Identification and Classification of Structural Elements ...

Identification and Classification of Structural Elements in Computer Games Duncan C. Blair Bachelor of Information Technology

School of Multimedia and Information Technology Southern Cross University

Presented as part of the requirements for the award of Bachelor of Information Technology with Honours

5 December 2003

Identification and Classification of Structural Elements in Computer Games

Statement of Originality All work within this document is to the best of my knowledge and belief original or acknowledged in the text. This material has not been submitted, either in part or in full for a degree at this or any University. Signed: Date:

Duncan C. Blair

- ii -


Acknowledgments I would like to thank my supervisor Barry Wilks for his invaluable critical thoughts. These have provided a great deal of clarification for many arguments. His guidance into the inner mysteries of Academia has provided a great deal of assistance. Thanks also go to Dane Clarke for invaluable editorial critique. In retrospect, it is clear just how ill shaped a problem, classification of Computer Games on their structural elements turned out to be. Hopefully, the arguments are not as hard to follow, as they were to explore. Working on this thesis has given me a great respect for just how much effort goes into any piece of academic work; the more so into those which manage to present their arguments with clarity and simplicity. Those authors deserve the greatest respect and admiration. An effort has been made to reference every source, however through extensive reading fragments of ideas have been absorbed from a large range of places that can no longer be identified. These have coloured the arguments in this thesis in subtle ways and while their origins deserve credit, this is not feasible. So to all the Computer Game developers, book authors, web page authors, newsgroup flamer, discussion forum members and mailing list contributors, this work stands upon your shoulders in a small and humble way; With a special thanks to the Google search engine [Google, 2003]; which answers all questions. If only you can ask them in the right way.

Duncan C. Blair can be contacted via email at [email protected]

Duncan C. Blair

- iii -


Thesis Abstract Consistent classification is important for research into Computer Games. It provides a means to describe the subject of the research. Prior works, which have included classification systems for Computer Games, present conflicting ideas, on what characterises a Computer Game and on how they should be classified. By identifying problems encountered in classification of Computer Games by previous systems and the methodology applied, classification of Computer Games on their structural elements can be done consistently and reproducibly.

Thesis Aims This research aims to examine methods for classifying Computer Games and produce a classification system that focuses on the internal structure of the games. The classification system should be complete, specific and provide reproducible classification without ambiguity.

Thesis Scope This research is examining methods for classifying Computer Games; specifically focusing on classification based on the abstract structural elements of the game. The research is not examining how Computer Games are designed, implemented or the content of the games, except where this raises issues for their classification.

Conclusions Computer Games can be classified in an unambiguous way based on clearly defined characteristics. By applying a methodology involving clearly identifying the population, clearly defining characteristics common to the population and values for the characteristics expressed by the population, a consistent and unambiguous classification system can be produced.

Duncan C. Blair

- iv -


TABLE OF CONTENT

Statement of Originality ..................................................................................... ii Acknowledgments............................................................................................... iii Thesis Abstract ................................................................................................... iv Thesis Aims ......................................................................................................... iv Thesis Scope ........................................................................................................ iv Conclusions ......................................................................................................... iv Table of Content .................................................................................................. v Chapter - 1 Thesis Introduction......................................................................... 9 1.1

Motivations ........................................................................................................ 9

1.2

Propositions of Computer Games Classification ........................................... 9

1.2.1

Proposition 1 – A game is encapsulated in an Agreement to Play ................... 10

1.2.2

Proposition 2 – A game is a class of play activity unlike any other ................. 12

1.2.3

Proposition 3 - A Computer Game is a game represented by computer software13

1.2.4

Proposition 4 – Games are abstractions independent of their Representation.. 13

1.3

Outline.............................................................................................................. 16

Chapter - 2 Literature Review ......................................................................... 19 2.1

Computer Games as a Social Phenomenon .................................................. 20

2.1.1

Effects of Computer Games.............................................................................. 20

2.1.2

Computer Game Addiction ............................................................................... 22

