DHSI 17: Games for Digital Humanists - University of Alberta

DHSI 17: Games for Digital Humanists

Course pack and schedule

Matt Bouchard Andy Keenan

June 12-16, 2017

2

Overview Games are a popular and quickly growing area of study in humanist disciplines. This course combines treatments of game criticism, game theory and game development toward understanding how to approach this new medium as an object of research. Part of the course will provide instruction about creating a game as part of game-first research -- ultimately combining theoretical aspects of game studies with the practical application of game building for both newcomers to games and experienced game scholars.

Day 1

AM -- What is a game? !* Defining games and play !* Introduction to game theory and game genres! * Approaches to game design and critical gaming PM -- Critical Gaming Session ! Exercise: Critical Gaming ! Lab Time: Browser-based games from multiple genres Analysis: Readings-based game criticism in small groups Relevant Readings Game Analysis: Developing a methodological toolkit for the qualitative study of games by Mia Consalvo and Nathan Dutton An approach for understanding games as text using qualitative, critical analysis. This paper provides a template for studying a game by analyzing specific elements: 1. object inventory; 2. interface study; 3. interaction map; 4. gameplay log: http://gamestudies.org/0601/articles/consalvo_dutton Defining Narrative, Interactivity, Play and Games by Eric Zimmerman An overview of four foundational terms in game studies, with working definitions for these four terms and their related lexicon. Frames the analysis of games using text-first language, which will be useful for first-time gaming humanists: http://www.ericzimmerman.com/texts/Four_Concepts.html

3

Fear of Failing? The Many Meanings of Difficulty in Video Games by Jesper Juul This paper discusses the unique role of failure in video games, and the importance of challenge. Juul provides game-specific examples of how failure is central to the experience of game play: http://www.jesperjuul.net/text/fearoffailing/

Day 2 AM -- Serious games and games for education * Games and education ! * Entertainment versus education - the myth of chocolate covered broccoli * Post-mortem of a successful education game PM -- Critical gaming session with serious games Exercise: Critique of Serious Games! Lab time: Browser-based Serious Games! Analysis: Readings-based game criticism for Serious Games Relevant Readings Gamification is Bullshit by Ian Bogost !The famous diatribe of Ian Bogost on the gamification craze. Bogost indicts gamification as the ultimate perversion of games as “exploitationware”. http://www.bogost.com/blog/gamification_is_bullshit.shtml Learning to Play to Learn: Lessons in Educational Game Design by Eric Zimmerman Zimmerman’s reflections on designing games for education, which is particularly important for those hoping to use the Critical Gaming class as a platform for designing curriculum-focused games. This paper advocates for game first design, a philosophy shared by the course instructors. http://www.ericzimmerman.com/texts/learningtoplay.html

4

Day 3 AM – Making and breaking * Play testing * Ethnography, case studies * Iteration PM -- Critical Making Session !Exercise: Game building game !Lab time: Break into teams and play a game-building card game Group Reporting: Share game specifications and design parameters with the group for feedback and analysis Relevant readings: Persuasive Games: The Expressive Power of Video Games (Chapter 1) by Ian Bogost Drawing the line between rules and meaning, Bogost connects to serious games and the power of mechanics. Easy to Use and Incredibly Difficult: On the Mythical Border between Interface and Gameplay by Jesper Juul ! A discussion of one of gaming’s classic paradoxes - the ease of use and the difficulty of choice. This paper examines the important separation between interaction (controllers, mouse, keyboard, on-screen information, menus, etc.) and gameplay (in-game decisions, role playing, solving puzzles, etc.): http://www.jesperjuul.net/text/easydifficult/

Day 4

AM -- Planning and implementation * Design workflows !* Use cases and wireframing ! * SCOPE! (budget, timelines) PM -- Design in practice! Exercise: Groups create an overview of their game focusing on use case development Lab time: Groups work on game development

5

Relevant readings: Rules of Play: Chapter 2 - The Design Process by Katie Salen and Eric Zimmerman (2004)!A great overview of the design process in games including a fantastic journal-style description of the design process for creating the Lord of the Rings boardgame. Project Scope Management by Darren Wich (2009)!This reading is focussed on IT and business-style issues but it does a good job of introducing the topic of scope and provides several useful links for further reading: http://www.umsl.edu/~sauterv/analysis/6840_f09_papers/Wich/ scopemanagement.html Use Case Examples -- Effective Samples and Tips by Darren Levy (2014)!Despite the fun title, this article provides all of the information you need to make usecase-creation a valuable part of your workflow. http://www.gatherspace.com/static/use_case_example.html Note: The subject of use cases and user-centric design is a complex one. We have selected readings to introduce the subject in a useful and accessible way. This is not to oversimplify the problem, and in class, we will go a little deeper into the theory and critique of this style of design. For those interested in more detail, Alistair Cockburn has written an entire book on the subject: Writing Effective Use Cases (2000) which goes much further into the theory/practice of use cases.

Day 5 AM -- Show and Tell * Discussion of projects, progress, and next steps * Post mortems

8/21/13 Game Studies - Game analysis: Developing a methodological toolkit for the qualitative study of games

www.gamestudies.org/0601/articles/consalvo_dutton 1/14

volume 6 issue 1December 2006ISSN:1604-7982

the international journal ofcomputer game research

Mia Consalvo

Mia Consalvo is avisiting associateprofessor in theComparative MediaStudies program at theMassachusetts Instituteof Technology. She isthe author of Cheating:Gaining Advantage inVideogames and is co-editor of the Handbookof Internet Studies. Hercurrent researchinterests include therole of Japan in thedevelopment of thegame industry, socialand casual games, andwomen players.

[email protected]

Nathan Dutton

School ofTelecommunicationsOhio University Athens,OH [email protected]

Game analysis: Developing a

methodological toolkit for the

qualitative study of games

by Mia Consalvo, Nathan Dutton

Abstract: Although the study of digital games is steadily increasing,there has been little or no effort to develop a method for thequalitative, critical analysis of games as "texts" (broadly defined).This paper creates a template for such analyses by developing andexplaining four areas that game researchers should consider whenstudying a game: Object Inventory, Interface Study, Interaction Map,and Gameplay Log. Through the use of an extended example (The

Sims and three of its expansion packs: Livin' Large, House Party andHot Date) as well as examples from different styles and genres ofgames, the case is made for employing these four areas orcomponents as a (developing) methodology for the critical analysis ofone or many digital games.

Game analysis: Developing a methodological toolkit for

the qualitative study of games

What does it mean to "study" a videogame? How could one analyzethe "text" of a game, to understand the message (or multiplemessages) that it contains? Some scholars would argue that gamesare not texts at all and certainly cannot be understood through mediastudies methods such as textual or ideological analysis (Juul, 2000).That critique has been made with each new media form and, witheach, newer or altered modes of analysis have appeared, such as thevirtual ethnographies of IRC and computer-mediated discourseanalysis (Herring, 2004; Poster, 2002). Scholars studying thesemedia have acknowledged that the tools of analysis must continuallybe modified, in subtle and occasionally radical ways. But even thoughthe study of digital games[1] is taking off, and we are seeingideological and textual studies of individual games as well as genresof games, little has been done to actively develop a methodologicalsystem for the qualitative, critical analysis of the form.

Previous empirical work in the area of game studies has taken twomain approaches-either studies of the audience for games (theplayers) or critiques of the games themselves. Researchersinterested in game players have conducted experiments (Sherry,Curtis & Sparks, 2003); distributed surveys (Media AnalysisLaboratory, 1998; Sherry, Lucas, Rechtsteiner, Brooks & Wilson,2001); performed indepth interviews with game players (Oksman,2002; Schott and Horrell, 2000; Yates and Littleton, 2001) andanalyzed the "log files" that record all chat between the players inonline multiplayer games (Wright, Boria & Breidenbach, 2002). Otherresearchers have addressed the "text" of digital games-seeking todetermine its contents in regards to issues such as levels of violenceand aggression (Kinder, 1991; Provenzo, 1991); portrayals ofminorities (Ow, 2000); ideological assumptions operating in the game(Friedman, 1995; Fuller and Jenkins, 1995; Miklaucic, 2001; Poblocki,2002) and, most often, representations of women in games (Banks,1998; Heintz-Knowles and Henderson, 2002; Kennedy, 2002; Kinder,1991; Okorafor and Davenport, 2001; Provenzo, 1991).

Some studies of game content rely on content analyses that explicitly

home about archive RSS Search

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.gamestudies.org/0601/articles/consalvo_dutton#a

http://gamestudies.org/0601

http://gamestudies.org/0601/about

http://gamestudies.org/0601/archive

http://gamestudies.org/rss.php



code for such items as avatar appearance or actions within the game(Heintz-Knowles and Henderson, 2002; Okorafor & Davenport, 2001),but the more qualitative studies have been less forthcoming abouthow games were studied, other than the assumption that they wereplayed and carefully thought about by the author. For example, HelenKennedy (2002) conducts an excellent analysis of the quasi-feministcharacter Lara Croft from the popular Tomb Raider (EidosInteractive, 1996) series, but she does not detail how her analysiswas conducted, other than to explain the moves and appearance ofCroft. Likewise, Tanya Krzywinska's (2003) analysis of the extendedBuffy-verse found in the videogame Buffy the Vampire Slayer (FoxInteractive, 2002) as well as the television show of the same namemakes sharp insights into how the game and the show offer andextend different versions of "agency" to the player/ viewer, but thereis no explicit statement about how that analysis was begun orconducted.

Scholars such as Aarseth (2003), Brooker (2001) and Konzack(2002) have noted the lack of methodologies of critical analysis, andbegun to address the need, yet they do not systematically lay outelements in a game that can help a researcher with the specifics ofanalysis. Brooker's case study of the game Jetman provides an earlytemplate for analysis, looking at the elements of institution,authorship, character and narrative, genre and socio-politicalconnotations and remakes (2001). Yet his study does not lay out whythese elements were chosen as opposed to other components (suchas the game world or the explicit notion of gameplay), and heappears more interested in exploring one game than creating amethod that is applicable to other games.

Konzack's intent is to create a typology for computer game analysis,and he presents seven "layers" of a game that must be analyzed;although, in his own analysis he does not address them all. Thelayers include hardware, program code, functionality, gameplay,meaning, referentiality and socio-culture (2002, pp. 91-98). While theattempt to create a structure for game analysis is valuable, layerssuch as "gameplay" conflate many elements (for example, positions;resources; space; time; goal; obstacles; knowledge and rewards/penalties) and little is offered in the way of suggestions for how toanalyze these particular elements.

Finally, Aarseth (2003) recognizes the limitations of Konzack's broadtypology and attempts to provide a narrower focus. He argues thatthere are three main ways of gaining knowledge about a game: "wecan study the design, rules and mechanics of the game ... we canobserve others play, or read their reports and reviews ... we can playthe game ourselves" (p.3). Yet rather than offering more specifics,Aarseth ends by backing away from concrete suggestions to arguethat "in gathering information about the game, we should use asmany sources as possible. Playing is essential, but should becombined with other sources if at all possible ... The analysis shouldalso contain reflection on the sources used; where they come from,what could have been included, why did we select the ones we did,etc" (p.7). Aarseth's main point is thus not to elucidate a concretemethodology, but to argue that game researchers must play games,[2] and also gather as much information about the game as possiblefrom other sources.

So while these articles point to the need for developing a qualitativemethodology for game analysis, they do not provide as much help asthey could in getting researchers to that concrete method. Weattempt to remedy this situation by creating a preliminary templatefor critical/ textual game analysis.[3] This template is meant to serveas one way (likely among others) for game analysts to approachgames in a way that is systematic but not rigidly so. We illustrate howthe method works in two ways: 1) we draw on different styles and

http://www.gamestudies.org/0601/articles/consalvo_dutton#b

http://www.gamestudies.org/0601/articles/consalvo_dutton#c



forms of games to point out how each element of the template can beadapted through use and 2) we apply all areas of the template to onegame, to see (for example) how sexuality is expressed in The Sims

(Electronic Arts, 2000) and three of its expansion packs (Livin' Large

(2001), House Party (2000), and Hot Date (2001)). In doing so webegin the work of developing a framework for scholars interested inhow to analyze games as important cultural artefacts that can revealsocial, political, and other insights about contemporary life.

So is simply playing a game, similar to watching a film, the propermethod? Clearly not, as Aarseth and Konzack are careful to pointout-at minimum the game must be played by the researcher, but weargue that this playing must be augmented by careful analysis of thevarious components of the game itself. There are many elements tocontemporary digital games that contribute to the experience ofplaying; some of which are immediately vital to the player, and someof which are not. For example, most games have avatars that can becontrolled and that have appearances that might be alterable (or not)by the player; games have (more and less) sophisticated interfaces,including onscreen menus, radars and life/ health gauges, as well asnested menus and information screens that the player can call up;games may give the player choices of dialogue, direction or potentialactions that likely change over time; and games may contain asimple or intricate system of objects that are central to playing andwinning the game. As of yet, there has been no clear and carefulelaboration of a systematic method for examining how these variouselements operate singly and in conjunction to constitute the "text" ofa game, and what the larger significance of that game might then be.

Here we outline and develop a template for the qualitative, criticalanalysis of games as broadly figured "texts." In so doing, we willmake some distinctions between elements that may seem arbitraryor artificial, but at this beginning stage we believe it is necessary todraw lines somewhere, even if they are later recast in different ways.To that end, we offer four areas of analysis that should be explored ifa researcher is to properly study a game: Object Inventory,Interface Study, Interaction Map and Gameplay Log. Each area offersits own information about the game, and can certainly be studied onits own, but greater insights can be gained when information fromeach area is combined, yielding a more thorough, consistent analysis.Each tackles a specific part of a game and contributes to the overallanalysis. These areas represent the components of a game mostrelevant for play and encompass static and dynamic, changeable andunchangeable aspects of the game. Using these areas, researcherscan develop research questions that look at ideological assumptionsoperating in a game, or determine if certain theories can best helpexplain a game or series of games. The areas also allow forcomparison across games, to help researchers start to identify largerpatterns in games and/ or genres.

In each of the following sections we describe the parts of a gameeach methodological tool covers, some beginning questions theresearcher could ask and each tool's larger significance to the overallanalysis. We use a few examples to demonstrate how differentgames could be analyzed, and we conclude each section with a briefanalysis of how The Sims and its expansion packs were analyzedusing each technique.[4] In this case we focus our analysis on howsexuality is created and expressed in the game. The analysis itselfcomes from a larger study but is here condensed to focus on themethodological approach.

Object Inventory

Playing a single digital game on a home console or PC can nowencompass upwards of hundreds of hours of play. During that time,the player is often encouraged to collect various objects that are

http://www.gamestudies.org/0601/articles/consalvo_dutton#d



used to enhance the avatar or gameplay, to help in solving puzzles,or to aid in ultimately "winning" the game. For example, in consoleroleplaying games such as the Final Fantasy series, players collect avirtual mega-pharmacy of healing potions, elixirs and abilityenhancers, in order to keep their avatars healthy during extendedbattles. Indeed, the only limit is that players cannot have more than99 of any one item in their possession-encumbrance is not an issue,and neither is the practical problem of hauling the stuff around.Objects can also be collected to help solve puzzles, as in theadventure game The Longest Journey (Funcom, 2000), where theprotagonist, "April Ryan," must be aware enough to pick up an oldrubber glove from a wastebasket in order to solve a puzzle thatoccurs days later and in a different location.

A useful way for researchers to understand the role that objects canplay in a game is to create an object inventory that catalogues allknown objects that can be found, bought, stolen or created, andproduce a detailed list or spreadsheet that lists various properties ofeach item. It is likely that the categories for items will vary with eachgame or game genre (first-person shooters will have more weapons,while farming simulations such as Harvest Moon (Natsume, 1990) willhave more seed collections), so the researcher should engage in apilot study of the inventory, determining through trial and error thecharacteristics of the objects that need to be detailed (see Table 1 forthe object inventory sheet used for study of The Sims). Commoncategorizations that researchers could begin with include:

Whether objects are single or multi useThe interaction options for objects: do they have one use (andwhat is it)?Do objects have multiple uses (and what are they)?Do those uses change over time?The object's costA general description of the object.

Creating such an inventory can help the researcher ask largerquestions about the game such as: What role or importance doobjects have in the game? Is the player encouraged to collect "stuff"for the sake of having it, or is there utility in most objects? What canbe inferred about the economic structure of the game from thepricing of objects, their relative scarcity or abundance? Are objectsvalued more than people or interactions in the game? These are onlya few of the questions that can arise from considering the objects.

For example, the popular Nintendo series Pokï¿½mon encouragesplayers to collect as many monsters possible, either by capturingthem, winning them in battles, or trading with friends. In the game,communication is seen as a way to enhance trade, as the ultimategoal is a complete collection of monsters (seen here as objects),rather than the more traditional roleplaying game goal of "saving theworld."

Likewise, consider what the object inventory of The Sims can tell usabout the game and its style of gameplay. An important part of The

Sims is building houses and furnishing them. To start, players mustfurnish each house with the bare essentials of living-including a bed,refrigerator, toilet, shower, stove and the like. After making sure thatSims can keep their basic needs filled, players can slowly fill thehouses with telephones, televisions, stereos, artwork and items forcareer advancement such as bookcases for study. In the game andthree expansion packs, players can purchase more than 400 itemsfor use in their Sims' homes, each ranging in price from 10 to 15,000"Simoleans" (Sim currency). Those objects have been carefullydesigned to fulfil various Sim needs, and an analysis of a subset canbe helpful in understanding the construction and maintenance of Simsexuality.

Most objects in the game are single use or have no direct use, such

http://www.gamestudies.org/0601/articles/consalvo_dutton#app1



as showers that can only accommodate one Sim at a time, or anartificial plant that cannot be interacted with at all. Yet 21 percent ofobjects are directly multi-use, meaning a variable number of Simscan be directed to engage with the object or "join" other Simsengaging with the object. Objects can then play a role in Simsocializing, and the potential for (and engagement in) romance. Atotal of 46 objects enable romantic interactions (11 percent of allobjects) and, more importantly, all of those objects support romanticinteractions that are gay, lesbian, bisexual and/ or heterosexual. Forexample, objects such as the "Niagara Love Tub" are limited to anytwo adult Sims regardless of gender, and once Sims are in the tubtogether, options become "Wash," "Play," "Cuddle" and "Kiss." Theonly limitation is that if the two Sims' relationship scores are not highenough, the targeted Sim will reject the advances of the initiating Sim(see Figure 1).

Sims' romantic activities make objects queer through use. "LoveTubs" and "Love Seats" only recognize "love"-unmarked or unlimitedby gender or race. The rules of the game (the codes) are designed toignore sex in almost all instances, and thus keep sexual orientationunmarked, unbinding sexuality from specifically sexed bodies. Toconclude, objects can play an important role in Sim socialinteractions; however, a majority of objects are single use or haveno direct use at all, suggesting that objects are overall less importantto Sim relationships than Sim-to-Sim interaction. But all objects can"inspire" romantic interactions that support gay, lesbian, bisexual andheterosexual interactions.

Interface Study

As games get more complicated, game designers put more effort intodesigning game interfaces that players can easily understand anduse. Brenda Laurel (1990) has written extensively on the importanceof interface design, and game reviewers often make a point ofcondemning unnecessarily complex interfaces that do no more thanconfuse the player. For our purposes, the interface can be defined asany on-screen information that provides the player with informationconcerning the life, health, location or status of the character(s), aswell as battle or action menus, nested menus that control optionssuch as advancement grids or weapon selections, or additionalscreens that give the player more control over manipulating elementsof gameplay (see Figure 2).

For example, the game Buffy the Vampire Slayer features onscreengauges monitoring Buffy's health and "Slayer Power," and has furtherscreens that let a player change or modify Buffy's weapons, reread amission objective or start a new game with a different difficultysetting. Likewise, Final Fantasy X (Square Co., Ltd, 2001) lets theplayer "level up" or advance each character through a "sphere grid"that controls which skills characters will learn. What is importantabout the interface, from the researcher's point of view, is theinformation and choices that are offered to the player, as well as theinformation and choices that are withheld. Examining the interface(and going beyond elegance of design or ease of use) letsresearchers determine how free players are to experiment withoptions within a game. Alternately, it can help us see whatinformation is privileged (is a running "score" always presentonscreen-indicating its importance? How is "life" or "health"represented?) and what information is absent or difficult to find.Examining the interface also exposes the consequences of choices,such as developing a character along one skill path but not another;and also helps determine what the game developers have deemedessential (as well as non-essential) aspects of gameplay.

Games that fall under the categories of simulation, world builders andreal-time strategy games are usually designed with careful attention



paid to the interface. The game Anno 1503: The New World

(Electronic Arts, 2003), for example, lets players colonize largeislands and small continents and build civilizations. A carefulexamination of the interface reveals clues about the ideologicalassumptions of the game. For example, citizens remain "unhappy"with a player's rule unless they are provided with the basics (foodand clothing) as well as more "exotic" items such as tobacco andspices. Unless those needs are met, citizens will not be content, and aplayer's job is made more difficult. Likewise, the interface revealsthat citizens' needs grow more complex over time, so once they areprovided with the above-mentioned items, they start demandingpubs, a church and, eventually, silk clothes. Each of those particulardemands reveals biases and default ideas about what is considered"progress" and what are the true "needs" of a citizen in a new world.

In The Sims, one interface in particular is very important for studyinghow sexuality is expressed in the game-the Character CreationScreen. When creating a Sim, a player has many choices to make,including sex, shade (skin colour), age (child or adult), personalitytraits and head and body appearances (see Figure 3). Character/avatar creation is a central component of gameplay in The Sims, andwith each new expansion pack, the addition of more "heads" and"bodies" is an important selling point.

In the Character Creation Screen there is no button or check-off boxfor sexual orientation-it is not a core part of identity as are genderand shade (neither of which can be changed during gameplay).Sexual orientation and sexuality are highly variable, allowing playersto ignore sexuality at the start, decide to have their Sims go one wayand change their minds as the game goes on. Sims can benonsexual, bisexual, homosexual or heterosexual; however,suggesting that Sims can "be" any sexuality is somewhat misleading.Sims do not have "innate" sexuality based on either sex or genetics.Sexuality is defined through a Sim's activity, and that activity isvariable by design. Choices relating to sexuality and sexualorientation are conspicuously absent in Sim character creation-thusexamination of one game interface yields critical information abouthow sexuality is coded and expressed in The Sims.

Interaction Map

If the Object Inventory and Interface Study seem static, moredynamic material is at the heart of interaction mapping. This micro-method involves examining the choices that the player is offered inregards to interaction-not with objects, but with other playercharacters, and/ or with Non-Player Characters (NPCs) (see Figure4). At this point, the analysis becomes more difficult. The expansive,changeable nature of gameplay in many titles, it may make itimpossible (or just implausible) to consider recording or finding (andanalyzing) every possible interaction with which the player ispresented.

Some game researchers make this point in order to dismiss game-centred analysis, or any sort of ideological analysis of games.Likewise, critics of early literary hypertext efforts were unsure if theycould properly analyze the texts, due to their ever-shifting "almostcomplete" presentation. However, the same critique has beenlevelled against textual analysis of any sort, in that the possible"range of meanings" in a text may never be pinned down, eventhough with more traditional texts it is felt that the researcher hasaccess to the "entire" text in question.[5]

Bracketing those concerns for the moment, consider how interactionmapping could occur. Here the researcher would record (eitherphysically through some kind of recording technology, or manuallythrough pen-and-paper notes) dialogue of note that occurs in the

http://www.gamestudies.org/0601/articles/consalvo_dutton#e



game. Well-defined research questions help the researcher identifydialogue/ choices of interest and focus in on those. It is likely that thegame will need to be played more than once, so that the researchercan consider the game as a whole and can determine if earlier(unremarkable) dialogue/ options/ choices were actually importantenough to include. Also, replaying the game is necessary to explorealternate branches of exploration, dialogue, choices, etc.

Some questions the researcher could ask include:

Are interactions limited (is there only one or two responsesoffered to answer a question)?Do interactions change over time (as Sims get to know oneanother, and like one another, are more choices forinteraction are offered)?What is the range of interaction?Are NPCs present, and what dialogue options are offered tothem? Can they be interacted with? How? How variable aretheir interactions?

These sorts of questions can help the researcher understand if thereis much freedom allowed to the player to help shape the game'sdirection. If all interaction options result in the same thing (no matterwhether a character says she likes the prince or not, they will bemarried at the end of the game), the game is less open to lettingplayers explore options, rather than if different interaction optionscan result in very different conclusions to the game.

Additionally, through a careful study of the interactions offered-aswell as not offered-in the game, the researcher can determine iftraditional stereotypes, such as romance being expected to beheterosexual are being perpetuated, or women being shown solely inneed of rescue. Such findings help the researcher also determinehow the character/ object mix functions-so for example, one candetermine if objects are a central concern in a game or, instead, ifinteraction is central (because it has so many more optionsavailable). The overall "story" of the game can be discerned here, ifthere is one, in order to raise questions about narrative or theideological implications of the plot.

Related to the concern about story, the dialogue of the game Buffy

could be studied and compared to the dialogue found in the televisionshow of the same name, to determine how faithfully the gameextends the "universe" of the original story. That could includestudying which characters appear in the game and what theirdialogue consists of, as well as whether it is "in character" ascompared to the television show. Likewise, the story of the gamecould be studied, to see if it deviates in important ways from thetraditional good versus evil theme of the show, as well as how ithandles the show's genre-challenging conventions.

To evaluate how Sims deal with social interactions, includingfriendships and romances, it is important to understand a fewelements of gameplay. All Sims have a "social" meter that when, fullygreen, means that a Sim is perfectly satisfied with its currentsociability. A lower social meter means the Sim is getting lonely andshould engage in social interaction, such as talking on the telephonewith friends or inviting others over to the house, going downtown ortalking with other members of the household (if there are any). Simsmust also negotiate the various relationships they develop, and thisinformation is reflected in two relationship scores-one for dailyinteractions, and one for lifetime interactions (prior to the Hot Date

update, there was only one score) for each Sim.

Sims must be friends before romantic feelings can be reciprocated-and only after friendship is established can Sims engage in moreintimate (or sexual) relations, defined by the game as flirting, kissing,and leaping into each others' arms romantically. The majority of Sim



interactions, however, revolve around friendly options. When sexualinteractions are chosen and are successful, a Sim "romance" appearsto begin (see Figure 5). Sim romances go beyond the bounds ofmatrimony, even beyond bounds of gender and race.

Sims can marry and move in with other Sims endlessly-there is nolifeline vow, and divorce appears to be automatically granted with thenext marriage. As seen here, then, examining how interaction occursin a game such as The Sims can help us determine how sexuality isconstructed in the game, as well as the (many) choices the gameaffords to individual players.

Gameplay Log

The final area that the researcher must consider is the mostnebulous-the overall "world" of the game and the emergentgameplay that can come into being. Here again things are moredynamic than static, especially as the researcher is looking for the"unexpected" in gameplay (among other things) to see how(potentially) open the game is for players. It is then that theresearcher studies such things as emergent behaviour or situations,the larger game world or system, and intertextuality as it isconstituted with the game. The larger game world or systemcomprises such elements as the construction or deployment of savepoints or saving mechanisms in the game (see Figure 6),presentation of avatars in the world, and the overall "look and feel"of the complete world that the game constructs. Here, elements canbe quite variable depending on the game and genre chosen foranalysis. So for example, in the first-person shooter Halo (Bungie,2001), there is no character avatar, while in The Sims the player iscentrally involved in creating multiple character avatars to play.Likewise, games such as Anno 1503 allow the player to save anytime she wishes through a simple keyboard command, while platformgames such as Maximo: Ghosts to Glory (Capcom, 2002) require theplayer to complete a level before a save point can be reached, andeven then it must be "purchased."

