Bobbicus
Moderator
Registered: 06/09/10
Posts: 244
|
| Posted 07/06/10 at 02:55 PM | Reply with quote #1 |
|
I'm going to post this here, and link back to it during various discussions in order to avoid bloating posts.
When discussing cinema, or literature, or any other medium, critics have a common vocabulary to draw from. This allows them to communicate ideas to each other without having to spend three quarters of their time explaining what they mean.
In order to really tease critique games, I think we should have our own vernacular for discussing videogames. Here's what I've worked up, I'd love feedback from others about it - but if nothing else, at least you'll know what the hell I'm talking about.
Version 3:
Digital game - an interactive electronic program in which the user (player) interacts with a series of rules and controls (the game) (Example: Super Mario 64 is a digital game)
Rules - hard-coded limitations. Cannot be changed or broken by the player without modifying the game code. A.I, collision detecting, physics, etc.
Controls - How the player affects change with the game. This can be used in the sense of direct control ("push X to jump!" and indirect control (in Mount & Blade a player can influence the power of various factions by razing their villages/crushing their armies/etc)
Game - What most people refer to as "gameplay," but I find that word horribly redundant, obtuse, and a travesty to the English language. The game is the bit of the digital game that contains the rules for controlling how the player can interact with the digital. Can be broken down into goals, obstacles, "rewards," rules, and controls.
(Example: In Super Mario 64, the actual game revolves around controlling Mario, making him perform all sorts of platforming acrobatics in order to collect rewards (Stars and Coins) and avoid obstacles (enemies, fire, falling too his doom, etc.) The player has direct control over Mario (his movement and actions) and indirect control over the size of the gameworld (by collecting stars, he unlocks more levels))
Goal - Something the player is trying to achieve.
Primary Goal - The predominate goal at any one time. In Mario 64, this is usually "Collect enough stars to unlock the next painting." Note that within this are more immediate goals, such as "collect all eight red coins to get another star" and turtles all the way down to "jump on that enemy's head." Clearly, enumerating goals stops being productive past a certain point.
Ultimate Goal - Usually what the player needs in order to "beat" the game. Can be as simple as running out of primary goals, to being player defined (in the case of something like Dwarf Fortress.)
In Civ IV the ultimate goal for a player is to achieve one of the victory conditions defined by the game - conquering everyone else, winning the space race, being elected to U.N., etc. However, at any one time, the player's primary goal will most likely be more immediate - Researching a certain technology, exploiting a resource, expanding his territory, etc.
Obstacles - anything which prevents the player from accomplishing his goals. The most common
Shell - Everything that isn't the actual game. Includes plot, narrative, setting, visual design, audio design, characters, themes, and whatnot.
Plot - The overall of the game, i.e. "Bowser has taken the Princess!"
Narrative - The events of the game that drive the plot. In Half-Life the plot is "player accidentally opens portal to alien world, precipitating invasion." The narrative is the tram ride, the interactions with Barney's and scientists, the resonanace cascade, seeing the Gman around, etc.
Narrative Method - how the story is told. In Half-Life, it's all first person scripted events. In Doom, it's through text screens, Marathon had terminals, and most modern games have cutscenes.
Cutscene - Any moment where the game or narrative progresses without allowing player interaction. This can be in-engine, prerendered, text, or almost anything else.
Emergent Narrative - A narrative that is not scripted, but emerges from the player's actions. X-Com, Dwarf Fortress, and Galactic Civilizations are good examples.
Visual Design - Art direction. This is objective - "What visual design choices were made?" "The designers chose to use a color palate consisting of "dog-poo brown" and "Swarthy tan," as well as giving all their characters "bloated steroid" physiques.
Audio Design - Sound direction. Same as Visual design, but for sound.
Setting - Where the game takes place.
Title - the game combined with the shell. This sounds much better to me than "work" because of the connotations AndrewArmstrong pointed out. Unfortunately conflicts with title used as "a name."
Player - The primary participant, without whom the title would not function. The title's purpose is to provide a specific experience to the player.
Coherency - How well the game and shell fit together thematically.
