Mo' Notes, Yo

Mo' Notes, Yo

...Says the whitest person in about a mile radius.


Greetings, mortals! I come bearing notes on "I Have No Words & I Must Design" by Greg Costikyan. Long one, this time...

Now, before beginning this epic read of 24 pages, I was set the task (to be completed after reading) of explaining a quote:

"A game is an interactive structure of endogenous meaning that requires players to struggle towards goals."

So, for my notes, that's exactly what I'll do!

The first part of what we're tasked with explaining is the word "game". Well, it's been defined right there. "A game is an interactive structure," yada-yada. In this context, Costikyan is most likely referring to video games, though this definition can be applied to all sorts of things to determine if they are games, including non-digital activities. I'll explain what he means with the rest of this definition.

Next, "interactive". Interactive means allowing the user or player to make decisions based upon considerations of the current game state; these decisions will then change the game state in some way. Decisions which change the game state can range from selecting to use this kind of resource for this purpose, as opposed to that purpose, to using Arcane Blast on that unit at this time in World of Warcraft. Making decisions can be very quick and almost entirely unconscious in a game, but it always involves considering why I should do this rather than this.

However, this provides the player with little satisfaction, and does not describe a game. "I can do this, or I can do that. I'll do this. OK." That's making a decision, but it's not making a game.

"Structure", which can also be described as a set of rules by which the game must be played, is required in games to provide the player with a more interesting experience. A child's game of pretend can be described as a game with the most minimal structure possible. "We can change into animals, but we can only do it at this time, or in this place, or under these circumstances." Why can we only do it then? Because that's more fun. The structure and/or rules of a game make it more of a challenge, and are designed to restrict the player, but that just means that the game becomes more fun, provided the rules are balanced enough to allow the player to win with only a reasonable amount of difficulty.

A structure is needed in all games, and can heavily affect the behaviour of the players. For example, if, in an MMO (massively multiplayer online) game, you collect loot from monsters, and this loot builds up, players can be expected to be carrying a lot of stuff. If the game has world player-versus-player features (meaning the players can just attack each other), and players can get loot from attacking and killing each other, then a player can become a much more valuable target for loot-collection than monsters, as they will probably be carrying more of it. This will make the players much more suspicious and hostile towards one another than a game which doesn't have this player-versus-player element, or which has a structure which will discourage them from attacking each other (such as a bounty system).

"Endogenous" is defined as value or meaning within the structure or organism. The example used by Costikyan is Monopoly money; this has no value in the real world, but in the game of Monopoly, it's very valuable, and has a great deal of meaning indeed. This, according to Costikyan, is an agreement between the players and the game; the players will pretend that Monopoly money, or any other endogenous item, means something to them (even though it doesn't in the real world) to have a better experience with the game.

Games are full of these endogenous items, and they are in fact necessary in the definition of a game. If the items are exogenous (or have a direct meaning or value to the real world) then it ceases to be a game and becomes a serious matter. For example, the stock market could be described as a game (albeit not a very good one), except for the fact that the items (stocks) have exogenous value. Obviously, the stock market is not a game, meaning that this must be part of the definition for a true description of a game.

The "struggle" in a game is necessary for the game to have a satisfying outcome; if it's a simple choice between A and B to winning a game, then the lack of struggle means that the game was more or less pointless. However, if the game does have struggle, then the thrill of victory is present, and will incite the player to play the game more. It may not be absolutely vital for a game to have struggle, but a game without struggle isn't going to do well at all.

The struggle will also need to be balanced; if the game is too hard it becomes frustrating, and the player will eventually give up if the frustration isn't justified. If the struggle is too easy, the game will be boring, and won't present the player with a challenge that they feel was worth the time and/or effort.

Finally, "goals" are necessary in any game to justify playing the game. "If there's no goal to this, then why am I even doing it?" If a game doesn't have an endpoint or victory condition for players to reach for, then there's no point to their struggle. There are some games which don't appear to have goals, such as SimCity or Minecraft, but the fact is that the games are filled with many goals, which the player may then choose from to make their goal in that game. This gives games a great deal of replay value, as the player might then go back to try and achieve different goals, or to reach the same goals in a different way.


Now, my thoughts on this are as follows: this definition of a game is a good one, I think; Costikyan presents his thoughts and arguments well, and i find myself agreeing with nearly everything he says. No doubt that'll go away once I've read some more articles. For now, however, I can accept this as the definition of a game.

For example, if we apply this definition to something which I don't recognise as a game: Dear Esther, developed by TheChineseRoom, which came out on Steam earlier this year, involves a lot of walking about, monologue, and being frustrated at the pretentious, "w"-pressing atmosphere involved. While this game included a very basic structure, a goal of sorts, and a sense of struggle (though not the one the developers were aiming for, perhaps), it has no endogenous meaning, and the challenge is completely non-existent. This means that when I'm playing the game, I have no sense of value for anything I find there, other than a vague sense of awe at some of the artwork portrayed, and once I reach the end, I have no sense of victory. Another thing the game lacks is interactivity; the most interactive thing you can do in the game is walk around, which is a long, long way away from the game-state changing decision-making Costikyan describes. You can walk and you can look, and you can get lost and spend twenty minutes getting back to where you were, and that's it for that "game". As far as I'm concerned, this isn't a game, this is more of a story in the form of software, which was then incorrectly marketed as a game (seriously, go to the Steam page for this; first of all, it's on Steam, second, it has three game genres attached to it). 


So, that's the definition of a game, mortals. I can stand by that, I think. Hopefully it'll aid me in making some good games in the future.

Praise the Emperor!