Perhaps the most interesting part of gameplay logging is theexploration of emergent aspects of the game. In that exploration, theresearcher is less interested in the options offered to the player thanin what can happen when the player does something the game makerdid not intend-and with what result. These are not necessarily "bugs"that indicate a problem with the game, but the presence of"interesting accidents" that make a digital game more than watchinga movie or playing a board game-something unexpected happensbecause of a player's choices. So for example, with the addition ofexpansion packs for The Sims, Sims can begin to "make moves" oneach other independent of player input. As some players report, thiscan be very disturbing, especially if one has, for example, created a"mother" and "adult daughter" and the daughter starts expressingromantic interest in the mother.

Overall, the gameplay is critical to investigate and this investigationwill take many forms, as games and genres vary. Some questionsresearchers could ask in this section include:

How does the game allow players to save their progress? Arethere restrictions to the activity? How and why?Is "saving" as a mechanism integrated somehow into thegame world to provide coherence, or is some more obtrusivemethod offered?Are there situations where avatars can "break the rules" of thegame? How and why?A re there situations that appear that the producers probablydid not intend? What are they and how do they work?Does the game make references to other media forms orother games? How do these intertextual references function?How are avatars presented? How do they look? Walk? Sound?Move? Are these variables changeable? Are they



stereotypical?Does the game fit a certain genre? Does it defy its statedgenre? How and why?

Asking these sorts of questions will help the researcher put togetherthe "larger picture" of the game that might have been fragmentedthrough analysis of discrete segments such as the interface, objectsor interactions alone. Putting all of the elements together helps increating a coherence for the analysis.

Probably the most publicized instance of emergent gameplay occursin Grand Theft Auto 3 (Rockstar Games, 2001), where players (andthe media) discovered the "hooker cheat" shortly after the game'srelease. The series of actions performed (the player picks up aprostitute in a car, has sex with her to regain health points, and thenbeats her up or kills her to get "his" money back) are not technicallya cheat, as there is no code involved in the act, but are instead anemergent action-created when two separate actions (regaining healththrough sex with the prostitute; beating up a character for money)are put together in a way for which the producers claim noresponsibility. Putting aside the moral questions involved, theimplications of emergence for allowing the player greater freedom,and thus more interesting and challenging situations, are only justbeginning.

In regards to The Sims, the above-mentioned incidents ofunexpected and suddenly "gay inclined" characters are another goodexample of monitoring gameplay for interesting forms of emergence.That instance of emergence is important, because sexual orientationis such a key variable in the game, and remains such a contestedissue in Western society. While the game does not force players totake certain actions, it does poke and prod-teasing players to thinkabout sexual orientation and sexuality, how it is defined andexpressed, exploring assumptions and challenging acceptedpractices. Although that possibility is not inevitable-players can makeall their Sims nonsexual if they choose-it does show how sexuality isbeing deconstructed, reconfigured and opened up for questioning inthe most popular computer game to date.

Summary: Building a methodological toolkit for games

It is likely that as the field matures, analysis of games will segment,as we are already seeing to some degree with new calls for analysisof roleplaying games, as well as explorations of games in the"survival-horror" genre. But we believe that the method outlinedabove is broad enough to encompass analyses of games fromdifferent genres, while also allowing the researcher enough flexibilityto account for the specifics of the game and genre under themicroscope. Yet we fully expect that this methodology will bemodified and, perhaps over time, will become more specialized forvarious genres in order to help understand their particular insightsand elements.

But for now this methodological toolkit-interaction mapping, objectinventory, interface study and logging gameplay-is offered as astarting point for researchers interested in studying digital games, asa way to make the research thorough, without losing those aspects ofgames-play and emergence-that make them the dynamic artefacts ofculture that they are.

Endnotes

1 We use the term digital games to indicate computer games, consolevideo games, arcade and handheld games, and other game hardwarevariations.

2 Although that conclusion may seem self-evident, many early



studies of games were conducted by people that had either notplayed them, had only watched their children play them, played themin a cursory fashion, or played a game or two, but stuck to analyzingonly mass appeal games such as Myst (2001, Broderbund) and TombRaider. Many contemporary game studies scholars argue that to trulyunderstand games, a researcher must play them, just as a televisionscholar must actually watch television.

3 In this paper we have not explicitly examined any quantitativemeasures of game content, which can be useful in helping tounderstand the game as a whole. By qualitative we mean examiningthe connotative and denotative meanings, the context, and theintertextual meanings produced and implied.

4 The Sims (and its expansion packs) is a game in which playerssimulate a neighborhood. Players can build houses and create Simfamilies composed of multiple individuals. The player controls the Simcharacters as they perform mundane daily activities-making friends,working, eating, taking showers, having fun, and getting the properrest. The gameplay is open-ended, and the game is more aboutexploration and creativity than it is about finding some hiddensolution or "winning" the game. The game allows players the chanceto create worlds of their own choosing-worlds that can include "Sim"people of varying genders, races and sexual orientations who coexistwithout homophobia, racism, or sexism. Just how is thataccomplished? How is sexuality created and expressed in the game?To answer these questions, more than 30 characters were created invarious combinations of "families," at least a dozen houses werebuilt, and more than 300 game "days" were played. In-game daysare based on a 24-hour cycle, but time flow can be sped up or sloweddown, depending on player preference and need. Thus, those 300hours do not represent 300 "earth" days of play, but still a significantinvestment of time.

5 This raises even more questions, as the rising popularity of DVDeditions of films and television shows/seasons with extra scenes,directors' commentaries, and other "bonus" material again questionswhere the text is considered "complete" and how broad an analysisshould occur.

References

Aarseth, Espen. (2003). Playing research: Methodological approachesto game analysis. Paper presented at the Melbourne, Australia DACconference, May 2003.

Banks, John. (1998). Controlling gameplay. M/C: A journal of media

and culture, 1(5). Accessed online athttp://www.uq.edu.au/mc/9812/game.html

Brooker, Will. (2001). The many lives of the Jetman: A case study invideo game analysis. Intensities: The journal of cult media, 2.Accessed online at http://www.cult-media.com/issue2/Abrook.htm

Friedman, Ted. (1995). Making sense of software: Computer gamesand interactive textuality. In Steve Jones (Ed.), Cybersociety:

Computer-mediated communication and community, pp. 73-89.Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Fuller, Mary & Jenkins, Henry. (1995). Nintendo and new world travelwriting: A dialogue. In Steve Jones (Ed.), Cybersociety: Computer-

mediated communication and community, pp. 57-72. Thousand Oaks:Sage.

Heintz-Knowles, Katie and Henderson, Jennifer. (2002). Gender,violence and victimization in top-selling video games. Paperpresented at the annual meeting of the Association for Education in



Journalism and Mass Communication, August.

Herring, Susan. (2004). Online communication: Through the lens ofdiscourse. In Mia Consalvo, Nancy Baym, Jeremy Hunsinger, KlausBruhn Jensen, John Logie, Monica Murero, and Leslie Regan Shade(Eds.), Internet Research Annual Volume 1: Selected papers from the

Association of Internet Researchers conferences 2000-2002. NewYork: Peter Lang.

Juul, Jesper. (2000). What computer games can and can't do. Paperpresented at the Digital Arts and Culture conference in Bergen,Norway, November. Available online at http://www.jesperjuul.dk.

Kennedy, Helen. (2002). Lara Croft: Feminist icon or cyberbimbo? Onthe limits of textual analysis. Game studies, 2 (2). Available online athttp://www.gamestudies.org/0202/kennedy/

Kinder, Marsha. (1991). Playing with power in movies, television and

video games: From Muppet Babies to Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.Berkeley: University of California Press.

Konzack, Lars. (2002). Computer game criticism: A method forcomputer game analysis. Proceedings of the Computer Games andDigital Culture conference, Tampere, Finland, 2002.

Krzywinska, Tanya. (2003). Playing Buffy: Remediation, occultedmeta-game-physics and the dynamics of agency in the videogameversion of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Slayage: The online international

journal of Buffy studies, 8. Accessed online athttp://www.slayage.tv/essays/slayage8/Krzywinska.htm

Laurel, Brenda. (1990). The art of human-computer interface design.

Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

Media Analysis Laboratory. (1998). Video game culture: Leisure andplay preferences of B.C. teens. Media awareness network. Availableonline at http://www.media-awareness.ca/

Miklaucic, Shawn. (2001). Virtual real(i)ty: Simcity and the productionof urban cyberspace. Game research: The art, business and science

of computer games. Available online at http://www.game-research.com/art_simcity.asp

Okorafor, Nnedimma, and Davenport, Lucinda. (2001). Virtualwomen: Replacing the real. Paper presented at the annualconference of the Association for Education in Journalism and MassCommunication, Washington, DC.

Oksman, Virpi. (2002). "So I got it into my head that I should set upmy own stable'... Creating virtual stables on the Internet as girls' owncomputer culture. In Mia Consalvo and Susanna Paasonen (Eds.),Women and everyday uses of the Internet: Agency and identity, pp.191-210. New York: Peter Lang.

Ow, Jeffrey. (2000). The revenge of the yellowfaced cyborg: Therape of digital geishas and the colonization of cyber-coolies in 3DRealms' Shadow Warrior. In Beth Kolko, Lisa Nakamura & GilbertRodman (Eds.), Race in cyberspace, pp. 51-68. New York: Routledge.

Poblocki. (2002). Becoming state: The bio-cultural imperialism of SidMeier's Civilization. Focaal: European journal of anthropology, 39, pp.163-177.

Poster, Jamie. (2002). Trouble, pleasure and tactics: Anonymity andidentity in a lesbian chat room. In Mia Consalvo and SusannaPaasonen (Eds.), Women and everyday uses of the Internet: Agency

and identity. New York: Peter Lang, pp. 230-252.

Provenzo, Eugene. (1991). Video kids: Making sense of Nintendo.



Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Schott, Gareth and Horrell, Kirsty. (2000). Girl gamers and theirrelationship with the gaming culture. Convergence 6 (4), pp. 36-53

Sherry, John, Curtis, John, and Sparks, Glenn. (2003). Arousaltransfer or desensitization? A comparison of mechanisms underlyingviolent video game effects. Available online athttp://web.ics.purdue.edu/~sherryj/videogames/papers.htm

Sherry, John, Lucas, Kristen, Rechtsteiner, Stephany, Brooks, Christi,and Wilson, Brooke. (2001). Video game uses and gratifications aspredictors of use and game preference. Paper presented at theannual conference of the International Communication Association,May.

Wright, Talmadge, Breidenbach, Paul and Boria, Eric. (2002).Creative Player Actions in FPS Online Video Games: Playing Counter-Strike. Game Studies, 2 (2). Available online athttp://www.gamestudies.org/0202/wright/

Yates, Simeon and Littleton, Karen. (2001). Understanding computergame cultures: A situated approach. In Eileen Green & Alison Adam(Eds.), Virtual gender: Technology, consumption and identity, pp.103-123. London: Routledge.

Figures

Figure 1: The "Niagara Love Tub" is available for §7999, seats 2Sims, and is for adult use only. Users can 'wash,' 'play,' 'cuddle,''talk,' and 'kiss' while in the tub.

Figure 2: The general player interface for The Sims allows players toeasily determine the "needs" of each Sim, as seen here on the rightside of the screenshot.



Figure 3: The character creation screen allows players to customizetheir Sim by personality, sex, shade, and age. Players can alsocreate a biography for their Sim, as well as select from multiple headand body choices.

Figure 4: Sims can interact with other Sims in many ways thatdepend on their mood and familiarity with the intended. With laterexpansion packs, interactions became even more specialized,allowing such different versions of "hug" as "friendly" and "leap inarms."

Figure 5: Lola is about to give Addie flowers, and Addie is nowinterested romantically in Lola (as indicated by the heart above herhead).



Figure 6: In Final Fantasy X, game progress can only be saved at a"save sphere," here shown to the left of the character Tidus. Althoughplayers learn to accept them as part of the game world, they do notfit as neatly into the world as save methods of previous Final Fantasygames.

Appendix 1: Object Inventory Sheet

Name of item

Cost

Description

Interaction Options (list exactly)

Do interaction options change through gameplay (frequency of use;with different Sim combinations; when Sims in various moods)?

If so, explain how/why

Game version available in

Item single/multi use?

Multi use range

Types of interactions possible (romantic; friendly; collaborative;competitive; utility; others)

Interactions of a romantic nature? Y/N

If so, describe romantic interactions (RI)

Support hetero/homo/bisexual interactions? Y/n

If yes, describe, and differentially if needed

©2001 - 2006 Game Studies Copyright for articles published in thisjournal is retained by the journal, except for the right to republish inprinted paper publications, which belongs to the authors, but with firstpublication rights granted to the journal. By virtue of theirappearance in this open access journal, articles are free to use, withproper attribution, in educational and other non-commercial settings.

3/22/13 Narrative, Interactivity, Play, and Games

www.ericzimmerman.com/texts/Four_Concepts.html 1/10

ERIC ZIMMERMAN

BACK TO > ESSAYS

Narrative, Interactivity, Play, and Games: Four naughty concepts in need of discipline

Discipline?

Yes, discipline. On one level, this essay is about identifying a desperate need fordiscipline and the delivery of that discipline to its well-deserved targets. A kind ofdisciplinary spanking, if you will.

On another level, this essay is about games and stories. Undoubtedly, there is atremendous amount of interest in the intersection of games and stories these days.Academic journals, conferences, and courses about computer-based storytelling, digitalinteractivity, and gaming culture have flourished like a species of virulent weed inthe manicured garden of the university. On the commercial end of things, gamedevelopers increasingly rely on filmic story techniques in the design of theirproducts, turning present-day computer and video games into a kind of mutant cinema.Meanwhile, shelves of books like this one are being written and published, tossed outlike stepping stones into the emerging terrain where design, technology, art,entertainment, and academia meet.

Curiously, so much of this interest is driven by a kind of love/hate relationship withthe medium. For as much as we seem enamored by the possibilities of digital media, weseem just as soundly dissatisfied with its current state. Lurking just below thesurface of most of the chapters in this volume is one sort of frustration or another:frustration with the lack of cultural sophistication in the gaming industry;frustration with the limitations of current technology; frustration with a lack ofcritical theory for properly understanding the medium. Perhaps frustration is anecessary part of the process. But perhaps we can relieve some of that frustration withsome good old-fashioned discipline.

Looking Closer

Compared to the more robust fields which cluster about the theory and practice of othermedia, it’s clear that the “game-story” as a form remains largely unexplored. Terms andconcepts run amuck like naughty schoolchildren. And a more disciplined look wouldindeed seem to be in order. But what would it mean to take a closer look at games andstories?

Does it mean figuring out how to make games more like stories? Or how to make storiesmore gamelike? Does it mean documenting and typologizing new forms of game/storyculture? Integrating games into learning? Mapping relationships between digital mediaand other media? Inventing programming strategies for storytelling? Understanding theways that digital media operate in culture at large? There are as many approaches tothe question of “games and stories” as there are designers, artists, technologists, andacademics asking the questions.

The truth, of course, is that there are no right or wrong approaches. It all depends onthe field in which a particular inquiry is operating and exactly what the inquiry

http://www.ericzimmerman.com/index.html

http://www.ericzimmerman.com/essays.html



itself is trying to accomplish. However, there is common ground. What everyoneinvestigating the “game-story” would share are in fact those two strange terms: “games”and “stories.”

Concepts and terms do seem to be at the heart of the matter. This essay tackles theterminological knot of the “game-story” by prying apart and recombining the twoconcepts into four: narrative, interactivity, play, and games. Each concept isconsidered in relationship each other as well as to the larger question of “games andstories.” My goal is to frame these concepts in ways that bring insight to theirinterrelations, with the larger aim of providing critical tools for others who areattempting to create or study the conundrum of the game-story.

Four naughty terms

Play. Games. Narrative. Interactivity. What a motley bunch. Honestly, have you everseen such a suspicious set of slippery and ambiguous, overused and ill-defined terms?Indeed, they are all four in need of some discipline, just to make them sit still andbehave. Before I roll up my sleeves and get to work on them, however, allow me to laysome of my cards on the table, in the form of a series of disclaimers.

Disclaimer 1: concepts, not categoriesIn presenting these four terms (games, play, narrative, and interactivity), I’m notcreating a typology. The four terms are not mutually exclusive, nor do they representfour categories, with each category containing a different kind of phenomena. They arefour concepts, each concept overlapping and intersecting the others in complex andunique ways. In other words, the four words are not the four quadrants of a grid or thefour levels of a building. They are “things to think with;” they are signs for clustersof concepts; they are frames and schemas for understanding; they are dynamic conceptualtools; they represent a network of ideas that flow into and through each other.

Disclaimer 2: forget the computerWhile digital media is certainly a primary vector in the momentum of interest which hasled to this book, the phenomena we call games and stories – as well as play, narrative,and interactivity – predate computers by millennia. Computer media is one context forunderstanding them, but I’m going to try and avoid typical technological myopia byexamining these concepts in a broad spectrum of digital and non-digital manifestations.

Disclaimer 3: defining definitionsFor each of the four key terms, I do present a “definition.” The value of a definitionin this essay is not its scientific accuracy but instead its conceptual utility. I givedefinitions not in order to explain phenomena, but in order to understand them.

Disclaimer 4: why I’m doing thisWhy does it matter to me to better understand “games and stories?” Because I’m adesigner of game-stories, and a closet Modernist to boot. I’m looking to betterunderstand the medium in which I work, in order to create new and meaningful thingswhich no one has ever experienced before. It’s certainly not the only kind of stance totake. But now you know where I’m coming from.

Narrative

First term: narrative. I’m going to begin with this close cousin to the “stories” ofthe “games and stories” equation. My strategy of discipline for the term narrative isto present a broad and expansive understanding of the concept, to think beyond thenormal limits of what we might consider narrative, to help uncover the common turf ofstories and games.

The definition: I draw my definition from an essay by J. Hillis Miller: Narrative, fromthe book Critical Terms for Literary Study (19**). Miller’s definition of the term



“narrative,” grossly paraphrased, has three parts:

1) A narrative has an initial state, a change in that state, and insight brought aboutby that change. You might call this process the “events” of a narrative.

2) A narrative is not merely a series of events, but a personification of eventsthough a medium such as language. This component of the definition references therepresentational aspect of narrative.

3) And lastly, this representation is constituted by patterning and repetition. Thisis true for every level of a narrative, whether it is the material form of thenarrative itself or its conceptual thematics.

It’s quite a general definition. Let’s see what might be considered narrative accordingto these three criteria. A book is certainly a narrative by this definition, whether itis a straightforward linear novel or a choose-your-own-adventure interactive book, inwhich each page ends with a choice that can bring the reader to different sections ofthe book. Both kinds of books contain events which are represented through text andthrough the patterned experience of the book and its language.

A game of Chess could also be considered a narrative by this scheme. How? Chesscertainly has a beginning state (the setup of the game), changes to that state (thegameplay), and a resulting insight (the outcome of the game). It is a representation –a stylized representation of war, complete with a cast of colorful characters. And thegame takes place in highly patterned structures of time (turns), and space (thecheckerboard grid).

Many other kinds of things fall into the wide net Miller casts as well – some of themactivities or objects we wouldn’t normally think of as narrative. A marriage ceremony.A meal. A conversation. The cleverness of Miller’s definition is that it is in fact soinclusive, while still rigorously defining exactly what a narrative is.

Because, what I wish to ask is NOT the overused question:

Is this thing (such as a game) a “narrative thing” or not?

Instead, the question I’d like to pose is:

In what ways might we consider this thing (such as a game) a “narrative thing?”

What am I after? If I’m intersecting games and stories to create something new out ofthe synthesis of both, my aim with the concept of narrative should not be to replicateexisting narrative forms but to invent new ones. The commercial game industry issuffering from a peculiar case of cinema envy at the moment, trying to recreate thepleasures of another media. What would a game-story be like that wouldn’t be sobeholden to pre-existing linear media? Good question. But I’m getting ahead of myself.We’re still two full terms away from games. Next victim: interactivity.

Interactivity

Interactivity is one of those words which can mean everything and nothing at once. Soin corralling this naughty concept, my aim is to try and understand it in its mostgeneral sense, but also identify those very particular aspects of interactivity whichare relevant to “games and stories.”

The definition: Try this on for size. It’s from dictionary.com:

interactive: reciprocally active; acting upon or influencing each other; allowinga two-way flow of information between a device and a user, responding to theuser’s input



OK. So there’s an adequate common-sense definition. But if we’re triangulating ourconcept of narrative with this concept of interactivity, the problem is that by thisdefinition all forms of narrative end up being interactive. For example, take this bookyou’re holding. Can you really say that the experience of reading it isn’t interactive?Aren’t you holding the book and physically turning the pages? Aren’t you emotionallyand psychologically immersed? Aren’t you cognitively engaging with language itself todecode the signs of the text? And doesn’t the physical form of the book and yourunderstanding of its contents evolve as you interact with it? Yes and no.

If what we’re after is relationships between our terms, it’s important to find theterrain of overlap between narrative and interactivity. But we don’t want the two termsto be identical. It seems important to be able to say that some narratives areinteractive and some are not – or rather, that perhaps all narratives can beinteractive, but they can be interactive in different ways.

Intuitively, there is in fact some kind of difference between a typical linear book anda choose-your-own-adventure book. And it seems that the difference in some way is thatnaughty concept of interactivity. Here’s one solution. Instead of understanding“interactivity” as a singular phenomenon, let’s subdivide it into the various ways itcan be paired up with a narrative experience. So here are four modes of narrativeinteractivity:

Mode 1: Cognitive interactivity; or interpretive participation with a text This is the psychological, emotional, hermeneutic, semiotic, reader-response, Rashomon-effect-ish, etc. kind of interactions that a participant can have with the so-called“content” of a text. Example: you re-read a book after several years have passed andyou find it’s completely different than the book you remember.

Mode 2: Functional interactivity; or utilitarian participation with a text Included here: functional, structural interactions with the material textual apparatus.That book you re-read: did it have a table of contents? An index? What was the graphicdesign of the pages? How thick was the paper stock? How large was the book? How heavy?All of these characteristics are part of the total experience of reading interaction.

Mode 3: Explicit interactivity; or participation with designed choices and proceduresin a text This is “interaction” in the obvious sense of the word: overt participation likeclicking the non-linear links of a hypertext novel, following the rules of a Surrealistlanguage game, rearranging the clothing on a set of paper dolls. Included here:choices, random events, dynamic simulations, and other procedures programmed into theinteractive experience.

Mode 4: Meta-interactivity or cultural participation with a text This is interaction outside the experience of a single text. The clearest examples comefrom fan culture, in which readers appropriate, deconstruct, and reconstruct linearmedia, participating in and propagating massive communal narrative worlds.

These four modes of narrative interactivity (cognitive, functional, explicit, andcultural) are not four distinct categories, but four overlapping flavors ofparticipation that occur in varying degrees in all media experience. Most interactiveactivities incorporate some or all of them simultaneously.

So what we normally think of as “interactive,” what separates the book from the choose-your-own-adventure, is category number three, explicit interactivity. As we hone in onour four terms, note that we’ve made enough progress to already identify thosephenomena we might call “interactive narratives.” The newspaper as a whole is notexplicitly interactive, but the letters-to-the-editor section is. Are games interactivenarratives in this sense? Absolutely. The choices and decisions which game players makecertainly constitute very explicit interactivity. We’re getting closer to games. Butfirst: play.



Play

Perhaps more than any other one of the four concepts, play is used in so many contextsand in so many different ways that it’s going to be a real struggle to make it playnice with our other terms. We play games. We play with toys. We play musicalinstruments and we play the radio. We can make a play on words, be playful during sex,or simply be in a playful state of mind.

What do all of those meanings have to do with narrative and interactivity? Beforejumping into a definition of play, first let’s try and categorize all of these diverseplay phenomena. We can put them into three general categories.

Category 1: Game Play, or the formal play of games This is the focused kind of play that occurs when one or more players plays a game,whether it is a board game, card game, sport, computer game, etc. What exactly is agame? We’re getting to that soon.

Category 2: Ludic activities, or informal play This category includes all of those non-game behaviors that we also think of as“playing:” dogs chasing each other, two college students tossing a frisbee back andforth, a circle of children playing ring-around-the-rosy, etc. Ludic activities arequite similar to games, but generally less formalized.

Category 3: Being playful, or being in a play state of mind This broad category includes all of the ways we can “be playful” in the context ofother activities. Being in a play state of mind does not necessarily mean that you areplaying – but rather that you are injecting a spirit of play into some other action.For example, it is one thing to insult a friend’s appearance, but it is another thingentirely if the insult is delivered playfully.

Quick structural note: the later categories contain the earlier ones. Game play (1) isa particular kind of ludic activity (2) and ludic activities (2) are a particular wayof being playful (3). But what overarching definition could we possibly give to theword “play” which would address all of these uses?

The definition: How about:

Play is the free space of movement within a more rigid structure. Play existsboth because of and also despite the more rigid structures of a system.

That sounds quite abstract and obtuse for a fun-loving word like “play,” doesn’t it?But it is actually quite handy. This definition of play is about relationships betweenthe elements of a system. Think about the use of the word “play” when we talk about the“free play” of a steering wheel. The free play is the amount of movement that thesteering wheel can turn before it begins to affect the tires of the car. The playitself exists only because of the more utilitarian structures of the driving–system:the drive shaft, axles, wheels, etc.

But even though the play only occurs because of these structures, the play is alsoexactly that thing which exists despite the system, the free movement within it, in theinterstitial spaces between and among its components. Play exists in opposition to thestructures it inhabits, at odds with the utilitarian functioning of the system. Yetplay is at the same time an expression of a system, and intrinsically a part of it.

This definition of play does in fact cover all three kinds which we mentioned above.Playing Chutes and Ladders occurs only because of the rigid rules of the game – but thegameplay itself is a kind of dance of fate which occurs somewhere among the dice,pieces, board, and game players. Playing a musical instrument means manipulating withinthe free space of audio possibilities that the structure of the instrument was designedto engender. Being playful in a conversation means playing in and among the linguistic



and social structures that constitute the conversational context. Play can manifest ina dizzying variety of forms, from intellectual and physical play to semiotic andcultural play.

One way to link this understanding of play to narrative and interactivity is toconsider the play of an explicitly interactive narrative. The challenge for the creatorof an interactive narrative is to design the potential for play into the structure ofthe experience, whether that experience is a physical object, a computer program, aninhabited space, or a set of behaviors.

And the real trick is that the designed structure can guide and engender play, butnever completely script it in advance. If the interaction is completely pre-determined,there’s no room for play in the system. The author of a choose-your-own-adventurecreates the structure that the reader inhabits, but the play emerges out of that systemas the reader navigates through it. Even if the reader breaks the structure by cheatingand skipping ahead, that is merely another form of play within the designed system.

Games

We have arrived at our fourth and final term: games. With this concept, we have a newkind of naughtiness. Play, interactivity, and narrative threatened us with over-inclusion. “Games,” on the other hand, needs some discipline because it’s difficult tounderstand exactly and precisely what a game is. My approach with this concept is todefine it as narrowly as possible so that we can understand what separates the play ofgames from other kinds of ludic activities. We are, after all, looking at games andstories, not play and stories.

The definition: The fact that games are a formal kind of play was referenced above. Buthow exactly is that formality manifest? Here is a definition that separates games fromother forms of play:

A game is a voluntary interactive activity, in which one or more players followrules that constrain their behavior, enacting an artificial conflict that ends ina quantifiable outcome.