Sometimes the game dominates - the Mario games, for example. I'll take Mario 64, since its flimsy story is a design choice and less a technological constraint than its predecessors. What's the game in Mario 64? Using an unusually acrobatic Mario to explore a series of environments, avoiding Bad Things and collecting Good Things.
As for the shell, it perfectly compliments this. The plot does little more than provide a basic motivation by establishing conflict and setting up an antagonist ("Bowser kidnapped Peach!") Once you've selected your save file, the game takes place entirely in Peach's castle. This is no small detail - to even move from level to level, you have to physically explore the castle and it's environs - and usually make Mario perform some cool acrobatic stunt to access a new area. So everything fits together under this overarching idea of exploration and acrobatic maneuvering.
Low coherency - The Call of Duty series. The game is remarkably the same in each title, no matter their setting. There are exceptions of course - the sniper, gunship, and radiation sections of Call of Duty 4 come to mind - and I think it's no coincidence that these exceptions are the most memorable parts of the series.
Comments welcome, expect this to be revised frequently.
__________________
http://lovelanguagevideogames.blogspot.com/ |
| Loading... | |
AndrewArmstrong
Moderator - Psychonauts
Registered: 07/22/08
Posts: 365
|
| Posted 07/07/10 at 10:14 AM | Reply with quote #2 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Bobbicus
When discussing Cinema, or Literature, or any other medium, critics have a common vocabulary to draw from. This allows them to communicate ideas to each other without having to spend three quarters of their time explaining what they mean.
In order to really tease critique games, I think we should have our own taxonomy of a videogame. Here's what I've worked up, I'd love feedback from others about it - but if nothing else, at least you'll know what the hell I'm talking about.
Interesting; I'm building a small glossary (a "taxonomy" in part) in bits and pieces when I find good examples of short definitions.
However; let's go through them and discuss shall we? (I've not time to finish Pychonauts, but it's my lunch break at work so I've got time to do this kind of discussion!).
Quote:
Videogame - an interactive electronic program in which the user ("player") interacts with a series of rules and controls (the "game") (Example: Super Mario 64 is a videogame)
Luckily "videogame" (I prefer one word; but two words is fine too!) is a common enough word but strictly speaking "digital game" is much more accurate regarding the actual content - ie; including things that don't strictly produce video, such as Game and Watch machines (for instance).
As for the definition: It's a tough one, so much stuff needs to be included. The main thing and I'm glad you noted this is the interaction. However even this needs some clarification; you need interaction that changes something, that does something. You "interact" with a DVD, and "interact" with a book; but these don't change what goes on! Change is key!
- "rules" is a hardcore word and certainly not applicable to many games; or at least a better alternative might be sought. "game" is perhaps somewhat misused when we describe these things. Even better then "digital games" is "digital interactive entertainment" - or something along those lines. Not all videogames have strict rules, many allow you to create your own too (thus are they a really rules if they can change or be created?). However; I'll give you that the word rule, like it or not, is likely the best given the rest of your definition! Yet doesn't include a lot of unstructured rule-less games (which is more play).
- "controls" - Maybe "interacts with". Controls sounds like you actively control an agent in the world, instead of possibly just doing a puzzle or typing text in. There are however degrees of control given to a player mind you - a different thing though.
- "electronic" - as I said, digital is better. Electronic suggests circuitry and electronics - something that videogames most certainly might be related to, but only as much as the hardware is! Basically if it is digital it helps narrow it down from including board games which have electronics in them.
- The example is an issue since it assumes all games are like Super Mario 64. Do we include Game and Watch? Tamagochi? What about FMV choice games? text-only games? Hardware only (ie; the circuits have the game on them) games? How about non-visual games such as Audioquake? How much interaction is needed for it to be a videogame - do interactive DVD's count? Is it just things on Mobygames? in Wikipedias definition? what?! 
Quote:
Game - What most people refer to as "gameplay," but I find that word horribly redundant and a travesty to the English language. The game is the bit of the videogame that contains the rules for controlling how the player can interact with the videogame. Can be broken down into "Goals," "Obstacles," "Rewards"
(Example: In Super Mario 64, the actual game revolves around controlling Mario, making him perform all sorts of platforming acrobatics in order to collect Rewards (Stars and Coins) and avoid Obstacles (enemies, fire, falling too his doom, etc.))
