Gameplay

[Amirilys]

hi,

Can anyone give me a definition of gameplay that applies to all genres and clearly states whether sound and graphs are in- or excluded?

grtz
Amirilys

[Zergul]

Hehehe... this is a always-asked question since the beginnings of game design. There is no *CLEAR* definition but here I give you mine:



Gameplay = a collection of the following facts:

- player-driven decisions - like should I fire, where should I go, what should I build... what should I make to advance...

- game messages about its current state - here it comes gfx and sound... not stupid or fancy graphics made the gameplay but the message it offers. Iconic gfx is better for GAMEPLAY than a realistic one.

- game response to player decisions (actions) - like the way your character moves, how the units responds to orders... how the game world change in response to player's decisions. I could also name with this with a single word "feel". For example Quake movement style, BroodWar fast paced gameplay and so on...

Ask for more if there is anything misunderstood.

Cod.

MODERATOR: I think this thread belongs to "Workshop -> Game Design"

[Amirilys]

Originally Posted by Zergul

Hehehe... this is a always-asked question since the beginnings of game design. There is no *CLEAR* definition but here I give you mine:



Gameplay = a collection of the following facts:

- player-driven decisions - like should I fire, where should I go, what should I build... what should I make to advance...

- game messages about its current state - here it comes gfx and sound... not stupid or fancy graphics made the gameplay but the message it offers. Iconic gfx is better for GAMEPLAY than a realistic one.

- game response to player decisions (actions) - like the way your character moves, how the units responds to orders... how the game world change in response to player's decisions. I could also name with this with a single word "feel". For example Quake movement style, BroodWar fast paced gameplay and so on...

Ask for more if there is anything misunderstood.

Cod.

MODERATOR: I think this thread belongs to "Workshop -> Game Design"

Thanks, this is great! If I have any questions about it in the future, which I probably will, I will put the message on the game design forum.
Amirilys

[Amirilys]

Are the assignments (sometimes quests, sometimes puzzles et cetera) or the initial disturbance of a balance (which the player should reinstate) that a game offers the player part of gameplay?

If so,
Taken that gameplay can be equated with a strive towards mastery, are RPGs then games? You'd say so because they're sold as such. But in RPGs, fulfilling the main quest is not mainly based on mastery (in for example combat), but mostly on interaction with NPCs. And there is no such thing as mastery of interaction. You just have to get enough intelligence for your avatar to gain access to more interaction possibilities. The whole point of a rpg is to create a story, which is perhaps gathering bits and pieces of information, but not gameplay as defined above.

[RC-ST.]

why are you speking in english?offtopic

why do you want a definition for this word?offtopic
anyway , zergu is right!

[Cowboy]

gameplay != strive towards mastery

[Zergul]

First:
Try to concentrate a little more because I read the text three times to understand something. We should focus on the answer not in understanding the question, don't we?

Second:
Gameplay does not means a strieve towards mastery. You can master the gameplay by learning all game mechanics.

The NPSs are a "gate" to game internal state. Sometime, they act bothways: you choose what to do (quests) but you also receive fixed directions (quests to fulfill).

The quests themselves are just decisions the player should make. Sometime they are fixed and *SHOULD* be fulfilled because of the linear type of story.

You say RPGs are not games. Game is an action where you compete against somebody else (even a CPU driven competitor). Otherwise is a puzzle. (definition from a well known game design... Chris Taylor if I remember right).

There are RPGs which have the story as the primordial element or which have the gameplay as the primordial element (ideal case is to have both in the same percent at a quality level). Gameplay is not story. But story can affect the gameplay and here they come again the NPSs and quests who acts like "gates" between the STORY and GAMEPLAY (excuse the repetition please).

For a better answer ask again and state clear what is the *question*.

Cod.

PS: By the way, you from?
Why are you interested in game design?

[Amirilys]

Originally Posted by Zergul

PS: By the way, you from?
Why are you interested in game design?

Hi Zergul,

I'm a student at Utrecht University in the Netherlands. Games research is part of my study: New Media and Digital Culture.

Momentarily, I'm writing my MA-thesis on gameplay. In order to find out how gamers interpret 'gameplay', I asked a lot of friends (gamers, designers and programmers) to explain it to me, and I also posted the question on different forums. Many gamers asked me why I would fuss about such a thing, well, this is how I earn study points.

