Draft Essay on The Royal Game of Ur

 The Royal Game of Ur

An Iteration

Computer Games Design:

Introduction to Critical Games Design

         “The Royal Game of Ur” is one of the first board games ever discovered and studying it at a full time course in university actually requires an understanding of it’s mechanics, dynamics and aesthetics, history and purpose. The iterations made on this game and presented in this paper are based on this process of understanding the game.

            “The Royal Game of Ur” has been discovered 86 years ago, during the excavations of the graves in the Royal Cemetery in Ur ( located in nowadays Iraq), between 1926 – 1930. The game attracted so much attention due to the location of it’s discovery and it’s exquisite fashioning of the board. The one leading the expedition, Sir Leonard Woolley, has actually found three complete examples of the game, of which one is present at the moment in the British Museum.  (Becker) . In a particular development, it has been argued that this game has been used as a way of divination  (Becker) . There are two variations of the game : “The Royal Game of Ur” – which is the first and oldest type discovered, and “The Game of Twenty Squares “, a further iteration.

            As for the rules of the game, they have stayed a mystery until, in 1956, a tablet discovered in 1880, was mentioned in a journal article about fortune telling. At the same time, in the same issue, another article featuring a slightly older tablet, but with very similar content, was written. (Finkel) Ervin Finkle notes in “Ancient Board Games in perspective” that the writings on the tablet are actually related to the “Royal Game of Ur”, representing a standard set of rules. Until this discovery, several types of gameplay have been suggested, of which some can be found in Finkel’s rendition of the rules. 

            I early talked about the mechanics, dynamics and aesthetics of the game. I observed this during the first playtest of the game.  Me and my test partner played both variations of the game to get a better understanding.  The playtest was based on the both variations of the game and the rules written in Ervin Finkel’s book: 

• each player starts with 7 token
• each player starts on opposite sides of the play board
• players decide which of them starts first, on arbitrary methods
• the player who starts rolls 4 d4 dice, each tipped on 2 tips with a distinctive method (i.e. 2 of the tips are coated with Tipex, 2 are not)

• the player moves a single token as many squares as tipped dice he rolled. If he rolled no tipped dice, then he loses his turn
• if a player’s token lands on a “rosette” square (marked with stars in the illustration), he gets another turn
• the purpose of each player is to get all his tokens out of the board, following the movement in the illustrations
• a token on a “rosette” square is considered “safe” and cannot be “captured”

This rules, along with the type boards, are part of the game mechanics. Generally,  game mechanics, consist of the rules of the game and the initial layout of the game.  

                               “The Royal Game or Ur” as it was first played in Mesopotamia.

“The Game of 20 Spaces”, the first iteration of the game of Ur.

The dynamics of the game are a direct result of the player’s interactions with the rules. In the case of “The Royal Game of Ur” they are represented by the racing component of the game, the capturing of the “rosette squares” and holding them as a strategic advantage.

The aesthetics emerge from playing the game and are the actual emotions the player has in relation with the game. Different mechanics and dynamics can lead to certain types of aesthetics, like annoyance or glee.

We play tested both game boards, using Finkel’s set of rules, but got to the conclusion that the iterated board was more interesting to play due to the increased challenge it proved. The initial board had more “safe zones” but the tactical options were limited due to the fact that the players had more opportunities to stay out of the “battle zone”.On the second board, the reduced number of “safe zones” and making the middle section longer offered a greater incentive for the players to race to the finish and gain control over the “rosette squares”. The iterations that we’ve done upon the game were done on “The Game of 20 Squares” board.

During the “Introduction to Critical Games Studies” we iterated “The Royal Game of Ur” as an exercise to better understand the game mechanics, dynamics and aesthetics and to try and adapt the game to the modern days.

The first iteration of the game was made taking into consideration that sometimes one of the players got stuck in the game by not being able to make any legal moves. When one gets into this situation his opponent would win the game. This iteration offers a reward to the player that manages to force the other player into a “no escape” situation. Also this iteration proved to be useful in turning a very long game in which a player may lose interest, into a shorter game, in which strategy may prove to be more useful to the gameplay development than just being patient.

Another way in which we thought of changing the game, and maybe speeding it up was the way the dice casts were read. Instead of using Tipex, which was then counted and based on the count, the number of square on which you could make a move was determined, it was decided to go with and even or odd numbers. The even numbers were taken into consideration when making a move, while the odd numbers weren’t. This really sped up the game, as the chances to roll at least one even number were greater than rolling a die with a painted tip, which would eventually be erased.

As a third iteration we decided to take inspiration from another game that has survived through the ages, Backgammon. As it was stated in Finkel’s paper, two pieces cannot share the same space, so one of the players is required to either jump over the opponents piece or decide upon another move. So with this new iteration when one player lands on an occupied space he takes out the other player and occupies that place for himself. To get back in the game the player has to roll a precise number. It was first decided that the player was supposed to roll 4 even numbers to get back in the game. Then, because the roll was quite difficult, we decided to keep it to a 2 even number roll. This iteration, along with the first one, made the dice rolls more valuable, giving them a true strategic function. We valued our moves more after these iterations took place, knowing that we could hinder our opponent with just one moment and thus gaining an advantage in the game. This iteration helped bring a new positive feedback loop, besides the one offered by the “rosette squares” by making the player to believe he has a slight advantage over the opponent. 

The last iteration is derived again from an ancient game mechanic, “Alea Evangeli”. Firstly we decided to play the game as it was in the beginning, putting the other iterations aside. The new iteration was meant to change the core mechanic of the game from a racing game to a war game. And so the main goal of the game was not to get all your pieces to the finish faster, but capture as many of the enemies as you can along the way. This would seem hindering for a racing game, because the opponent, even with less pieces, would easier win, in a racing game. All of the captured pieces will come under your usage and with them capturing even more pieces and winning by taking all of your opponent’s pieces. This would seem hindering for a racing game, because the opponent, even with less pieces, would easier win, in a racing game. The mechanic adopted from “Alea Evangeli” consisted by capturing an opponent’s piece between two of your pieces. This iteration needed to be altered after a playtest because the game could go on for quite a while before a winner is determined. A limit of turns was added to keep the players interested in the game. Each player has 10 turns in which he had to capture as much of the opponent’s pieces as possible.

