- A game is an interactive structure of endogenous meaning that requires a player to struggle to its goals.
Gameplay - What the dickens does that even mean?
Costikan introduces the article by briefly going into detail about the term 'Gameplay' itself. When people say that 'this game has good gameplay', Costikan questions what this actually means. He states that 'gameplay itself is nebulous' meaning it's too broad for a specific definition and that games are an amazingly plastic medium meaning they can range dramatically. He states that when people say a game has 'good gameplay' that it's essentially as useful as saying 'that book is good' and that it doesn't really help anyone identify what's good about it, it's just all down to opinion.
I found this to be interesting. I agree with Costikan if defining a game in a more formal sense means that - it has to be specifically focused on the fundamental aspects of what actually make a game to be good, as appose to vague use of description. Therefore Costikan's argument is valid to which I agree.
In relation to this, I personally find the term 'it has good gameplay' to be almost a cliché phrase within the gaming industry. However with this in mind, it doesn't necessarily mean it's bad and should be shunned upon entirely. The connotations in which the phrase holds to a casual gamer or someone who doesn't play many games imply that the game is somewhat 'enjoyable to play' or 'addictive'... this understanding is what I would establish if a fellow gamer defined it like that to me.
Interaction - A choice with an outcome or purpose:
Costikan then goes into some description in defining the differences between 'games' and 'puzzles' and how this is important...
Games:
- Not static
- They change with the players actions
Puzzles: - Static
- Presented with a logic structure
Costikan states that 'Almost every game has some aspect of puzzle solving' and that 'you can't extract puzzle from game entirely'. I think that this was quite interesting due to it being something I hadn't previously considered before. He outlines that any game in some way or another be it a sci-fi fps shooter or a heavily themed war based strategy game, anything that requires you to make a decision is therefore a puzzle game. This aspect to do with the crossover of puzzles and games I found to be useful information in that....
Costikan also elaborates further on interaction within video games by stating that 'Interactive game is a redundancy', meaning that the player had to have some control over the game state.
Most recent games such as 'Final Fantasy XIII' contain very high definition and visually beautiful cut scene footage which help to give stunning representation to the narrative. From an artists point of view I adore this but from a designer’s point of view some may say this takes the interaction out of the game in that it's practically like watching a film. A lot of fellow gamers I've discussed this with dislike the game purely for that reason but personally I find the cut scenes somewhat rewarding. When considering how this could be improved through interaction of long cut scenes as a designer I'd personally establish some form of quick time event system where players would have to press buttons at certain times during cut scenes in order to keep them engaged. (see. Shenmue).
Goals - Interaction with a purpose:
In the goals section, Costikan basically covers aspects of what a goal within a game is and why it's important, he also talks about the way that players can sometimes make their own goals within games.
Costikan - 'Decision making is interaction with a purpose'... 'The need to make decisions is what makes things a game'.
With this section I very much enjoyed the way how detail goes into how players go about achieving different objectives through a calculated fashion. Games like 'Mario' and 'Quake' require 'quick response and interface mastery' whereas games like 'Chess' and 'Dungeons & Dragons' require 'careful planning'.
Costikan - 'Most games have goals, very few don't, but some do'
'
'Sims Earth' has no goal it's like switching a light 'on and off'... hm, I'm now quite interested to play Sims Earth...
Similarly to
Costikan - 'Games are goal directed interaction, but goals alone are not enough'.
Struggle - Improves skill:
Costikan begins by outlining in depth why struggle is an important and fundamental part of any game. He says that 'competition creates struggle, but isn't the only way to create struggle'.
The aspect to which I found of within this section was the little rant which I picked up on where Costikan goes about puzzles & interactive story. For games like this I got the impression he disliked the fact that people may well look up walkthroughs for a game to easily breeze through the puzzle in order to watch the interactive story - 'Removing the puzzles will turn a 30 hour game into a four hour story'.
- 'Without the puzzle it's no longer a game, there's no struggle!'
Balance:
Balance isn't looked into too much detail by Costikan, he simply states that's important within struggle. I decided to talk a little bit about balance and what I think about it, I mean it's my blog after all...
Arguably, for a game to be a 'game' and for it to work properly it needs to have good balance - meaning it cannot be too difficult or too easy.
I had a short discussion with one of my lecturers about this to which I outlined that I personally find a desire to play difficult games as a whole more appealing. I think a game can be difficult and still be defined as an appealing, satisfying and well recommend game to play. I sometimes find games that appeal to a smaller 'hardcore' audience yet have still been successful more interesting for research.
A game needs to be easy to play but difficult to master (Starcraft, Chess)... for me, that's the ultimate balance for a well balanced game. I simply enjoy difficult games in order to feel that overwhelming sense of accomplishment at the end to make the hairs at the back of you neck stand (well maybe not quite like that, but ya know) - the harder it is to achieve the more satisfying it is.
Don't get me wrong though, I'm simply an opinion. An opinion which can only be considered. I'd imagine that only a small percentage of gamers out there perhaps think the same way, otherwise the industry would probably be dead. I think that was kind of what my lecturer was trying to get at, or at least that's what I got from him. He implied (satirically) that as designers we need to branch out to as many people as possible and that people need to be eased into a game nicely, otherwise if something is too difficult players just get bored and frustrated by endless loosing and in turn, to put it bluntly 'will not play your game'.
Structure - Shapes player behaviour:
You basically need a structure in order to hold the game together and in align. He elaborates on the idea that 'certain rules help to shape the behaviour of the game'... however, this is not always the case.
(Edit/Add Later)
Endogenous Meaning - Things that are meaningful within the game:
Endogenous meaning is the things within a game which make them worth striving for, the things that feel extremely important, the reward systems within the game and everything that feel meaningful.
Upon discussing briefly with my lecturer, he asked me if I had ever spent a number of hours collecting something within a game. To which I replied, "of course - Devil May Cry 4, the little red orbs" he then went on a discussed that these things I spent all those hours collecting don't actually mean anything. They have no physical value of any kind, yet at the time they feel like the most important thing. I did somewhat understand this concept before... I was just never aware of the term 'endogenous meaning' which make it definable. I found it quite interesting.