2.1.3

Computer Games impact on the broader culture .............................................. 22

2.1.3.1

Economics of games ...............................................................................................................................23

2.1.3.2

Social Integration...................................................................................................................................23

2.1.3.3

Political Commentary ............................................................................................................................24

2.1.4

Gender in Computer Games.............................................................................. 24

2.1.5

Race in Computer Games ................................................................................. 26

2.2

Computer Games with Purpose..................................................................... 27

2.2.1

Computer Games in Education ......................................................................... 27

Duncan C. Blair

- v-


2.2.2

Simulations ....................................................................................................... 29

2.2.3

Artificial Intelligence ........................................................................................ 30

2.3

Analysis of Computer Games ........................................................................ 31

2.3.1

Computer Games as Literature ......................................................................... 32

2.3.2

Computer Games as Cinematography .............................................................. 33

2.3.3

Computer Games as New Media ...................................................................... 33

2.3.4

Computer Games as Art.................................................................................... 34

2.3.5

Computer Games as games............................................................................... 34

2.4

Computer Game Classification...................................................................... 36

2.4.1

Taxonomy Systems........................................................................................... 37

2.4.2

Genre Systems .................................................................................................. 37

2.4.3

Mixed Systems.................................................................................................. 39

2.4.4

Problems of Classification Systems.................................................................. 39

2.4.5

Group-First Classification................................................................................. 39

2.4.6

Characteristic-First Classification..................................................................... 41

2.5

Identification of Computer Games................................................................ 45

2.6

Elements of a game ......................................................................................... 49

2.7

Summary.......................................................................................................... 53

Chapter - 3 Identifying Computer Games ...................................................... 55 3.1

Identifying Computer Games as a Population ............................................. 56

3.1.1

Defining the term game .................................................................................... 59

3.1.1.1

Games are Focused Activities ................................................................................................................60

3.1.1.2

Games have Success State(s)..................................................................................................................64

3.1.1.3

Games can be Unreal Spaces.................................................................................................................67

3.1.1.4

Games involve Players ...........................................................................................................................71

3.1.1.5

Games are rules…so what?....................................................................................................................75

3.1.1.6

Non-essential Elements ..........................................................................................................................77

3.2

Proposed Characteristics of Computer Game Definition ........................... 82

3.3

Test for Identifying the Computer Game Population ................................. 83

3.3.1

Demonstration of the Identification Test .......................................................... 84

3.3.1.1

Sample Selection ....................................................................................................................................85

3.3.1.2

Test demonstration Procedure and Results ............................................................................................87

3.4

Summary.......................................................................................................... 92

Chapter - 4 Characteristics for Classification of Computer Games ............ 93 Duncan C. Blair

- vi -


4.1

Aspects of Classification Systems for Computer Games............................. 94

4.1.1

Methods for developing classification systems ................................................ 94

4.1.2

Problems common to both Methodologies ....................................................... 97

4.1.2.1

Defining the Population - Completeness and Specificity........................................................................97

4.1.2.2

Nomenclature –Naming Conventions.....................................................................................................98

4.1.2.3

Abstraction in Descriptions....................................................................................................................99

4.1.2.3.1

Abstract Groups .....................................................................................................................................99

4.1.2.3.2

Abstract Characteristics and Values ......................................................................................................99

4.1.2.4

No Distinction between the Game and Representation of the Game ....................................................101

4.1.2.4.1

Computer Game Implementation Models.............................................................................................101

4.1.2.4.1.1

Single Software Product - Multiple Game Models...............................................................................102

4.1.2.4.1.1.1

Game Packs..........................................................................................................................................105

4.1.2.4.1.1.2

Multiple Modes of Play........................................................................................................................106

4.1.2.4.1.1.3

Variations on Play Modes ....................................................................................................................108

4.1.2.4.1.1.4

Scenarios as Unique Games .................................................................................................................109

4.1.2.4.1.1.5

Sub-Environments and Mini-Games ....................................................................................................111