My playtest partner, decided that to this variation of the game, to keep the racing mechanic as well and when a player managed to get a piece of the board, he’s able to get that piece back in the game and also score two points, or “frags” as my playtest partner decided to name them. I considered this to be too much of a positive feedback loop to the game and offer too much of an advantage to a player.

 Here I’ll keep my point of view and believe that giving up the race component of the game with this iteration and  adding a slight change to the last “rosette square” making it a turning point and bringing players back on the table. This way players are confined to the board and the only pieces that are to leave the board are the captured ones. If a player has available legal moves after a die cast, then he can introduce the newly captured piece in the game. Eventually the board would get filled, so players have to keep to as many strategy based moves as possible to clear the board in ones favour.

The iterations made for this game either proved benefit to the game, or made the game too tedious. To follow up on what I picked up from the paper “MDA – A Formal Approach to Games Design”: When looking at a game from a designer’s point of view the first that had to be affected were the mechanics, this way changing the emergent dynamics and then the aesthetics. But when the iterations were approached from a players point of view,  the aesthetics emergent from the game were the first to be  observed, then the dynamics and finally the mechanics. The rules of the game put together by Finkle can be used to play all the iterations, and any changes have also been included in the iteration description. 

As a final conclusion, making an 4000 year old game fit for this time requires iterations that impose a fast-paced and challenging gameplay, otherwise, most players might just loose interest if the game is not in a way related with this “speed era”.

Real Game Creation Homework

So as a follow up to that crazy (in a very very good way) lesson we had last Friday afternoon with Rob, each of us has to come up with his or her own game, to be played physicality and with real people. 

 

(probably not the only one who used this, but hey

it's proof of the fun we had :D)  

So here's my game : 1.2.3... STOP 

 1.2.3... STOP is a racing game, with a little bit of patience and standing still skill.  

It can be played by as many as you can gather up, but you at least need 3 players.  

The rules are : 

•  One player is chosen to face a wall, with his or her back to the other players
• The other take a let's say 100m distance from the player, but the bigger the distance the more fun there is. 
• The one facing the wall has to count : 1.2.3 ... then shout STOP! then turns around (the speed of the count is up to each player, but it should increase with time to pose a greater challenge.) 
• The other players have to race to the wall when he starts counting and stop as they were. The ones that are spotted by the one player while still moving are eliminated. 

The game ends when 1 player reaches the wall, or all players are eliminated.

The winner is the first player to reach the wall, and the next to start the count. 

So... this is my game proposal for tomorrow and hopefully, if the weather holds, we could give it a try or two

"I'm walking on sunshine... uh-oh!"

                                                    

M.D.A or a Formal Aproach to Game Design

I first intended to write about M.D.A in the previous post, but I got to the conclusion it might be to long so I'll continue in this here. So: Allons-y ! 


M.D.A. What does M.D.A stand for? M.D.A or Mechanics, Dynamics, Aesthetics, a framework developed during the "Game Developers Conference" San Jose 2001-2004, for the purpose of creating a bridge between game design and game development, criticism and research. It was created so that game designers, coders, artists, researchers could work together on the same grounds.

Games are created by designers and teams of developers to be used by players. The difference between games and other entertainment products is in the way the game will be perceived by the audience. Those who produce the games have only the vaguest idea on how their finished product's consumption is unpredictable. The string of events that take place during  the game-play and the outcome of that is unknown until the product is completely finished. The game can change it's state, purpose or design anywhere on the line of production, the outcome never being sure, until the game is out on the shelf.

The M.D.A framework brings a formal  approach to games design by breaking games into their basic, distinct components  : Rules > System > Fun  and establishing their design correspondents :  Mechanics > Dynamics > Aesthetics. And  now we're back where we started from. What is M.D.A?

Well taking them one by one :

• Mechanics :  The component of the game that describes the rules of the game. The algorithms, the code, the data, the parameters on which the game runs. This is the only part of the game framework of which the game designer is in control. He is the one that decides what rules the game should have and how it should run. 
• Dynamics :   The component of the game that shows what happens when the player interacts with the game. It also shows the interaction of the rules with each other and the choices that have to be made based on the rules of the game. 
• Aesthetics :  The component of the game that shows the players reactions to the game play. It's the emotional interaction when playing games.  

So this is M.D.A. Now what should we do with them? 

As LeBlanc had it "Each component of the M.D.A framework can be thought of as a lens or a view of the game - separate, but casually linked" (LeBlanc, 2004)  

The M.D.A can be viewed from two points of view : The designers and The players. 

The designer sees the game as a series of mechanics that gives rise to a dynamic system, which in turn leads to aesthetics which are specific to every player. 

The player sees the game as an aesthetic experience which has been born of dynamics observed throughout the game-play, dynamics which derive from operable mechanics. 

When working with games as a whole it's important to view the game as a whole, from both perspectives: that of the players and that of the designers; because one change in any of the components can change the whole game. Also it's best to take consideration the player the game is made for, because it inspires experience driven design, as opposed to feature driven design . 

In his paper, LeBlanc started discussing M.D.A from the player's point of view, with Aesthetics. 

Aesthetics in a game is all about "fun". What is fun and enjoyable for a player. But fun is such a relative and personal term that it's very difficult to use in a proper discussion about designing a game. So he points us to a more direct vocabulary, using a taxonomy as an example : 

• Sensation : Games as a sense-pleasure
• Fantasy: Game as make-believe
• Narrative : Game as drama
• Challenge :  Game as obstacle course
• Fellowship: Games as social framework
• Discovery : Games as uncharted territory
• Expression : Games as self-discovery
• Submission :  Games as pass-time 

(this reminds me of the taxonomy he wrote that was included in Costikyan's article...  ) 

Each game pursues multiple types of aesthetic experiences but usually tends to put one above the other and making it the one a game revolves around. Taking for example multi-player games are mainly revolving around Fellowship, even if they have Fantasy, Discovery, Challenge & Submission as adjacent aesthetic experiences. Each game has it's own unique pattern of aesthetic experiences, not two of them alike, even if they have the same ones, they are still in different quantities. 