Everybody uses the word gameplay, but not many can explain what they mean by it. Actually, I think gamers and scientists hold different understandings of it. It seems that scientists use very vague and objective definitions such as 'the emergence of informal experiences via formal rules' (J. Juul). On the contrary, in game reviews the term refers to very specific aspects of a game. Ofcourse it also refers to the quality of a game, which is an opinion and subjective.

I have taken Fallout: The Vault as a case study which is a great turnbased RPG (even though I prefer FPS realtime combat). This is
because J.Juul has written a game model in which RPGs are actually borderline cases (not really games by definition). I'm looking for a definition that would perhaps prove this to be otherwise.

greetz

Wendy

[Amirilys]

http://www.gamesconference.org/2003/...Abstracts/Juul

This is an abstract of the article of Juul. It is called Looking for a heart of gameness, but it is not available online. Anyway, he defines gameplay as being apart from sound, gfx and background story. So what's left to play in a RPG if it's not about the story? That was my actual question. And I'm happy your answer explained this.

Because of my thesis, I'm now concerned with the question: how do I define gameplay as to apply to all types of games and all types of players? As there are so many different games and ways how to play them, I now have decided to include six elements: hardware and software -controls and how the game reacts-, the game as a set of rules, the player (s): 1. player role -primary player or an onlooker- 2. player type -a killer or an explorer et cetera- 3. social interaction, the actions demanded by the game, the strategies used by the player, and the experience of the gamer: 1.experience of the game world -this is more the sphere of the game set by the designers- and 2.experience of gameplay -this can very per game session-

But I really feel that this is perhaps what research needs, but not what 'the quality of a game' is.

Wendy

[RC-ST.]

that make two of us. I'm doing a film for my university(a film director school) about computer games - i'm looking for an answer - what is it the computer ? A dependence,a necessity,a passion?
anyway , what are you doing is semiotic or what?

[Amirilys]

Fantastic!! You work in the same field!

My study actually follows 'formalism' (critic realism) which is about looking at game itself as opposed to semiotism - the study of signs. We do get educated in all schools of thought imagineable: post modernism, techno romanticism, post humanism, you name it.
I find your topic very interesting. I actually wanted to my thesis on game addiction or Internet Addiction Disorder, but since such stupid things as gameplay had't been defined yet, my research proposition was denied.
Anyway, this topic also deals with the computer as a hobby, escapism, techno fantasy and virtual reality as a new world without this worlds social structures-to get back to semiotism-, or as addiction, cause of death -which makes it perhaps more important than life sustaining sources to some-, surrogate for 'normal' offline and f2f relationships, double identities et cetera.

What are your ideas on this? This is much too interesting not to discuss...

PS Have you heard of the Gamesnetwork mailinglist of the unniversity of Finland yet? Check it out..

[RC-ST.]

that's very intresting . i want to talk about this., i'll get back to you tommorow -i'm in post production right now -busy

[RC-ST.]

I am a student at the mediapro university in bucharest (film&television director-first year) and I'm making a short movie called "the dependence day" about dependence(any kind) but I'm concern about one especially- computer dependence. In the first part I show all the bad things about the computer games-the violence (I have an interview with a girl - she ran away from home when she was 11 with a large sume of money and she went to play games in an internet cafe,her parents found her , and her father tide her and beat her and an interview with a very important priest who says all the bad effects...) After this madness I go on a basketball field to talk with some friend - which are real gamers like me- about their problems with the computers... then I go to a programator - and in this point the necessity begins- he tells us how he made himself in life throw the computer, then we enter in a nother chapter- the passion - here i ask 2 gamers why they play games-because you can fullfil your dreams in the games- you can be michel jordan ,you can be a formula one pilot , a jet pilot, a president,a superhero , and it takes only a half an hour. The film finishshes with me cutting the last sequence on a computer, then , on the computer apperars these words- for some peple the computer is a dependence or a necessity but for us is a passion , a possion with great sacrifiescies.... that' how we lie ourselfs becouse the truth is too painfull. I just live our dreams- We want a dependece day!

[RC-ST.]