4.1.2.4.1.1.6

Generated Games .................................................................................................................................112

4.1.2.4.1.1.7

Non-Game Components.......................................................................................................................114

4.1.2.4.1.2

Multiple Software Product – Single Game Model................................................................................114

4.1.2.4.1.3

Internet Integration...............................................................................................................................115

4.1.2.4.2

Reproducible Game Referencing..........................................................................................................116

4.1.3

Problems with the Group-first methodology .................................................. 117

4.1.3.1

Ambiguity through incomplete Population Coverage ..........................................................................117

4.1.3.2

Ambiguity through Incomplete Overlapping Groups ...........................................................................118

4.1.3.3

Ambiguity through partial Description ................................................................................................119

4.1.3.4

Group Proliferation .............................................................................................................................120

4.1.3.5

Group Resolution .................................................................................................................................121

4.1.4

Problems with the Characteristic-first methodology ...................................... 121

4.1.4.1

Identifying Characteristics Common to the Population .......................................................................121

4.1.4.2

Identifying Characteristic Values.........................................................................................................122

4.1.4.3

Incomplete Description of Classified article ........................................................................................122

4.1.4.4

Characteristic Resolution.....................................................................................................................123

4.1.4.5

Grouping Members ..............................................................................................................................124

4.1.5

Summary of Aspects of Classification............................................................ 125

4.2

Proposed Characteristic System for Classification of Computer Games 127

4.2.1

Characteristic Template .................................................................................. 128

4.2.2

Characteristic Matrix ...................................................................................... 129

4.2.3

Values for Characteristics ............................................................................... 130

4.2.4

Characteristic Matrix Demonstrated ............................................................... 134

4.3

Summary........................................................................................................ 142

Duncan C. Blair

- vii -


Chapter - 5 Grouping and Specialisation of a Classification System......... 145 5.1

Adding Grouping to the Proposed Classification System ......................... 146

5.2

Specialising the Identification of the Population........................................ 147

5.3

Specialising the Characteristic Matrix........................................................ 149

5.4

Reproducing Classification Systems from Prior Work............................. 150

5.4.1

Example of a Group-First Taxonomy ............................................................. 152

5.4.1.1

Groups Definitions ...............................................................................................................................153

5.4.2

Summary of a Group-First Taxonomy............................................................ 157

5.4.3

Example of a Group-First Genre System........................................................ 157

5.4.3.1

Group Definitions.................................................................................................................................159

5.4.4

Summary of a Group-First Genre System ...................................................... 163

5.4.5

Example of a Characteristic-First Taxonomy ................................................. 163

5.4.5.1

Specialisation of the Identification Test ...............................................................................................164

5.4.5.2

Specialisation of the Characteristic Matrix..........................................................................................164

5.4.6

Summary of a Characteristic-First Taxonomy................................................ 166

5.5

Chapter Summary ........................................................................................ 167

Chapter - 6 Conclusion and Further Work .................................................. 168 6.1

Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 168

6.2

Lessons drawn from this work..................................................................... 169

6.3

Further Work ................................................................................................ 171

Table of References ......................................................................................... 174 Appendix - A Glossary ................................................................................. 183 Appendix - B Collected Genre Lists............................................................ 189

Duncan C. Blair

- viii -


Chapter - 1

1.1

Thesis Introduction

MOTIVATIONS

This research investigates ways Computer Games are classified. There currently exist a number of conflicting classifications based on a range of different styles. At the root of these systems are fundamental discrepancies in what is being classified and the methods used. The theory is that developing a general-purpose classification system for Computer Games will contribute to the understanding of the current state of Computer Game design. Currently each researcher who wishes to describe the population of Computer Games must address the problem of classification of Computer Games afresh and effectively re-invent the wheel. The thesis of this work is that a systematic classification system for Computer Games is possible and that by exploring this problem, future research into Computer Games will be aided by this work. This thesis will be supported by examining the previous methods used to classify Computer Games and the arguments on which they are based; identifying problems, opportunities and positive aspects that can be adopted to produce an improved understanding of the needs of a classification system for Computer Games. The important elements required for reproducible classification will be identified and a system produced that provides consistent general-purpose classification for Computer Games.