Hold on, HOLD ON a second bronto!
You're complaining that "gameplay" - a perfectly descriptive word and highly used, is wrong? Who made you the King of English? 
There are two things here;
1. Game means the item in question, or a descriptive word to describe what something is. A game of chess refers to "playing chess". "Chess is a game" doesn't mean you're referring to the gameplay, only stating that it is a in fact a game by definition. This is highly a accepted word already! See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game
2. Gameplay is what the actions in the game are - the verbs! The interactions! What you can change! It doesn't necessarily refer to goals (since, funnily enough, those are goals). Wikipedia has some basics here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gameplay - this is a new term since the interactivity of videogames goes beyond typical games (ie; they're usually real time and higher level!). We need this new word since so much of a game comes from the unstructured play of it (if a game needs rules to be defined, play doesn't, merging the two words simply perhaps gives an illusion of some barriers but more free roaming options not laid down in stone - Chess versus Mario!).
I think gameplay is a perfectly good term and yes, overused, and perhaps redundant if you think "play" is the same as "game" (it isn't...but anyway). I've not seen it misused a great deal though. It helps clarify you are talking about what you can actually do in the game, and not just what the game is or that something is a game.
Quote:
Goal - Something the player is trying to achieve.
Fair enough. Perhaps it is clear to you that not all games have to have goals, I'm ignoring you shoehorning in these things into the definition of a game btw
Quote:
Primary Goal - The predominate goal at any one time. In Mario 64, this is usually "Collect enough stars to unlock the next painting." Note that within this are more immediate goals, such as "collect all eight red coins to get another star" and turtles all the way down to "jump on that enemy's head." Clearly, enumerating goals stops being productive past a certain point.
I don't understand "Clearly, enumerating goals stops being productive past a certain point." but in any case, yes, primary goals are basically the most important current goal of a player. I don't think mixing in words like "immediate" in there helps - the primary goal might be to "jump on that enemy's head" if that'll win the game!
Quote:
Ultimate Goal - Usually what the player needs in order to "Beat" the game. Can be as simple as running out of primary goals, to being player defined (in the case of something like Dwarf Fortress.)
Hard to call this one. I've never seen "ultimate goal" used much because frankly, it sounds silly! Also, this overlaps with primary goal so much too. Thumbs down for this - sorry!
Quote:
Shell - Everything that isn't the actual game. Includes "Plot," "Narrative," "Setting," "Visual Design," "Audio Design," "Characters," "Themes," and whatnot.
You mean what isn't the core gameplay. I'm not sure shell is the right word here...
Quote:
Plot - The "story" of the game, i.e. "Bowser has taken the Princess!"
Why is story in quotes? Why use another possibly subjective term to describe something? everyone knows what a plot is, however how do you describe the plot to Tetris? or to Chess? or whatever?
Quote:
Narrative - The events of the game that drive the plot. In Half-Life, for example, the plot is "Player accidentally opens portal to alien world, precipitating invasion." The narrative is the tram ride, the interactions with Barney's and scientists, the resonanace cascade, seeing the Gman around, etc.
Also, how the story is told. In Half-Life, it's all first person. In Doom, it's through text screens, Marathon had terminals, and most modern games have cutscenes.
Ahh, I see you're a narratologist! Narrative is well defined in linear media and is hard work applying it to some games but it can still work since players, in a single playthough, will obviously have to do some things in a linear order (or have done so by the end even if every players order is different). However, most people just toss it in there as a way to describe how the typically linear plots play out.
Narrative is an abused term however since usually it means something written by someone and be structured (usually linearly!). What about Mount & Blade, what kind of narrative does that have?
I usually take it when someone says this it isn't what is presented to the player (Gman etc.) it is what the player has done - their own narrative as it were is what they did to get to where they are in the game. Many games is is similar for each player mind you! But for more open stories each player might have a different narrative even if the "plot" or "story" is the same.
Quote:
Setting - Where the game takes place.
I guess not all games have settings but fair enough.
Quote:
Work - the "Game" combined with the "Shell." I like using this term because it avoids connotations of immaturity and irrelevance associated with "videogame."