Gamesnetwork.com ? Gamesnetwork.??

[h0stile]

My opinion is that if you want to find out what it means just reverse the word order from gameplay to playgame. Think of anything that can relate with it and here you go. This is why gameplay is not a mere "collection of" but it also inludes the feeling that game gives you. Zergul said "game response to player decisions" but it can very well be player's response to a predetermined situation (of course we consider all the situations as predetermined; there is no game capable of generating totally random actions as long as there is a story/path for the player to follow). Summarizing, I can say that gameplay is the vicious circle created between a game and its players. The dimmension, quality or dynamism of the circle are of course subjective and depend on many variables.

[Amirilys]

http://www.digra.org/staticpages/ind...30905004435452

This is a link to digra, the Digital Games Research Association. On this page you'll instructions on how to join the computergamesnetwork list

[Amirilys]

that part about the girl must be very confronting. i can imagine that your movie would make the audience fall from one emotion into the other -computing as something good or bad.

You mention the all-consuming passion: is it a lie? Does it cover up for something else? Is it not virtual pioneering? Or perhaps it is both. I've read in researches that supposed internet addicted are mostly unemployed men and AOL chatting housewives. Its strange how giving meaning to your life -that is what you do when you follow your passions- in the case of computing is putting a lot of the rest of your life on hold, if you would want to sustain your virtual identity.
What about our brigth future: the new generation that will have internet integrated in their lives since birth- the generation after Rushkoff's screenagers. Will their understanding of 'possibilities in life' be any different-since you can be anything you like virtually, why even bother to try it for real?

[Amirilys]

Originally Posted by IQz3r0

My opinion is that if you want to find out what it means just reverse the word order from gameplay to playgame. Think of anything that can relate with it and here you go. This is why gameplay is not a mere "collection of" but it also inludes the feeling that game gives you.

This is one of the difficulties I have with defining it. A definition needs to be objective (scientific method); a feeling is not. So is it included? still, I cannot seem to leave it out. Think about riding a motorcycle. You can read the instructions how to ride, but that still doesn't say anything about it feels to ride this particular bike.
Is playing a game then playing with feelings...as movies or theatre and every medium that came before games?? Are games designed to move its player emotionally? And if they're not designed to, do they anyway? Or will they someday? Talmadge Wright said about this that is was more of a question what emotions a gamer him/herself brings (You might play Castle Wolfenstein with different emotions when you've actually experienced WOII).

[Zergul]

Well... this thread had grown bigger and bigger and this is good.

Let's state some things presented before:


- "It seems that scientists use very vague and objective definitions such as 'the emergence of informal experiences via formal rules' (J. Juul). On the contrary, in game reviews the term refers to very specific aspects of a game. Ofcourse it also refers to the quality of a game, which is an opinion and subjective."

- "J.Juul has written a game model in which RPGs are actually borderline cases (not really games by definition). I'm looking for a definition that would perhaps prove this to be otherwise."

- "So what's left to play in a RPG if it's not about the story? That was my actual question."

Gameplay = how the game is played.

Let's define again the gameplay as the game mechanics. In a game design document under the title game mechanics I brief the following infomation (excerpt from my own design doc):

III. Game Mechanics, Physics & Statistics (Gameplay)
1. Balanced game rules
2. Moving around & Camera
3. Giving orders
4. Collision
5. Specific elements and system
6. Bike tunning
7. Interactions with other gameplay elements
8. End game condition & other conditions
9. Campaign system/ Level changing

As you can see I'm defining the rules that apply to ALL POSSIBLE SITUATION WITHIN THE GAME. I'm not defining the visual interface and the mood they appear on the screen but the mathematic formulae. To make a comparation this is like I would be defining how a physics body will react... let's say pressure, temperature and volume for a gas inside a recipient. You know that pv/t = PV/T = constant. Back to game and bike tunning. Consider engine_power/weight = max_speed. Tune one of these aspects (weight, power or speed) and the others must be automodified to fit the game specs.


- how do I define gameplay as to apply to all types of games and all types of players?

Gameplay is, at the highest level, the game's RESPONSE (output) to an input value.

input -> |Game| -> output



- "hardware and software -controls and how the game reacts-, the game as a set of rules, the player (s): 1. player role -primary player or an onlooker- 2. player type -a killer or an explorer et cetera- 3. social interaction, the actions demanded by the game, the strategies used by the player, and the experience of the gamer: 1.experience of the game world -this is more the sphere of the game set by the designers- and 2.experience of gameplay -this can very per game session- "

Player type is contained inside the rules.

Try the followings reasons to justify a game in a certain genre:
1) control type.

2) game feedback (can be the character movement, NPC's speech, item rewarded or else) or reward. The simplest case is drawing a point where you click (considering the mouse as input device). Every action should be rewarded. Every action should have a clear goal. The player must understand the steps he should take to achieve a goal.

3) characters controlled (how many).

4) learning curve. It may seems strange but in my oppinion it should be taken into consideration when talking about gameplay. If the gameplay is bad so it will be its learning curve because -> the rules are not clearly defined nor their goals <-. Also defines the game quality because a game with a fast learning curve are in generally hits.

5) challenges. A game must challenge the player accordingly to its learning curve. If the challenges are somehow clearly defined and there is no major intersection between them the game will have a fast learning curve. For example Warcraft III: the goal is to kill the enemy buildings. But the enemy has troops to defend or attack. In order to kill him you should have the proper troops (damage-armor bonuses), to use damage-armor bonuses by attacking the proper target and/or to have more troops than the enemy. So you should learn the dmg-armor chart, to know for each unit what attack and armor type it has, click fast enough to give orders before all your troops are dead, to produce more gold than the enemy by harvesting more gold mines or reducing his income (kill his peasants) ...there are so many because the game is so complex but the rules are simple to learn and hard to master and not connected between in a direct way.

- game emotions

The game should DEFINETLY create emotions to the player to have a deep succes. All major games have a univers and all "geeks" talk about this thing or that thing refering to its world. In my oppinion creating a game that has the emotion as a primordial goal is a bad thing because this should be a "side effect" of challenges (story goals are challenges because you should make something to reach that goal) and created THROUGH challenges.

This was a big post... and not so clear as I wish it be. Anyway... I still don't understant what you need to define about gameplay .

[Amirilys]

Originally Posted by Zergul

Thanx!! This is great stuff to discuss.

- I'm not defining the visual interface and the mood they appear on the screen but the mathematic formulae.

I agree, but I know some wouldn't want to exclude visuals from gameplay. This is from an article by Newman at www.gamestudies.org

"Last year, at the UK’s first academic videogames conference, I took the opportunity to present a deliberately provocative paper that suggested that when playing videogames, appearances do not matter. Subsequently, I have tried this idea on groups of undergraduate media students and they, like many of the delegates at GameCultures, look at me as if I’ve gone completely mad. Why expend so much effort on lavish visuals, CGI intros, cut-scenes, graphics engines, texturing systems, lighting models and so on, if these things aren’t important?"


- Player type is contained inside the rules.

I would argue that player type-or what Bartle means by it, whether the player is a socializer (players who play to enjoy the company of others), killer (players who enjoy preying on and harassing other players), achievers (players who enjoy discovering the games 's secrets) or a cheater (from Aaseth), is not included in the rules.

- Anyway... I still don't understant what you need to define about gameplay .

Perhaps this will explain it. This is from Frasca's article for the games conference of 2003 by Utrecht University and www.digra.org at http://www.gamesconference.org/2003/...stracts/Frasca

"During the last few years, a debate took place within the game scholars community. A debate that, it seems, opposed two groups: ludologists and narratologists. Ludologists are supposed to focus on game mechanics and reject any room in the field for analyzing games as narrative, while narratologists argue that games are closely connected to stories. This article aims at showing that this description of the participants is erroneous. What is more, this debate as presented never really took place because it was cluttered with a series of misunderstandings and misconceptions that need to be clarified if we want to seriously discuss the role of narrative in videogames."

--> great explanation of ludology in the game: 'Dead narrative' by Jesper Juul www.soup.dk/deadnarrative/

After the debate that according to Frasca never took place, even though any search engine will have hits searching for 'ludology vs. narratology' and just about everybody seems to have written about it, I'm just trying to make a fresh start in analyzing games.

grtz
Amirilys