1.2

PROPOSITIONS OF COMPUTER GAMES CLASSIFICATION

This section presents propositions that underpin this discussion of Computer Games and their classification. These Propositions highlight some of the unaddressed issues in prior work on the Classification of Computer Games. They attempt to express some of the un-stated assumptions found in the literature discussing Computer Games and their Classification and may have contributed to the aforementioned Duncan C. Blair

- 9 -


inconsistencies in Classification systems in prior works. These provide a foundation for the arguments put forward in following Chapters.

1.2.1 PROPOSITION 1 – A GAME IS ENCAPSULATED IN AN AGREEMENT TO PLAY

The implication of this proposition is that a player must agree to play a game before a game can begin. The agreement allows the participants to know that actions within the game should be evaluated based on whatever rules are agreed on for the Game, not by the normal rules of the Real World. All players of the game need to agree to the same thing before play can commence otherwise confusion will result. The terms of the Play Agreement can form a layer of meta-rules around the actual game. Thus, the terms of the play agreement are independent of the rules of the game played within them and should not be involved in the classification of the game. People implicitly understand these Play Agreements as they are learned at a young age. As such, they rarely need to be stated or even conceptualised as a formal agreement. A child knows what it means when someone says, “Let’s play a game!” Some of the terms of these agreements may be: •

The players agree not to act for Real.

•

How the game begins and how it ends.

To try to play a game involving people who have not agreed to play or are unaware that they are playing will usually result in someone misunderstanding what is going on and reacting inappropriately. This is because they do not know that they should be evaluating the player’s activities by the rules of the game rather than the rules of the Real World. Depending on the nature of the game, this may result in the involvement of parents or law enforcement personnel. In the book Homo Ludens: A Study of play-elements in Culture [Huizinga, 1950] suggests that adults engage in play behaviour as a component of many of the formalised activities within culture. Adults also have expectations of the meaning of “Let’s play a game!” These expectations differ to those held by children, as they have been refined based on life experience and cultural frames of reference. Unlike children, adults are more in the habit of discussing their terms prior to activities commencing.

Duncan C. Blair

- 10 -


Figure 1-1 Play Agreement forming a bridge between Real and Game Rules Figure 1-1 illustrates that the play agreement provides a means of transition between Real and game. The consequences of Gambling games are a good example. The play agreement provides the terms under which the result of the game is translated into a Real World result that the players agree with. This allows the same game to have different real world consequences. To play Chess while gambling on the outcome is no different to playing Chess for pleasure; the game remains the same, while the terms of the play agreements differ. Gambling games stand out as having the most discussion of terms for play agreements. Depending on the type of real world results desired and the amount of trust between the players, adult play agreements may extend the childhood terms with others such as: •

Players have a fair chance to win.

•

Players are equally treated.

•

The rules of the game will not change during play.

•

No IOU’s

When the terms of a play agreement are violated by the players or the games’ umpire it is described using the term Cheating. The implications of these agreements for Computer Games may not be immediately obvious. Computer Games, especially single player Computer Games, are designed with the assumption that they will be played as a game.

Duncan C. Blair

- 11 -


Firstly, players have the assumption of what “Let’s play a game!” means which may be different to that assumed by the designer of the Computer Game. This may cause the player to consider an activity that violates their concept of the terms of a play agreement as not being a valid game. This can occur when a human player is playing against an artificial player using artificial intelligence. In the case where this artificial player seems to be unrealistically skilled or have more knowledge than would be available to a human player, the player may consider that they are being cheated. Secondly players who have experience of Computer Games will develop a basic set of terms which they understand to be in force when someone says “Let’s play a Computer Game!”; These also can be inadvertently violated by a potential Computer Game and cause it to be considered as not being a game. A hypothetical example would be an activity that required the player to perform actions unrelated to a game as part of the play experience, such as working around bugs in the software. This has implications for the classification of some activities involving Computer Games. Identifying the difference between the Play Agreement terms and the actual game highlights the fact that the terms of the Play Agreement should not be considered as part of the game. Separation of play agreement and game breaks activities like gambling into two parts, the game and the terms that translate the results of the game into real-world consequences. Since the particular players fix the terms of the Agreement, the terms have no place in a classification system for games.