Wait? What?! You mean as in a "work of art" right? That doesn't work! (hehe). Work refers to, if incorporating the player (and not the creator of course) the entirely wrong perspective. Work is not done for fun, entertainment or to enjoy something - it is done because it has to be or you are being compensated for it. A better word is needed; how about using "videogame" to describe the entire thing as a whole? (this is of course assuming you use "gameplay" instead of "game" in that sentence).
If we use the word "videogame" more seriously it'll be fine. Or just use "game" if you have to. Up to you.
Quote:
Player - The primary participant, without whom the "work" would not function. The work's purpose is to provide a specific experience to the player.
No no no, don't use "specific"! Many games are free form or open as to strictly not provide something very specific. It implies the creator had a goal in mind for every facet of something, and in many cases that isn't the case.
Purpose is also misused. There might be no purpose whatsoever behind a game, what then is the player to it? tell me what the purpose of films are and I'll break your rule just for that just as easily
The player is simply the person interacting with the videogame, nothing much more.
Quote:
Coherency - How well the game and shell fit together thematically.
Sometimes the game bit dominates - the Mario games, for example. I'll take Mario 64, since its flimsy story is a design choice and less a technological constraint. What's the game in Mario 64? Using an unusually acrobatic Mario to explore a series of environments, avoiding Bad Things and collecting Good Things.
As for the shell, it perfectly compliments this. The story is little more than providing a basic motivation by establishing conflict and setting up an antagonist ("Bowser kidnapped Peach!") Once you've selected your save file, the game takes place ENTIRELY in Peach's castle. This is no small detail - to even move from level to level, you have to physically explore the castle and it's environs - and usually make Mario perform some cool acrobatic stunt to access a new area.
Most FPS are low coherency - the game usually involves "shooting things in the face and/or naughty bits" while there's some high-strung plot about saving the world or whatnot.
Basically, if you can pop a game out of its setting and plop it in another without it affecting the integrity of the game, then it is low coherency. High coherency is generally desirable, as it creates a far harder impacting experience.
Ahh, well, interesting eh? You're going for a taxonomy but want a huge list of examples?
Coherency is a perfectly good English word. It means being coherent ( http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/coherent ):
- Orderly, logical and consistent.
- Aesthetically ordered
To be honest, you're posted some really quite immature and wide-ranging things full of hyperbole here! I wish I had read this one last and commented on it first...I digress.
So, you are assuming "Most FPS's (have) low coherency" and so forth, yet I wholly disagree. Moving the gameplay elements of Doom into something like Battlefield would just...not work at all! The melding of the gameplay and the visuals/content/worlds is perfect in each of those games. Even modern FPS's are different for a reason - yes, you could slot in Medal of Honour (WW2) into Battlefield (Modern day) but it both would absolutely break the coherency! No one would fight with WW2 weapons in the Battlefield 2 setting! (and vice versa).
(Going anywhere else; outside the FPS genre, and you can equally see how silly it would be. Shooting Sims? Gunning down chess pieces in real time? what? FPS games are probably the most coherent game types there are!)
So, it has an already acceptable definition I think, yet your examples are poor ones to set up what that definition is when applied to videogames. More work needed I think here!
Finally; missing things. How about some of these words?
- Game (as applied to board games, sports, ARGs etc. - easier to define things related to the whole? see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game )
- Game Mechanics (missed for some reason?)
- Difficulty / Difficulty curve
- Tutorial / Training
- Agency/Agent
- Level
- End game
- Boss (or other entity like it)
- NPC/PC/Ally/Enemy/Antagonist/Protagonist/Character etc
- Balance
- Quest
- Sidequest
- Dialogue tree/conversation options
- Singleplayer
- Multiplayer/Massively Multiplayer (Online)
- Symmetrical/unsymmetrical (gameplay)
- Co-op, co-operative, etc.
- Quicktime event
I'd also love to hear what people use to describe "fighting the designer" - or as it were, any part of the game where there is a single sole way of getting some goal completed and if you try any other way you are doomed to fail - thus you must know what the designer intended to achieve it, and therefore are not really doing your own actions but simply repeating what a designer wants you to do without error. All the stupid Towers of Hanoi puzzles are included here too!