It is a bit dense. Here are the primary elements of the definition, teased out for yourperusal:

voluntaryIf you’re forced against your will to play a game, you’re not really playing.Games are voluntary activities.

interactiveRemember this word? It’s referencing our third mode of interactivity: explicitparticipation.

behavior constraining rulesAll games have rules. These rules provide the structure out of which the playemerges. It’s also important to realize that rules are essentially restrictiveand limit what the player can do.

artificialityGames maintain a boundary from so-called “real life” in both time and space.While games obviously do occur within the real world, artificiality is one oftheir defining features. Consider, for example, the formal limits of time andspace which are necessary to define even a casual game of street hoops.

conflictAll games embody a contest of powers. It might be a conflict between two playersas in Chess; it might be a contest between several teams, as in a track meet; a



game might be a conflict between a single player and the forces of luck and skillembodied in solitaire; or even a group of players competing together against theclock on a game show.

quantifiable outcomeThe conflict of a game has an end result, and this is the quantifiable outcome.At the conclusion of a game, the participants either won or lost (they might allwin or lose together) or they received a numerical score, as in a videogame. Thisidea of a quantifiable outcome is what often distinguishes a bona-fide game fromother less formal play activities.

Games embody the same structure-play relationship of other ludic activities, where playemerges as the free space of movement within more rigid structures. But the fact thatgames are so formalized gives them a special status in this regard. To create a game isto design a set of game rules – as well as game materials, which are an extension ofthe rules.

The rules of a game serve to limit players’ behaviors. In a game of Parcheesi, forexample, players interact with the dice in extremely particular ways. You don’t eatthem, hide them from other players, or make jewelry out of them. When it is your turn,you roll the dice, and translate the numerical results into the movement of yourpieces. To take part in a game is to submit your behavior to the restrictions of therules.

Rules might not seem like much fun. But once players set the system of a game intomotion, play emerges. And play is the opposite of rules. Rules are fixed, rigid,closed, and unambiguous. Play, on the other hand, is uncertain, creative,improvisational, and open-ended. The strange coupling of rules and play is one of thefascinating paradoxes of games.

Mixing and Matching

We’ve arrived at a relatively clear understanding of exactly what constitutes a game.So how do games intersect with the other three concepts at hand?

Narrative: As we observed with Chess, Games are in fact narrative systems. Theyaren’t the only form that narrative can take, but every game can be considered anarrative system.

Interactivity: Games are interactive too. They generally embody all four modes ofinteractivity outlined in this essay, but they are particularly good examples ofthe third kind: explicit interactivity.

Play: Games are among the many and diverse forms of play. The formal quality ofgames distinguishes them from other ludic play-activities.

What does this mean? It is possible to frame games as narrative systems, or asinteractive systems, or as systems of play. While this seems like an obvious set ofconclusions to draw, remember that the goal wasn’t to place the concept of games insidesome categories and keep it out of others. Armed with very particular understandings ofnarrative, play, and interactivity, these three concepts become frames or schemas thatwe can use to tease out particular qualities of the complex phenomena of games.

And it goes without saying that there are innumerable other terms we might bring tobear on the concept of games as well: games as mathematical systems, ideologicalsystems, semiotic systems, systems of desire. It’s an endless list. I chose play,narrative, and interactivity in order to shed light on the game-story. So let’s getback to that important question.



Stories & Games

So. We’ve disciplined our four naughty terms until they’ve finally behaved and we’vecome full circle, back to the original question of games and stories. This essay beganby observing a general dissatisfaction with the current state of game-story theory andpractice. Perhaps it can end with some suggestions for future work.

A story is the experience of a narrative. And the dissatisfaction with game-stories isa dissatisfaction with the way that games function as storytelling systems. Rememberingthe concept of narrative, story-systems function by representing changes of eventsthough pattern and repetition. This act of representation – or, we might say,signification – is how narrative operates.

So one relevant question to ask is: How can games represent narrative meaning? Orrather: How can games signify? Remember, it’s not a question of whether or not gamesare narrative, but instead how they are narrative. And if my agenda with thisinvestigation of the “game-story” is to inculcate genuinely new forms of experience,then we need to ask not just how games can be narrative systems, but we need to ask howgames can be narrative systems in ways that other media cannot.

It’s clear that games can signify in ways that other narrative forms have alreadyestablished: through sound and image, material and text, representations of movementand space. But perhaps there are ways that only games can signify, drawing on theirunique status as explicitly interactive narrative systems of formal play.

Example: Ms. Pac-Man

This much we know: one way of framing games is to frame them as game-stories. So let’stake a well-known example – the arcade game Ms. Pac Man – and look closely at thediverse ways that it signifies narrative.

First observation: there are many story elements to Ms. Pac-Man which are not directlyrelated to the gameplay. For instance, the large-scale characters on the physicalarcade game cabinet establish a graphical story about the chase between Ms. Pac-Man andthe ghosts. There are also brief non-interactive animations inside the game, whichappear between every few levels. These simple cartoons chronicle events in the life ofMs. Pac-Man: meeting her beau Pac-Man, outwitting the ever-pursuing ghosts, etc.

But while these story-components are important parts of the larger Ms. Pac-Manexperience, they are not at the heart of what distinguishes Ms. Pac-Man as a game-story. The arcade cabinet graphics and linear cartoon animations sit adjacent to theactual gameplay itself, where a different kind of narrative awaits. As the playerparticipates with the system, playing the game, exploring its rule-structures, findingthe patterns of free play which will let the game continue, a narrative unfolds in realtime.

What kind of story is it? It’s a narrative about life and death, about consumption andpower. It’s a narrative about strategic pursuit through a constrained space, aboutdramatic reversals of fortune where the hunter becomes the hunted. It’s a narrativeabout relationships, in which every character on the screen, every munchable dot andempty corridor, are meaningful parts of a larger system. It’s a narrative that alwayshas the same elements, yet unfolds differently each time it is experienced. And it’salso a kind of journey, where the player and protagonist are mapped onto each other incomplicated and subtle ways. This is a narrative in which procedures, relationships,and complex systems dynamically signify. It is the kind of narrative which only a gamecould tell.

Quick reminder: although I may have focused on the gameplay elements of the Ms. Pac-Mannarrative, ultimately the player’s experience of the game-story is composed of theentire arcade game. This includes not just the gameplay itself but the cabinet graphicsand the cartoon animations, the sound of a quarter dropping and the texture of the



joystick, the social and architectural dynamics of the arcade itself, the genderideologies of the game and its historical relationship to the original Pac-Man, themarketing of the character and its penetration into pop culture at large.

But at the center of this expansive game experience is the game of Ms. Pac-Man – thatartificial conflict with a quantifiable outcome. The gameplay of Ms. Pac-Man is in somesense the kernel at the center of the machine, the engine which drives all of the otherelements, putting the game in the game-story.

And as a story, it is compelling enough to have found Ms. Pac-Man a worldwide audienceof dedicated players. It’s important to note that the “story” of the Ms. Pac-Man game-story certainly does not provide the same pleasures of a novel or film. But why shouldwe expect it to? The question is, what pleasures can it provide that books or filmcannot?

Wrap-up & Send-off

Because games are always already narrative systems, the question which frames thissection of the book, the question “Is there a game-story” is ultimately moot.Recognizing that narrative is one of many ways to frame a game experience, for me amore important question is: How can we capitalize on the unique qualities of games inorder to create new kinds of game-stories? What if dynamic play procedures were used asthe very building-blocks of storytelling?

There are already many wonderful examples of this kind of thinking. The children’sboard game Up the River by Ravensburger uses a modular game board to procedurallyrecreate the rhythmic flow of a stream. And The Sims, a computer game mentioned oftenin this volume, is a game-story too. Instead of presenting a pre-scripted narrativelike most digital “interactive narratives,” The Sims functions like a kind of story-machine, generating unexpected narrative events out of complex and playful simulation.

But much more needs to be done. Any observation made about games, play, narrative andinteractivity could be used as the starting point for a new kind of game-story. Hereare some examples that cannibalize statements I made earlier in this essay:

The concept of “narrative” casts a wide net. Many experiences can be considerednarrative experiences, like a meal or a marriage ceremony. How would we make agame-story about these kinds of subjects?

Interactivity can occur on a cultural level. How could game-story be designedwith meta-interactivity in mind, so that the narrative emerged as the sum of manydifferent player experiences in otherwise unrelated games?

Mischief is a form of play. What would a game be like that encouraged players tobreak the existing rules in order to form new ones?

Games are about conflict. OK, so we’re drowning in fighting games. What about agame that told a story of the feints, bluffing, trickery, and intimidation of agood argument?

Yes, these are difficult kinds of challenges. But if we’re going to move through ourcollective dissatisfaction with the current state of the game-story, it’s time to re-think the terms of the debate and arrive at new ways of understanding game-stories, andnew strategies for creating them.

This essay attempted to re-present some of those terms. In this painfully brief space,I have been able to do no more than gesture towards some of these new avenues. Thereare many more concepts in need of discipline. And the rest is up to you.



Endnotes

Many of the ideas in this essay were generated in collaboration with Frank Lantz, withwhom I have taught Game Design and Interactive Narrative Design for many years. Manyideas also stem from my collaborations with Katie Salen, with whom I am currently co-authoring a Game Design textbook for MIT Press.

The four categories of Narrative Interactivity first appeared in print in an essaycalled Against Hypertext for American Letters & Commentary, Issue 12, 2000.

The definition of games presented here is loosely inspired by a definition of gamespresented by Elliott Avedon & Brian Sutton-Smith in The Study of Games (New York: JohnWiley & Sons, Inc, 1971). However, elements are also borrowed from Roger Callois’ Man,Play, and Games (New York: The Free Press, 1961) as well as Johannes Huizinga’s HomoLudens: A Study of the Play Element in Culture (Boston: Beacon Press, 1955) and BernardSuit’s Grasshopper: Games, Life, and Utopia (Boston: David R. Godine, 1990).

Lastly: Despite my extensive and gratuitous use of the disciplinary metaphor, I do notadvocate spanking children in any context. Disciplinary activity that occurs betweentwo consenting adults is another matter entirely. In any case don’t let the bad pundistract you - the "discipline" I am talking about in this essay is a discipline: thefield of game design.

copyright © 2010 eric zimmerman be playful

3/22/13 Fear of Failing? The Many Meanings of Difficulty in Video Games

www.jesperjuul.net/text/fearoffailing/ 1/12

[> jesper juul: text]

Fear of Failing? The Many Meanings of

Difficulty in Video GamesJesper Juul

www.jesperjuul.net

From Mark J. P. Wolf & Bernard Perron (eds.): The Video Game Theory Reader 2. New York:

Routledge 2009. pp. 237-252.

Winning isn’t everythingIt is quite simple: When you play a game, you want to win. Winning makes you happy, losing makesyou unhappy. If this seems self-evident, there is nonetheless a contradictory viewpoint, according towhich games should be “neither too easy nor too hard”, implying that players also want not to win, atleast part of the time. This is a contradiction I will try resolve in what follows. The question is:

Question 1: What is the role of failure in video games?

The simplest theory of failure states that failing serves as a contrast to winning, that failure therebymakes winning all the more enjoyable. There is, however, much more to failure. The study of playersdiscussed in this essay indicates that failure serves the deeper function of making players readjusttheir perception of a game. In effect, failure adds content by making the player see new nuances in agame. The study shows that players have quite elaborate theories of failure as a source of enjoymentin games. Even so, given the negative connotations of failing, would a game be better received if playersdid not feel responsible for failing, but rather blamed failures on the game or on bad luck? This is thesecond question:

Question 2: Do players prefer games where they do not feel responsible for failing?

This study strongly indicates that this is not the case. Players clearly prefer feeling responsible forfailing in a game; not feeling responsible is tied to a negative perception of a game. In effect, this sharpens the contradiction between players as wanting to win and players wantinggames to be challenging: failing, and feeling responsible for failing, makes players enjoy a game more,not less. Closer examination reveals that the apparent contradiction originates from two separateperspectives on games: a goal-oriented perspective wherein players want to win, and an aestheticperspective wherein players prefer games with the right amount of challenge and variation.Nevertheless, these two perspectives still present opposing considerations – the goal-orientedperspective suggests that games should be as easy as possible; the aesthetic perspective suggeststhat games should not be too easy. To examine this, I will look take a closer look at the role of failure and punishment. I am writinghere about single-player games.1

Failure and PunishmentFailure can be described as being unsuccessful at some task in a game, and punishment is whathappens to the player as a result. We can distinguish between different types of punishment for playerfailure:2

Energy punishment: Loss of energy, bringing the player closer to life punishment.Life punishment: Loss of a life (or “retry”), bringing the player closer to game termination.Game termination punishment: Game over.Setback punishment: Having to replay part of the game; losing abilities.

Losing energy brings the player closer to losing a life, and losing a life often leads to some type of

http://www.jesperjuul.net/text

http://www.jesperjuul.net/text/fearoffailing/#_edn1




setback. In this perspective, all failures eventually translate into setbacks, and the player’s use of timeand energy is the most fundamental currency of games. Whereas early video games in the arcade, on the home console, or for personal computers,tended to force the player to replay the entire game after failing, many home games from the mid-1980s and on became much more lenient by dispersing save points, allowing the player to save thegame at will, or letting the player restart at the latest level played even after game over. As a recentexample of this design principle, after reaching game over in Super Mario Galaxy (Nintendo EADTokyo, 2007), the player loses of coins and collectables, but not overall progress in the game. In the new area of downloadable casual games,3 there is a movement from life punishment toenergy punishment, with many games featuring energy bars, timers, or other types of soft evaluationsof player performance as with the timer in Big City Adventure: San Francisco (Jolly Bear Games 2007)(see Figure 1).

Figure 1 : Big City Adventure: San Francisco - a timer gradually runs out. (Jolly Bear Games 2007)

The psychological attribution theory provides a framework for examining different types of failure andpunishment in games. According to attribution theory, for any event, people tend to attribute that eventto certain causes. Harold K. Kelley distinguishes between three types of attributions that people canmake in an event involving a person and an entity:

Person: The event was caused by personal traits, such as skill or disposition.Entity: The event was caused by characteristics of the entity.Circumstances: The event was based on transient causes such as luck, chance, or anextraordinary effort from the person.F. Försterling, Attribution: An Introduction to Theories,Research and Applications (London: Psychology Press, 2001), 46-47, hereafter cited in the textas Försterling.

In the case of receiving a low grade for a school test, a person may decide that this was due to (a)person – personal disposition such as lack of skill, (b) entity – an unfair test, or (c) circumstance –having slept badly, having not studied enough. This maps quite well to many common exclamations invideo gaming: a player who loses a game can claim that “I am terrible at video games”, “This is anunfair game”, or “I will win next time”. During the research for this essay, I developed the hypothesis that energy punishment is beingmore widely used because it makes the cause of failure less obvious: If the game is over due to asingle, identifiable mistake, it is straightforward for the player to attribute failure to his or her ownperformance or skill (circumstance or person), but if the game is over due to an accumulation of smallmistakes, the player is less likely to feel responsible for failing, and the player should be less likely to




experience failing as an emotionally negative event. This is the second question mentioned in theintroduction: do players prefer feeling less responsible for failing?

Video Game Theory Through Game PrototypesTo elaborate this discussion, a game prototype study was conducted. This is not without precedent. Ina study made 25 years ago, Thomas W. Malone explored the question “Why are computer games socaptivating?” by creating a number of game prototypes with the same core game, but with differentfeatures (music, scorekeeping, fantasy, types of feedback) (Malone 1982) . In order to explore theattraction of the variations of the game, he let some children play these prototypes and examined howlong each prototype was able to keep the attention of young players. From this, he deducted a numberof guidelines for developing games and interfaces. Following Malone, the questions in this essay can be approached as empirical questions –What do players prefer? They can, however, also be approached as aesthetic questions – What is agood game? These are two historically separate approaches that I nevertheless believe can informeach other in the following. In collaboration with the game company Gamelab, I developed a game prototype specificallydesigned to gather data on how players perceive failure. The custom game could be described as acombination of Pac-Man (Namco 1980) and Snake (Originally Gremlin 1977): using the mouse, theplayer controls a snake that grows as the player collects pills; the player must avoid opponents; and aspecial power pill allows the player to attack opponents for a short while (see Figure 2).

Figure 2 : Game prototype for the test.

The game was designed with two game modes, an energy punishment mode where the player wouldlose a tail part when hit by opponents, and a life punishment mode where the player could make only asingle mistake before losing a life. In both games, the player has three lives, and the game consists offour levels. We attempted to balance the two games so that they were equally hard (as measured inthe number of levels that players would complete). Another reason for developing a new game was thatthis would give insight to the players’ initial experience of learning a new game, and be less a reflectionof their previous experience with that game.

First Test, OfflineA preliminary test was conducted offline. Five males and four females from Gamelab’s tester baseparticipated. All participants had some experience with and interest in games, and came to theGamelab offices (see Appendix 1 at the end of this essay for a description of the test procedure).



Players were asked how they would rate the game, had they found it on the Internet. The rating scalewent from 1 to 10, with 10 being the best rating. Additionally, players were asked open questions abouttheir views on failure in games. Contrary to expectations, this small sample gave no indication that players preferred the energypunishment version of the game. On the other hand, there were indications that the players’ ratingswere closely tied to their performance in the game, such that a player performing badly would dislikethe game, a player performing fairly well would like the game, but a player performing very well wouldalso dislike the game. Given the interesting implications of this result, it was decided to focus on onlyone version of the game (energy punishment), and run a new test online with a bigger sample.

Second Test, Online85 players were recruited online4 and asked to play the game and answer a questionnaire (seeAppendix 2 for a description of the test procedure). The players recruited were overwhelmingly male(73 out of 85), and the majority had a game console in their home (also 73 out of 85). Players weregenerally avid game players (see Figure 3).

Figure 3 : Game-playing frequency.

Game rating vs. performanceBased on automated registration of player performances, player responses were placed into threecategories, from a bad performance to a good performance:

Players that did not complete the game.Players that completed the game, losing some lives.Players that completed the game without losing any lives.

By comparing the average game ratings with the performance of the players (Figure 4), we can see anindication that winning isn’t everything: the most positive players were the ones that failed some, andthen completed the game. Completing the game without failing was followed by a lower rating of thegame. (The result for all three categories of player performance combined was close to statisticalsignificance (p=0.06).)




Figure 4 : Player rating of game as function of performance.

This runs counter to the simple idea that players enjoy a game more the better they do, but itvindicates the game design imperative that a game must be neither too hard nor too easy as arguedby, for example, Fullerton, Swain, and Hoffman (2004, 249). This returns us to the second question, ofwhether feeling responsible for failing in a game will make players like the game less. In the test,players were asked why they failed or succeeded. Categories were based on attribution theory, butexpanded into smaller subcategories:

Person was split into “I am bad at this kind of game” and “I am bad at games in general” tocapture difference between general player skills and player knowledge of specific genres.Entity was asked as “The game was too hard”.Circumstance was split into “I was unlucky” and “I made a mistake” in order to distinguishbetween the experience of losing due to chance and losing due to a strategic mistake.

As can be seen in figure 5 and figure 6, players were slightly more likely to report being responsible forsuccess (“figured out how to play right”) than being responsible for failure (“made a mistake”). This iswell-known phenomenon called attribution asymmetry, whereby individuals are more likely to attributesuccess to personal factors, and failure to external factors (Försterling, 87-91).

Figure 5 : Player attribution of failure



Figure 6 : Player attribution of success.

Do players prefer games where they do not feel responsible for failing? This seems not to be the case.On the contrary, even though players presumably on some level dislike being personally responsiblefor failing, the feeling of being responsible for failing was nevertheless tied to a positive rating of thegame (see Figure 7).

Figure 7: Rating as function of failure attribution.

Since players who never lost a life are not relevant, and too few players answered “I was unlucky” or “Iam bad at this kind of game” for the results to be meaningful, we can see how players who answered“The game was too hard” rated the game compared to those who answered “I made a mistake”. Theresult was statistically significant (p<0.016). In effect, this answers the second question of this paper –players prefer feeling responsible for their own failure. Or at least the negative emotions from failing aremore than cancelled out by other factors. This result is parallel to a study of players playing thebowling mini-game in Super Monkey Ball 2 (Amusement Vision, Ltd. 2002), in which players exhibitedpositive reactions when falling off the edge of the playing field, but negative reactions of watching thereplay of the same event (Ravaja et al. 2005). Although players do not want to fail, they maynevertheless enjoy it when feeling responsible for it.5

Players Reactions When Not FailingDo players have theories of the function of failure, and in that case, how do they frame them? To findout, players were asked if they had ever experienced a game that was too easy, and “How do youknow if a game is too easy?” Answers were sorted into four categories based on their primary content,listed here with example answers and percentages:

Answer type Examples

Too easy as lack of achallenge. (36%)

“not challenging enough”“boring... doesn’t provide further challenges”




“If I don’t feel challenged. Of course that’s a pretty predictable answer, butit’s hard to put it any other way.”“I get bored”

Too easy as not failing.(6%)

“When you never die. And beat it in a day”.“It doesn’t seem to challenge me – I never lose”

Too easy as not beingmeasured onperformance. (5%).

“I can do things I know are “wrong” and don’t get punished.”“A game is too easy when you are progressing through the gameautomatically no matter how good you are playing.”

Too easy as not having torethink strategy. (27%)

“When I know exactly what to do and I can do it optimizing the resultwithout (big) effort” “No challenge, go through motions to complete it without any thought”“If the challenge and thought require to complete it objectives becomesecond nature quickly or there is no need for such contemplation”“If the method for solving it is obvious and never fails.”

The first response type, lack of challenge, is somewhat tautological. Response 4 gives room for moreinterpretation: if a game being too easy is experienced as the game being shallow and uninteresting, itmeans that the role of failure is much more than a contrast to winning – failure pushes the player intoreconsidering strategy, and failure thereby subjectively adds content to the game. The game appearsdeeper when the player fails; failure makes the game more strategic. It would be nice to know if the results from this experiment map to players of publishedcommercial games. In a discussion of the initial disappointing reception of the game Shopmania(Gamelab 2006), Catherine Herdlick and Eric Zimmerman discuss how much of the criticism of thegame came from the fact that it was perceived as too easy:

In the original version of Shopmania, we approached the first several levels of the gameas a gradual tutorial that introduced the player to the basic game elements and the coregameplay. This approach was based on the generally held casual game wisdom thatdownloadable games should be very easy to play, and that the frustration of losing alevel should be minimized. However, the problem with going too far in this direction isthat the game ends up feeling like interactive muzak: you can play forever and not reallylose, and the essential tension and challenge of a good game are lost. From ouranalysis, players were telling us that the first seven or eight levels felt like a tutorial. Bythe third or fourth level, we had playtesters exclaiming out loud, “I get this game. Can Iskip the tutorial” Catherine Herdlick and Eric Zimmerman, “Redesigning Shopmania: ADesign Process Case Study,” IGDA Casual Games Quarterly 2, no. 1 (2006),http://www.igda.org/casual/quarterly/2_1/index.php?id=6

One of the negative comments on Shopmania was about having seen the whole game too early:

“After 20 minutes, felt like I saw the whole game...” (Redesigning)

The “see” here probably does not refer directly to concrete graphics or level layouts, as much as it tiesinto some of the player comments in my experiment: The players complain about the game notpressuring them, not threatening with failure. Again, while players may dislike failure, not failing can beas bad as never succeeding.

Flow: The Standard Theory of Failure and ChallengeThe standard psychological explanation for game failure and challenge is Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi’stheory of Flow (see Figure 8), according to which the challenge of a given activity forms a narrowchannel in which the player is in the attractive flow state (Csikszentmihalyi 1990).



Figure 8: The flow channel. (Csikszentmihalyi 1990, 74)

While flow theory does suggest that the player may oscillate between anxiety and boredom, it posesthe banal problem that the standard illustration suggests a smooth increase in difficulty over time.Noah Falstein (Falstein 2005) has refined this to say that game difficulty should vary in waves –sometimes the game should be a little easy, sometimes a little hard, and that irregularity leads toenjoyment, as illustrated in Figure 9. An irregular increase in difficulty makes the player more likely toexperience both failure and successes.

Figure 9: A better flow. (© 2004 Noah Falstein)

Conclusions: The Contradictory Desires of PlayersI initially discussed a contradiction between the observation that players want to win and theobservation that players prefer games where they lose some, then win some. This leaves us withseveral opposing considerations indicating that games should be both easier and harder than they are:

1. The player does not want to fail (makes player sad, feels inadequate).2. Failing makes the player reconsider his/her strategy (which makes the game more interesting).3. Winning provides gratification.4. Winning without failing leads to dissatisfaction.



Points 1 and 3 suggest that games should be very easy, whereas points 2 and 4 suggest that gamesshould not be too easy. The actual relationship of game design and game playing is probably not asantagonistic as this seems. A more productive view is that games derive their interest from theinteraction between these different considerations, and that the apparent contradiction comes from thefact that games can be viewed from two distinct frames of reference (see Figure 10). Playing a gameentails (1) a goal-orientation as part of the activity, but a player also has (2) an outside view of thegame that entails an aesthetic evaluation of game challenge. This is the source of the contradictiondiscussed in the introduction, between players wanting to win, and players wanting not just to win.

Figure 10: Internal and external views of a game.

The second question was whether players would prefer not feeling responsible for failing, and whetherthe success of casual games consequently could be attributed to the fact that they tend to haveenergy punishment rather than life punishment, making failure seem less of a direct consequence ofplayer actions. This idea seems to be largely disproved – player appreciation of the game was tiedpositively to feeling responsible for failure. This suggests that I had been focusing on the wrong part ofthe punishment system, and that the attraction of casual games is better explained as sparing use ofsetback punishment: failing in casual games is rarely tied to any substantial setback, and never tohaving to mechanically replay a game sequence.6 Players still feel responsible for failing, but they areless likely to feel stuck in the game, being forced to replay a part of the game. Finally, this research points to another layer of complexity in player psychology. That failureand difficulty is important to the enjoyment of games correlates well with Michael J. Apter’s reversaltheory, according to which people seek low arousal in normal goal-directed activities such as work, buthigh arousal, and hence challenge and danger, in activities performed for their intrinsic enjoyment,such as games (Kerr and Apter 1991, 17). This yields an extra complication in relation to the gameShopmania discussed previously: if the role of failure is to force players to discover new strategies in agame, why is this even necessary? Given that players enjoy a challenge, why do players not simplychallenge themselves by finding new ways to play the game? Game designer David Jaffe goes as faras asserting that players are basically lazy and “WILL NOT use ANY mechanic they do not need touse. They will take the path of least resistance to get from A TO B” (Jaffe 2007).. The conclusion must still be that players want to fail as well as win, but that players of the single-player games discussed here do not seek out additional challenge or depth if they do not have to.Perhaps single player games are perceived as designed experiences that players expect to becorrectly balanced without having to seek additional challenges themselves? By contrast, although the focus here has been on single player games, Jonas Heide Smith hasdocumented how players of multiplayer games frequently handicap themselves to create an evenplaying field, effectively opening themselves to failure (Smith 2006, 217-227). Multiplayer games andmore open sandbox games seem to encourage players to undertake more challenge-seeking behavior. The study raises a number of additional questions, but I believe the following are the most obviousones to explore further:

Is the relation between game rating and performance also consistent if the game is made easieror harder?




How do players perceive difficulty in games without time pressure or failure states, such as“endless” mode in Bejeweled 2 (PopCap Games 2004)or Sudoku?In game development experience, it is certain that small changes to game designs do matter toplayers. To what extent can individual elements of a game design be isolated?To what extent can we extrapolate from one game to all games?Will the results of the test be different with a more “casual” audience?

I have argued that failure is central to player enjoyment of games. This is not that surprising, givenconventional wisdom that a game should be balanced to match the skills of players. However, it isnotable that failure is more than a contrast to winning – rather failure is central to the experience ofdepth in a game, to the experience of improving skills. The study supports the idea that growth, theexperience of learning, of adjusting strategies, of trying something new, is a core attraction of videogames.7 Hence the desire for game balance, losing some, winning some, is also a desire for variationin the challenge and difficulty of the game. Failure adds content. If the classic tenet of storytelling is Aristotle’s that a story should have a beginning, a middle,and an end, the core tenet of games must be this: a game should be neither too easy nor too hard.This is more than the simple truism it sounds like. It reveals much deeper and more complicated factsabout games, and players.