Following this taxonomy, we can assess different Aesthetic Models. These different types of models can help one asses the types of game-play dynamics and mechanics. Aesthetic Models are used to observe player experience and observations, to see what is fun for them and this way realise what makes a game more or less interesting. 

Dynamics work to create Aesthetic experiences. Challenges can be created by adding time challenges and enemies. Fellowships can be encouraged by introducing social interaction across certain members of a session or supplying a series of objectives that are achievable by team-work and cooperation.

Expression comes from dynamics that encourage the individual user to leave his or her mark upon the game like systems made for buying, earning or designing game related items and dramatic tension comes from dynamics that encourage a state of tension, a release and a denouement.

As we talked about the Aesthetics of a game, the Dynamics also need to be put together into models. This way, by developing models that describe and predict game-play dynamics, some common game designing problems could be avoided. Some of the models used in assessing dynamics are the dice throw and the calculation of probabilities of certain roles, positive and negative feedback loops, fog of war or pseudo-feedback.

Using this dynamic models, games can be re-iterated, making the game more or less interesting, more or less fun.

Mechanics are defined by the various actions, behaviours and control mechanism given to the player withing a game context. The mechanics are the overall support of the game dynamics. Adjusting the mechanics of a game helps us fine-tune the game's overall dynamics. Tuning the basic rules of a game can help bring players back in the game, can shorten or lengthen a game session, and otherwise hinder progress or raise competition.

Following the M.D.A structure, game design seems to take on a more logical path of evolution, having a clear start and a clear finish and hopefully a better product at the end.

                      "Play is to be played exactly because it isn't serious; it frees us       from seriousness."

Computer Games - Vocabulary and Tools, part 2

F.A.D.T & M.D.A

Now, continuing from the last post about "Computer Games Vocabulary and Tools". In this last post I've written about the appropriate vocabulary used when talking about game designing and what tools are the best to use. I talked about a vocabulary applied to the gaming world now the tools used should be brought in the discussion.

So, abbreviations ... why do they stand for?  F.A.D.T or "Formal Abstract Design Tools" and a more detailed form : M.D.A or "Mechanics, Dynamics and Aesthetics". So F.A.D.T first and then M.D.A. Why? Because I consider that MDA are tools and to talk about them first we must talk about tools in a general-ish way.

F.A.D.T - Formal Abstract Design Tools by Doug Church

So what a computer game is really made of? Some would say art, some would say code, some would say ideas. I would say that  all of them. And what puts them together is: design. The putting together of  ideas, art and code  across genres is the work of designers. But sadly, "design" is the least understood aspect of computer game creation. It's the aspect that puts together art, code, levels, sound into what players experience while playing. As Doug Church puts it "The Design is the Game; without it you would have a CD full of data, but no experience for the player"


Also it has the most problems evolving. There have been made discoveries in terms of technology, art and sound creation, data input and output, better equipment and better problem solving, but not in design. And that is because not enough is done to put together and build on past discoveries, sharing the concepts behind successes and apply lessons learned into one domain or genre to another.  Even as an academic domain it's still a confused about what it wants. Most courses fixate only on coding, while other only on art.

The primary problem with the evolution of design is the lack of a common design vocabulary. Going back to the last blog post I did, about Costikyan's article, as he said that the main thing Computer Games Design needs is a proper vocabulary to be used when discussing and analysing this topic.
As Church has it: "Most professional disciplines have a fairly evolved language for discussion ... In contrast game designers could disscuss <<fun>> or <<not fun>> but often the analysis stops there."
Following this point, you could say that a conference between game designers from different companies, teams, genres would just sound like a huge jumble of gibberish. To be able to communicate precisely and effectively, designers need a form of understanding each other. To do that, there's a need for shared language of game designers. And now we're back from where Greg Costikyan started.

Doug Church believes that a clear vocabulary could be discovered by analysing the tools that are used to build games with. But even though you have this tools available to you, as a game designer will have to be able to come up the idea for the game, what is fun, what's the game about and what goals it has.
He sees the vocabulary as a tool to pick apart games and set aside the pieces of  the game's design, that resonate with your idea and your vision of the game and refine them so they can be applied to your game.
You should carefully analyse what you take from a game and throw it into your game, because a game won't be made good if you stuff it up with lots of stuff that you like, making the game about just one aspect.

He gives examples of how this should be done by analysing games that give good examples of game design. The games he talks about is Mario 64 and Final Fantasy VIII. The way to undergo a critical analysis has about two phases: Prescribe the formal proprieties of the game. Then try to understand why the designer choose this particular set of elements and structure, what would've happens if they have chosen differently.

The tools or F.A.D.T's found in Mario are :

• Perceivable Consequence :  which is a clear reaction from the game world to the actions of the players.  The players are capable to assess what will happen with the game world, given the effect of their actions. This way they know to expect a blow coming from around the corner, not just getting randomly killed, loosing the progress in the game. 
• Intention: making a plan, taking into consideration the player's actions in response to the current situation in the game world and one's understanding of the game play options. 

Another game to which he refers to and in which he finds one last important F.A.D.T  is Final Fantasy VIII:

• Story :  the narrative thread, whether designer-driven or player-driven,that binds events together and drives the player forward toward completion of the game

Other tools that he talks about are : Cooperation, Conflict, Confusion. 

All this tools are used to help the game designer understand different aspects of the game's design and to maximize the players feeling of involvement and self . There are more tools than the ones explained by Doug Church, but the ones presented by him are the basic ones to understand the vocabulary of game designers.