__________________
Andrew |
| Loading... | |
Bobbicus
Moderator
Registered: 06/09/10
Posts: 244
|
| Posted 07/07/10 at 03:21 PM | Reply with quote #3 |
|
[quote = AndrewArmstrong]
Quote: Originally Posted by Bobbicus
Videogame - an interactive electronic program in which the user (" player") interacts with a series of rules and controls (the " game") (Example: Super Mario 64 is a videogame)
You "interact" with a DVD, and "interact" with a book; but these don't change what goes on! Change is key!
Hence the "series of rules and controls" bit. Some DVD's have little games included as extras. If a reader decides he's only going to read two pages then guess what's on the third 3rd page, then yes, he's "playing" a "game" with the book. Not a very fun one, mind.
Quote: Originally Posted by AndrewArmstrong
- "rules" is a hardcore word and certainly not applicable to many games; or at least a better alternative might be sought. "game" is perhaps somewhat misused when we describe these things. Even better then "digital games" is "digital interactive entertainment" - or something along those lines. Not all videogames have strict rules, many allow you to create your own too (thus are they a really rules if they can change or be created?). However; I'll give you that the word rule, like it or not, is likely the best given the rest of your definition! Yet doesn't include a lot of unstructured rule-less games (which is more play).
All videogames have strict rules. You're thinking a little more "meta" here then I am. "Pressing the fire weapon shoots your currently equipped gun" is a rule, "you need to shoot all the bad guys" is not - that's a goal.
[quote = AndrewArmstrong]"controls" - Maybe "interacts with". Controls sounds like you actively control an agent in the world, instead of possibly just doing a puzzle or typing text in. There are however degrees of control given to a player mind you - a different thing though.
But typing text in IS a control. The player is controlling what text is typed in.
[quote = AndrewArmstrong]"electronic" - as I said, digital is better. Electronic suggests circuitry and electronics - something that videogames most certainly might be related to, but only as much as the hardware is! Basically if it is digital it helps narrow it down from including board games which have electronics in them.
Don't really have an argument against that. Good point.
Quote: Originally Posted by AndrewArmstrong
- The example is an issue since it assumes all games are like Super Mario 64.
No it doesn't.
Quote: Originally Posted by AndrewArmstrongDo we include Game and Watch? Tamagochi? What about FMV choice games? text-only games? Hardware only (ie; the circuits have the game on them) games? How about non-visual games such as Audioquake? How much interaction is needed for it to be a videogame - do interactive DVD's count? Is it just things on Mobygames? in Wikipedias definition? what?! 
What do you consider a "non-digital" game? Is tossing rocks at a floating can a game? etc, etc.
Honestly, I don't think it matters what is considered a digital game, only that if you want to discuss something in the context of a digital game, a common vernacular is used.
Quote: Originally Posted by AndrewArmstrongQuote: Originally Posted by Bobbicus
Game - What most people refer to as "gameplay," but I find that word horribly redundant and a travesty to the English language. The game is the bit of the videogame that contains the rules for controlling how the player can interact with the videogame. Can be broken down into "Goals," "Obstacles," "Rewards"
(Example: In Super Mario 64, the actual game revolves around controlling Mario, making him perform all sorts of platforming acrobatics in order to collect Rewards (Stars and Coins) and avoid Obstacles (enemies, fire, falling too his doom, etc.))
Hold on, HOLD ON a second bronto! You're complaining that "gameplay" - a perfectly descriptive word and highly used, is wrong? Who made you the King of English? 
It was a silent coup.
Quote: Originally Posted by AndrewArmstrong
We need this new word since so much of a game comes from the unstructured play of it (if a game needs rules to be defined, play doesn't, merging the two words simply perhaps gives an illusion of some barriers but more free roaming options not laid down in stone - Chess versus Mario!).
Ah, but Mario does have VERY concrete rules. Mario has gravity. He jumps a certain height. He has a certain amount of life, which ends the game when it is all gone. Every aspect of "play" that you consider breaking the rules is actually following the rules to the letter.
Quote: Originally Posted by AndrewArmstrong
Goal - Something the player is trying to achieve.