1.2.2 PROPOSITION 2 – A GAME IS A CLASS OF PLAY ACTIVITY UNLIKE ANY OTHER

The nature of games suggests that there is something unique and special about them, something that does not occur in quite the same way in any other class of activity. This Proposition is controversial because a game can be seen differently simply by the user calling it an educational tool or a training simulator. Drawing on Proposition 1, the activity that is undertaken within the terms of a play agreement can be anything; however, one particular group of activities are described as games. It can be theorised that there are characteristics and elements common to all members of this group of activities, which together differentiate them from other activities that occur in the context of play agreements. If the theory is Duncan C. Blair

- 12 -


correct, these characteristics and elements will provide a means to identify a member of this group. Chapter 2 presents the common characteristics and elements of games developed by prior works. Chapter 3 examines these characteristics and elements as a basis for identifying a sub-set of games.

1.2.3 PROPOSITION 3 - A COMPUTER GAME IS A GAME REPRESENTED BY COMPUTER SOFTWARE

The common understanding of the term Computer Games is restricted to games in which the programmed logic of the computer represents the elements of the game. The primary assertion here draws a distinction between products, which represent some of the elements of the game in software and games, which represent all the elements of the game using computer software. Some Computer Games provide extras such as paper manuals and key board overlays, which can assist the player. If the game can be played without them, these should not be considered as elements of the game. This is in contrast with a hypothetical game where the player moves game pieces on a traditional board then use a computer to track other parts of the game or make calculations from tables. A further example is games that utilise a computer as an element of the game, such as using a handheld computer as a token on a game board. To broaden the definition of Computer Games to cover games that do not represent all their elements using software is to open the definition up to a much larger number of games. Under this broader definition, the use of a digital stopwatch to time a game of Football may see Football classified as a Computer Game. Chapter 3 examines the actual elements that can be used to define a game.

1.2.4 PROPOSITION 4 – GAMES ARE ABSTRACTIONS INDEPENDENT OF THEIR REPRESENTATION

Literature discussing Computer Games presents two meanings for the term Computer Game. The term is used to refer to both Software Products (representation media) and the Game(s) represented by the software when the computer executes the software. Duncan C. Blair

- 13 -


To clarify the point; a software product is the group of executable code and media files which the user considers as an integrated unit. On the other hand, a game is an abstraction, which may or may not have any physical representation. A Computer Game is then, to draw on Proposition 3, an abstraction represented by one or more units of software.

Figure 1-2 Abstract game vs. physical representation In an effort to convey clearly the difference between the representation of the game and the abstract game, Figure 1-2 illustrates the game of chess with three different representations. The first, Chess as a board game, is represented by a set of physical chess pieces and a board; the rules are written on a piece of paper accompanying. The second game, Chess as a Computer Game, uses the graphical capabilities of the computer to represent information about the state of the game using images that convey the same information about the game state as the physical board and pieces in the first game. In this case, the rules of the game are enforced by the software; illegal moves are prevented from being made. The third game, Chess as a paper game, represents the information about the arrangement of the pieces as description of the state of the game as text on paper. The rules are kept in the minds of the two expert players. These three games have completely different representations, yet all three games are recognisable as Chess if the conditions of play are the same for each. This suggests that whatever is common between the three activities can be described as the game of Chess. This includes the effects of the rules of the game and the abstract role played by the representation of the game state information, which in the case of Chess is the information about the positions of the game pieces on the Duncan C. Blair