"A good game has to have a "fun" core, which is a 

one sentence description of why it is fun"

Paul Reiche III - Compute Magazine, January 1992.

...

But, for the moment I believe that this is okay and I will cover M.D.A in a future post or rendition of this post.

Bibliography exercise

Becker, A. (2008) “The Royal Game of Ur” in Finkel, ed. pp. 11-15.

Costikyan, G. (2002) I Have No Words & I Must Design: Toward a Critical Vocabulary for Game. Proceedings of Computer Games and Digital Cultures Conference, ed. Frans Mäyr,  Tampere: Tampere University Press.

LeBlanc, M. (2006) Tools for creating dramatic game dynamics. In: The Game Design Reader: A rules of play anthology. MIT.

LeBlanc, M., Hunicke, R. & Zubek, R. (2001) MDA: A formal approach to Game Design and Game Research. In Proceedings of the Challenges in Games AI Workshop, Nineteenth National Conference of Artificial Intelligence.

Newman, J. (2004) Videogames. 1st ed. Routledge.

Salen, K. & Zimmerman, E. (2003) Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals. The MIT Press.

Nieborg, D. B., and Van der Graaf, S. (2008) "The mod industries?" European Journal of Cultural Studies, 11(2), pp.177-195.

Turner, M.C., 2006. GAMES PEOPLE PLAY. Black Enterprise, 36(10), p.53.

Computer Games - Vocabulary and Tools

We're half way through the 1st semester, week 6 started this Monday. In the readings we had to... read until now for Rob's module, each author, or authors, wrote about how we should look upon games from a designer's point of view, what vocabulary is appropriate and what tools are the best to use in trying to design a good game. I'll write about this readings in this post and my opinion on them.

So starting with Greg Costikyan's article "I Have No Words & I Must Design : Toward a Critical Vocabulary for Games".  
As the title goes, we are first introduced to what this article is about, and that is the creating of a general vocabulary for Games Design and coming up with a coherent definition for what a games is.
He starts his article talking about how games designers don't have an eligible vocabulary when it comes to talking about or analysing a game. But only have very vague or general terms on how we asses games : "good gameplay", "bad gameplay".  And I have to say I totally agree with him. Taking into consideration that terms like "good" and "bad" are as personal and subjective as terms can get, it's impossible to talk about games on a common ground. I learned that as a games designer you have to be able to look at a game from an objective point of view. By doing this you'll be able to properly analyse it and maybe reiterating it.

But to be able to have a vocabulary, you must first be able to define the object of study for which you create a vocabulary. And that would mean defining what a game is. And by defining a game, you have to know what makes a game.

He first talks about interaction and goals and calls in information from "Art of Computer Games Design - Chris Crawford (1982)". Chris Crawford talks about separating puzzles from what he calls games on the fact that puzzles are static and don't imply a direct form of interaction with the player, unlike games who change with every action the player does. Here Costikyan states that not all puzzles are like that. Of course there are puzzles like a crossword, which is just that, a puzzle because it has no true interaction with the person completing it, and any decision taken may never affect the outcome or the "path". Whereas many puzzles are part of games. We've all played puzzle-adventure games. One of my favourite is "Syberia", both the first and second game, a game whose sole objective is the solution of puzzles to get to the end of a mystery. Thus the winning condition is a consequence of puzzle solving.

If you look closely enough you can see that every game has some degree of puzzle solving. You can't separate puzzles from games entirely because they consist of a major part in user-game interaction. Always this puzzle solving tend to lead to a goal, most games having an explicit win condition.
But to reach this goal and truly have a "fun" element in your game, the player has to experience some kind of struggle. This is required to make the user feel like he has a major role in the story and that all the puzzle solving and decision making he had to put up, gather towards a finish. The huge variety of games found on the market deliver a lot of types of goals: straight to the point goals, vague goals, multiple goals or user-made up goals.
But all of this has to be included in a structure. Interaction of the games own rules, components and software help create a structure in which people can play. It helps to think of a structure as an ecosystem, a complex, interacting system that does not dictate outcomes, but guides behaviour through the need of achieving a single goal.

And so we get to the first part of Costikyan's definition of games : "A game is an interactive structure that requires players to struggle towards goals".

Following this line of thought, we can notice that a game structure creates it's own meanings within itself . That which is caused by factors inside the system and gains importance within the structure is endogenous to the structure. And so we get to the next component of a game : Endogenous meaning. 


We should first start talking about the fact that a game belongs to fantasy, not reality. Everything that takes place in the game world has value only there. And this is where endogenous meaning takes it's place in the components that are required to make a game. It represents something that has meaning only in the game world and if tried to bring out of the game world it would have no meaning. "Monopoly" money have value only during the game. Take them to the market and try to buy something and the salesman might just politely point out to you that the 100$ note you gave him has no value

. Another example would be found let's say in an MMORPG. Taking "WoW", let's say I've worked my fingers to the bone, levelling up a BloodElf mage, bringing it up to, let's say level 80. And then I get bored of it. So I make a new one and sell this one for either gold coins in the game, or real money. Either way, at this point, I have great prospects and I'm sure I'll get my money. But then I wake up the next morning and suddenly "WoW" does not work any more. The game just crashed forever. Thus the character I've put up on the internet with the hope of earning something of it, has lost it's value. It's just a character drawing. This is what endogenous meaning means. This also applies to game mechanics and dynamic, because if I say "Wingardium Laviosa" while pointing a stick at my sofa, it won't suddenly start floating around the room like in "Harry Potter" (the game)... (or the movie)... ^_^

But this can, if used properly, can work both ways. This way real elements and happenings in real life can be given endogenous meaning in games that re-contextualize reality in a game. Taking the "Age of Empires" series as example, the game starts on the basis of military campaigns in Europe, Asia , Africa and later the American continent, dating from the Ancient Roman Empire, to the Mongol Invasion, Medieval wars, Colonial wars, Spanish conquering of Central and South America and early Modern age. This game starts from real facts but let's the player decide the outcome of the fights, being able to alter history while in the game world. This way Napoleon might just conquer the whole of Europe.