Fair enough. Perhaps it is clear to you that not all games have to have goals, I'm ignoring you shoehorning in these things into the definition of a game btw
Give me an example of a goalless game.
Quote: Originally Posted by AndrewArmstrongPrimary Goal - The predominate goal at any one time. In Mario 64, this is usually "Collect enough stars to unlock the next painting." Note that within this are more immediate goals, such as "collect all eight red coins to get another star" and turtles all the way down to "jump on that enemy's head." Clearly, enumerating goals stops being productive past a certain point.
I don't understand "Clearly, enumerating goals stops being productive past a certain point." but in any case, yes, primary goals are basically the most important current goal of a player. I don't think mixing in words like "immediate" in there helps - the primary goal might be to "jump on that enemy's head" if that'll win the game!
Yes, I worded that quite poorly. Think of the classic CS 101 excercise where you tell someone to describe how to make a sandwich. They say, "put some meat between bread." You say, "how do you get the meat?", "I get it out of the fridge" "how do you do that?" "I open the fridge" "how do you do that?" etc, etc. The Primary goal is just the closest goal worth discussing.
Quote: Originally Posted by AndrewArmstrongQuote: Originally Posted by Bobbicus
Ultimate Goal - Usually what the player needs in order to "Beat" the game. Can be as simple as running out of primary goals, to being player defined (in the case of something like Dwarf Fortress.) Hard to call this one. I've never seen "ultimate goal" used much because frankly, it sounds silly! Also, this overlaps with primary goal so much too. Thumbs down for this - sorry!
Win condition, then?
Quote: Originally Posted by AndrewArmstrongQuote: Originally Posted by Bobbicus
Shell - Everything that isn't the actual game. Includes "Plot," "Narrative," "Setting," "Visual Design," "Audio Design," "Characters," "Themes," and whatnot. You mean what isn't the core gameplay. I'm not sure shell is the right word here...
Yea, I don't like it all that much. Would appreciate a snappier term.
Quote: Originally Posted by AndrewArmstrongQuote: Originally Posted by Bobbicus
Plot - The "story" of the game, i.e. "Bowser has taken the Princess!" Why is story in quotes? Why use another possibly subjective term to describe something? everyone knows what a plot is, however how do you describe the plot to Tetris? or to Chess? or whatever?
Story is in quotes because it's not always a storyin the traditional sense. Chess' story, for example, is "Black and White are competing for control of the board." That's it.
Quote: Originally Posted by AndrewArmstrong
Narrative - The events of the game that drive the plot. In Half-Life, for example, the plot is "Player accidentally opens portal to alien world, precipitating invasion." The narrative is the tram ride, the interactions with Barney's and scientists, the resonanace cascade, seeing the Gman around, etc.
Also, how the story is told. In Half-Life, it's all first person. In Doom, it's through text screens, Marathon had terminals, and most modern games have cutscenes.
Ahh, I see you're a narratologist! Narrative is well defined in linear media and is hard work applying it to some games but it can still work since players, in a single playthough, will obviously have to do some things in a linear order (or have done so by the end even if every players order is different). However, most people just toss it in there as a way to describe how the typically linear plots play out. Narrative is an abused term however since usually it means something written by someone and be structured (usually linearly!). What about Mount & Blade, what kind of narrative does that have? I usually take it when someone says this it isn't what is presented to the player (Gman etc.) it is what the player has done - their own narrative as it were is what they did to get to where they are in the game. Many games is is similar for each player mind you! But for more open stories each player might have a different narrative even if the "plot" or "story" is the same.
I'd say Mount&Blade has an emergent narrative, which I'll add to the definitions. Basically, any game like it, or X-Com, where the main story is composed of a player's actions. Note that this is different from an RPG, where the player makes a series of choices already coded into the game.
Good point about the difference between "player narrative" and "how the game feeds you the plot." Have to think about that for a second.
Quote: Originally Posted by AndrewArmstrongQuote:
Setting - Where the game takes place.
I guess not all games have settings but fair enough.
Yes they do. Doesn't have to be elaborate. Chess' setting is "On a grid of 64 squares," for example.
Quote: Originally Posted by AndrewArmstrongQuote:
Work - the "Game" combined with the "Shell." I like using this term because it avoids connotations of immaturity and irrelevance associated with "videogame."
Wait? What?! You mean as in a "work of art" right? That doesn't work! (hehe). Work refers to, if incorporating the player (and not the creator of course) the entirely wrong perspective. Work is not done for fun, entertainment or to enjoy something - it is done because it has to be or you are being compensated for it. A better word is needed; how about using "videogame" to describe the entire thing as a whole? (this is of course assuming you use "gameplay" instead of "game" in that sentence). If we use the word "videogame" more seriously it'll be fine. Or just use "game" if you have to. Up to you.
Well I want to get across the idea of consciously combining game mechanics with non-game elements to create something new. So preferably it doesn't have the word "game" in it.
Quote: Originally Posted by AndrewArmstrongQuote:
Player - The primary participant, without whom the "work" would not function. The work's purpose is to provide a specific experience to the player.
No no no, don't use "specific"! Many games are free form or open as to strictly not provide something very specific. It implies the creator had a goal in mind for every facet of something, and in many cases that isn't the case. Purpose is also misused. There might be no purpose whatsoever behind a game, what then is the player to it? tell me what the purpose of films are and I'll break your rule just for that just as easily The player is simply the person interacting with the videogame, nothing much more.
Once again, you're going meta on me. Hold on, because this is going to sound loopy, but that "free form or open" structure you describe IS meant to create a specific experience - a free-form one. I don't think it implies the creator had a goal for every facet, if it does then I need a new way of putting it.
Your free-form games - Just Cause, Morrowind, GTA, Blueberry Garden - were all constructed specifically to provide a freeform experience. That sort of environment doesn't just happen.
Quote: Originally Posted by AndrewAlexanderQuote:
Coherency - How well the game and shell fit together thematically.
Sometimes the game bit dominates - the Mario games, for example. I'll take Mario 64, since its flimsy story is a design choice and less a technological constraint. What's the game in Mario 64? Using an unusually acrobatic Mario to explore a series of environments, avoiding Bad Things and collecting Good Things.
As for the shell, it perfectly compliments this. The story is little more than providing a basic motivation by establishing conflict and setting up an antagonist ("Bowser kidnapped Peach!") Once you've selected your save file, the game takes place ENTIRELY in Peach's castle. This is no small detail - to even move from level to level, you have to physically explore the castle and it's environs - and usually make Mario perform some cool acrobatic stunt to access a new area.
Most FPS are low coherency - the game usually involves "shooting things in the face and/or naughty bits" while there's some high-strung plot about saving the world or whatnot.
Basically, if you can pop a game out of its setting and plop it in another without it affecting the integrity of the game, then it is low coherency. High coherency is generally desirable, as it creates a far harder impacting experience.
Ahh, well, interesting eh? You're going for a taxonomy but want a huge list of examples? Coherency is a perfectly good English word. It means being coherent ( http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/coherent ): - Orderly, logical and consistent.
- Aesthetically ordered
To be honest, you're posted some really quite immature and wide-ranging things full of hyperbole here! I wish I had read this one last and commented on it first...I digress.
Of course it's immature. This whole medium is immature! That's why I want feedback. 
Quote:
So, you are assuming "Most FPS's (have) low coherency" and so forth, yet I wholly disagree. Moving the gameplay elements of Doom into something like Battlefield would just...not work at all!
Doom has a very high coherency. Everything about the game says "Run around and shoot things in the face!" And you run around and shoot things in the face. And I posit that that coherency is one of the reasons why it's still satisfying to play today.
Quote:
The melding of the gameplay and the visuals/content/worlds is perfect in each of those games. Even modern FPS's are different for a reason - yes, you could slot in Medal of Honour (WW2) into Battlefield (Modern day) but it both would absolutely break the coherency! No one would fight with WW2 weapons in the Battlefield 2 setting! (and vice versa).
Really? No one would use a pistol, submachine gun, semi-automatic rifle, or bolt action rifle in the battlefield setting? This surprises me.
Quote:
(Going anywhere else; outside the FPS genre, and you can equally see how silly it would be. Shooting Sims? Gunning down chess pieces in real time? what? FPS games are probably the most coherent game types there are!)