AcknowledgementsThis research was done in collaboration with Gamelab in New York City, who provided facilities,discussion, feedback, and playtesting. Thanks to T.L. Taylor, Jonas Heide Smith, Eric Zimmerman,Nick Fortugno, Chris Bateman, and Matthew Weise for comments. Thanks to Svend Juul for statisticalexpertise.

Appendix 1: Offline Test Procedure

Participants were tested one at a time, and did not see or talk to other participants. Participantswere informed that “We are working on a game, and we would like to hear your input. This is nota test of your skill; we would simply like to know what you think about the game.”Each player was asked to play the game until the game was over. It was noted on what levelsplayers lost lives.Each player was asked “Why did you fail?” and “Why did you complete the level?” Theexplanations were coded as being either due to ability (personal factor), performance(circumstance), or the game (entity).After one game had been played, the player was interviewed.Each player was asked to rate the game as follows: “If this was a game you found on the web,how would you rate it on a scale from 1 to 10, with 1 being the worst and 10 being the best?”8Each player was asked to explain if he or she had ever played a game that was too easy.Each player was asked how he or she could tell if a game is too easy.Participants were not paid, but as game testing is often described as a way of entering thegame industry, testers may have strong motivation for pleasing the company. This affects theconfidence in the absolute judgments of the players, but since the testers’ interest in pleasingthe company will be statistically uniform, the data can be used relatively in correlation with otherdata from the test.

Appendix 2: Online Test Procedure

Players were recruited via the author’s blog.Players were told that “This is not a test of your skills, but a test of how you feel about playinga little game experiment”; players were not aware that the test concerned failure.Players were directed to a page with instructions, as can be seen athttp://www.jesperjuul.net/test/rpt2/ .Players were directed to the game. The game consisted of four levels. The player had threelives.When a player reached game over, either by completing all four levels or by losing all threelives, the player was directed to an online questionnaire. In the questionnaire, the player wasasked to rate the game as follows: “Say you found this game on the Internet. On a scale from 1to 10, with 1 being the worst game ever, and 10 being the best game ever, how would you rate





this game?”Only players who completed the entire questionnaire were included.

References

Amusement Vision, Ltd. 2002. Super Monkey Ball 2. SEGA Corporation (GameCube).Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly. 1990. Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. New York:Harper & Row.Falstein, Noah. 2005. "Understanding Fun—The Theory of Natural Funativity". In Introduction toGame Development, ed. Steve Rabin, 71-98. Boston:Charles River Media.Försterling, F. 2001. Attribution: An Introduction to Theories, Research and Applications.London: Psychology Press.Fullerton, Tracy, Chris Swain, and Steven Hoffman. 2004. Game Design Workshop: Designing,Prototyping, and Playtesting Games. San Francisco: CMP Books.Gamelab. 2006. Shopmania. (Windows).Gremlin. 1977. Hustle. (Arcade).Herdlick, Catherine, and Eric Zimmerman. 2006. "Redesigning Shopmania: A Design ProcessCase Study". IGDA Casual Games Quarterly 2, no. 1.http://www.igda.org/casual/quarterly/2_1/index.php?id=6.Jaffe, David. 2007. Aaaaaaaaannnnnnnndddddd Scene! Jaffe's Game Design. November 25.http://criminalcrackdown.blogspot.com/2007_11_25_archive.html.Jolly Bear Games. 2007. Big City Adventure: San Francisco. (Windows).Kerr, J. H, and Michael J Apter. 1991. Adult Play: A Reversal Theory Approach. Amsterdam:Swets & Zeitlinger.Lazzaro, Nicole. 2004. "Why We Play Games: Four Keys to More Emotion in Player"Experiences. Paper presented at the Game Developers Conference, San José, 2004.Malone, Thomas W. 1982. "Heuristics for designing enjoyable user interfaces: Lessons fromcomputer games". In Proceedings of the 1982 conference on Human factors in computingsystems, 63-68. Gaithersburg, Maryland, United States: ACM.Namco. 1980. Pac-Man. Namco (Arcade).PopCap Games. 2004. Bejeweled 2 Deluxe. (Windows).Ravaja, Niklas, Timo Saari, Jari Laarni, et al. 2005. "The Psychophysiology of Video Gaming:Phasic Emotional Responses to Game Events". In DiGRA Conference Proceedings.http://www.digra.org/dl/db/06278.36196.pdf.Smith, Jonas Heide. 2006. Plans and Purposes: How Video Games Shape Player Behavior.PhD dissertation, IT University of Copenhagen.

Notes1. For studies of players in multiplayer settings, see (Smith 2006) and Lazzaro (2004).

2. Not all failure is punished in games - many smaller types of failure go unpunished, such as bumpinginto a wall.

3. Casual games are understood here as downloadable games that the player can play freely fortypically 60 minutes, after which the game must be purchased to continue playing.

4. Via the Ludologist blog, www.jesperjuul.net/ludologist.

5. The conclusions from the Super Monkey Ball 2 study may not map to questions discussed in thisessay, as Super Monkey Ball 2 has a rewarding audiovisual feedback when the player fails comparedto the more basic representation in the game prototype used here.

6. This is also due to the fact that casual games tend to contain much randomness, making everyreplay of a single level is a bit different from the previous.

7. This is close to what Nicole Lazzaro calls “hard fun” (2004).

8. Since there is no universal scale for rating games, little can be deduced from the individual rating,but ratings can be used comparatively to examine player perceptions of game quality.

http://www.igda.org/casual/quarterly/2_1/index.php?id=6

http://criminalcrackdown.blogspot.com/2007_11_25_archive.html

http://www.digra.org/dl/db/06278.36196.pdf

3/22/13 'Gamification Is Bullshit' - Technology - The Atlantic

www.theatlantic.com/technology/print/2011/08/gamification-is-bullshit/243338/ 1/3

Print | Close

• SUBSCRIBE

• RENEW

• GIVE A GIFT

• DIGITAL EDITION

'Gamification Is Bullshit'By Ian Bogost

In his short treatise On Bullshit, the moral philosopher Harry Frankfurt gives us a useful theory of

bullshit. We normally think of bullshit as a synonym--albeit a somewhat vulgar one--for lies or deceit.

But Frankfurt argues that bullshit has nothing to do with truth.

Rather, bullshit is used to conceal, to impress or to coerce. Unlike liars, bullshitters have no use for

the truth. All that matters to them is hiding their ignorance or bringing about their own benefit.

Gamification is bullshit.

I'm not being flip or glib or provocative. I'm speaking philosophically.

More specifically, gamification is marketing bullshit, invented by consultants as a means to capture

the wild, coveted beast that is videogames and to domesticate it for use in the grey, hopeless

wasteland of big business, where bullshit already reigns anyway.

Bullshitters are many things, but they are not stupid. The rhetorical power of the word "gamification"

is enormous, and it does precisely what the bullshitters want: it takes games--a mysterious, magical,

powerful medium that has captured the attention of millions of people--and it makes them accessible

in the context of contemporary business.

Gamification is reassuring. It gives Vice Presidents and Brand Managers comfort: they're doing

everything right, and they can do even better by adding "a games strategy" to their existing products,

slathering on "gaminess" like aioli on ciabatta at the consultant's indulgent sales lunch.

Gamification is easy. It offers simple, repeatable approaches in which benefit, honor, and aesthetics

are less important than facility. For the consultants and the startups, that means selling the same

bullshit in book, workshop, platform, or API form over and over again, at limited incremental cost. It

ticks a box. Social media strategy? Check. Games strategy? Check.

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/print/2011/08/gamification-is-bullshit/243338/#

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/print/2011/08/gamification-is-bullshit/243338/#

https://secure.palmcoastd.com/pcd/eSv?iMagId=23301&i4Ky=IA2S

https://secure.palmcoastd.com/pcd/eSv?iMagId=23301&i4Ky=IA1S

https://secure.palmcoastd.com/pcd/eServ?iServ=MjMzMDE1ODgzNQ==

https://secure.palmcoastd.com/pcd/eSv?iMagId=23301&i4Ky=IFGD

http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/the-atlantic-magazine-digital/id397599894?mt=8

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0691122946/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=bogost-20&linkCode=as2&camp=217145&creative=399369&creativeASIN=0691122946

3/22/13 'Gamification Is Bullshit' - Technology - The Atlantic

www.theatlantic.com/technology/print/2011/08/gamification-is-bullshit/243338/ 2/3

The title of this symposium shorthands these points for me: the slogan "For the Win," accompanied

by a turgid budgetary arrow and a tumescent rocket, suggesting the inevitable priapism this powerful

pill will bring about--a Viagra for engagement dysfunction, engorgement guaranteed for up to one

fiscal quarter.

This rhetorical power derives from the "-ification" rather than from the "game". -ification involves

simple, repeatable, proven techniques or devices: you can purify, beautify, falsify, terrify, and so forth.

-ification is always easy and repeatable, and it's usually bullshit. Just add points.

Game developers and players have critiqued gamification on the grounds that it gets games wrong,

mistaking incidental properties like points and levels for primary features like interactions with

behavioral complexity. That may be true, but truth doesn't matter for bullshitters. Indeed, the very

point of gamification is to make the sale as easy as possible.

I've suggested the term "exploitationware" as a more accurate name for gamification's true purpose,

for those of us still interested in truth. Exploitationware captures gamifiers' real intentions: a grifter's

game, pursued to capitalize on a cultural moment, through services about which they have

questionable expertise, to bring about results meant to last only long enough to pad their bank

accounts before the next bullshit trend comes along.

I am not naive and I am not a fool. I realize that gamification is the easy answer for deploying a

perversion of games as a mod marketing miracle. I realize that using games earnestly would mean

changing the very operation of most businesses. For those whose goal is to clock out at 5pm having

matched the strategy and performance of your competitors, I understand that mediocrity's lips are

seductive because they are willing. For the rest, those of you who would consider that games can offer

something different and greater than an affirmation of existing corporate practices, the business

world has another name for you: they call you "leaders."

This post originally appeared on bogost.com.

This article available online at:

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/science/forthewin.png

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/6366/persuasive_games_exploitationware.php

http://www.bogost.com/blog/gamification_is_bullshit.shtml

http://www.bogost.com/

3/22/13 Learning to Play to Learn

www.ericzimmerman.com/texts/learningtoplay.html 1/6

ERIC ZIMMERMAN

BACK TO > ESSAYS

LEARNING TO PLAY TO LEARN

Lessons in Educational Game Design

Nick Fortugno & Eric Zimmerman

An Education in Educational Games

Educational games are a hot topic these days. From game developers and learningtheorists to classroom teachers and policy wonks, all manner of curious folk seem drawnto games that teach something, to someone, in some way or another. However, the onlyconsensus in this whirlwind of activity seems to be that educational games aresomething of a failure. To quote industry veteran Brenda Laurel at a recent conference,“I can sum up educational games in one word – and that word is... CRAP!”

Why would anyone want to take part in such a doomed enterprise? Educators are energizedby games’ ability to engage with students, to capture their wayward attention and helpthem learn in rich and dynamic ways. Game designers and developers are increasinglydrawn to create educational games as well – perhaps from a desire to make new kinds ofgames, to create work with a purpose beyond pure entertainment, or even just as anescape from the rigid confines of the mainstream game industry. Each of these camps –developers and educators – has its own agenda for taking on projects, its own set ofparticular dissatisfactions with the current crop of educational games, and – all toooften – a complete lack of experience with the concerns of those working on the otherside.

We (Nick & Eric) have designed games for both entertainment and education. And in theprocess of juggling player enjoyment and learning goals, development schedules andresearch agendas, we’ve learned that there are a great many misconceptions regardingeducational games. Some of these misconceptions come from educators and some from gamedevelopers. In the spirit of bridging this divide, we’d like to tackle head-on some ofthe key issues involved in creating educational games.

Our position, in a nutshell, is that no one has all the answers. Developers andeducators need to work together to tackle these issues. So in the short space thatfollows, we have tried to highlight some of the ways that educators, developers, andothers involved in creating and studying educational games fail to see eye to eye.Perhaps by planting some seeds in the fertile “crap” of current educational games, wecan begin to grow some new ways of thinking.

Game design fundamentals

As game designers, we’re loath to theorize on how and why people learn. Cognitiveneuroscientists, learning theorists, and professional educators work on these problemsfull-time. But just as we always seek out the research and advice of our educatorcolleagues to better understand the learning process, we do know what we have to bringto the discussion. And that is a thoroughgoing knowledge of game design.

It may sound trite, but for us educational games are first and foremost games. Whether

http://www.ericzimmerman.com/index.html

http://www.ericzimmerman.com/essays.html



a bona-fide contest with logical rules and a winning condition, or a Sim City-stylesandbox playtoy, a game experience needs to have certain basic elements to be ameaningful experience for players. These elements include interactivity designed withclarity of input and output; short-term and long-term goals to shape the player’sexperience, a well-designed ramp for beginners to learn the ropes; and a game structurethat actually contains the possibly of genuine play, not just quiz-style questions andanswers.

Why emphasize what seems so obvious? Because many times we’ve seen educators enteringinto game development that are content to transfer the style of games onto educationaltasks without understanding the substance of what makes a game work. And without thesefundamentals, the end experience can be dead in the water. What exactly creates thatelusive feeling of “play?” No one really knows. And it varies from game to game. Butexperienced game designers are probably the best-equipped folks to bring it into yourproject.

Respect the challenge

Everyone – both developers and educators – forgets this one: making games is reallyhard. Even creating a wholly derivative game (a blow-by-blow clone of Bejeweled, or YouDon’t Know Jack, or Tomb Raider) is incredibly difficult to do well. When you add tothis the ambition of creating an innovative game with new kinds of content andgameplay, as well as a game that actually tries to teach something meaningful toplayers, the problem is multiplied by orders of magnitude.

So one piece of advice we’d offer to those going into educational games: keep itsimple. Set your sights lower than a massively multiplayer online role-playing game, ora simulation with the depth and complexity of The Sims. Resources are typically limitedin an educational game project, and it usually takes guerrilla-style design thinking topull something off. For example, if your game needs online player interaction, thereare many ways to socialize on a computer besides a full-blown real-time 3D world. Don’trule out a Habbo Hotel-style 2D world, a turn-based game a la SiSSYFiGHT, imaginativeuse of message boards and email, or even hotseat-style interaction in front of a singleterminal.

This is why we are skeptical of many educators’ claims that given access to the latestgame engines, they will be able to create top-notch educational games and succeed whereeveryone else has failed. It’s simply not going to happen. Tools by their nature limitas least as much as they liberate, and creating innovative games on any scale usuallymeans coding them from scratch. That’s not to discourage educators from getting intogame development. But all sides that want to get involved need to recognize thechallenges and demands of making games.

Embrace the “gameness” of games

Part of these demands involve the recognition of what is essential to a game. Manypeople diving into educational games want to capture the excitement and interest thatgames inspire but simultaneously excise those very aspects of games that generatepassion in players. Take the idea of “competition.” One common misconception we’ve seenamong educators is to view competition between players as a hindrance to the learningprocess. Not wanting to classify people as “winners” or “losers,” they envision feel-good cooperative experiences were nobody has to come in second.

While well-intentioned, this approach completely misunderstands how competition andcollaboration function in games. Every game contains a seed of conflict, whether itcomes from the human opponent of a chess game, the hidden word in a game of twentyquestions, or a field of AI enemies in a console shooter. The struggle to overcomethese obstacles, the engagement necessary to outwit the opponent or solve the riddle,is a primary source of fun.



At the same time, every game also intrinsically involves collaboration. Even the mostaggressive boxing match requires the fighters to agree to the rules of the game: noforeign objects, no hitting an opponent who’s down, and respect for the judges’ call atthe end of the bout. This accord between players is at the heart of any play experienceand is exactly what creates the environment where winning and losing are both fair andsafe – preparing the way for the game to be played in the first place.

Competition and collaboration is just one example of the “gameness” of games. Theexcitement of games doesn’t magically emerge from fancy graphics, well-written stories,or point-based rewards. Good games integrate a number of complex elements (moments ofdecision-making, challenging goals, rewarding feedback, etc.) to create a fun playexperience. The best way to understand all of this is to try these games yourself. Goodgame designers don’t just make games; they play them. Lots of them. The best learninggames research groups, from MIT to University of Wisconsin to Copenhagen’s IT-U andLearning Lab, incorporate daily hours of play into their practice. If you want to makegames, you need to know them, and to know them, you need to get your hands dirtyplaying them.

Process, not data

By now, everyone has heard of the poor poster child of educational game crappiness,Math Blaster. Given a mandatory mention at every educational game conference, MathBlaster’s drill-and-practice design carries the failed weight of learning and games onits straw-man shoulders. We don’t see any need to point out yet again how Math Blasterfalls short. We’d rather discuss how to avoid making a Math Blaster in the first place.One crucial step is recognizing the importance of process-based gameplay.

One feature in all good games is a marriage of form and content. If you want to make agame about car racing, you want the game’s play to feel like racing – fast and riskywith lots of quick thinking and make-or-break decisions. A game about diplomacy (like,say, Diplomacy) should not just depict but embody the heady distrust, provisionalalliance-making, and social give-and-take of politics. There’s no one right way todesign play for any given content, but the result should be that the way the playersinteract with the game, the process of play, parallels what the game is about.

To restate this subtle point, the play of a game is not just graphics, audio, and text.Play is an activity, and the content of a game should be expressed in that activity.The actual repeated actions, decisions and choices, and thinking processes that thegame design engenders should themselves embody what the game is about. This is easiersaid than done – especially for new kinds of subject matter. One important approach isto choose content that is as game-like as possible. Games are dynamic, participatorysystems, and process-oriented content is much better suited to games than factualcontent. For example, if your aim is to create a game about history, an experience inwhich players learn historical dates is less of a game-native approach than one abouthistorical causality, or a simulation of a historical period.

While process-based gameplay is important for “pure entertainment” games, it isparticularly relevant in regards to games that teach. Simply slapping educationalcontent onto a generic play style is an often-seen formula for failed educationalgames. Instead, the educational content should be tightly coupled with and integratedinto the play of the game. If you want to make a game about the scientific method, havethe players actually hypothesize, experiment, observe, and analyze in order to achievetheir goals. Want them to learn about handling money? Give them virtual currency andbuild the game around spending and saving over time. By integrating the learningcontent directly into the play of the game, it gives you the chance to make thelearning itself enjoyable, rather than being the bitter vegetables a player has to eatalong with the fun gaming dessert.



What are games good for?

For all the talk about the potential of educational games, remember that no one issuggesting that games can or should completely replace traditional education. Even themost casual observer can see that effective learning is a combination of many differentelements: skilled teachers, dedicated study, good learning materials, the larger socialenvironment, etc. Games simply can’t carry the entire burden of education alone.

As we’ve argued, games are good at showing and embodying processes, rather thandelivering raw facts. Games give players the opportunity to get their fingers into asystem, muck about with it, and see the results. So when you make educational games,let the games be games. A game that quizzes you on presidents’ names or periodic tablesis just a gimmicky test, but a game that simulates the planning and execution of yourown archeological dig gives you a direct experience of process that a textbook orlecture can’t.

That said, even explicitly non-educational games often teach players useful skills. Agreat many gamers (including both of us!) unknowingly picked up probability theory andbasic algebra in elementary school by rolling D&D character stats and juggling combatoptions. Even the most casual word game can expand a player’s vocabulary. And KurtSquire’s work with Civilization demonstrates how a classroom can use a game to pointout the way its systems reflect – and occasionally misrepresent – the facts of historyand cultural development. Games do have a lot to teach us, but perhaps not in everyfield we desire or in every way we expect.

One final word on this topic: keep expectations in check. The hype of educational gamesoften runs away with itself, resulting in unrealistic promises. A game can teach aboutactivism, but that doesn’t mean it also needs to be a generator of real-world politicalactivity. It’s difficult enough to conceive and execute a game on a social issue; whensuch a game gets saddled with the responsibility of generating letters to senators,planning a demonstration, and real-political organizing (difficult activities tocoordinate in and of themselves) the result can be a diluted heap of nothing. To putthis another way, you can learn about medicine from a game, but don’t expect by playingthe game to discover the cure for cancer.

The larger context

No game is an island. You may have designed – and even created – a fun and uniqueeducational play experience. But getting it into the hands of players is another matterentirely. The design of a game needs to take into account its context of use from thevery beginning of the process. In the commercial game world, context is often taken forgranted – a game under development will eventually become a box on a shelf, or a linkon a mobile phone.

While context should never be taken for granted, it’s especially important to considercontext in the educational game world. Revenue models, distribution strategies, andregulatory policies are much more diverse and unsettled than in the commercial gameindustry. Are you making a CD-ROM to be played in a classroom? An online game that kidswill be accessing from home? Or some unique hybridized mishmash? Who is playing yourgame? Where? And for what reason? There isn’t space to detail every context possibilityhere, but understand that each context raises its own unique issues regarding thedesign, business, culture, and educational strategy of your game.

For example, if you’re creating a game that will be available online, remember that youare suddenly competing directly with the incredibly compelling landscape of popularculture, for audiences that often are playing games of adult complexity by the timethey reach 10 years old. If you’re creating a game for a classroom, on the other hand,your project is likely to be received as a precious bit of escape from the drearyregimen of the schoolday – if you can actually get it in the room. In the US, forinstance, each state has its own educational policies and procedures, and the



oppressive federal testing system leaves teachers little room for curricularflexibility.

Considering the context opens up a cornucopia of issues. Here’s a few more: gamedevelopers tend to create games that are fun for them to play. But young children andnon-gamers have very different kinds of play skills and experience. Even the differenceof a couple of years or a little computer exposure can have a huge impact on what aplayer finds challenging, interesting, or fun. And here’s another one: educationalgames usually need testing verification. It’s mighty difficult to evaluate what aplayer has learned, especially if the game encourages open-ended, exploratory play.(Playing the “wrong way” might be just as educational as winning!) Educators andscholars generally have much to teach game developers about these kinds of issues,whether the game developers want to hear it or not.

The two cultures problem

And in the end, that’s the one point we want to leave with you – listening to what the“other side” has to say. Let’s face it. Professional educators and scholars of learninghave pretty naïve ideas about game design and development. They’re generally notgamers, and lack the hands-on experience to really know what makes a game tick.Regarding development, they are prone to envisioning disastrously ambitious gamedesigns when a much simpler solution will likely do the job.

But game designers and developers are equally flatfooted when it comes to understandingthe educational process. Too many think of “learning” as something that happens onlywhen reading a textbook. And few are equipped to understand and navigate the jungles ofeducational standards, developmentally appropriate design, rigorous learningassessment, and other crucial components of making educational games. We know we’renot.

Yes, these are gross generalizations in many ways – including our false dichotomy of“educators and developers” and our somewhat narrow sense of what might be considerededucational. In this brief essay, we’ve been able to do little more than scratch thesurface of these incredibly complex topics.

In the final analysis, do we think all educational games are doomed to be “crap?” Ofall the parties involved – game developers, researchers, teachers, and others – nobodyhas a monopoly on the answers. But the only way we are going to solve this problem isif everyone can figure out how to communicate and work together. That way, bit by bit,we can begin the alchemy to turn our crappy games into gold – or at least, intosomething that can fertilize our players’ minds. We’re ready to learn. Are you?

Recommended Resources

If you’re only going to read one book on games and learning, we recommend What GamesHave to Teach Us About Literacy and Learning, by Jim Gee. And likewise for game design,we recommend the book Eric co-authored with Katie Salen, Rules of Play: Game DesignFundamentals. Also required: get involved with the Serious Games Initiative(www.seriousgames.org), the Digital Games Research Association (www.digra.org) and theInternational Game Developers Association (www.igda.org).

Nick Fortugno

Nick Fortugno is a Game Designer at gameLab, a game development company based in NewYork City that Eric Zimmerman co-founded in 2000. gameLab creates singleplayer andmultiplayer online games for sites like Microsoft’s Gaming Zone, AOL, andShockwave.com. It also creates educational games and game designs for companies likePBS, LeapFrog, and Fisher-Price. Nick teaches game design and interactive narrative

http://www.seriousgames.org/

http://www.digra.org/

http://www.igda.org/



design at Parsons School of Design as well as developmental and compositional Englishin the CUNY system. Eric has taught courses at MIT, New York University, and Parsons,and is the co-editor with Katie Salen of the upcoming The Game Design Reader: A Rulesof Play Anthology (MIT Press, 2005).

copyright © 2010 eric zimmerman be playful

3

Games and CultureVolume 2 Number 1January 2007 3-22

© 2007 Sage Publications10.1177/1555412006286892

http://gac.sagepub.comhosted at

http://online.sagepub.com

Game Classification andGame DesignConstruction Through Critical AnalysisChristian ElverdamEspen AarsethIT University of Copenhagen

This article discusses the viability of the open-ended game classification model describedin “A Multi Dimensional Typology of Games.” The perspectives of such a model isdiscussed with emphasis on how a structural theory of games can contribute to gamedesign and the development of formal and semiformal game design methods, such asGame Design Patterns.

Keywords: game classification; game design; open-ended; Game Design Patterns

Game Classification

Most of the time we talk about games with implicit or informal references toall possible aspects of games—be it game types, game play, or the visual artwork.Although we probably understand each aspect reasonably well on a casual level, thisposes a problem if we, theorists and practitioners alike, want to communicate withat least some precision.

Comparison and Genres

There seems to be two very common ways we describe games—by comparingthem or by referring to a genre. In the first case one might compare BotFighters toSnake because both are found on mobile phones. This comparison will clearly turnout to be futile because the two games have nothing else in common. Perhaps com-paring BotFighters and a typical massively multiplayer online role-playing game(MMORPG), for example World of Warcraft, might yield better results because bothgames feature battles and avatar improvements in a persistent game world. A majordifference though is that BotFighters takes place partly in the physical world,whereas in World of Warcraft, the stage is entirely virtual. Unstructured comparisonlets us talk about games quite easily, but it lacks the precision needed in research or

at UNIV TORONTO on August 1, 2012gac.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://gac.sagepub.com/

development. Also, many game creators insist that their particular game is unique,which would mean that any comparison would eventually be inaccurate. On theother hand, which game is truly unique? A fundamental question seems to be Howdoes one make sure that a comparison is truly descriptive?

Another common way to describe games is by reference to one or more genres. Inthat sense, games like World of Warcraft and Guild Wars fit nicely into the “roleplay-ing game” (RPG) genre. But are the games truly similar, and does RPG have the samemeaning as in games like Neverwinter Nights and Diablo—or the “pen-and-paper,”original version of Dungeons & Dragons? Incidentally Diablo was first labeled a darkfantasy game, so one might ask if dark fantasy is a subgenre of RPGs. Typically, gen-res describe completely orthogonal aspects of games, like mood and aesthetics (darkfantasy), time (real time), or focus (strategy). The creation of new genres and the inter-pretation of an individual genre is free, subject only to the intentions one might haveby using them. Thus, it often seems that game developers make up new genres for mar-keting purposes, giving them enticing titles. On a noncommercial level, fans andgamers make up their own plethora of genres. Thus, we face a situation where gamesare classified by arbitrary, contradictory, or overlapping genres.

An Open-Ended Game Typology

These issues motivate the creation of a model for game classification presented in“A Multi Dimensional Typology of Games” (Aarseth, Smedstad, & Sunnanå, 2003).The purpose of the typology model is to identify essential differences betweengames and then classify them in a precise and analytical way. The typology consistsof dimensions that describe specific game elements, such as the spatial representa-tion used (perspective) or the type of game-agent evolution occurring (mutability).These dimensions are grouped in descriptive metacategories such as time and space.A key aspect of this typological model is that it is open ended, which means thatindividual dimensions can be modified, added, or rejected without compromising theintegrity of the model as a whole. Thus, one could choose to disregard the meta-category physical space if the games examined were all purely virtual.

That being said, a couple of important aspects of the typology must be addressedand the open-endedness tested. Reflection on the strengths and weakness of thetypology manifests itself on two levels. Within the typology itself on a dimensionlevel, the individual dimensions face a continuing refinement to raise the precisionof each dimension and to reflect that games as such are evolving. On the overalltypology level, where the understanding of the typology’s primary strengths andmotivation is concerned, a claim can be made that the typology serves best as a toolfor comparison—not as a solution to the genre problem as such. Furthermore, theway the dimensions of the typology are presented will have decisive impact on therelationships between games that can be inferred from the typology.

4 Games and Culture



Discussions on the Dimension Level

The Aarseth et al. (2003) typology contains 16 dimensions grouped in sixmetacategories. A thorough discussion of all the dimensions falls outside the scope ofthis article, so for our purposes a discussion of the metacategory time will serve as anexample of modification on the dimension level. Time comprises the dimensions pace,representation, and teleology. Pace describes whether a player can be active all thetime (real time) or if he or she must wait his or her turn (turn based). Representationdescribes the way time is represented in the game, either reflecting the way time wouldpass in our physical world (mimetic) or disjointed from reality (arbitrary). Teleologydescribes if the game ends at a given time (finite) or if it in principle could go on for-ever (infinite). Whereas representation and teleology describe a game’s relation to therest of the world, the category pace describes internal game time. In that regard, timewithin games seems to be more complex than just real time or turn based. Althoughthe distinction seems quite straightforward, at least three aspects seem problematic.

The first can be exemplified by looking at Neverwinter Nights, which would evi-dently classify as a real-time game. The player is free to click at any time and theavatar will respond promptly. But behind the scenes the game operates by the strictlyturn-based d20-rulesystem (the core of Dungeons & Dragons, third edition), whichin turns adjudicates the actual amount of actions allowed by the player. A seasonedNeverwinter Nights player will often select actions faster than the game allows themto be executed. The game will display a queue of actions selected—in a sense theexperienced gamer can think a couple of turns ahead (see Figure 1). An easy rebut-tal would be to say that Neverwinter Nights is actually a turn-based game. The prob-lem with that reasoning is that Neverwinter Nights is much closer related to Diablothan to Chess because it requires focus under time pressure and dexterity with mouseand keyboard. Furthermore, from a classification point of view, it’s illogical to saythat the better you get at a game the more turn based it becomes.

A second problem in the distinction real time versus turn based is how to dealwith games like Age of Wonders. The developers themselves call it real time–turnbased, and similar games are sometimes termed tick-based games. In these gametypes, players act simultaneously and in real time until all units are moved (or theplayer feels he or she is done), after which the player indicates (ticks off) that he orshe is ready for the next turn. When all players indicate that they are done, a newturn begins. Once again it would it seem straightforward to classify Age of Wondersas a turn-based game because the passage of turns determines the overall passage ofgame time. Age of Wonders does have a lot in common with turn-based strategygames like Heroes of Might and Magic as they both rely on (hopefully) profoundstrategies and planning many turns ahead. The problem is that if Age of Wonders ismerely a turn-based game, a very important aspect is lost—the simultaneity. In thatview, Age of Wonders has many commonalities with games like Age of Empires orStarCraft, which would classify as real-time games.

Elverdam, Aarseth / Construction Through Critical Analysis 5



The last problematic aspect of only classifying internal game time as real time orturn based is the way the mere passing of time can put pressure on a player—bothin turn-based and real-time games. This kind of pressure can be on the manual dex-terity of the player as was the case with Neverwinter Nights and Diablo—and it iscommon to most computer games whether racing cars or shooting everything thatmoves. Indeed, it seems tempting to let real-time games carry the meaning of timepressure. But as seen in classic games such as Blitz Chess, time pressure can play anequally important role in a turn-based game.

As a result, a more detailed view of time within games is needed. Thus, the afore-mentioned dimensions representation and teleology make up a new metacategoryexternal time because they describe how time in the game relates to world outside ofthe game. Because time within the games themselves is far more complex than thedimension pace (real time vs. turn based) allows for, new dimensions are needed. Toaddress the three issues raised earlier, the metacategory internal time contains threedimensions: haste, synchronicity, and interval control. Haste describes whether thepassage of external time alters the game state. Synchronicity describes whethersimultaneous player action is allowed. Finally, interval control determines whethera player has control of the game time (or time cycles within the game).

If we return to Neverwinter Nights, we are now able to describe the issues thateluded us before. In Neverwinter Nights the passage of time alters the game state, ithas synchronous actions, and the player is allowed to control the game intervals.

6 Games and Culture

Figure 1The Wizard (bottom) Has Just Launched a Fireball Toward a Demon (top).

Note: In the top left corner the interface shows four icons. These icons indicate four spells that havebeen chosen by the player. The wizard will cast these as fast as the game intervals allow, but for now theyare queued.



Thus, a player can actually pause the game and select a series of actions to be takenby the in-game character and then resume the action. If we describe this in the termsof the internal time dimensions, we could say that the player uses interval control totemporarily suspend the haste of the game. This style of play might be consideredcheating by some but is actually encouraged by the developers of NeverwinterNights for novice players. By exercising interval control, not only is the haste of thegame suspended but also to some extent the synchronicity—which might lead tosome serious complaining if this instance of Neverwinter Nights were played bymore than one person. This explains why interval control in games like NeverwinterNights is quite rare.

The Modified Typology

The rejection of the dimension pace and the subsequent addition of new dimen-sions (haste, synchronicity, and interval control) witnessed earlier is an example ofthe work possible in an open-ended typology. Indeed, the typology as a whole hasundergone a similar scrutiny and is presented here in a modified form with eightmetacategories: virtual space, physical space, internal time, external time, playercomposition, player relation, struggle, and game state (see appendix). The followingis a brief presentation of the dimensions in each metacategory.

Virtual Space (Figure 2)

• Perspective describes whether the player has a complete overall view of the gamespace (omnipresent) or if the avatar (or game tokens) must be moved strategically(vagrant).

• Positioning describes whether the player can discern his or her position exactly asthe game rules dictate it (absolute) or if he or she must relate to other objects todecide his or her position (relative).

• Environment dynamics describes whether the player is allowed to make additionsor alterations to the game space (free) or if such alterations only alter the statusof predetermined locations (fixed) or finally if no changes to the game space arepossible (none).

The classic arcade game Pac-Man has an omnipresent perspective because allthe game space is visible on the screen. If we imagine a version of Pac-Man inwhich the game space is too large to fit one screen and thus scrolls when the playerreaches the extremities of the screen, that version of Pac-Man would have a vagrantperspective.

The position of a chess piece on the board is determined by the square on whichit sits. This square is described by a number and a letter (e.g., H4) that a player would




easily refer to, making Chess a game with absolute positioning. The position of aplayer in Unreal Tournament is an entirely other matter. The position is a three-dimensional coordinate that the player has no chance of (or interest in) discerning,instead relating a position to objects in the game (e.g., “He’s hiding on top of thesecond box to your left”), thus making Unreal Tournament a game with relativepositioning.

A game like Lemmings lets the player alter the game environment freely, whereasothers like Ultima Online or Age of Empires allow the player to add content (e.g., inthe form of houses) to the game. Games like these are classified as having a freeenvironmental dynamic. Some games allow alterations at predefined positions, suchas specified sites for city building in Kohan II or shooting out windows for passagein games like Half-Life or Resident Evil 4. These games have a fixed environmentaldynamic. Finally, games such as Tetris or Chess allow no changes to the game envi-ronment and thus have no environmental dynamics.

8 Games and Culture

Figure 2The Metacategory Space Containing the Dimensions Perspective,

Positioning, and Environment Dynamics

VIRTUALSPACE

Dimensions 1. Perspective 2. Postioning 3. Environment Dynamics Ultima Online

Counter-Strike: Source

Neverwinter Nights World of Warcraft

EverQuest 2

MUDs

-

Gangster City

Age of Empires Lemmings

Kohan II

Pac-Man

Civilization

Heroes of Might & Magic

Chess

Environment Dynamics

Perspective

Omnipresent

Vagrant Positioning

Positioning

AbsoluteEnvironment

Dynamics



Relative

Absolute

Relative

None

Fixed

Free

None

Fixed

Free

None

Fixed

Free

None

Fixed

Free



Physical Space (Figure 3)

• Perspective describes whether the player is able to see the entire physical game area(omnipresent) or if movement is required (vagrant).

• Positioning describes whether the player’s position is determined relative to his orher location in the physical world (location based) or if it is determined relative toother game agents (proximity based) or finally if both factors combined determinethe player position (both).

The game BotFighters spans over miles of physical space, which makes it impos-sible for the player to see the game area, whereas games like Badminton allow theplayer full view of the playing field. Thus, BotFighters has a vagrant perspectivewhile Badminton has an omnipresent perspective. The prototype game Pirates! forPDAs (Björk, Falk, Hansson, & Ljungstrand, 2001) has a rather curious spatial clas-sification. The players move within in a relatively small physical area that has WiFiantennae at the edges. The display on the PDA shows only a small part of the gamespace (a part of the ocean with islands), thus the player has to move around to dis-cover islands or other players on the screen—making the virtual perspective vagrant.


Figure 3The Metacategory Physical Space Containingthe Dimensions Perspective and Positioning

ZoneMaster Geo Dashing

(Chess)

Tennis

Pirates! (PDA) Boxing

Dart

Orienteering

.s.u.c.k.e.r. Football

Car Racing

BotFighters Hide and Seek

PHYSICALSPACE

Dimensions 1. Perspective 2. Postioning

Perspective

Omnipresent

Vagrant Positioning

Positioning

Location based

Both

Proximity based

Location based

Both

Proximity based



Meanwhile, the players can see each other walk around in real life and the physicalboundaries of the game space quite easily—making the physical space perspectiveomnipresent.

Whereas games like BotFighters or hide and seek rely on the relative positions of theplayers (making them proximity based), games like GeoDashing or Orienteering relyentirely on the player’s location in the world (making it location based). Other gamesrely on both forms of positioning, thus it is important for a football player both to stayinside the pitch but also not be “off-side” (relative to the opposing players) for instance.

External Time (Figure 4)

• Teleology describes if the game ends at a given time (finite) or if it in principlecould go on forever (infinite).

• Representation describes they way time is represented in the game, either reflectingthe way time would pass in our physical world (mimetic) or disjointed from reality(arbitrary).

Games like Chess and Half-Life end at given points in time (e.g., when won orcompleted) and thus have finite teleology. Other games like World of Warcraft orEverQuest (indeed most MMORPGs) have no fixed time of termination and playerscannot “win” them, which means that they have an infinite teleology.

The time flow in games like Counter-Strike:Source or Rainbow Six reflect ourexpectations of how long actions would take in real life, thus we classify these gamesas having a mimetic time representation. Games like StarCraft feature base building

10 Games and Culture

Figure 4 The Metacategory External Time Containingthe Dimensions Representation and Teleology

Representation

Mimetic Teleology

FiniteCounter-Strike

Utopia

Hattrick

StarCraft

EverQuest World of Warcraft

Infinite

Finite

Infinite

TeleologyArbitrary

EXTERNAL TIME

Dimensions 1. Representation 2. Teleology



at a pace that defies what is possible in real life, which means that they classify ashaving an arbitrary time representation.

Internal Time (Figure 5)

• Haste describes whether the mere passing of real time alters the game state (present)or not (absent).

• Synchronicity describes whether game agents can act at the same time (present) orif they take turns (absent).

• Interval control describes whether the players decide when the next game cycle willcommence (present) or if such control is denied (absent).

The game Civilization (fastest player) denotes a play style where the players actsimultaneously until one player ends his or her turn, leaving the other players a fixedamount of time to act before next turn commences.


Figure 5 The Metacategory Internal Time Containing the Dimensions Haste,

Synchronicity, and Interval Control

Civilization (fastest player)

Counter-Strike EverQuest

“Blitz Chess” (Chess w/clock)

Heroes MM (time limited turns)

Age of Wonders

Hattrick

Chess

Play-by-mail (Daily Turns)

INTERNAL TIME

Dimensions 1. Haste2. Synchronicity 3. Interval Control

Haste

Present

Absent

Synchronicity

Synchronicity

Present

Present

Absent

Present

Absent

Present

Absent

Present

Absent

Present

Interval Control

Interval Control

Interval Control

Interval Control

Absent

Absent



The three dimensions of internal time are described in detail earlier (see Discussionson the Dimension Level).

Player Composition (Figure 6)

• Composition describes the how the players in a game are organized (single player,single team, two player, two team, multiplayer, multiteam).

Games like Pac-Man and Half-Life have only one player (single player), whereasthe group of players gathered around the table playing Dungeons & Dragons makesup one team (single team). Tennis is played in singles matches (two player) or indoubles matches (two team). Finally, the online manager game Hattrick features lotsof players competing against each other (multiplayer), whereas the online gameUtopia has numerous islands (each with multiple allied kingdoms) waging warsagainst each other (multiteam).

Player Relation (Figure 7)

• Bond describes whether the relation between players can change during play(dynamic) or not (static).

• Evaluation describes how the players or the outcome of the game is quantified.The individual player can be evaluated (individual), the players can be evaluatedas a team (team), or they can be evaluated both as a team and as individualplayers (both).


Figure 6 The Metacategory Player Composition Containing

the Dimension Composition

Tetris

Dungeons & Dragons

Chess

Counter-Strike

Quake Arena Hattrick

Dark Age of Camelot Relay-Race

Composition

Single player

Single team

Two player

Two team

Multiplayer

Multiteam

PLAYER COMPOSITION

Dimension 1. Composition



In a game of Risk or Ludo the players often form alliances to defeat a playerwho has taken the lead, which in turn means that a new leader arises, thus making thealliances change, which means that the bond between the players is dynamic. Gameslike Axis & Allies or Counter-Strike have predefined which teams are in conflict, andthis structure does not change during the course of play, making the bond static.

In a game of Risk only one player can prevail, which means that the evaluation isindividual. In Football it’s the performance of each team that is evaluated (i.e., theamount of goals), which means the game has team evaluation. In Neverwinter Nightseach player is awarded an individual amount of experiences points, whereas thewhole team gets to share rewards from completing quests, thus the game makes useof both types of evaluation.

Struggle (Figure 8)

• Challenge describes three principal ways a game can provide opposition. It cancome in the form of predefined challenges, which are exactly the same each timethe game is played (identical). It can come from a predefined framework that isvaried by mathematical randomness (instance). Finally, opposition can come fromgame agents whose actions are autonomous (agent).


Figure 7 The Metacategory Player Relation Containing

the Dimensions Bond and Evaluation

Bond

Dynamic Evaluation

EvaluationStatic

Risk Diplomacy EverQuest

Individual

1-Person 1 Vote Systems

Team

World of Warcraft (PvE) Civilization

Both

Half-Life 2 Tekken

Individual

Axis & Allies Relay Race

Team

World of Warcarft (PvP) Neverwinter Nights

Counter-StrikeBoth

PLAYER RELATION

Dimensions 1. Bond 2. Evaluation



• Goals describe if the game has an exact and unchanging victory conditions(absolute) or if the goals are subjective to the unique occurrences in a specific gameor the players’ interpretations (relative).

In The Secret of Monkey Island you guide your avatar through a series of puzzlesand encounters that are exactly the same from game to game, making the challengeidentical. In games like Diablo, the dungeons resemble each other from game sessionto game session, but they are not entirely alike. One monster type may be different,and the spatial layout of each dungeon will differ. Thus, the challenge is different(but based on the same framework) from each game instance to the next. Finally,some games rely on the challenge that comes from facing one or more strategicagents capable of winning or losing. This is the kind of challenge you face in gameslike Counter-Strike or Civilization, which classify as having an adversarial challengestructure. It is worth mentioning that such adversaries need not be unpredictable—indeed both humans and computers can behave exactly like one expects. The pointis that their actions are potentially unpredictable, making a part of the challenge tofigure what the opposition is doing.


Figure 8 The Metacategory Struggle Containing

the Dimensions Challenge and Goals

STRUGGLE

Dimensions 1. Challenge 2. Goals

Call of Duty (single player) The Secret of Monkey Island

Neverwinter Nights (campaign)Absolute

BlackoutRelative

Identical Goals

Roulette Solitaire

Absolute

Tetris, SIM City Diablo, EverQuest

Relative

Challenge Instance Goals

Counter-Strike CW Chess

Absolute

Counter-Strike FFA Pen-and-Paper MMORPG PVP

Relative

Agent Goals



The goal of Chess is one—capture the adversary’s king. Likewise, a scenario inHeroes of Might and Magic might have the occupation of a specific city as its focus.Goals like these are absolute because attaining them will always produce an outcomethat is quantifiable without factoring in the subjective player(s) playing the game orthe specific events of the unique game session. In other games, the result of accom-plishing a goal will not necessarily mean the same from game to game—or evenfrom player to player. The goal of Tetris could be to get as far as possible, to beat ahigh score, or just to improve from the previous game. Goals like these we call rel-ative goals. A game can feature both types of goals, in which case the game in a clas-sification context is considered to be more than one game. Consider Football, whichwould normally classify as a game with relative goals because winning requires thatyou score one goal more than your opponent. Sometimes a draw is not an acceptableoutcome (e.g., in cup tournaments) and an absolute goal is introduced—“TheGolden Goal.” Because scoring a goal will now produce certain victory, this modeof play would classify as a game in its own right (with an absolute goal), whichmakes sense because the actual game play is much different from “normal” football.

In most MMORPGs we often encounter quests, which state a goal to be attained.These do not however constitute absolute goals because the outcome of the quest isnot quantifiable without factoring in the subjective player(s) playing the game or thespecific events of the game session. Thus, a player can choose to do a quest or not,and the goals fulfilled by completing the quest could be many (getting further,hoping for a particular item drop, helping a friend, etc.) and not discernible withouttaking the subjective player into account.

Game State (Figure 9)

• Mutability describes how changes in the game state affect the game agents (be theyplayer or computer controlled). The state changes can be passing (temporal), lastthroughout the game (finite), or span beyond multiple game instances (infinite)

• Savability describes whether the game state can be saved and restored at theplayer’s discretion (unlimited), if this is only allowed in certain circumstances(conditional), or if it is impossible to save the game state (none).

The classic role reversal in Pac-Man, when a “pill” is eaten and the ghosts changefrom predators to prey, is what would classify as temporary mutability—because thechange is time limited. In other games, some of the evolution spans the entire game—for example the scientific achievements in Civilization or the experience levelingin World of Warcraft. In some games the evolution spans over more than onegame—thus a character in Neverwinter Nights can play and evolve in many differ-ent modules, and a player can continue to evolve skills and abilities in Diablo bystarting the game over with the same character. Finally, some games (e.g., Chess)have no mutability.




Discussions on the Typology Level

One of the main goals of the Aarseth et al. (2003) typology is to solve the problemwith the use of arbitrary genres, but one might ask if the typology does this success-fully and if a solution to the genre problem should be the main focus at all. First of all,


Figure 9The Metacategory Game State Containingthe Dimensions Mutability and Savability

GAME STATE

Conditional

Half-Life 2 Call of Duty

Unlimited

Pac-Man Counter-Strike

None

Civilization Panzer General

Unlimited

Grand Theft Auto III Fable

Conditional

World of Warcraft (MMORPGs)

Age of EmpiresNone

Neverwinter NightsUnlimited

-Conditional

Diablo (Hardcore Rules)NoneDimensions 1. Mutability 2. Savability

Temporal Savability

Mutability Finite Savability

Infinite Savability

Halo Lotus Espirt Turbo Challenge



the need for precise terminology and strictly defined dimensions will most often meanthat the dimension labels in the typology will be less intuitive. Furthermore, aestheticand subjective preferences are areas that the typology obviously doesn’t engage.

Instead, the primary strength of the typology model is that it lets us compare gameseasily and precisely. If we look at the games Diablo and World of Warcraft we will seethat they classify as almost totally identical with the exception of the dimensionsdescribing player structure. Both games feature leveling and instanced opponents,whereas neither allows the player to make changes to the game world. This aspect ofWorld of Warcraft is exactly what makes it different from a game like Ultima Onlinein terms of the typology. So by comparing likenesses and differences we gain a tremen-dous amount of information about what makes the individual games what they are.Even if two games classify as being identical we will have gained useful information.If we compare the games Counter-Strike and Call of Duty (multiplayer search anddestroy missions) we will find that they are identical in each dimension of the typol-ogy (see Figure 10). Even though most people playing the two games would probablyagree that were very similar, they would probably also be able to say which game theypreferred. Thus, some might like the more slow-paced and gritty “World War IIShooter” Call of Duty, whereas others might prefer the fast-paced Counter-Strike. Thismeans that using the typology model also helps us identify when differences betweengames are of a more qualitative nature—and thus merit other means of investigation.

Another important aspect of the process of discovering the similarities and dis-similarities between games is the way we represent the metacategories and dimen-sions of the typology. Listing the dimensions of the internal time (see Figure 11) indifferent ways shows us very different relationships between games and their classi-fication in the typology. In the first case (A) we see a divide between action-packedgames with high adrenaline and the more contemplative games of in-depth strategy.The second case (B) shows us that allowing a player to control the game interval willprobably rule out it ever being a successful MMO.

Game Classification and Game Design

The following section discusses the perspectives of the typology in a game designcontext, asking the question What can a structural theory of games contribute togame design? Compared to one of the recent contributions to the field of gamedesign, Game Design Pattern, a certain affinity both in the theoretical framework butalso in the strengths they share with regards to game design seems apparent.

The ability to compare games and communicate with precision seems to be ofevident use in the game design process, but it is also a valuable tool in the processof making or adjusting the formal or semiformal design tools themselves. If we com-pare the game component framework (Björk & Holopainen, 2004) that is the basisof the formulation of the design patterns, we can see that the terminology used




Fig

ure

10

Com

pare

d D

imen

sion

by

Dim

ensi

on W

e Se

e T

hat

Cal

l of

Dut

y (S

earc

h an

d D

estr

oy)

and

Cou

nter

-Str

ike

Are

Cla

ssifi

ed a

s Id

enti

cal i

n th

e Ty

polo

gy

Non

eEx

plic

itB

oth

Sta

ticA

bsen

tP

rese

ntP

rese

nt

Vir

tual

Spa

ceE

xter

nal

Tim

eIn

tern

alTi

me

Pla

yer

Str

uctu

reP

laye

rR

elat

ion

Str

uggl

eG

ame

Sta

te

Fini

teM

imet

icS

tatic

Rel

ativ

eM

imet

icTw

o te

amTe

mpo

rary

Adv

ersa

ry

Non

eEx

plic

itB

oth

Sta

ticA

bsen

tP

rese

ntP

rese

ntFi

nite

Mim

etic

Sta

ticR

elat

ive

Mim

etic

Two

team

Tem

pora

ryA

dver

sary

Per

spec

tive

Cou

nter

-S

trik

e

Cal

l of

Dut

y

Pos

ition

ing

Env

iron

men

tTe

leol

ogy

Has

teC

halle

nge

Mut

abili

tyS

avab

illity

Inte

rval

Con

trol

Syn

chro

nici

tyC

ompo

sitio

nR

epre

sent

atio

nB

ond

Goa

lsE

valu

atio

n

CA

LL O

F D

UTY

(S&

D) C

OM

PA

RE

D T

O C

OU

NTE

R-S

TRIK

E

18




Figure 11Sorting the Dimensions of a Metacategory Will Have a Profound Impact

on the Likenesses or Relations Between Games We Might Find




Age of Wonders

Chess

Hattrick


A. INTERNAL TIME


Haste

Present

Absent

Synchronicity

Synchronicity

Absent

Absent

Present

Absent

Present

Absent

Present

Absent

Present

Absent

Interval Control

Interval Control

Interval Control

Interval Control

Present

Present

Feel the rush!


Counter-Strike StarCraft

EverQuest

Counter-Strike StarCraft

EverQuest



Age of Wonders

Chess

Hattrick


B. INTERNAL TIME


Interval Control

Present

Absent

Synchronicity

Synchronicity

Absent

Absent

Present

Absent

Present

Absent

Present

Absent

Present

Absent

Haste

Haste

Present

Present

Haste

Haste

All MMORPGs?

In-depth Strategy



closely resembles that of the typology—but also that the typology could be used toimprove the framework and the individual patterns. For example, the single-playerand multiplayer patterns could be refined to also describe two-player, two-team,single-team, and multiteam aspects of games represented in the typology.

Similarly, many of the advantages highlighted in connection to the use of GameDesign Patterns seem to hold equally true for the typology model. One of the bene-fits of the use of Game Design Patterns is that having a listing of game concepts pro-vides the designer with a knowledge base. The same can be said of having a preciseway of identifying and comparing key elements of the design with existing gamesusing the typology. In the process of analyzing which patterns and subpatterns to beused in a design or their consequences for the game, a broader base of comparisonwould seem helpful. Also it could work the other way around, helping the designeranalyze a flaw in an existing game and take the necessary steps to avoid making thesame mistake in the development of a new game. Finally, the typology could estab-lish whether a game was truly unique or not.

So why are the typology model and the Game Design Patterns so closely related?And what are the key differences? The ability to communicate with precision is thefoundation that both game research and game design depend on. One of the mostbasic “design tools” is an internal understanding of the problems or possibilities athand. Björk and Holopainen (2004) used the analogy of Game Design Patterns beinga language. In that sense, the likeness and difference with regards to the typology canbe described by saying that the typology is the grammar of the language of games—and thus the grammar in the language of Game Design Patterns.

Perspectives and Further Work

Because the open-endedness of the typology model works—as we witnessed bythe process of refining the internal and external time categories—it seems fair toassume that iterations of the refinement process will go on as long as games aremade and played. Hopefully this article will inspire the constructive criticism neededto increase the precision of the model.

If we stick to the analogy of languages, one could hope that the typology model couldserve as the grammar that would make the communication between different fields ofscience much easier. Could sociologists, hypothetically speaking, use the typology tofind out which fundamental game mechanics or Game Design Patterns are pervasivein games preferred by, for instance, male gamers over the age of 40? Or could thetypology shed some light on what (if anything) are the constituents of a casual game?

Thus, one of the issues that needs to be addressed is how to make and maintain aknowledge base of classified games that is accessible to a broader field of researchersand developers—while allowing the continuing discussion and refinement of ourunderstanding of the basic components of games.





Dimensions

1. Virtual Perspective

2. Virtual Positioning

3. Environment Dynamics

4. Physical Perspective

5. Physical Positioning

6. Representation

7. Teleology

8. Haste

9. Synchronicity

10. Interval control

11. Composition

12. Stability16. Mutability17. Savability

13. Evaluation14. Challenge15. Goals

Synchronicity

Perspective

Interval Control

Present

Absent

Present

Absent

Present

Absent

RepresentationMimetic

Arbitary

Finite

Infinite

Teleology

Internal Tim

e

External T

ime

Evaluation

BondSingle player

Two player

Single team

Two team

Multiplayer

Multiteam

Dynamic

Static

Individual

Team

Both

Composition

Player R

elation

Player C

omposition

Savability

Mutability

Predefined

Instanced

Adversary Infinite

Explicit

Implicit

Temporal

Finite

None

Conditional

UnlimitedGoals

Challenge Gam

e State

Struggle

Perspective

Perspective

Positioning

Positioning

Omnipresent

Vagrant Omnipresent

Vagrant

Location based

Proximity based

Both

Absolute

Relative

None

Fixed

Free

Physical S

pace

Virtual S

pace


AppendixOverview of the Typology Model



References

Aarseth, E., Smedstad, S. M., & Sunnanå, L. (2003). A multi-dimensional typology of games. InM. Copier & J. Raessens (Eds.), Level Up: Digital Games Research Conference Proceedings. Utrecht,the Netherlands: Universteit Utrecht.

Björk, S., Falk, J., Hansson, R., & Ljungstrand, P. (2001). Pirates!—Using the physical world as a gameboard. In Proceedings of the 8th IFIP TC13 International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction(INTERACT). Tokyo, Japan.

Björk, S., & Holopainen, J. (2004). Patterns in game design. Hingham, MA: Charles River Media.




3/22/13 Easy to Use and Incredibly Difficult: On the Mythical Border between Interface and Gameplay

www.jesperjuul.net/text/easydifficult/ 1/9

[> jesper juul: text]

Easy to Use and Incredibly Difficult: On theMythical Border between Interface andGameplay

Juul, Jesper and Norton, Marleigh. "Easy to use and incredibly difficult: on the mythicalborder between interface and gameplay". Proceedings of the 4th International Conferenceon Foundations of Digital Games, ACM (2009), 107-112. ACM Library. Pdf version.

ABSTRACTIn video game literature and video game reviews, video games are often divided into two distinct parts:interface and gameplay. Good video games, it is assumed, have easy to use interfaces, but they alsoprovide difficult gameplay challenges to the player. But must a good game follow this pattern, and whatis the difference between interface and gameplay? When does the easy-to-use interface stop, andwhen does the challenging gameplay begin? By analyzing a number of games, the paper argues that itis rare to find a clear-cut border between interface and gameplay and that the fluidity of this bordercharacterizes games in general. While this border is unclear, we also analyze a number of gameswhere the challenge is unambiguously located in the interface, thereby demonstrating that "easyinterface and challenging gameplay" is neither universal nor a requirement for game quality. Finally, thepaper argues, the lack of a clear distinction between easy interface and challenging gameplay is due tothe fact that games are fundamentally designed not to accomplish something through an activity, butto provide an activity that is pleasurable in itself.

KeywordsUsability, challenge, game design, game studies, gameplay, interfaces.

1. IntroductionVideo games are easy, and video games are difficult. Video games can be notoriously challenging, buteven challenging games often have easy-to-use interfaces. Now, what is the difference between easeof use and challenge? Where does the easy interface end, and where does the difficult gameplaybegin?

To explore this question, let us first consider what we mean by interface and what we meanby gameplay. ‘Interface’ is the easier definition. For the purposes of this paper, the interface isconsidered to be the software and hardware tools that the player uses to understand and affect gamestate. The interface can include controller buttons, mouse clicks, menus, status bars, and field ofview. ‘Gameplay’ is a more nebulous term that is specific to a given video game. This will beexpanded later, but for now, the gameplay is considered to be core activity of the game which isaccessed through the interface.

Many recent texts on game development describe how usability methods can be used toimprove video games[1][2], but the relationship of inspiration between usability methods and gamedesign has historically gone both ways. Video games have occasionally been singled out as goldstandards of interface design. Hypertext guru Theodor Nelson describes it like this:

To see tomorrow's computer systems, go to the video game parlors! ... Look there to see trueresponsiveness, true interaction. Compare these with the dreary, pedestrian office software wesee everywhere, the heavy manuals and Help Screens and Telephone Support.[3]

http://www.jesperjuul.net/text

http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1536539

http://www.jesperjuul.net/text/easydifficult/easydifficult.pdf



Elsewhere, Ben Shneiderman similarly claims that 1980's arcade games were successful examples ofgood interface design principles, but mentions in passing that games are also different from "normal"applications because games are meant to challenge users where applications are not:

However, game players seek entertainment and the challenge of mastery, while application-system users focus on the task and may resent forced learning of system constraints. Therandom events that occur in most games are meant to challenge the user, but predictablesystem behavior is preferable in nongame designs. Game players compete with the system, butapplication system users apparently prefer a strong internal locus of control, which gives themthe sense of being in charge.[4]

Similarly, a paper from Microsoft Game Studios describes how the usability issues of games aresimilar to those of productivity software, while pointing to how games are also different:

Games share some important similarities with productivity applications, similarities that makethe process of improving the user experience with games similar in some ways to the one usedwith applications. ... Users of productivity applications must be satisfied with the experience, butthe primary concern is that they are able do what they need to do (accomplish tasks) easily,quickly and effectively. In contrast, games must be “fun.” Games must also be challenging, butchallenge is something that applications are typically designed to minimize.[2]

In these descriptions, good games are similar to good productivity software in that they should maketasks easy, but good games are also different from productivity software because games make tasksdifficult! Having established this, we face the problem of telling the difference: what should be the easyparts, and what should be the difficult parts of a game?

Though Shneiderman and Nelson praise video games as models of interface design, playing amodern video game is rarely an experience of interface bliss. A more common experience ofcontemporary video games may rather be that of facing an overly complex interface that subjectively"gets in the way" of what the player wants to achieve in the game. Since difficult-to-use interfaces arethus easily associated with flawed games, it is tempting to assume that video game qualityconsequently hinges on easy-to-use interfaces. This leads to the distinction that the interface shouldbe as easy as possible to use, while the gameplay should be challenging. In game design literature,Richard Rouse III describes how it is important to create games with the right amount of challenge,while emphasizing that using the interface ("input/output systems") should be effortless:

Your game’s input and output systems are two of the primary factors that determine how steepthe learning curve for your game is and whether players will find it intuitive to play. Using theinput/output systems you design, players must be able to control and understand the gameeffortlessly.[5]

The same assumption can be found in video game journalism, where a preview of the game Killzone2[6] initially describes how the interface is more challenging than the reviewer would like:

I thought the controls themselves took a while to get used to, particularly remembering whichtwo shoulder buttons were used for hugging the wall and throwing a grenade... I also thoughtthe aiming wasn’t as precise as I would have liked.[7]

The reviewer then proceeds to describe how the main gameplay is satisfying because it is challenging:

The combat itself was, overall, really satisfying. There were situations where I felt I was safe, butgot flanked by a group of on-coming Helghast from the side. You have to really pay attention attimes.[7]

This argument builds implicitly on the distinction outlined above; pressing a button to launch a grenadeis an interface feature, so it should be easy. Deciding when and how to launch a grenade is part of thecore gameplay of combat, so it should be challenging. Difficulty in accomplishing a task is onlyconsidered acceptable if the task is part of core gameplay (e.g. winning a fight) but not if it is part ofthe interface (e.g. remembering which button does what).

2. Interface vs. GameplayAs we saw above, the interface is frequently considered a way to interact with the game, but not part



of the gameplay. The implicit or explicit assumption is that the interface should be easy and thegameplay should be challenging. This is a tempting assumption, as it does seem to bear out in manysimple cases.

Consider the example of a computer-based chess game: Such a game would be badlydesigned if the interface made it difficult to move the chess pieces. On the other hand, we wouldexpect it to be difficult to decide where to move each piece in order to eventually win the game. This isa clear distinction between the easy interface and the difficult gameplay. We can use usabilityliterature to describe this in further detail: Michel Beaudouin-Lafon distinguishes between theinteraction instruments at the disposal of a user, and the domain objects that the user can use theinteraction instruments to operate upon.[8] In chess, the interaction instruments should make it easyfor the user to move the chess pieces—drag and drop would be an appropriate instrument, by whichthe player uses the mouse to move the chess pieces directly—but the chess pieces are domainobjects that can be organized in a way that requires the mastery of difficult strategies. Hence we reacha useful distinction between easy interface and difficult gameplay: easy to perform the concrete act ofmoving the chess pieces according to the rules of the game; difficult to move them strategically well.

Figure 1: Street Fighter II (Capcom 1991)

If we apply this perspective to an original video game, Street Fighter II[9] shown in Figure 1, thedistinction is at first straightforward: the controls of the arcade cabinet let players move theircharacters and press buttons to perform various fighting moves. The easy interface lets the playercontrol the character, but the difficulty lies in making the right moves. This even matches the adagefrom game design literature that quality video games are easy to learn, but difficult to master.[10][11]This appears to be a perfect match: the interface should be easy to learn, but the gameplay should bedifficult to master.

While the distinction between easy interface and challenging gameplay holds up on a cursoryexamination, even simple games have features that are not easily mapped to this model: In StreetFighter II, many of the advanced actions in the game are not at all straightforward: players can usespecial attack moves for the characters they control, but these moves must be activated throughconvoluted button combinations that players must generally discover for themselves[1]. In this way,the game contains a clear design choice of making some actions easily accessible (pull the stick leftto move left), but making other actions difficult to access (combine button pushes to perform specialmoves).

If we look at chess again, we can point to features which do not easily fall into the categoriesof either interface or gameplay. Each piece, for example, has its own complex set of possible moves.Traditionally, the player must memorize these rules of movement in order to play. Is this memorizationpart of the gameplay or simply an interface limitation of using a traditional, physical chess set? Incomputer-based chess, an interaction instrument could be provided such that when a piece isselected, all possible valid moves light up. If movement rules are considered part of the interface, theanswer would be to implement such a feature on the theory that it makes the interface easier to use. Ifit is considered part of the gameplay, similar to how advanced moves must be discovered andmemorized in Street Fighter II, the feature should be omitted since memorization is a gameplaychallenge[2]. If remembering the movement patterns in chess seems too simple to meritcharacterization as a challenge, consider the more specialized moves such as castling or en passant.Many players are not aware of these rules; knowing them gives advantage to expert players. Bybuilding this knowledge into the interface, a chess game would reduce the challenge of knowing all thegame rules, and thereby alter the game experience.

http://www.jesperjuul.net/text/easydifficult/#_ftn1




Figure 2: Rag Doll Kung Fu (Qi Studios 2005)

Figure 3: Toribash (H. Söderström 2006)

To further blur the line between easy interface and challenging gameplay, compare Street Fighter II toRag Doll Kung Fu[12] shown in Figure 2 and Toribash[13] shown in Figure 3. All three have the samegame premise—the player controls a martial artist in one on one combat—but between these threegames, the interaction instruments are progressively more cumbersome and require progressivelymore fine-grained control[3]. Rag Doll Kung Fu and Toribash openly break fighting game conventionsby making the player manipulate the individual limbs of the character rather than moving the entirecharacter at once. The two games are also quite different: Rag Doll Kung Fu is a real-time game wherethe player pulls the individual limbs using the mouse, but Toribash is a turn-based game where theplayer lines up a sequence of movements for individual joints. Of the two games, Toribash probablyhas a steeper learning curve that makes even the act of walking extremely complicated.

Since it has the most complex interaction instrument, the common interface/gameplaydivision might lead us to conclude that Toribash would be universally perceived as the lowest-qualitygame of the three. Indeed, there are those who would agree. Here is a generally negative review,emphasizing the slowness and general difficulty of the interface:

The gameplay is click this click that...and I get really impatient before the round is over. Thecommitment involved to alter each muscle is too much. I really wanted to be able to click a bodypart and drag and rotate it where I wanted to. It's an acquired taste, but managing each muscleevery move isn't really for everyone.[14]

On the other hand, a more positive review emphasizes both how the game allows a different "thinking"approach to fighting games, and how the interface is easy to use:

The interface makes it very easy to see what each joint you select is set to do and the ghostingon your figure allows you to accurately see the result of your path of action. It's point and click.So, while gameplay can be very slow, it lends itself very well to what Toribash is trying to be: thethinking gamer's fighting game.[15]

These reviews show two different interpretations of Toribash:

· Interpretation #1: Toribash is a bad fighting game with a difficult interface for controlling theentire character.

· Interpretation #2: Toribash is a good game with an easy interface for controlling the joints of acharacter.




As we can see, the success of this game hinges on player expectations. If players sit down expectingto play a game like Street Fighter II, they will find Toribash very disconcerting. Success will depend onwhether or not players overcome their expectations enough to enjoy the game which is actually there,despite its unconventional interface. Reviewers such as the ones quoted are generally fluent in avariety of video game genres, meaning that they may perceive a common interface as "easy" when itis really an interface with which the reviewer has had more practice. A player unfamiliar with thefighting game genre may find the interfaces of Street Fighter II, Rag Doll Kung Fu, and Toribashequally difficult. More reflective players may even find Toribash to have the easiest interface, since itallows the most time for strategizing.

3. What is the Game?As we explore the difference between ease and difficulty, we return to the example of chess. Thedistinction between interface and gameplay is clear in chess because we already know what that gameis. As players, we already have an expectation about what should be the difficult part of the game, andwhat should be the easy part. We expect that the strategy of deciding where to move the chess piecesis difficult, but we expect the concrete act of moving the pieces to be easy. But if we had no priorexperience with chess, it would not be obvious what should be the easy and difficult parts of the game.Perhaps we could imagine a game called "chess" where the interaction instruments were deliberatelymade obtuse. Could there be an alternative version of chess where the basic strategy was simple, butwhere it was difficult to move the individual pieces, similarly to how Toribash redefines the fightinggame by emphasizing the strategic control of joints rather than the adrenaline rush of movementemphasized by Street Fighter II?

Figure 4: Mikado / pick-up sticks (©2006 Maciej Szczepaniak)

Games do exist where the gameplay challenge is located in the interface. Take the game Mikado (or"pick-up sticks") shown in Figure 4, wherein the goal of the game is to remove sticks from the pilewithout causing other sticks to move. There is only a small element of strategy in the game, and thecore challenge—the gameplay—of the game is in the interface, in the difficulty of moving the piecesas such.

Figure 5: Boom Blox (Electronic Arts 2008)

The Jenga[16]-inspired video game Boom Blox[17] shown in Figure 5 is another such case, where it ishard to uphold a distinction between interface and gameplay. While we probably expect Boom Blox—building on Jenga conventions—to make it difficult to move individual blocks the right way, we canalso imagine a version of Boom Blox where access to the game objects was too difficult in some way—perhaps if the interaction instruments made it difficult to select the block you wanted to move. Thisshows that we cannot equate video game quality with easy-to-use interfaces, as the challenge of agame may very well be located in the interface. On the other hand, even such a game may still have a



badly-designed interface that is too hard to use. For example, one of the authors has witnessed howBoom Blox players frequently pause the game by mistake because the "home" button of the Wiicontroller is placed close to the gameplay-relevant buttons. Where the difficulty of moving theindividual blocks the right way is experienced as integral to the game, the difficulty of not pressing thehome button is experienced as design flaw. Even when the game challenge is located in the interface,the interface may still be unduly challenging.

Figure 6: WarioWare: Smooth Moves (Intelligent Systems 2006)

Many video games, past and present, have had badly designed user interfaces. This yields thepossibility of a game deliberately playing with such issues: In the WarioWare series[18] (Figure 6), theindividual minigames of the larger game are confusing as to what the player is supposed to do, but theactual execution of a minigame is mostly simple once the interface has been understood. In otherwords, the gameplay challenge is understanding the interaction instruments, not the domain objects. InWarioWare, this is presented as a parody of bad video game design. While many games have no cleardistinction between easy interface and difficult gameplay, the tension between the two is neverthelessa source of game innovation.

4. Inefficient InterfacesVideo games are different from productivity software because productivity software, all thingsconsidered, is bound by whatever it is meant to achieve. The developer of a word processor isexpected to emphasize usability above all things, but game developers are expected to provideobstacles for the sake of entertainment. Game developers have a much larger degree of freedom inchoosing both what the game is and where to place the challenges that users face. For example,where the Grand Theft Auto III[19] games demanded that players find their way around town, GrandTheft Auto IV[20] provides an in-car GPS with driving directions to aid with navigation. Where theearlier games had navigation as a challenge, navigating around town in Grand Theft Auto IV is nolonger the game. Video game history develops by shifting focus, by redefining what the game is.Music games have also redefined what a video game can be as they are almost completely withoutstrategic choices. In such games, most of the difficulty of the game lies in the interface, like in Jengaor Boom Blox[4].

There are no inherent limits to what can be made difficult in a game, as having inefficientinteraction instruments adds challenge to a game. Game developer Blizzard uses the term skilldifferentiation[21] to describe how requiring a range of skills allows players to grow: a real-time strategygame can have "twitch" skills, multitasking, strategic thinking, understanding of economy, knowledgeof a map, and so on, as differentiators. From this perspective, a difficult-to-use interface simply addsan extra skill differentiator by which players can improve themselves. For example, in the Blizzardgame StarCraft[22], the player can only select twelve units at a time, making it inconvenient toexecute many strategic plans. Yet this also makes the ability to use the mouse and keyboard quicklymore of a skill differentiator, giving players an additional way in which they can distinguishthemselves[5]. The limit to what can be made difficult comes not from what is possible technically ordesign-wise, but from what players are willing to accept. Furthermore, the distinction between interfaceand gameplay is often murky and subject to interpretation, meaning that an experimental game mustconvince players to adjust their expectations of what should be easy and difficult in a game.

The lingering question here is in what way, if any, games can be said to have easy-to-useinterfaces. Consider the game definition of a classic game studies text, The Grasshopper[23], whereinBernard Suits argues that to play a game is to bring about a state of affairs using the less efficientmeans possible:





[To play a game is] to engage in activity directed towards bringing about a specific state ofaffairs, using only means permitted by rules, where the rules prohibit more efficient in favor ofless efficient means, and where such rules are accepted just because they make possible suchactivity.[23]

Suits stresses inefficiency as a core trait of games. For example, the easiest way to complete a golfcourse is to carry the ball to the individual hole and put it in, but golf prevents the player from movingthe ball except by way of a golf club, giving the player less efficient means to solving the problem.Suits claims that design work must be put into making the available tools (means) inefficient.Thisclaim is the exact opposite of the usual approach to productivity software, in which much work is putinto making the available tools efficient and easy to use. This discrepancy comes in part from Suits'notion of prelusory goals: Suits argues that all games are based on goals that exist prior to thecreation of a game - moving a ball into the hole in golf is such a prelusory goal. While this notion hasbeen criticized[24], it does frame games as having naturally easy goals that by design are madedifficult to attain. Conversely, the basic assumption in usability may be that computer systems arenaturally difficult, and must then be made easy by design.

5. ConclusionWe can in some games distinguish between easy-to-use interface, and the gameplay, which we expectto be difficult, but this is not a universal for games. What makes games stand apart from productivity-focused software applications is that this boundary is often blurry, sometimes inverted, and constantlyredefined: games can shift focus, redefine what the game is. Games can make the difficult easy byremoving it—such as not requiring players to know how to perform a martial arts move—or making theeasy difficult by providing extra complications—such as by making players control individual joints of acharacter. Games differ from productivity software in that games are free to make easy or difficult thedifferent elements of a game. While much may be learned from usability methods about the design ofgame interfaces, and while many video games certainly have badly-designed interfaces, it is crucial toremember that games are both efficient and inefficient, both easy and difficult, and that the easiestinterface is not necessarily the most entertaining.

This tells us something fundamental about games. There is a reason why we cannot upholda distinction between easy interface and difficult gameplay. Games are not committed to be aboutanything or to achieve anything, but can be designed for optimum experience, wherever thatexperience may be found. It is not only about reaching a destination, but also about enjoying thejourney. Compare games to poetry: much poetry takes effort to read, but this is a feature rather than abug, as it cues readers into shifting their focus from the meaning of the words to the wordsthemselves. Poetry is language not simply about communication, but about the beauty of language.Likewise, a game is an activity not simply about accomplishing something, but about the beauty of theactivity itself.

6. AcknowledgementsThanks to our colleagues at the GAMBIT lab for providing feedback and criticism for this paper.

7. References[1] T. Fullerton, C. Swain, and S. Hoffman, Game Design Workshop: Designing, Prototyping, and

Playtesting Games, San Francisco, CA: CMP Books, 2004.

[2] J.P. Davis, K. Steury, and R. Pagulayan, “A survey method for assessing perceptions of a game:The consumer playtest in game design,” Game Studies: The International Journal of ComputerGame Research, vol. 5, 2005; http://www.gamestudies.org/0501/davis_steury_pagulayan/

[3] T.H. Nelson, “The right way to think about software design,” The Art of Human-ComputerInterface Design, B. Laurel, ed., Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1990, pp. 235-243.

[4] B. Shneiderman, “Direct Manipulation: A Step Beyond Programming Languages,” Computer, vol.16, 1983, pp. 57-69.

[5] R. Rouse III, Game Design Theory and Practice 2nd edition, Plano, Texas: Wordware.

http://www.gamestudies.org/0501/davis_steury_pagulayan/



[6] Guerrilla Games, Killzone 2, Sony Computer Entertainment Europe (PlayStation 3), 2009.

[7] J. Reilly, “Killzone 2 Single-Player Impression,” Kotaku, Dec. 2008;http://kotaku.com/5109990/killzone-2-single+player-impression

[8] M. Beaudouin-Lafon, “Instrumental interaction: an interaction model for designing post-WIMP userinterfaces,” Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems,The Hague, The Netherlands: ACM, 2000, pp. 446-453; http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=332473

[9] Capcom, Street Fighter II, Capcom (Arcade), 1991.

[10] B. Bates, Game Design, Boston, MA: Thomson Course Technology, 2004.

[11] T.W. Malone, “Heuristics for designing enjoyable user interfaces: Lessons from computergames,” Proceedings of the 1982 conference on Human factors in computing systems, Gaithersburg, MD: ACM, 1982, pp. 63-68.

[12] Qi Studios, Rag Doll Kung Fu, Valve Corporation (Windows), 2005.

[13] H. Söderström, Toribash, (Windows), 2006.

[14] Mike, “Toribash Review,” The Indie Game Magazine, Oct. 2008;http://www.indiegamemag.com/2008/10/toribash-review.html

[15] M. Scarpelli, “Toribash - Review by Game Tunnel,” Game Tunnel, Mar. 2007;http://www.gametunnel.com/gamespace.php?id=356&tab=3

[16] L. Scott, Jenga, Milton Bradley (board game), 1987.

[17] Electronic Arts Los Angeles, Boom Blox, Electronic Arts (Wii), 2008.

[18] Intelligent Systems, WarioWare: Smooth Moves, Nintendo (Wii), 2006.

[19] DMA Design, Grand Theft Auto III, Rockstar Games (PlayStation 2), 2001.

[20] Rockstar Games North, Grand Theft Auto IV, Rockstar Games (Xbox 360), 2008.

[21] R. Pardo, “Blizzard's Approach to Multiplayer Game Design,” Game Developers Conference, SanFrancisco, CA: 2008.

[22] Blizzard Entertainment, StarCraft, Blizzard Entertainment (Windows), 1998.

[23] B.H. Suits, The Grasshopper: Games, Life, and Utopia, Toronto, ON: University of TorontoPress, 1978.

[24] A.J. Schneider, “Pre-lusory Goals for Games: A Gambit Declined,” Journal of the Philosophy ofSport, vol. 24, 1997, pp. 38-46.

[25] RCarlos, “Street Fighter II: The World Warrior (ARC) Ryu/Ken,” GameFAQs, Jan. 1999;http://www.gamefaqs.com/coinop/arcade/file/583626/848

[26] GameSpot, “Chess Review,” GameSpot, Apr. 1998; http://www.gamespot.com

[1] A guide to Street Fighter II: World Warrior gives the following advice for how to perform a fireballmove with the Ken/Ryu characters:

Fireball - Start with control pad and down and roll it diagonally towards your opponent and then

http://kotaku.com/5109990/killzone-2-single+player-impression

http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=332473

http://www.indiegamemag.com/2008/10/toribash-review.html

http://www.gametunnel.com/gamespace.php?id=356&tab=3

http://www.gamefaqs.com/coinop/arcade/file/583626/848

http://www.gamespot.com/

http://www.jesperjuul.net/text/easydifficult/#_ftnref1



end with pressing the direction your opponent is and any Punch at the same time you press leftor right. The more powerful the Punch you use, the faster the fireball.[25]

[2] In an April Fool’s joke, game site GameSpot reviewed chess as if it were a newly-released gamethat should be measured by the standards of contemporary video games. The review concludes thatthe required memorization of the game rules is a major flaw:

This game attempts to accredit itself by virtue of its tactical play mechanics. Yet thosemechanics are tedious and difficult to grasp and exacerbate Chess's other numerousfailings. In fact, should you actually memorize all the infuriating little rules governing howthe game is played, you'll find yourself growing weary of it all in short order.[26]

[3] An alternative interpretation would be that in fighting games, the primary domain object is theopponent, whom the player wishes to reduce to zero health. To do so, the player is provided with aninteraction instrument in the form of a martial artist character.

[4] The perception of chess as a game of pure strategy rather than skill is what at first makes it appearto match the easy interface/difficult gameplay distinction. While we have argued that there areproblems conceiving of chess in this way, the skill elements of Jenga and Boom Blox make thesegames more obvious counter-examples to the distinction between gameplay and interface.

[5] The upcoming StarCraft 2 is rumored to have no limit on unit selection.





Chapter 2: The Design ProcessHow do you like that. I'm right back into efficacious play, now planfully improvising a route by turning whatlooked like a mistake into an alternative way to go. -David Sudnow, Pilgrim in the Microworld

Iterative DesignA game design education cannot consist of a purely theoretical approach to games. This is true of any designfield: designers learn best through the process of design, by directly experiencing the things they make.Therefore, a large part of their training as students of game design must involve the creation of games. Asconceptual as this book might seem, its intention is not just to spark debate and analysis but to facilitate thedesign of games. In this chapter we offer a number of tools for integrating our ideas about games into theprocess of making them.

This book does not provide a hands-on guide to game programming, project management, or other aspects ofgame development. What it does offer is a way of thinking about the process of designing games. It is a verysimple and powerful approach, one that grows out of more than a decade of experience in teaching anddesigning games. We call this approach iterative design. We are certainly not the first to use this term or thedesign methodology it represents, but our experience has shown that it is an invaluable tool for any gamedesigner.

Iterative design is a play-based design process. Emphasizing playtesting and prototyping, iterative design is amethod in which design decisions are made based on the experience of playing a game while it is indevelopment. In an iterative methodology, a rough version of the game is rapidly prototyped as early in thedesign process as possible. This prototype has none of the aesthetic trappings of the final game, but begins todefine its fundamental rules and core mechanics. It is not a visual prototype, but an interactive one. Thisprototype is played, evaluated, adjusted, and played again, allowing the designer or design team to basedecisions on the successive iterations or versions of the game. Iterative design is a cyclic process thatalternates between prototyping, playtesting, evaluation, and refinement.

Why is iterative design so important for game designers? Because it is not possible to fully anticipate play inadvance. It is never possible to completely predict the experience of a game. Is the game accomplishing itsdesign goals? Do the players understand what they are supposed to be doing? Are they having fun? Do theywant to play again? These questions can never be answered by writing a design document or crafting a set ofgame rules and materials. They can only be answered by way of play. Through the iterative design process,the game designer becomes a game player and the act of play becomes an act of design. Learning to play agame critically, seeing where it excels and where it grinds to a halt, and being able to implement changes thatwill push the game toward meaningful play are all core game design skills.

We have a straightforward rule of thumb regarding prototyping and playtesting games: a game prototypeshould be created and playtested, at the absolute latest, 20 percent of the way into a project schedule. If agame is a two-week student assignment, the students should be playing a version of the game two days after itis assigned. If it is a commercial computer game with a 15-month concept-to-gold schedule, a prototypeshould be up and running three months into development-at the absolute latest.

Early prototypes are not pretty.They might be paper versions of a digital game, a single-player version of anetworked experience, hand-scrawled board and pieces for a strategy wargame, or a butt-ugly interactivemock-up with placeholder artwork. Still, the prototype is more than an interactive slideshow-it is a genuinelyplayable game that begins to address game design challenges of the project as a whole. The online multiplayergame SiSSYFiGHT 2000 was first prototyped on Post-It notes around a conference table, next as a text-onlyIRC (Internet Relay Chat) game, and then as a skeletal web-based game, which became the basis for the finalapplication. At each stage, the game prototype was rigorously played, evaluated, tweaked, and played again.

Chapter 2: The Design Process 1

Most paper-based game designers follow an iterative design process, but most digital game designers do not.Typically, a commercial computer game is copiously designed in advance, with extensive storyboards anddesign documents often hundreds of pages long, completed before any actual game production begins. Thesedocuments invariably become obsolete as soon as production development starts. Why? Because the play of agame will always surprise its creators, particularly if the game design is unusual or experimental. Even aveteran designer cannot exactly predict what will and will not work before experiencing the game firsthand.Prototype your game early. Play it throughout the entire design process. Have as many other people as youpossibly can play your game, and observe them playing. Let yourself be surprised and challenged. Remainflexible. And don't forget to have fun.

Managing game software development or any kind of game development offers its own challenges, and weare not suggesting that iterative design represents a complete development methodology. Our focus is gamedesign, not game development. Iterative design is just one part of a much larger process for moving a gameproject from concept to completion. But taken on its own, it is an excellent starting point for a rigorous andeffective game design process.

< Day Day Up > < Day Day Up >

CommissionsOne of the best ways to understand iterative design is to study the processes of other game designers. How dothey come up with ideas for games? How do they implement, playtest, and refine these ideas? How do theirgames evolve and change during the design process? In order to present possible answers to these questions,we commissioned four game designers to create games specifically for this book. We asked each designer todesign a game that could be printed and played as a supplement to the game design principles covered in thetext. In addition (as if that weren't enough!), we asked them to keep a log of their design process, as a way toshare the bumps, battles, and roadblocks encountered along the way. These design dairies are rich and varieddocuments that detail the experience of game design itself. Although each designer presents a very differentpoint of view, all of them make rigorous use of an iterative design process.

And in our humble opinion, the commissioned games are all fun to play. Of course, you will have to decidefor yourself. The four games and their accompanying design logs appear in different sections of the book,supplementing a particular chapter or set of chapters. The games use different sets of materials, some printedin the book, others you provide, such as dice, game tokens, or a deck of playing cards. Kira Snyder's gameuses the book itself as a game material, whereas Richard Garfield's game uses a gameboard that you mustphotocopy in order to play. Each game includes a synopsis and rule set, but below is a quick overview ofeach.

Richard Garfield: Sibling Rivalry (page 106)A board game for two or more players, Sibling Rivalry is a game of conflict betweenmisbehaving siblings. Players roll dice and move along a series of "tracks" on a board,tryingtheir best to behave badly while still avoiding detection and punishmen bytheir parents.

Frank Lantz: Ironclad (page 284)Ironclad is a two-payer game composed of two "sub-games" played simultaneously onthesame board. One is a game of arena combat between opposing teams of massive,armedrobots. The other is a game about two logicians attempting to resolve a philo sophical debate.Players play in both games each turn, and no one is certain which game is actually beingplayed until one of the sets of victory conditions is met. Ironclad is played on a checkerboardgrid, with Go stones and Checkers pieces.

2 Chapter 2: The Design Process


Kira Snyder: Sneak (page 490)Sneak is a game of social deception, played with four or more players. One player among thegroup is secretly assigned the status of double agent, known as the Sneak. Information printedwithin this book provides players with actions to help reveal who among the group is theSneak. Earn the most points by successfully identifying the Sneak and by fooling otherplayers into guessing incorrectly.

James Ernest: Caribbean Star (page 588)Played with a deck of ordinary playing cards, Caribbean Star is a battle between two cruiseship magicians who have been accidentally booked on the same ship. The magicians haveexactly one week to prove who is the better magician, a feat that is played out as themagicians show off their skills by strategically composing entertaining magic shows out ofcards.

To give insight into a more involved game design process, we commissioned one additional essay. Written bythe prolific board game designer Reiner Knizia, the essay describes the conceptual and practical process ofdesigning the Lord of the Rings Board Game. This detailed account of his iterative design process appearsimmediately following this chapter.


Game Design ExercisesIn the pages that follow, we offer a number of practical game design exercises, for students and designers, foruse in classrooms and professional workshops, for solo or collaborative efforts, for short-term experiments orlong-term theses. There are innumerable possibilities for what a game design exercise might be. Rather thanprovide an extensive list, we offer a series of examples that you can alter to fit the needs of the context inwhich you are working. The exercises presented here by no means represent a comprehensive catalog ofassignments; they are meant to act as jumping off points for the development of your own game designexercises.

Each exercise listed has a particular design focus, corresponding to a chapter or set of chapters in this book.The design focus serves two crucial roles. First, it guides students as they work, giving them a concrete way todirect their thinking and design method. Second, a design focus gives instructors a way to evaluate a projectduring and after the design process, offering a conceptual framework for analyzing a game's successes andfailures. In each exercise, the design focus helps identify the design problem as well as potential solutions.

The exercises are divided into three categories: game creation, game modification, and game analysis. Notethat many of them make use of concepts and terms that are explained in the associated chapters. Of course, itgoes without saying that all of these exercises should make use of an iterative design process. Learning how todesign iteratively is the single most important skill that a game design student can learn.

Computers in the Classroom

The phenomenon of games encompasses more than just computer games, and teaching game design does nothave to happen through the creation of games on computers. In our many years of teaching game design, mostof our classes have not required students to actually program games. Programming is not the equivalent ofgame design and as soon as students are tasked with creating games on a computer, programming can quicklybecome their primary activity.



In our classes, students are asked to focus on core game design issues, issues which are not intrinsic to digitaltechnology. In many cases, the students work off of the computer to create board games, card games, physicalgames, and social games. Even when the course emphasizes the creation of digital games, game design issuestake center stage. This is not to say that it is an either-or situation. For example, a paper-based game designcould be later implemented within a digital medium.

There are many ways to incorporate computer technology into game design exercises, such as using acommercial game level editor to design game levels, creating an email-based game in which a humanmoderator processes the outcome of game actions, or by programming games from scratch. Game design caneven be used to teach a conceptual approach to programming, one rooted in iteration, object relationships,actions and outcomes. It goes without saying that the curriculum you create should be based on your ownskills and interests-just remember to carefully manage the balance between game design fundamentals andmedia production skills.

Creation

Game creation exercises involve making a game from scratch. Any of the game creation exercises includedhere might be designed to take place within a single class, over a weekend, during two or three weeks, or overthe course of a single semester.

In each exercise the design focus manifests as a set of parameters given to the students in order to limit andfocus their design thinking. For example, a group of students creating a game with a design focus on socialinteraction might be given parameters specifying the number of players (2, 5, or 20) and the kind of socialrelationships the game creates (such as camaraderie, animosity, or flirtation). Parameters can also address themedium or format of the game being designed. These parameters can be created before class, written on indexcards and randomly distributed to teams of students (teams of 2-4 often work best, depending on the contextand the assignment). Alternatively, students might select their own parameters. Typically two or threeparameters are sufficient to focus student thinking without suffocating them with too many restrictions.

Information Manipulation

Design Focus: Games as Systems of Information (chapter 17) Description: Students are given designparameters based on the use of public and private information. Examples include: all game information ispublic, some game information is private, one player in the game has special private knowledge, the gamecontains information that is hidden from all players at the start of the game, etc. In order to keep the gamefocused on formal issues, rather than the invention of game media, the materials are limited to traditionalgame materials such as a deck of cards or a board and game pieces.

The Exquisite Corpse Game Game

Design Focus: Rules on Three Levels (chapter 12) Description: This formal design exercise works best withgroups of three. The first person in each group secretly writes down two game rules for a game that could beplayed in the classroom, each rule on a separate line of a sheet of paper. The top rule is covered up and thesecond is left visible.The second person looks at the second rule and writes two more, leaving the last rulevisible for the third person to write one more rule and a winning condition. The rules are then revealed and thegroup has to fashion a game out of the total set of rules. The goal of the exercise is to see how rules interactwith each other within the system of a game, and to explore the limits of ambiguity and specificity in rules.With more people in each group, students might write only a single rule, to keep the rule-set from becomingtoo complex.



Sensations of Play

Design Focus: Games as the Play of Experience (chapter 23) Description: In this play-based exercise,students are given experiential parameters to limit and focus their game design, including the senses (design agame that emphasizes the experience of touch, taste, or smell), emotions (cause the players to experienceanger, fear, or laughter), or one of the typologies of play experience from chapter 23 (design a game aroundCaillois'concepts of ilinx, alea, agôn, or mimicry). The medium of the game is wide open and could serve as aparameter as well.

Engendering the Metagame

Design Focus: Games as Social Play (chapter 28) Description: Students create a game that is specificallydesigned to foster emergent metagames. For example, the parameters for this exercise might be that the gamemust last for no more than 60 seconds and is designed to be played in rapid succession. Students would reporton and analyze the resulting metagame as part of the overall exercise.

Site-Specific Resistance

Design Focus: Games as Cultural Resistance (chapter 32) Description: Players create a game designed for aparticular physical context, such as a landmark, subway car, Starbucks café, etc. The game should both reflectand transform the cultural ideology of the chosen context through the play of the game. Students might belimited to games that they can actually implement or they might complete games that are too large in scope tobe playtested, such as a game that involves the population of an entire city. If students cannot play their entiregame, they should still isolate some aspect of the game play to prototype and test.

Open Source Game Systems

Design Focus: Games as Open Culture (chapter 31) Description: Each student or group creates a set of gamematerials (or game system) that could be used as the basis for a variety of games. They then design the rulesof a single game using the game system. Each group is then given the game system of another group andasked to design a game using the new system. Groups then take the game systems they originally created,along with the two sets of game rules, and create a third game that is a synthesis of the two. The focus of thisexercise is on designing an open source set of game materials that lend themselves to a diversity of gamedesigns.

In all game creation problems, it is particularly important to emphasize the iterative design process. It is oftendifficult for students to shift from brainstorming game ideas to imple menting their concepts within an actualgame prototype. This is one reason why it is important to choose design parameters wisely. The parameterswill provide students with limitations that help them focus, allowing them to arrive at a coherent design idea.Make sure that the parameters you do assign embody the design focus of the exercise as a whole. This willhelp students understand the objective of the assignment and assess their designs as they are creating them.

One common game creation scenario is that a student is placed in a situation where he or she is creating agame from scratch with few or no parameters to guide the work. This happens most often in semester-long oryear-long thesis or studio projects. Students tend to be grossly over-ambitious and under-organized in thesesituations; sometimes a design focus and the inclusion of specific design parameters can help them maintain amore directed design process. Also, unless students are working in a team or want to spend most of their timeprogramming or creating audio and visual assets, they should be designing a non-digital game, or anextremely simplified digital one.

Modification

Modification exercises represent another category of game design problems. Instead of coming up with agame using only a set of parameters, the starting point of a modification exercise is an existing game that is



altered through an act of design. The same points made earlier about the importance of a design focus, carefulselection of design parameters, and the use of iterative design apply equally here.

Change the Rules

Design Focus: Defining Rules, and Rules on Three Levels (chapters 11, 12) Description: I

n this straightforward exercise, players take a game and change someof the rules to see how the changes affectgame play. The rule changes should begiven a conceptual focus. For example, students might be givensimplistic, somewhat unsatisfying games like Tic-Tac-Toe or the card game War with the idea thatthe rulechanges must result in more meaningful play. This exercise can also beused as an opportunity to understandthe importance of crafting clear operationalrules: each group must write the complete rules for its gamevariant and watchother groups try to play their games with only the written instructions as a guide.

Destabilization

Design Focus: Games as Cybernetic Systems (chapter 18)

Description: The starting point for this exercise is a well-balanced game. Usingprinciples of feedback loops,students must change the rules to introduce a positive or negative feedback loop that either keeps the gamestate overly static ormakes it swing wildly out of control. Each group then hands its "broken" game to anothergroup, who must fix the design problem but keep the first group's rule alteration as part of the game.

A Shift in Scale

Design Focus: Games as the Play of Experience (chapter 23)

Description: In this game modification exercise, students take an existing game and alter it by changing thegame materials. The scale or some other physical attribute of the game should be radically transformed.Because the rules of the game remain the same, the difference between the two versions will lie in theexperiential play of each.

Transporting the Core Mechanic

Design Focus: Games as the Play of Pleasure (chapter 24)

Description: Students begin by analyzing an existing game and identifying its core mechanic. They thenextract the concept of the core mechanic and use it to modify a second existing game. A variant on thisexercise is to turn it into a game creation problem in which students design a game around the core mechanicthey initially identified. In either case, the point of the exercise is to understand the central role of a coremechanic and to see whether or not core mechanics can be successfully transplanted from one game context toanother.

New Depictions

Design Focus: Games as the Play of Simulation (chapter 27)

Description: In this exercise, players take a game that depicts one form of conflict or activity and modify thegame so that it depicts another form. The design parameters might be a shuffling of the territory / economy /knowledge distinction (make Chess a conflict over knowledge or Trivial Pursuit a territorial conflict). Anotherpossibility is to modify the games to depict subject matter not normally found in games, such as social orpsychological conflict. The games should use techniques of procedural representation to depict their subjectmatter.



The Rhetoric of the Lottery

Design Focus: Games as Cultural Rhetoric, and Games as Cultural Resistance (chapters 30, 32)Description: Each student or group is given an existing lottery scratch-off game ticket as a startingpoint.Through an analysis of the ideological rhetorics implicit in the game, students redesign the graphical andformal elements of the ticket in order to subvert the rhetoric. As part of the design exercise,students might alsoreconceive the architectural or social context in which the game is played. A third variant asks the students toselect a cultural rhetoric that is at odds with a lottery's existing rhetoric (such as selecting Progress inopposition to Fate). The students then redesign the game's system of information to create friction between thetwo competing ideologies.

Analysis

In addition to creating and modifying games, it is incredibly important that game design students play games,lots and lots of them. Students should play every possible kind of game, digital and non-digital, contemporaryand historical, masterpiece and stinker. Game design students play these games in order to cultivate ahistorical awareness and critical sensibility about the kinds of games that have already been designed, to learnhow games function to create experiences, and to discover what does and doesn't work about particular designchoices.

Every time students play a game, they should analyze it. The analysis might take the form of an informaldiscussion, or it might be a formal written essay. Written analyses can range from short, three-page papers tomajor research theses. Written analyses are particularly useful in sharpening a student's critical thinking, butthey must be assigned with a clear conceptual focus or they run the risk of becoming a largely descriptive"movie review" of a student's favorite game. Each schema in this book provides a highly specific frameworkto direct a student analysis.

Cybernetic Analysis

Design Focus: Games as Cybernetic Systems (chapter 18)

Description: The emphasis of this analysis is on identifying cybernetic feedback loops within the formalstructure of a game. Students must select a game and find at least one feedback loop that contributes to theoverall system of the game. Students also should identify the sensor, comparator, and actuator in the loop andwhether it is a positive or negative feedback loop. Further questions for analysis include: How does thefeedback loop affect the overall game play experience? What would happen if it were taken out of the game?How could the rules be changed to exaggerate the effects of the feedback loop? What is a different feedbackloop that might further improve the game?

Narrative Analysis

Design Focus: Games as Narrative Play (chapter 26)

Description: Students choose a game and study it as a system of narrative representation. They must identifyelements of embedded and emergent narrative, as well as discuss the different forms of narrative descriptorsused by the game. For example, what role do setting, plot, and character play? What about the visual design,the title of the game, the spatial construction of the game world?

Social Interaction Analysis

Design Focus: Games as Social Play (chapter 28)

Description: Using concepts from the schema on social play, students analyze a game.They must identify atleast two of the following social play phenomena in their paper and describe how these elements contribute to



meaningful play: player roles,player community, core social mechanics, metagaming, forbidden play.

Cultural Environment Analysis

Design Focus: Games as Cultural Environment (chapter 33)

Description: For this exercise, students select a game that blurs the boundaries of the magic circle to operateas a cultural environment. The analysis should address the following kinds of questions: What social,architectural, narrative, or other aspects of the game overlap with the world outside the magic circle? Howdoes the blurring of the boundary support meaningful play? In what ways does the formal structure of thegame keep the game contained? What cultural rhetorics are reflected or transformed by the play of the game?


Further ReadingThe Well-Played Game: A Player's Philosophy, by Bernard DeKoven As the former director of the NewGames Foundation, Bernard DeKoven gives an overview of an ideology of play that focuses on giving playersthe power to affect their own play experiences by redesigning rules, social games to play and helping otherplayers, and inventing new games of their own. The book is more of a gentle philosophical text than a gamedesign handbook, butwe found it to be tremendously inspiring.

Recommended:

Chapter 2: Guidelines

Chapter 3: The Play Community

Chapter 5: Changing the Game

The New Games Book, by Andrew Fluegelman and Shoshana Tembeck

The bible of the New Games Movement, The New Games Book still makes a delightful read. It primarilyconsists of descriptions of games, organized by number of players and degree of activity. Some of the NewGames. games are twists on classic designs; others are remarkably original. As a source book forwell-designed physical and analyze, The New Games Book is an invaluable resource. Also included in spentcountless hours designing play. In The Well-Played Game, DeKoven the book are a handful of essays.

Recommended:

"Creating the Play Community," Bernard DeKoven

"Theory of Game Change," Stewart Brand

For Examples of Iterative Design:

The Player-Referee's Non-Rulebook

New Volleyball



New Rules for Classic Games, by R. Wayne Schmittberger

New Rules for Classic Games is filled with exactly what the title implies- redesigned versions of games likeMonopoly, Chess, Checkers, and Backgammon. Some of the variations change the numbers of players, othersadjust the game materials, and some merely fix design flaws in the original games. A fantastic resource forgame modification exercises, the final chapter recommended below lists suggestions for designing variants ofexisting games

Recommended:

Chapter 15: Creating Your Own Winning Variations


The Design and Testing of the Board Game- Lord of theRingsThe design of the Lord of the Rings Board Game was a great opportunity but also an extraordinary challenge.Tolkien's powerful epic of more than a thousand pages is loved by millions. This game would reach a largeaudience, but they would have high and very specific expectations. My brief from the publisher was to designa sophisticated family game of about one hour playing time. Even though I couldn't cover the entire story line,my aim was to stay within the spirit of the book so that the players would experience something similar to thereaders of the book. These design goals would have many consequences for the game design.


Design ProcessI don't have a fixed design process. Quite the contrary, I believe that starting from the same beginning willfrequently lead to the same end. Finding new ways of working often leads to innovative designs. Of course,there are always the basic ingredients of game mechanics, game materials, and the theme or the world. Theseare good anchor points and in a balanced design these dimensions will blend together nicely and support eachother. Furthermore, there are some fundamental design questions about the player's point of view: Who am I?What am I trying to achieve? What are my main choices? How do I win?

In the early design stages I often close my eyes and look into new worlds, new systems, and new materials,searching for exciting game play. I try to develop an understanding of what I want to feel when I play thegame: the thrill, the fun, the choices, the challenges. Clearly, for the Lord of the Rings Board Game I neededto develop a deep understanding of Tolkien's world, the underlying themes, and the motivations of thecharacters. This was not achievable by merely reading the book itself. I also needed to know what excited thefans, and what was at the center of their discussions. Dave Farquhar, a friend and regular playtester, was agreat fan of Tolkien. We spent countless hours going through the story page by page, discussing its relevancefor the game. Clearly I could not reflect much of the detail of the books. But more important was the feelingof the world. The true focus of the book was not the fighting, but more personal themes-the development ofeach character's sense of self as they attempt to overcome adversity.



The story starts with the hobbits leaving their home to venture into unknown lands. I decided that each playerwould represent a hobbit, aided by the good characters and peoples in Middle Earth. Of course their onlychance was to cooperate. To do Tolkien's masterpiece justice, the players would have to play together.Thisstructure would make the game design very unusual. But the rules could not simply demand cooperative play:the game system had to intrinsically motivate this type of play. Therefore, I embedded the hobbits' mutual foe,Sauron, into the game system itself. Even the most competitive players would soon realize that the gamesystem threw so many dangers at the players that they would naturally have to support each other to maintaina strong front against their common enemy.

In contrast to a book, a game must be replayable many times, giving fresh excitement each time. As thestoryline would already be known to many of the players but not all of them, the game would have to workand play well irrespective of the players' knowledge of Tolkien's world. Another important consideration wasthe physical appearance of the game and its graphical presentation. The Lord of the Rings is full ofatmosphere, and has long been a source of inspiration for beautiful illustrations. John Howe, a famous Tolkienartist, was signed up to do the artwork, and I wanted to give him plenty of opportunities to enrich the gameand excite the Tolkien fans with powerful visuals. Furthermore, the target retail price and the square boxshape would influence the components I could use.


Scripted Game SystemConsidering the challenge of distilling an epic story into a game, I started to develop a general approach that Icall the "scripted game system." Essentially, this is a method of distilling the key parts of a story andpresenting them in game form. It enables episodes to be linked together in a storyline that compresses someparts, but expands the key adventures that the players will play in detail.

Applying this approach to the Lord of the Rings Board Game, I imagined a "summary board," showing theoverall progress of the players' journey, and a corruption line to visualize the growing power of Sauron.Below would be a number of more detailed and beautifully illustrated "adventure boards" on which the keyepisodes would be played in sequential order. These boards would reflect the flavor of particular episodesthrough thematic events and play would take place on activity tracks representing fighting, movement, hiding,or friendship. Each scenario board would have a primary track that provided the main route through thescenario and measured the players' overall progress. Shields, representing victory points, would generally beacquired on the primary track.

In order to avoid players merely concentrating on the main track and moving swiftly through the scenario,valuable life tokens, resources, and allies would appear on the minor tracks. A scenario could be finished intwo ways, either by completing the primary track, or because the events had run their course and hadovertaken the players -usually with serious consequences. To create more predicaments, players would berequired to complete the scenarios with three life tokens (one of each kind), or they were pushed along thecorruption line on the summary board toward Sauron.

The corruption line was designed as the primary pressure being applied to the players. Their hobbit figureswould start at the "light end," with Sauron beginning at the "dark end." As the game progressed, events woulddraw the hobbits toward the dark, while Sauron moved toward them. If Sauron met a hobbit, that player wouldbe eliminated from the game and all his resources would be lost. Even worse, if the hobbit who possessed theOne Ring was caught by Sauron, the game would end in defeat for all players. Although players couldsacrifice time and resources to move back toward the light, Sauron would never retreat. So over the course ofthe game the players would gradually slip toward the dark, creating a sense of claustrophobia and impending



doom- just as in the book.

Tolkien's hobbits were rarely in control of their situation. To reflect, this I introduced a general tile deck witha series of events that affected the players directly, creating a significant time pressure in the individualadventure scenarios. The event deck would simply trigger the next event, but the events themselves would bedifferent in each scenario, reflecting the specific flavor of the episode. Although the players would knowwhich events could happen in each scenario, they would not know how soon they would occur.

The interplay of all of these game systems would create many threats, operating differently each time thegame was played, and creating opportunities for discussion and planning. Many tactical choices would presentthemselves and hopefully lead to a rich interaction between the players. The players, bringing differentpersonalities and playing styles to the table, would have to pull together and truly collaborate. This wouldcreate a similar feel to the book-the game would not just re-tell Tolkien's plot, but more importantly it wouldmake the players feel the emotional circumstances of the story.


PlaytestingMy primary design technique is to create a game first in my mind and play it there over and over again. Thiscan go on for many weeks. When I feel the need for practical playing experience, I finally build the firstprototype and play it with my playtest groups. The decision to enter the prototype stage is critical. Moving tooearly without a clear concept wastes a lot of time, as it is much simpler to change things in one's mind than ina physical prototype. Moving too late may not reveal design weaknesses early enough and may require acomplete redesign.

Once the initial concept is properly elaborated, playtesting becomes the core activity of game development.The fun and excitement of playing cannot be calculated in an abstract fashion: it must be experienced. Iprepare each of my playtest sessions in great detail-I plan the exact issues I want to monitor and test. Duringplay, I record relevant data about the game flow. Afterwards, I analyze the results and then make necessary orexploratory changes. This becomes the preparation for the next playtest session, during which I can find outhow the changes will affect the game. The revolving process usually continues over many months, sometimesyears. With experienced playtesters, we spend much time after each test discussing how it went-what workedand what didn't. Often we make changes on the spot and play again.

The first stage in prototyping the Lord of the Rings Board Game was to prepare just one scenario and to seehow the basic system played. It was somewhat natural to choose the intended first scenario, the departurefrom Bag End and the journey to Bree. The first test usually brings many surprises. It is a reality check inwhich my mental picture of the game is compared to what happens with real people. The first prototype wassoon extended by the next two scenarios, bringing us up to Rivendell.

Initially I anticipated the game would cover eight or ten scenarios, but this was a major miscalculation. Verysoon it became apparent that the game was becoming too long; by the end of the first hour, instead ofclimbing Mount Doom we were only just reaching Rivendell. I realized that I had to focus on the coreepisodes of Tolkien's story, and as a consequence none of the first three scenarios were realized in the BaseGame (though I was later to resurrect the journey to Bree in the first expansion).

I selected four main episodes from the story: Moria, Helm's Deep, Shelob's Lair, and Mount Doom, andcreated corresponding scenario boards. These scenarios were then linked on the summary board with smallepisodes in Rivendell and Lothlorien. I played and played the game with my playtest groups over the better



part of a year-typically three or four playtest sessions each week with changes between each session. Inaddition, I gave Dave Farquhar a test copy to use with other testers and generate even more playtest results.Many details were analyzed for each board, including the positions of the hobbits and Sauron on thecorruption line, cards and shields held by each player, tiles drawn, and number of turns played.

One of the vital tenets of good playtesting is comprehensively to explore every possible strategy and style ofplay. A frequent error committed by inexperienced designers is to develop a game for just one test group. Ofcourse, to be successful a game must appeal to many different types of players. It must be robust and excitingon many levels, for casual players as well as for experienced gamers. My basic approach in the Lord of theRings Board Game was to offer the players plentiful but nevertheless limited resources.

Beginners usually spend these resources freely, proceeding optimistically through the game until the resourcesbecome scarce and they succumb to Sauron. With more experience, players realize that spending resourcesearly in the game will have serious consequences later on. Players foresee future threats and pitfalls, and thediscussions focus much more on strategy and risk. The more the game proceeds, the more apprehensive youget, and the greater the need for the players to strategically cooperate. Like the book, the game offers ajourney of personal growth. In the game, you have the advantage of being able to play over and over again todo better each time.


More ChangesI like my game designs to begin with elaborate concepts and too many features, and then later streamline thegame play, only retaining the best parts of the design. I find this process easier than trying to bolt onadditional elements later, and overall it has led me to more satisfying game designs.

Apart from identifying the most interesting features and the most intuitive rules, an important focus of thecontinual playing and replaying was to balance the game. Each game should play out differently, but allgames should present roughly the same degree of difficulty. Luck should not make a game too easy, nor toodifficult. Each of the adventure boards required balancing the flow of events needed to provide an escalatingchallenge. If events occurred too early the players would be drained of resources and find themselves unableto go on. Key events encouraged the party to move along different tracks, giving them important choicesabout how to proceed. The game also had to be balanced for the varying numbers of players. Otherwise, itcould become substantially easier the more players took part, because they had more resources among them.Or it might become tougher with more players, as each character had to be looked after.

Two further thematic challenges arose as testing progressed. First, I wanted to bring Gandalf more fully intothe game; and second, I wanted to give the shield tokens a purpose other than merely to measure victorypoints. Often I find it harder to solve a single design problem than to address two at the same time. A singleproblem allows many possible solutions and-being a perfectionist-it is difficult for me to identify the single"best" solution. When looking at two problems at once, a common solution often appears more readily. In thiscase I introduced a Gandalf deck containing powerful cards that the players could buy using the shields.