And so we might just say that we've covered the whole of Greg Costikyan's game definition : "A game is an interactive structure of endogenous meanings that requires players to struggle towards goals". 

But he covers two more aspects in his article, those being the categorising of games as "Interactive Entertainment"  and includes Marc LeBlanc's taxonomy of game pleasures.

So once we've looked upon this definition, we should ask ourselves : If games are a form of interactive entertainment, what else goes in this category? Costikyan explains very succinctly that only games should be deemed as " Interactive Entertainment"  due to the fact that, to be a form of interactive entertainment, you require both a structure and an endogenous meaning. The form of interactive entertainment must contextualize itself and must provide meaning that makes sense in the context shown. To be part of the "Interactive Entertainment"  the product must prove to be a form of entertainment, that requires people to actively interact with it towards the achievement of a goal, and as far as Costikyan goes, only games fulfil all this requirements simultaneously.

Now that a definition for games has been brought up on stage, a definition which brings insight to what is required to create a compelling game, it's good to about what people do enjoy about a game. What makes that game tick for them. And here we get to the one part that I think is one of the most important, a taxonomy, in this case: LeBlanc's taxonomy of game pleasures. Why do I think this is one of the most important parts to take into consideration  when making a game? Because I believe that one of the most important thing is knowing what your audience expects of you. This is backed up by a paragraph in "Beginning Game Level Design" by John Field and Marc Scattergood, which I recently started reading. It goes something like: "They (the games designers) loose sight of the core fundamental which is that games are about one thing, entertaining people. This is the first and most important thing to think about when you're making any kind of game, whether is a teensy mod or a huge, 250-hour RPG. In making a game you become an entertainer, not a puppet master bent on world domination. As such your primary concern should be the happiness of your audience. You have to make your game fun." (2005, pg2).

In his taxonomy, LeBlanc brings forward 8 elemnets:

• Sensation : which is provided by good video and audio, but also tactile sensation and for some games even muscle pleasure, like in sports games or dance games ("Dance Dance Revoution"). But even though video and audio elements, which are the most commonly used to achieve sensory pleasure, they must not be seen as the main component of the game, because they might just be a way to hide a dull game behind beautification aspects. 
• Fantasy :  And by this he doesn't just mean let loose the orcs and elves and wobbly mages  in the midst of human civilization. But setting the game in a time and place which does not belong in reality. And if this means creating a whole new universe in which your game would take place, with it's mandatory elvish-gibberish-made-up language and a whole new history that dates back to the fall of the Gods and goes all the way to the creation of the steam-punk toothbrush, you'd better start writing.
• Narrative : As we all know a good game has also a good story, and a good story is mandatory for keeping a player immersed in the game world; be it your usual A through Climax to get to B story, or a user made-up story such as in D&D. But narrative doesn't mean just attachment to a story, it means creating a sense of drama in your game, going through tension building, then a climax and finishing with a sense of accomplishment. 
• Challenge : Which could be considered Costikyan's equivalent for struggle. This is viewed as a must in every game, because games might just be able to limp around without graphics of fantasy or narrative, but a player who will not encounter any challenge while playing the game, then they will just throw it away in a dark corner and let the dust settle on it. 
• Fellowship : This is close, if not exactly what players experience while playing an online game. More generally, shared intense experiences breed a sense of fellowship. For gamers, it’s often the games they've  played. Even offline, where the experience is not shared directly, shared experiences provide points of contact with other people, and reasons to feel friendly toward them.
• Discovery : This relates to both the discovery of the hidden game world, and the reveal of information from one player to the other. Like in playing "Poker", "Blind Dice" or I would say "Magic: The Gathering" would be a very good example, because there are so many different Magic cards that if you play a lot, you’re always encountering one you hadn't seen before or hadn't battled against it before.
• Expression: By this LeBlanc refers to self-expression through game. Be it the construction of your character in an RPG, the construction of your sims in "The Sims", or of your own world in "Spore", you add a little bit, or a little bit more of your looks or personality to the game, thus transforming it into a way of self-expression and also becoming more familiar with your game.
• Masochism : This last one is the one I find the oddest of them all, because it refers to pleasure derived from pain. But then, if you think again it might refer to the inhumanly number of hours spent playing a game, depriving yourself of basic needs, just to level-up your character, or discover a new area or carrying on with a game of D&D late into the night/early into the morning. I'm sure everyone of us has gone through one of this forms of self-torture just for the sake of doing better in the game and this is what I believe LeBlanc was referring  to when he added this to the list. 

                "One of the most difficult tasks people can perform, 

how ever much someone may 

despise it 

is the invention of good games"

Games Old and New - Games Britannia, part 1

Watching a TV show in class was one of  the many things I was not expecting to do in this course. Well it was actually a digital copy, but a TV show is a TV show even if displayed with the help of a projector. On a white board. From a computer. In class.

I have to say  I really enjoyed watching "Games Britannia", learning about the history of games and realising that games are not just a mean of entertainment, but a way to get a unique perspective on human evolution. "Games Britannia" is a three part series about the history of popular games in Britain, dating from the Iron Age until the Information Age, presented by the historian Benjamin Woolley. In the first part of the show he follows the games evolutionary path, from a fundamental element with rich prophetic meaning to a widely addressed comercial good.

Humans have been known to play games, more or less complex, since they climbed down from the tree, this ability being seen as one of the attributes that differentiate humans from, lets say monkeys. Of course they play games too, but as far as I know, only humans play games using a set of rules more or less complicated, games which require struggle towards the achievement of a goal. And why is that? Because humans have that unique ability of getting bored. And so to devise a mean of entertainment, they came up with games, and knowing the human nature they kept improving them, iterating,  striving for a better "weapon" against boredom. I, for one, would dare say that the early humans were also the first games designers, and so adding game design to one of the oldest professions in the world.