...Not sure what argument you're trying to make here...
Quote:
So, it has an already acceptable definition I think, yet your examples are poor ones to set up what that definition is when applied to videogames. More work needed I think here!
My bad for lumping FPS' together. There are examples of good and bad coherency in every "genre." Doom is good, System Shock good, Bioshock poor, etc.
Quote: Finally; missing things. How about some of these words? - Game (as applied to board games, sports, ARGs etc. - easier to define things related to the whole? see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game )
I figured it wasn't particularly relevant if we've already defined a sub-genre of "game" to be "digital game," but sure.
Quote:
- Game Mechanics (missed for some reason?)
Aha! I see the disconnect now. I did define Game Mechanics. I called them rules.
Quote:
- Difficulty / Difficulty curve
Good one. The thing is, most games aren't designed to beat the player, just challenge him/her. Have to elaborate on that, I think.
Quote:
- Tutorial / Training
- Agency/Agent
- Level
- End game
- Boss (or other entity like it)
- NPC/PC/Ally/Enemy/Antagonist/Protagonist/Character etc
- Balance
- Quest
- Sidequest
- Dialogue tree/conversation options
- Singleplayer
- Multiplayer/Massively Multiplayer (Online)
- Symmetrical/unsymmetrical (gameplay)
- Co-op, co-operative, etc.
- Quicktime event
Some good ones in there, I'll try to get to them in time. In the meantime, feel free to throw some up yourself!
So, I think you missed what I was going for by a bit. You interpreted my rules, goals, etc. As these very meta things, whereas I see them as very concrete and mechanical. Which means I horribly failed in communicating my ideas. I've quoted all my original definitions so your responses won't be taken out of context, but I'm going to try and revise things to make them more clear.
__________________
http://lovelanguagevideogames.blogspot.com/ |
| Loading... | |
AndrewArmstrong
Moderator - Psychonauts
Registered: 07/22/08
Posts: 365
|
| Posted 07/21/10 at 07:24 AM | Reply with quote #4 |
|
Sorry, sorry for not continuing the discussion, it was unintentional and nothing to do with your response - after I posted, I basically went on holiday until I got back this previous weekend Most of my holiday time for the year! But anyway, you responded so I'll post more when I feel like I can provide another adequate response!
Shame no one else responded though. I still intend to collect definitions of terms like a dictionary-cum-encyclopaedia - and it is a small enough project that is easy enough to do, but needs a lot of discussion; basically you can say what you think something should mean, but language is done on the basis of what something commonly means to most people, and despite the slightly-more-limited wording we use, we've got plenty of existing words for stuff that mean what they mean, attempted silent coup or not!
Like I say, I'll get back to you on this. Stay tuned - hell, I've not even found time to finish Psychonauts just yet!
__________________
Andrew |
| Loading... | |
Bobbicus
Moderator
Registered: 06/09/10
Posts: 244
|
| Posted 07/21/10 at 05:51 PM | Reply with quote #5 |
|
Well the problem is that words that "mean what they mean" often mean different things for different people!
Let's take the word "gameplay," for example -
When you say a game has good "gameplay," what do you mean? It is well balanced? It has well though out mechanics? The controls are fluid and responsive? Or that the overall combination of these and many other factors makes it a good game? Saying "The gameplay is good" tells you absolutely nothing of value other than a general indication of quality.
Something "has good gameplay" because it is a good game. So just say "it is a good game." It's like using the passive voice in writing - don't do it unless it is the only way to express what you're trying to say.
Also, this started sort of as a reference for other people, so that when I say "I feel this game has good coherency" and such they can pop over and see exactly what I'm talking about, so that's why I used the terms I used. I'm not at all against changing the specific words if there is a better term for it.
To ensure we don't talk in circles around each other -
If you disagree with an assertion I make, please provide a concrete example of a game where my definition doesn't fit. It will make things go much quicker if we don't spend large amounts of time saying the same thing in different words.
Please, keep it coming though! Even if we still disagree on every point, every piece of criticism helps me formulate and clarify my ideas, even if nobody else feels like accepting them!
__________________
http://lovelanguagevideogames.blogspot.com/ |
| Loading... | |
