game variations stemming from those playing cards – be it blackjack, poker, etc. Some games even have variations within the game variants (i.e.: Texas Hold’em Up poker in relation to conventional poker).




This is what I feel personally is the issue behind such games. It is not something that can really be addressed by changing a game. It is all about the experience of playing. This again is critical in the argument that games are but a subset of play. A problem with play on the whole cannot be solved by modifying the game.

Notes on Lecture presentation

Framing Systems

• Formal System - a formal system of rules, self-contained and

closed. Strictly strategic and mathematical.

• Experiential System - an experiential system of play. Either

open or closed - the player and their strategic game actions

only = closed; emotional states of mind, distractions of the

environment, reputation of game = open.

• Cultural System - an open system considering the way that

the game intersects with society, history, language and wider

culture.

Chess as a Formal

System

• Objects = pieces on the board and board itself.

• Attributes = characteristics given to objects by the

rules: ways of moving, hierarchy of pieces.

• Internal Relationships = the actual position on the

board of pieces; one piece threatening another, some

removed.

• Environment = the play of the game itself is the

environment for the interaction of objects. Play

Provides context for the formal elements of the game.

Friday, 15

Chess as a Experiential

System

• Objects = the players themselves.

• Attributes = the pieces each player controls, and the current

state of the game.

• Internal Relationships = if players are objects their

interaction constitutes internal relationships: strategic

interaction plus social, psychological, and emotional

communication as well.

• Environment = not just the board and pieces but immediate

environment or context of play. May include mode of play

(physical or mediated) and preconceptions of play.

Chess as a Cultural System

• Objects = the game of Chess itself in its broadest cultural sense.

• Attributes = designed elements of the game and how, why, when,

and by whom was the game made and used.

• Internal Relationships = the links between the game and culture.

Is there a symbolic relationship between black and white? Racial,

good versus evil etc.

• Environment = the total environment itself for cultural framing of

Chess is all of culture itself, in all its forms.

Friday, 15

(Lecture presentation extract)

Looking at the Build it up board-game using the Framing Systems:

This was an extract from Friday’s lecture which introduced looking at what games and play are in the purest definition. In lecture it was discussed about 'Framing Systems' and using them to analyse games. I felt the best way to try and understand this system was by through looking at my own project using the three categories.

Formal system

-         Objects = playing pieces, the game board, cards, currency and the robot parts them selves

-         Attributes = Characteristics given to the objects by the cards and the dice roll

-         Internal Relationships = the placement of the playing pieces in relation to the playing squares (how close one is to a build/ star square), the passing of a build area, the values of importance given to each build card relative to game progress.

-         Environment = the play of the game itself is the environment for the interaction of objects. Play provides context for the formal elements of the game.

Experiential System

-         Objects = the player themselves and the dice

-         Attributes = position of the playing pieces, amount of currency in circulation and the current state of the game.

-         Internal Relationships = if the player and the dice are the objects, then the relationship between the two can be considered internal. The implications of the dice can be seen through social, communicational and emotional reactions of the players, which then will affect the strategic formula of current play.

-         Environment= not just the board but the area around the board, the context for which the game is being played and that which brought the game to the player (reasons for playing)

Cultural System

-         Objects =  the game ‘build it up’ in the broadest cultural sense

-         Attributes=  the internal elements of the game –when, how and why they were made and by whom

-         Internal relationships= the link between the game and culture? Is the fact the player is building a robot for an oppressive government a criticism of the current regime? Is the art style meant to be a satirical or accurate representation on the views of military and the future in 1920’s?

-         Environment = all of culture itself frames the cultural environment of the game.

I am not sure whether this is the correct ‘answer’ to framing my Board Game as the framing systems, while detailed and explore every possible outlook, are cryptic and hard to understand. Nevertheless, I feel that was at least a fair attempt at analysing using that system. However difficult it was, this has revealed a way of breaking down games into the basest ideals – free of the subconscious views of a player, and is something that I will strive to understand better in the future.