The first games had, at a second glance, a more improtant role than we might expect. They were used as tools of divination by druids. Foretelling the will of the gods with a cast of the die, or the outcome of a battle was predicted by the outcome of a game, played by druids in the night before the battle, under the watchful eyes of their gods.Now, I don't know if they really worked and how much people would trust them, but given the strong inclination humans had for magic and mystery, and since it was before the occurrence of scepticism, and later on technology, I'd say it worked pretty well.

Also, games were used to explain political struggles or religious abstractions. Let's take for example "Alea Evangelii" - a game dating back to the early kings of Britannia, seen as a game of gospels. The game is started with 24 white pieces, 48 black pieces and 1 white king. The goal of the game is to get the king safely to one of the 4 corners of the board. This set-up could easily be associated with both religion ( the battle between black & white - good and evil, and the winning would result in the passage of the soul into heaven) and politics ( guarding the king and getting him safely across the battlefield, fighting the enemy's army).

Following the progress of games in history, in 1282, the king of Spain ordered the creation of "Libro des los Juegos" ( "The Book of Games"). It was a recollection of Arabic games know at that time, and it was the first book to introduce games like backgamon or chess. At that time it was widely believed that games were a refection of how ones life was supposed to be lived, believing in fate, or calculating every move. Just as games, life was supposed to either be ruled by chance, connecting it with a game like "Hazard"; or by skill, being connected with a game of strategy, like chess. Many got to the conclusion that life was a combination of both, and so the game that depicted this most clearly is considered to be "Backgammon", implying both the effect of chance and strategic thinking. "Backgammon", the perfect game.

Going on a bird's eye view over the medieval world, one can notice that games were played everywhere. Why is that? Because humans had a lot of waiting to do, for this pope, or that reverent, that speech or this execution. And they got bored. When humans get bored they played games. One of the most common game boards scratched around churches, dating from that time is the one for "Nine Men's Morris". Surprisingly,  knowing how strict the Church was at that time, they were pretty tolerant towards people playing games while  in church. That is due to the fact that life of a medieval man was extremely short and the accent was on enjoyment. And of course the Church approved! Even the priests used to play it.

But through time, games turned to another side of human nature, and that was greed. They were used to gain material goods in life (defying in a way Costikyan's definition of "Endogenous Meaning" : "...  one definition of endogenous is “caused by  factors inside the organism or system... A game’s structure creates its own meanings... Suppose you’re walking down the street, and someone gives you a $100 in Monopoly money. This means nothing to you; Monopoly money has no meaning in the real world. The guy who gave you the bill is probably some kind of lunatic. Yet when you’re playing Monopoly, Monopoly money has value;) (Costikyan, 2002, pg.22). And that's how gambling appeared. And the Church started to  disapprove the fact that humans were using fate and chance to determine  an outcome. Once used as tools of divination, to determine to will of gods, now dice was viewed by the Church as a tool of the devil. Games like Hazzard were highly played amongst the common folk in taverns, being a fast way of loosing one's hard earnings, or if a skilled player, making more money in one day, than one could ever dream. Amongst the upper classes, one of the most notorious gambling games was "Faro" a complete game of chance, bringing down famous members of the times aristocracy.

The middle classes, as the church, highly disregarded this way of life and tried by all means to ban gambling, being against their belief that any money you have must be earned through hard work. This battle culminated with a famous trial : John Thurtell - "The Elstree Murder". In 1823 the son of the Mayor of Norwich, John Thurtell, murdered a fellow gambler, William Weare, over a gambling debt of £300.  This was a shock, being the furthest anyone went because of gambling. He was arrested, trialled, proclaimed guilty and executed by hanging, and then had a wax statue made of him and added to Madame Tussauards. This event had the media explode. West End theatres they staged shows based on this case and the middle classes got enough fuel to push into writing the "The Gambling Law" - putting of the gambling wave that took over the country for about a century.

After this games changed direction, going for a design that was meant to teach manners and the good way in life for both children and adults. The best example for this is "The Royal Game of Goose", a famous Victorian parlour game, which is actually firstly mentioned by Francesco di Medici, who sent a copy to Philip the IInd, king of Spain and then rapidly spread in popularity amongst European royal courts. It consisted of a board with 63 spaces, representing the average human lifespan, and was packed with both penalties and rewards, depending on the players course of action. The goal of the game is that player has to live his life as best as he can, upholding the good ways of living.
Also this is the time when games become a commercial good. Adaptation of "The Royal Game of Goose" and the vast commercialisation of it, brought the game down from the royal palaces to a common Victorian household. This is also the time when games inspired by British colonies became popular in Britain.

 The British colonies were a vast source of inspiration for games, one of the most famous adaptations being "Snakes and Ladders". The game was inspired by the "Indian Game of Knowledge" or " Paramapada Sopaanam" ( The Ladder of Salvation); a game that had it's basic structure around a racing game, getting from point A to point B, but it had a more spiritual meaning, being an expression of both physical and spiritual Indian belief regarding life. It represented a journey towards  enlightenment, filled with obstacles and deceptions, making it more than a racing game, a game that emphasised the role of fate, or karma in ones life.
Another adaptation of an Indian game is "Ludo", but it didn't have the same success as "Snakes and Ladders" due to it's complications. 


This first part of "Games Britannia" ends with the explanation of the occurrence of "Chess" in the format we know it today. Even though the game is known since its mention in "The Book of Games" in 1282, it has only recently been given the definite formate we all know. Untill 1851, the game of "Chess" had always been played with different looking pieces or slightly different rules, even though the concepts and basic strategies were the same. It's widely believed that "Chess" is the highest developed board game of all time, due to both it's simplicity and it's difficulty, being easy to learn but hard to master. It has been used as a way of teaching strategy and determine battle tactics since medieval times, but never with a set of precise given rules or roles. 
In 1851, Paul Stautsdon, organises "The Great Exhibition" where he displayed the first game of "Chess" in the format we all know now, with a set of precisely given rules and standardised pieces. He was also the first one who organized the first "Chess" tournament, setting the set for the most amazing game of chess ever played.  


On the 21st of June, 1851, the game known as "The Immortal Game", played by Adolf Anderssen, the German Chess master of that time, and Lionel Kieseritzky, another 19th century Chess master, from Paris. The risks taken by the players and the incredible victory of Adolf Anderssen made it the most famous Chess game of all time, being called an achievement perhaps unparalleled in Chess history. 


                                "Attack! Always Attack!  -  Adolf Anderssen"




Bibliography:

Aleff, P., H The Royal Game of the Goose and of the Phaistos Labyrinth. Available from: <http://www.recoveredscience.com/gooseintro.htm> [Accessed 28 October 2011].

Althoen, S.C., King, L. & Schilling, K. (1993) How Long Is a Game of Snakes and Ladders? The Mathematical Gazette, 77, p.71.

Anon John Thurtell - “The Elstree Murder.” Available from: <http://www.capitalpunishmentuk.org/thurtell.html>.

Costikyan, G. (2002) I Have No Words & I Must Design: Toward a Critical Vocabulary for Game. Proceedings of Computer Games and Digital Cultures Conference, ed. Frans Mäyr,  Tampere: Tampere University Press.

Anon (2006) The Immortal Game: A History of Chess. Doubleday.

Topsfield, A. (1985) The Indian Game of Snakes and Ladders. Artibus Asiae, 46 (3), pp.203-226.

Paidea, Ludus and Videogames

Who would've thought that Ancient Greek, Latin and Computer Games go so well together? (but I'll get to that later). To be able to talk about the terms  "Paidea" and "Ludus"  I first want to talk about how Newman defines and classifies game in Chapter 2 of his "Videogames" book : "What is a video game? Rules, puzzles and simulations: defining the object of study."

Firstly I have to say that James Newman's "Videogames" book is one very hard to follow, not because it might use complicated terms or analogies, but because every two sentences there is a reference to something someone wrote. For a person not used to reading this kind of work, where almost every sentence is accredited to someone, but reading the whole work and the person's ideas and then at the end be presented with a bibliography, this book is a very difficult one to grasp, considering that with every mention of someone I loose track of my ideas and I get confused about who that person is and where does his idea start and where Newman took over. 

So, getting over the little bit of confusion the chapter left me with, I found the reading both interesting and relevant to the study of games design. When done with the chapter I could understand the evolution of games as interactive entertainment (as Costikyan has it : "Interactive entertainment means games!"), how it was immersed into the popular culture, what do games actually imply the player to behave like and what players expect a game to be like.

Starting with the first : Evolution of games as interactive entertainment, I have to say that Costikyan in his article "I have no words & I must design"  gives a straight to the point and compeling explanation of why any kind of interactive entertainment IS a game, and nothing else, by saying that what is viewed as entertainment is, outside the gaming area' non-interactive because it doesn't require the implication of the viewer, or the one who is entertained, and not all that is interactive it's necessarily entertaining. Thus, the only one that combines the two are games, be they video or boardgames.
Now the question arises, what is a videogame? Would anything with a digital/video interface incorporated be eligible for the title of video games? I would disagree with that, because, in my own opinion, a Furby or a Tamagotchi ( what he gives us as examples) are not games. They are toys with which you can interact and create games, but by themselves they are toys. They have a minimum amount of interaction required from the owner, there is no struggle for a goal, (I don't really believe they have any goals)  and from an entertaining point of view they can get boring pretty fast, thus leaving in their description only : A toy which requires minimum interaction from the user. If  I were to develop a game in which I use a Furby as an avatar of a player and I set myself goals, then they could be viewed as part of a game, but I believe never as a stand alone game.

Seeing now that not all that have some form of digital implementation can be called a videogame ( or even a game) and returning to Costikyan's definition of a game : "A game is an interactive structure of endogenous meaning that requires players to struggle towards goals" (2004:24) ; where should we actually classify videogames? Should they be thrown in along with film and television, due to the digital/video display, or be viewed as an extension of non-digital games? I would say both. Computer games are certainly an extension of non-digital games, using the same basic principles that define all games, but the way they are presented, delivered and viewed upon by both general public and target public set them very close to a movie and television area. 

But to make games more familiar and appealing to the majority, there were critics, games developers and people who wrote papers based on games studies  who orientated their analyses around similar classifications that were turned into game types :   

• Action & Adventure 
• Driving & Racing
• First-Person Shooter (FPS) 
• Platform & Puzzle
• Roleplaying
• Strategy & Simulations
• Sports & Beat'em-ups. 

This types helped players and future players to pick a certain game style they are comfortable with and made it easier for players to understand the game, the mechanics and what was required of them.
To this type of classification of games, those who introduced computer games to popular culture also attributed genres which are specific to other ares like film or literature with which the general public is already familiar with (Horror, Fantasy, Sci-fi, Historical, Realistic, Psychological.) to games, to make them seem more in touch with players preferences.

Also there has been adopted a sorta-kinda system close to "auterism", system in which names of certain videogames designers and/or producers dominate. The term "auteur" comes from French and as Wikipedia has it : <<In film criticism, auteur theory holds that a director's film reflects the director's personal creative vision, as if they were the primary "auteur" ...  In some cases, film producers are considered to exert a similar "auteur" influence on films they have produced. >> However is not clear if remembarance of names is felt through the creation of unique characteristics of their games (be they aesthetic , formal, or they just managed to create a game which has that "certain right feel to it") or whether the allusion to film is simply stylistic and indicative of a further attempt to gain credibility by association with other more known types of media.

Thus there were two types of major classifications that were selected for and pinned on computer games and putting these two together you get a very easy way of deciding which type of game is more appropriate for you and so introducing the general public to gaming and boosting the industry in the ranks of popular culture.

Now, coming back to "Paidea" & "Ludus".  

One of the means to differenciate types of games is by taking into consideration the location of play and all  that derives form that : types of experience, structure, engagement and social interaction. As Huzinga described them in his  work :"Homo Ludens" (1950) : "Paidea" stands for free-play, the kind of play you get with a sandbox game like "Minecraft" or "Spore" and "Ludus" stands for a game that imposes restrictions from the start, that has a strict set of rules and pre-set goals.
In his book, Newman started talking about this system firstly by comparing coin operated arcade machines with home playing systems. This is a very easy comparison to follow, since knowing that a coin-op system will always restrain it's player by limiting his time of play and also making the experience more intense by forcing the player to adopt a more fast, straight to the point approach to the game. The arcade environment also puts pressure on the player because it forces him to struggle more to reach his goal, due to the limited time pf play. Also an arcade gaming experience is most likely than not to become a public performance as there are observers gathering around the player. And as most of us surely have noted, all the games that are placed in an arcade are purely  "ludic" games, being fast paced, with an enormous amount of  restrictions both in the physical world and in the game world and with a set goal that the player need to complete in a given time and space.

I tend to classify every other game that is not a simulator or a sandbox game (or "Everquest" because it doesn't really have an ending or a specific main goal) a ludic game. These range from RPG's to RTS's and TBS's and FPS's and Racing games and Adventure Games ... everything except Simulator games and Sandbox games (in my opinion). In a very wide assessment they all start form the same basic premise : they have a set goal which the player must reach ( in a given amount of time or space in some games) and you start with a set of rules and a given world that impose restrictions upon the player.
In a sandbox/simulator you are given 90 to 100% control over everything: your world, your character, your goals, this meaning that you play the game for your own pleasure and entertainment, going at your own pace, playing in an environment in which you are comfortable, most likely using a home gaming system.  The best two examples of which I can think of at the moment are "Spore" and "Minecraft" which I mentioned earlier. Both of this games start from a slightly different premise :

• In Spore you have to create your own creature and set a complete evolutionary track for it, observing it and guiding it till it becomes either a raging conqueror of galaxies or a peaceful diplomat (It was created by the developers of "The Sims" "Sim City" and the almost unknown "Sim Earth")  

• In Minecraft you as a player are given control over everything and are free to do whatever you want in that digital world. You can build, dig, mine, create, experiment, destroy, explore, discover etc. 

Both of these games can easily jump from a paidea type of game to a ludus type of game by creating your own goals, but in essence the games started as just games for the players pleasure, games that you can start now and pick up again in a month without fear of loosing or not making any progress, games that can truly last forever ( or until you set you Minecraft universe on fire with lava )



                               "You have to play the game before it will reveal its nature"
                                                              (Jessen 1998:38)
                                

Magic words in an unexpected context

Who would've thought that magic words had anything to do with games designing?

We are all familiar with those little prayers towards Flash or Windows, not to crash during a furious session of coding, or to Photoshop, not to "die" on you when you're 5 minutes from finishing an intricate background and you forgot to save. But I'm not talking about these now because these magic words apply to all who work with any of these programs. I'm talking about a special set of words, a 5 word-sentence which is addressed to all those who aspire to be a games designer :


I am a games designer.  


Reading Jesse Schell's article "In the Beginning There Is the Designer" I got to the conclusion that those words might just do the trick. They are the magic words of the real, elf-less, orc-less, hobbit-less world, words that give you confidence and make you look forward, and see the difficult path you have taken to, and then you loose confidence again, and then there come the magic words to lift you up and the whole circle goes on and on and on.  I have a friend who always used to play this little game with herself. Every morning she used to encourage herself in the mirror before she came to school and every day she was radiating confidence.

In a games designer's portfolio one can find a HUGE amount of skills, because almost anything you can be good at, can become a useful skill for a games designer. Going from A to Z you get to go through: Animation, Anthorpology, Architecture, Business, Cinematography, Communication, Economics, History, Management, Math, Psychology, Sound Design, Visual Arts, and sooo many others.
Of course one person can't master them all, but you are good at at least one, and once you've mastered that, you can pass on to the next one and master that too. You have loads of time to practice any one you want, but whatever you choose it will still be a useful skill for a games designer. That's why, in the past 20ish years games started to be created in teams. This way more skills can be combined into a team and hopefully better games might be created. Now, from a 1 person team, games development has jumped to a 100 or more person teams.

But as we humans go, we like to deem something the most important thing, what would the most important skill for a games designer be? Of course, for the one naming it, it might  be the one he's the most good at, or it might be the ones that pop in everybody's mind when they think of games designing. Skills like "creativity", "logic" "management" "organisation", "coding" or "visual arts" are the ones most commonly named.

But I have to agree with Jesse here and say that "Listening" is the most important ones. Listening to the team you're working with, listening to the audience, to the client, to the game and to yourself.
By listening I don't mean just hearing, but paying attention and take into account both voice and body language. And when you learn to listen like that then the message you might receive might be different from the one you would get just by hearing the message. When you listen thoughtfully you start to observe everything and constantly question yourself on your actions and thoughts.

And now, while you start and struggle to learn and master the skills that you believe will turn you into a good games designer, someone will come and tell you: "I already have everything I need to be a games designer because I've been born with the skill".
Here is where Jesse Schell comes in and explains that there are two kinds of gifts. The minor gift which is the innate gift, the one you are born with . If you have this gift it might be easy for you to design games, but you might not really enjoy it. Plus, if you don't keep working on it, it will fade away with time.
The major gift is the love you have for the work you do. If you have the love for the work you do , you will design games using whatever skills you have, no matter how limited your skills have. And you will keep doing it. And the work you do will get better and better. People who will look at what you did will think that you have the the innate gift, but you'll know that the games you did are the reflection of your love for the work you do.

But to find out which gift you have, you have to start working, start experimenting and start learning. See what works for you, pick up those skills that you think will help you and keep saying those magic words to build up the confidence that will carry you through.

                                                           " I AM A GAMES DESIGNER "