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:
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)
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.
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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment