Classic Game Definition

CMPS 80K Winter 2006 Prof. Jim Whitehead

January 9, 2006

Goal for this Lecture

Describe Juuls classic game definition Poke at this definition by examining several borderline games Why bother?
By understanding what is generally considered to be a game, it points in the direction of how to make new kinds of games. Provides a framework for analyzing games
That is, it gives you interesting questions you can ask about games

Play
Children often play, a free-form activity that is mostly not rule-based
A child playing with dolls, trains, trucks, blocks, running around with friends Often some rules: that baby is sleeping (so dont wake it) Sometimes fixed goals: building a specific structure (fire station for a fire truck) But, mostly marked by fluidity of rules and goals (little minds are fickle)

Games vs Play
Games are distinguished from play
Play is free-form Games are rule-based

The rules structure the activity, and make it possible to repeat it

Classic Game Definition

Jesper Juuls Classic Game Definition, Half-real, 2005, pp. 36. 1. Rules
Games are rule-based. Games have variable, quantifiable outcomes. The different potential outcomes of the game are assigned different values, some positive and some negative

2. Variable, quantifiable outcome 3. Valorization of outcome

Classic Game Definition

4. Player effort
The player exerts effort in order to influence the outcome (games are challenging). The player is emotionally attached to the outcome of the game in the sense that a player will be winner and happy in case of a positive outcome, but a loser and unhappy in case of a negative outcome. The same game [set of rules] can be played with or without real-life consequences

5. Player attached to outcome

6. Negotiable consequences

Rules
Well defined / unambiguous
So they can be programmed on a computer So that players do not have to argue about them every time they play

Tendency for non-computer games to trend towards decreased ambiguity

Over time, misunderstandings about rules are raised, discussed, then eliminated Unambiguous game rules makes them a natural for implementation on a computer

Rules (contd)
Rules require that players submit to the rules
Players agree to abide by the rules, because it makes the game activity possible. In computer games, this is a given the game just doesnt work any other way For non-computer games, the players are executing the rules of the games, and must do so faithfully
That is, people are the hardware, and the rules are the software

Variable, Quantifiable Outcome

Quantifiable outcome:
Game has different end states
Tic-tac-toe: can end up with three-in-a-row, or a mixed board Super Mario Bros: many ways to lose a life, or can make it through to the end

Outcome of the game is designed to be beyond discussion

Goal of Pac-Man is to get a high score, not move in a pretty way Specification of outcomes tends towards preciseness and away from ambiguity over time (like rules)

Variable, Quantifiable Outcome

Variable outcome: the end state for a given player is in doubt
Tic-tac-toe with expert players does not have a variable outcome An expert player vs a beginning player in Chess or Go does not have a variable outcome (need a handicapping scheme)

But, what about a player that has solved a game like Adventure for the Atari 2600?
Juul: It is still a game, but no longer qualifies as a game activity

Valorization of Outcome
Valorize: to give or assign a value to Some of the possible outcomes of a game are better than others
Tic-tac-toe: 3-in-a-row is better than all other outcomes, and is the winning state Super Mario Bros: going all the way to the end is much better than losing a life

Players are generally assigned conflicting positive outcomes

Tic-tac-toe: one player must have 3 X in a row, the other must have 3 O in a row

Positive outcomes generally harder to achieve than negative outcomes

This is what makes a game challenging If losing a life in Super Mario Bros was a good thing, the game would be pretty easy

Valorization vs Quantifiable Outcomes

Quantifiable outcome: the various outcomes can be precisely enumerated
Super Mario Bros: you get to the end, or you lose a life But, no values given to the outcomes. They are all just outcomes.

Valorized outcome: each of the outcomes is given a value, good or bad.

Now, some outcomes are better than others.

Player Effort
Games are challenging, or games contain a conflict
Players actions can influence the state of the game, and the games outcome A player needs to work to win a game

Player attached to outcome

The player is emotionally attached to the outcome of the game
A player feels genuinely happy if they win, unhappy or angry if they lose

Seems to not be related to effort

Players are still happy winning games of chance

A player is considered to be a spoilsport if they refuse to seek enjoyment in winning, or refuse to be unhappy when they lose

Negotiable Consequences
Games can optionally have real-world consequences
Poker: Can play this game without betting real money. Once money is bet, the game has real-world consequences.

Can negotiate consequences:

Play-by-play (bet on each play of a game) Location-by-location (entering a casino means the games are for money) Person-to-person (playing golf with Fred is always for money, but with Jack is always for fun)

Negotiable consequences
Border case: games that use weapons
Example: fencing, boxing In this case, the conventions of the game are to avoid serious injury
Still, hard to argue that boxing would ever have any non-negotiable real-world consequences

For video games, at least, real-world consequences are negotiable

No self-destruct joysticks yet