This also illustrates another important game design principle. Solving a specific design issue should not justaddress the issue in isolation but should ideally contribute to the overall game play. This differentiates a gamefix from a game feature, and of course, games should never use fixes. The Gandalf cards are a nice gamefeature, because they allow the players more tactical choices and help in balancing the game. Players maydecide to keep their shields to achieve a higher score, or "invest" them to gain more powerful resources orovercome an obstacle. And of course, different players may prefer different approaches and have to arrive at a



consensus.

I had originally conceived the game for three to five players, but as I monitored the results I wonderedwhether it would play well with just two. I often initially aim for two to four, or three to five players to satisfythe market requirements. When I have a stable design, I then explore whether I can extend the player numbersthrough minor design changes. Initial test results with the game confirmed that the two-player version wasplayable, but it was too easy to win. In response, I decided to reduce the number of resource cards given to thetwo players in Rivendell and Lothlorien.

One side effect of all this testing was that the game was being optimized for experienced players, so newplayers were finding it too difficult. In setting the final variables, I took this into account. Never forget yourtarget audience! For confidentiality reasons, I normally keep testing within my own groups, but this game wasso unusual that I needed to confirm once more how the general public would react to it. So we set up separatetest sessions, some with game players and some with non-players. Sometimes the non-player groups did betterthan the game players! So we knew that we had what we wanted.


The Road Goes Ever OnAfter eighteen months,the design was finished and delivered to the publisher. But the design processcontinued. Nine months later, in October 2000, the game was released into the market. One year later, inOctober 2001, came the first expansion, Friends & Foes, with two new scenario boards and an entirely newgame element of 30 foes. Exactly one year later, the second expansion, called Sauron, let a player take therole of Sauron and actively lead the dark forces against the hobbits. Today, the Lord of the Rings Board Gameis available worldwide in 17 languages, with sales of over one million copies.

Reiner Knizia

Reiner Knizia was born in Germany and now lives in the United Kingdom designing award-win-ning boardgames and card games. His past lives include being a professor of Mathematics and a Director of StrategicPlanning in major German banks. Reiner is one of the most prolific and respected game designers workingtoday, with more than 200 published games and several books on games and design. Games include Lord ofthe Rings, Taj Mahal, Safari, and Lost Cities.




3/22/13 Project Scope Management

www.umsl.edu/~sauterv/analysis/6840_f09_papers/Wich/scopemanagement.html 1/5

Project Scope Management

Darren Wich

IS 6840

11/6/09

Introduction

According to the 2009 Standish Group Chaos report only 32% of IT projects are delivered on time, on budget andhave the required features and functions asked for. In addition 44% of projects were late, over budget and weredelivered with incomplete features or functionality. The final 24% remaining were complete failures dues tocancellation prior to completion or were delivered and never used (4). These failures have cost numerouscompanies millions of dollars and countless reputation points as a result. These facts put a high premium onsuccessful project management in the IT world today. There are many aspects to successful project managementbut it starts with a project manager's ability must simultaneously manage the four basic elements of a project:resources, time, money and most importantly scope (8).

How Project Management Works

The four basic elements of project management are further elaborated as:

Resources: People, equipment, hardware/softwareTime: Task durations, schedule management, critical pathMoney: Costs, contingencies, profitScope: Project size, goals, requirements

It is up to the project manager(s) to successfully manage all four of these elements throughout the lifespan ofthe project in order achieve success in the end. First off, the proper resources must be available for the projectand those resources must be managed effectively. For example, a software company designing a new databasefor a client must have experienced enough programmers to get the job done or else the project is doomed fromthe start. The project manager must know the capabilities of their team and when they may need additional help.Time management is the second piece of the puzzle, without managing the time spent on each task the ability tostay within budget will likely be compromised. Under or overestimating the time spent on each task can produceseveral adverse results. For example too little time can result in a rushed or poorly designed product. Converselyspending extra time will likely result in an over budget product that is unnecessarily detailed and took too long tocomplete. Next, the cost element comes into play. Often this aspect is the one metric that upper managementlooks at the most when deciding if a project is successful. Every task has a cost associated with it, whether itslabor hours for programmers or buying new hardware for a certain task. All these costs are estimated and abudget is created based on the estimated cost. Additional resources may be set aside on a contingency basis toallow for slight changes throughout the duration of the project. Everything that goes into planning the budget isdesigned to maximize the profit that will result from the potentially successful project. The final and mostimportant element of the project management process is scope. The scope is simply defined as all the work thatgoes into the project to create the end result, or the totality of all the elements mentioned above. Maintainingproper scope is the key to any project.

Why is scope so important?

Anyone who has ever completed a project will surely have tales of how scope changes have had a negative overalleffect. Scope change is bound to happen and is expected in most cases, but the goal is to keep your scope asfocused as possible in hopes of creating as straight of a line to you and your client's goal as possible. ThomasCutting of The Project Management Hut had this example: "My father is semi-retired, which means he wouldrather be working than sitting around. He now drives a tractor for a potato farm in western New York State. Inorder to plow a straight line he focuses on a point at the far end of the field and aims for it. One time he finisheda row and found that the point he had picked was the head of a duck that was walking back and forth along theedge of the field. Needless to say, that row was not even close to straight. If you allow your scope to waddle backand forth your project will experience similar consequences." (17) If a projects scope is clearly identified andproperly associated to the resources, time and budget throughout the project lifespan the likelihood for success isgreatly improved. Allowing your scope to move around like a ducks head may get you to your goal eventually, but



not very efficiently. Going deeper reveals that scoping can be broken down to 5 step by step components to guideyou through the process smoothly. These components are project initiation, scope planning, scope definition,scope verification, and scope change control (17).

Project Initiation

Projects are initiated when a business need arises. This may mean a consulting company is asked by a customerto redesign their website or possibly the consulting company itself needs to update its own intranet. Whenever aneed appears project initiation is a way to evaluate that need and come up with an acceptable solution. A projectmanager is assigned to the potential project at this point of the process. Before the project gets the green light afeasibility analysis is done. Project feasibility analysis is comprised of technical, economic, and financial aspects.Technical feasibility determines if the company has the technological expertise to carry out the project. Economicfeasibility evaluates cost-benefit ratios of the different technological options available and projects the rate ofreturn for the projects expected lifespan. Financial feasibility deals with all of the potential costs associated withthe project. A detailed feasibility analysis is the most important output from the initiation phase of scopemanagement. This allows management to give the go-ahead for project to proceed or to shelve it (17).

Scope Planning

This stage of the scoping process is all about developing an initial Work Breakdown Structure (WBS). A WBS is aresults-oriented family tree that captures all the potential work to be done in the project in an organized way. Itis often portrayed graphically as a hierarchical tree; however, it can also be a list of element categories and tasks.Large complex projects are more easily understood by breaking them into progressively smaller pieces until theyare a collection of defined "work packages" that may include a number of tasks. A $1,000,000,000 project issimply a lot of $50,000 projects joined together (2). The WBS is used to provide the framework for organizing andmanaging the work in smaller deliverables. The summary of the WBS at this stage of the project identifies thekey deliverables that the project should provide. Assigning deliverables allows the team to focus on each smallerpiece and add details to it where they see fit. Without a breakdown the project would appear too broad and lackthe attention to detail of a more defined project.

Scope Definition

At this point most of the pieces of the project have been put into place: 1) A project manager has been assigned2) team formed 3) the project has been deemed feasible 4) summary of the WBS has been formed 5) the budgetand schedule have been outlined. Now it's time to add details to the project as a whole. The WBS will beexpanded to include exactly the type of work that will be done, detail is very important here. This involvesworking closely with the client and getting what is wanted out of the project into the WBS (17). For example ifthe customer and consulting firm are discussing ways to change or improve the customer's website, all theconclusions will be taken down here and a detailed final design will be the result. Everything from the colors ofthe front page to what emotional reaction the customer wants its visitors to get from the site will be defined inthis stage. By this phase actual work on the project has begun.

Scope Verification

Scope verification by nature is interwoven with the definition and planning phases. It also provides an opportunityfor the client to come back after some of the initial work has been done and verify that the work is deemedacceptable. Since the different components of scope management are aimed at the same goal of providing auniform scope throughout the project all of them tend to overlap at times but this is a natural process. Becauseof this it's a possibility to see scope verification many times during the process. If the client prefers their websiteto be a different color scheme or function differently now is the time to work with the consultant on thesechanges. The purpose in mind is to keep both parties goals as close to the uniform straight line as possible. Thisphase is designed to strengthen and reinforce the initial scope definition through feedback.

Scope Change Control

During any project, scope change is inevitable as two or more different parties work towards a goal that satisfieseveryone. Here the concept of scope creep is introduced, which applies to any unauthorized changes to theproject scope. Because of the potentially disastrous consequences of scope change whether wanted or unwanted,testing is vital at this point of the process. If during testing changes are needed there must be documentation. Achange control is the type of formal documentation that provides official statements about any changes in projectscope to guide the process as smoothly as possible. A scope change control should be put in place as early aspossible to classify the types of requests that take place during the project. Changes in scope can have a greateffect on every element of the process with the most important being cost. Defining these changes in an orderly



fashion will help keep the client involved and ultimately affect the schedule, cost, and quality of the finishedproduct.

Scope Creep

Throughout the process of determining scope and managing a project one of your biggest enemies will be scopecreep. Allowing your scope to wander too much can wreak havoc on your budget, time deadline and just aboutany aspect of a project that you can imagine. "Scope creep is a natural part of every project", says DouglasBrindley, senior vice president of consulting firm Software Productivity Research (SPR). According to SPR,requirements in an internal development project grow each month by about 2% of the original list. But as timepasses, accommodating requests becomes more expensive, with new requirements at the coding or testingstages costing an order of magnitude more than those added during the first three months (19). "The projectsthat are successful are the ones that create a tight process to manage creep from the beginning. Knowing what afeature will cost before it's approved is key" adds Brindley (19). Clearly one the most damaging aspects of scopecreep is increasing project cost. Not only does adding more features drain the project budget, but adding the timethey require also pushes back completion dates causing a loss to the potential profits that would have beenrealized with an on time finish date. Scope creep can also create a larger and more complex end result that costsmore to maintain in the end, thus cutting into the profits that a newer more efficient system was supposed torealize. So what causes scope creep and how can those problems be fixed? A few reasons that allow scope creepto become an issue are as follows:

1. Poor Work Breakdown Structure

Some customers only have a vague idea of what they want or tend to have "I'll know it when I see it" syndrome.Since there is a lack of knowledge about what is required moving into the project there is often a need for extraunplanned resources which end up increasing the cost and lengthening the duration of the project. (5) Often thesolution to this problem is a more thorough WBS along with more time spent with the customer specifically goingover what is in and out of scope while putting it down in writing. A firm agreement on the initial WBS can savemany "who's to blame" accusations further down the road.

2. Underestimating the Complexity of the Project

Many times when a company takes on a newer project or does something for the first time they run intoproblems staying within scope. Without knowing what to expect out of a particular project things can go astrayquickly, typically causing the project to be over budget and often late. These types of projects should have adegree of contingency built into them; allow some extra time and resources for when things get bigger than youexpected (5). Allowing a little extra room for time and money concerns can make the process of doing somethingnew and exciting a little less scary from a budget perspective.

3. Lack of Change Control

As talked about previously having a change control process is very important once the project gets underway.Without proper documentation scope creep can run wild without the company or customer being heldaccountable. A customer who changes the layout of their website 3 times during a project but files no paperworkmay be shocked when the final price comes down to them. Each individual change took time and resources thatwon't be apparent once the final design is complete, but will be reflected in the final bill. If changes to the scopeare made they need to be accompanied by an official change request form along with them with a cost and timespan attached to them. Going through a formal process of a change control form helps establish the value of thechange to the customer when it's being considered.

4. Gold Plating

This problem occurs during the design process when a developer adds on features outside of the initial scope in anattempt to make the product better or add some type of "wow" factor. In the end these features usually just addto the time and budget of the project unnecessarily. While the developer may think that a certain feature isneeded the customer may not always see it that way, leaving the added features unused or even worse,unusable. This problem is solved by making sure that all team members are aware of staying within the projectscope and stick to it as closely as possible. Emphasize the importance of completing the project on time and onlywith the features asked for within the WBS. While an experienced developer who's seen many similar projectsmay think they know what's best, it's a good idea to keep in mind that the customer, not developer, will be usingthe end result. Ultimately giving the customer what they want is the goal (5).

Positives of Scope Creep



Managing the scope of a project can prove difficult and there are even cases where scope creep can be viewedpositively. (12) A situation where a client has little idea what they want but trusts your team to come up withthe right design provides an environment for developers to let their imaginations go without fear of therepercussions of programming outside the box. This is often not the case as it provides a number of budgetingand time requirement problems, but in some unique cases it may be the best way to go in order to get the mostcreativity out of the project team.

Conclusion

With the issues that scoping a project presents it can seem like a daunting or almost impossible task to avoidscope creep in some form. Back in 1994 a whopping 80% of 160 IS professionals surveyed by Computerworldsaid scope creep "always" or "frequently" occurs, while only 20% said it seldom happened (12). Though today'sStandish Group Chaos Report seems gloomy by itself there has been some improvement in project success rates.Most importantly the improvement has been in the project success category, where from 1994 to 2009 we'veseen a jump from 16.2% to 32% (9). There have been ups and downs over this time span but it is clear that theimportance of proper scope management has become a focal point for project managers everywhere. It's mucheasier to manage the scope of your project in several proven ways: using effective customer clientcommunication throughout the process, staying within the limits of your team, properly documenting importantevents in the development process and staying within the guidelines provided are all great ways to manage yourscope effectively. Proper scope management greatly improves your team's ability to stay within budget and usetime effectively. Above all else the most important aspect of the process is coming up with an end result thatsatisfies the customer.

Works Cited

Web Sources:

1. Babu, Suresh. 2005. "Scope creep is not only inevitable; it's natural." Online.uca.eis.googlepages.com/ScopeCreep.pdf

2. Chapman, James. "Work Breakdown Structure." 1997-2004. Online. http://www.hyperthot.com/pm_wbs.htm

3. Cutting, Thomas. "Scope Creep." October 8, 2007. Online. http://www.pmhut.com/scope-creep-part-5

4. Galorath, Dan. "2009 Standish Chaos Report.. .Software Going Downhill." Online.http://www.galorath.com/wp/2009-standish-chaos-report-software-going-downhill.php Dan Galorath

5. Haughey, Duncan."Scope Creep Running Away with your project." Online.http://www.projectsmart.co.uk/stop-scope-creep-running-away-with-your-project.html

6. Helms, Hal. "In Defense of Scope Creep." September 20, 2002. Onlinehttp://www.alistapart.com/articles/scopecreep/

7. Phillips, Joseph. "Real World Project Management: Managing the Project Scope." January 28, 2005. Online.http://www.ciscopress.com/articles/article.asp?p=363892

8. Reh, F. John. "Project Management 101." Online.http://management.about.com/cs/projectmanagement/a/PM101.htm

9. Standish Group Onine. http://www.standishgroup.com/newsroom/chaos_2009.php

10. Turbit, Neville. "Defining the Scope in IT Projects." 2009. Online.http://www.projectperfect.com.au/info_define_the_scope.php

Non-Web Sources:

11. Anthes, Gary H. "No more creeps!" Computerworld. May 2, 1994. Vol. 28, Iss. 18, p. 107 (3 pp.)

12. Boivie, Catherine A. "We Want Usability, Not Just Features." Canadian Computer Reseller. May 26, 1999. Vol.



12, Iss. 10, p. 22

13. Buckler, Grant. "Staking One for the Team." Computing Canada. October 22, 2004. Vol. 30, Iss. 15, p. 16-17(2 pp.)

14. Buschmann, Frank. "Learning from Failure, Part 1: Scoping and Requirements Woes." IEEE Software.Nov/Dec 2009. Vol. 26, Iss. 6, p. 68-69

15. Ingardia, Mike. "12 Steps to Keep 'Scope Creep' From Destroying Design Project Profit Margins." Principal'sReport. July 2006. Vol. 06, Iss. 7, p. 1,10-14 (6 pp.)

16. Kahn, Asadullah. "Project Scope Management." Cost Engineering. June 2006. Vol. 48, Iss. 6, p. 12-16 (5 pp.)

17. Kraus, William E "Bill". "Cost Estimating and Analysis." Cost Engineering. April 2008. Vol. 50, Iss. 4, p. 3-4 (2pp.)

18. Kwon, Regina and Virzi, Anna Maria "Containing the Pain of Scope Creep.". Baseline. March 1, 2002. Vol. 1,Iss. 4, p. 69

19. Tynan, Dan. "Worst Case Scenario: IT Survival Guide." InfoWorld. January 30, 2006. Vol. 28, Iss. 5, p. 24-26,28,30,32 (6 pp.)

20. Zimmerman, Eric. "Preventing Scope Creep." Manage. February 2000. Vol. 51, Iss. 3, p. 18-19 (2 pp.)

3/19/13 Use Case Examples -- 13 tips to create effective Use Cases

www.gatherspace.com/static/use_case_example.html#1 1/10

Use Case Examples -- 13 killer tips

Use Case Examples -- 13 killer tips to create effective use cases

By Darren Levy on September 3, 2007 +42 Recommend this on Google

Seriously, you want your use cases to be awesome. The success measurement for an effectivewritten use case is one that is easily understood, and ultimately the developers can build the rightproduct the first time.

A great way for writing effective use cases is to walk through a simple use case example and watchhow it can be leveraged to something complex. By absorbing the meaning of use case diagrams,alternate flows and basic flows, you will be able to apply use cases to your projects. In some of thetips below, we'll use eBay features for example use cases.

Tip 1. When creating use cases, be productive without perfection

Tip 2. Define your use case actors

Tip 3. Define your "Sunny Day" Use Cases (Primary Use Cases)

Tip 4. Identify reuse opportunity for use cases

Tip 5. Create a use case index

Tip 6. Identify the key components of your use case

Tip 7. Name and briefly describe your use case

Tip 8. Create the use case basic flow

Tip 9. Create the use case alternate flows

Tip 10. Produce your use case document

Tip 11. Generate a Use Case Model Diagram

Tip 12. Do you need User Stories?

Tip 13. Agile Development with Use Cases

Tip 1. Be productive without perfection

Be agile, be lean, don't be afraid to make mistakes. Often so many new product managers thinkbeing perfect will impress their audience, but having strongly written use cases with a few mistakes

GatherSpace BizLike

134 people like GatherSpace Biz.



is FAR better than an over complicated detailed list that confuses and bores an audience.

When it comes to writing effective use cases, you don't need to be a perfectionist and concernyourself with getting it right the first time. Developing use cases should be looked at as an iterativeprocess where you work and refine. You can always refine it later, so again, don't go for perfectionfrom the get-go. Loosen up and have some fun while you're doing it. Remember, humans arereading your use cases, not a bunch of robots, so keep it interesting.

Tip 2. Get a good working list of your use case actors

What is an actor? (no not Brad Pitt in this context) Any "object" or person that has behaviorassociated with it. Generally, the users are actors but often systems can be actors as well.

There are possibly over a dozen actors that interact with Ebay, from buyers and sellers, down tosuppliers, wholesalers, auditors, and customer service. But we're going for grass-roots, so who arethe basic users of Ebay? BUYERS and SELLERS. So lets put them down as our first actors. (Thevisual notation in the figures below is based on UML -- Unified Markup Language for Use Cases)

Do you notice how the actors aren't John and Sue which would be people? While John may be aseller and Sue may be a buyer, an actor is a Role. And a role in this case would be that of a buyerand that of a seller. Now that things are clicking, lets throw some more actors on your paper just sowe can try and identify more possible users.

Now we have a bunch of actors. Wait a minute? Paypal? That's not a person. An actor can be asystem, because a system plays another role in the context of your new system and has goals andinteracts with other actors as you will see later.

Tip 3. Define your Sunny Day Use Cases

For those of you who haven't heard the expression, "Sunny Day" use cases, it is in reference tothe use cases that are most likely going to occur when all goes well. These are somtimes referredto as your primary use cases. You always want to focus on the sunny day scenarios firstbecause you can then pivot off these and figure out your "rainy day" scenarios (or edge cases)later.

Use the 80/20 rule -- if you write an exhaustive list of all possible use cases, typically 20% of theuse cases will account for 80% of the activity. The other 80% of the use cases would support 20%of the activity.

In my experience in various offices, the perfectionists will say, "well what about this? isn't thatpossible?" referring to an edge case. The product manager should be able to discern a commonuse case from the edge case and prioritize accordingly. So, once you are done with your sunny-day use cases, distribute it among your project team and get consensus that you have coveredthem all.

Now Collect your Rainy Day Use Cases After you have a well-defined list of your primary usecases, you'll want to collect the list of edge cases (rainy-day) and with the help of the productmanager or steak-holder, prioritize them in terms of likelyness. It should be a business question asfar as how much development costs do you want to spend on something that is not likely to



happen.

Tip 4. Identify reuse opportunity for use cases

In this step, you are going to cross the bridge into object modeling. Don't get overly concernedabout terms like generalization, inheritance and extends. The goal of this Ebay use case example isto keep it understandable so we will explain this concept in terms of the example.

What does the word general mean? Something is broad and not as detailed. Generalization is whenyou "inherit" from something general and then add more detail. A "person" is very general. A "man"is still general, but not as general as a "person". You can say that a "man" inherits behavior andatributes of a "person".

Look at the requirements management use case diagram above and you will see there is duplicatebehavior in both the buyer and seller which includes "create an account" and "search listings".Rather than have all of this duplication, we will have a more general user that has this behavior andthen the actors will "inherit" this behavior from the new user.



The above use case example diagram illustrates that a generic user creates accounts and searchlistings and that a buyer and a seller have their own behavior but also have the behavior of thegeneric user. The benefits of generalization are that you eliminate duplicate behavior and attributesthat will ultimately make the system more understandable and flexible. We will see in later steps thatthis inheritance applies both to use cases and to the actors.

Tip 5. Create a use case index

After producing your initial visual list of use case actors and goals, we can take this list and createan initial use case grid which provides the basis for the use case index. Every use case will havevarious attributes relating both to the use case iteself and to the project. At the project level, theseattributes include scope, complexity, status and priority.

This use case index should be used by the project team to define the use cases against. It willserve as a master inventory to help writ effective use cases for the requirements phase of theproject.

Tip 6. Identify the key components of your use case

The actual use case is a textual representation illustrating a sequence of events. In our use caseexample, you will see that there are several components of a use case which we will review. In themean time, review the table below to get a basic understanding of what is in the use case and thenwe will review each element as we progeress through our use case example.

Use CaseElement Description

Use CaseNumber ID to represent your use case

Application What system or application does this pertain toUse CaseName The name of your use case, keep it short and sweet



Use CaseDescription

Elaborate more on the name, in paragraph form.

PrimaryActor Who is the main actor that this use case represents

Precondition What preconditions must be met before this use case can startTrigger What event triggers this use case

Basic Flow

The basic flow should be the events of the use case when everythingis perfect; there are no errors, no exceptions. This is the "happy dayscenario". The exceptions will be handled in the "Alternate Flows"section.

AlternateFlows The most significant alternatives and exceptions

Tip 7. Name and briefly describe your use case

Now that you have a general understanding of what a use case consists of, we are ready to startcreating our use case. Typically, while the name of your use case is being discussed, people willstart briefly describing the use case. Use plain english and keep it simple. Getting back to our usecase example, I will begin with use case #1 from step number four.

Use CaseNumber: 1

Use CaseName: Buyer Places a Bid

Description: An EBAY buyer has identified an item they wish to buy, so they will place abid for an item with the intent of winning the auction and paying for the item.

Tip 8. Create the use case basic flow

The basic flow of a use case represents the most important course of events or what happens mostof the time, sometimes referred to as the 'Happy Day Scenario' because it is what occurs wheneverything goes well -- no errors or exceptions. Another reason why the basic flow is so critical isbecause it's much easier to fully comprehend the exceptions once the norm is understood and if thebasic flow represents 70% of the system, the development staff is much more prone toimplementing the correct code in the first pass.

For our use case example, the basic flow should be to describe the happy day scenario for youruse cases such as "placing a bid". For a consumer to play a successful bid, what is the primaryflow when everything goes as planned. An effective use cases needs to have the basic flow beforemoving forward with writing the alternate flows.

Tip 9. Create the use case alternate flows

The basic flow is the key ingredient to your use case and some can argue that you can stop onceyou're done with the basic flow. It really depends on the level of detail you wish to achieve.However, providing more detail to the consumers of your use case is always a good thing.

The alternate flows providing the following:

An exception or error flow to any line item in your basic flow

An additional flow, not necessarily error based, but a flow that COULD happen

A few examples of alternate flows are:

While a customer places an order, their credit card failed

While a customer places an order, their user session times out

While a customer uses an ATM machine, the machine runs out of receipts and needs to warn thecustomer



Tip 10. Produce your effective use case document

Recently at a new project assignment, I introduced a mid level developer to the concept of usecases which was totally foreign to him. Once walking him through the basic concepts and showinghim the use case example, the lightbulb went off in his head on how convenient and simple it was tograsp the project.

A few reasons why it's that much easier to learn a system through use cases then a traditionalrequirements document is probably because with use cases, you are introduced to concepts at ahigh level, walk through a living scenario and then presented with specifications last.

In several places in this document, I have stated "effective use cases" rather than just "use cases".The purpose of the use cases is for effective knowledge transfer from the domain expert to thesoftware developer -- these use cases will serve as software requirements. If they don't makesense to the person building the software, they are not effective. There are several sources on theweb for writing effective use cases including the book by Alistair Cockburn.

Tip 11. Generate a Use Case Model Diagram

You can use the Gatherspace.com use case modeling tool to produce a use case model within afew clicks. Once you define your use cases and actors, just go into the reporting section and clickon the 'Use Case Model' report and that's it. From the main use case model, you can continue todrill down into the use cases.

To see what this looks like, click the use case model sample now.

In several places in this document, I have stated "effective use cases" rather than just "use cases".The purpose of the use cases is for effective knowledge transfer from the domain expert to thesoftware developer -- these use cases will serve as software requirements. If they don't makesense to the person building the software, they are not effective. There are several sources on theweb for writing effective use cases including the book by Alistair Cockburn.

Tip 12. What's the difference between a User Story and a Use Case?

With so many engineering teams making the paradigm shift from waterfall to Agile, people often getcaught up in having a pure Agile process which would include the use of User Stories. So what's allof the hoopla with User Stories? What are they, how are they different from use cases, do I needthem, and where do they fit in the process?

What is a User Story? Simply put, written from the context of the user as a simple statementabout their feature need. They should generally have this format. "As a -role-, I want -goal/desire-so that -benefit-"

How is a User Story different than a Use Case? While a use case is highly structured and tellsa story, the User Story sets the stage by stating the need. A User Story is the prelude to the usecase by stating the need before the use case tells the story.

How does the User Story fit into the process? User Stories are great as an activity incollecting and prioritizing the high level features. Getting this initial feedback from the customer isa simple way of trying to get all of their needs identified and prioritized. The User Stories will thenmorph themselves into the business requirements and use cases.

Tip 13. In Agile Development, Keep Use Cases Agile, Mean and Lean

A common myth with Agile Development is that you *must* use user stories, and not use cases.Like anything else in life, nothing is black and white -- being Agile is really about smaller iterations,learning and adapting to the market.

If you are using Agile, Scrum and moving away from waterfall, what you want to do is make sure toiterate with your use cases. All that means is that your flows will be smaller and less feature rich.While the theme of the use case may appear the same from iteration to iteration, what is changing isthe level of detail and the features inside the particular sprint.

Creating a use case to long winded with too many features can potentially put a product at risk.What happens is that you can extend your release to market from two weeks to several monthswithout the ability to learn from the iteration and adapt to the market. Keep those use cases leaner!

DHSI 17: Games for Digital Humanists - University of Alberta

Documents