- 14 -


board. This is shown in Figure 1-2 as a shaded area. This represents the Abstract Game known as Chess. To extend this idea, the abstract game is recognisable only by its structure and conventions. These may include the start state of the game objects, the outcomes, how the players interact etc. These are often described using rules; which constrain the size of the board, the way the pieces may move etc. For the game to be recognised as Chess, it must have the same structure and conventions as all other games of Chess. However, if these structures and conventions are changed, the game that was Chess becomes something else. An example is Suicide Chess, where the convention of Chess that dictates players win by beating their opponent, is changed. In Suicide Chess, the player wins by being beaten by their opponent. Therefore, by changing part of the abstract game, a different abstract game is produced, in which the players face different problems and must make different choices to succeed. Both games are still played with the same representation, be it a physical board and pieces, images on a computer or a description in text on a sheet of paper. This suggests that care should be exercised when referring to a game, to make sure that the game is the thing being referenced, not the representation of the game. This is especially important where the same representation is used for a number of different abstract games. The implication of using the term Computer Game to refer to both the software that represents the game and the abstract game is to convey the assumption that a single Software Product described as a Computer Game automatically represents only a single Abstract Game; software products implementing multiple distinct games contradict this assumption. Examples of these are reasonable and depending on the definition of game used, already available and popular. Software products are also available which implement both productivity applications and games. The final example is of games that require multiple units of software to function, such as a software client and server. There are multi-player games on personal computers using this model. The software involved in the representation should not be confused with the actual Games being represented. Chapter 4 contains an examination of some implementation models for Computer Games. These serve only to highlight this argument. The essential point of this proposition is that a software product may represent one or more Computer Games and as we are building a classification system for

Duncan C. Blair

- 15 -


Computer Game “Games”, it must be clear we are not talking about Computer Game “Software”.

1.3

OUTLINE

This chapter has introduced a number of the basic propositions of the thesis. These propositions establish a set of arguments about the fundamental nature of the subject of the thesis. Proposition 1 – A game is encapsulated in an Agreement to Play; presents the idea that games require some consensus between their players on the terms to play the game under. These agreements provide the bridge between the real world and the game; in the case of gambling these agreements provide the translation mechanism between the results of the abstract game and Real World Consequences. Proposition 2 – A game is a class of play activity unlike any other; presents the idea that games are a unique and identifiable group of activities for intrinsic reasons. This suggests that it should be possible to classify them. Proposition 3 - A Computer Game is a game represented by computer software; reflects the common understanding of Computer Game. This is a reasonable but arbitrary limit imposed to help establish a boundary for the term. To include games which are represented only partially using computer software and partially using other physical media weakens the argument for classification of the games as being any different to any other group of games. Proposition 4 – Games are abstractions independent of their Representation; presents the idea that games are defined by their rules not their representation. This opens the possibility that a software product marketed as a Computer Game can potentially represent more than one game. This has implications for Classification systems, which need to specify exactly what they are attempting to classify. Chapter 2 Literature Review: looks at the range of the available literature about Computer Games to place this research in a greater context. This illustrates the available range of perspective on Computer Games. The literature review then examines in detail the methods used to classify Computer Games in both formal research work and works that are more informal. Much of this work does not claim to

Duncan C. Blair

- 16 -


be rigorous research and lacks sufficient documentation to understand fully the intentions of the creator. The prior work on classification of Computer Games revealed a number of problems that can occur in the classification of Computer Games. The population must be defined before being classified. Then a suitable classification system must be developed and applied with rigor. The chapter then examines methods used for the identification of the population of Computer Games. A number of approaches to identification have been tried with varying levels of success. The most developed methods apply some definition of the term game to products represented as computer software. As should be obvious, this depends entirely on the definition of game that is applied. The common method has involved the presentation of a list of abstract elements described as being essential to an activity for it to be a game. As there is no consensus on what this list should contain, the lists of elements considered essential for the identification of a game are collected from a number of sources next. Chapter 3 Identifying Computer Games: explores the first part of the classification problem; devising a method for the population being classified to be identified. There are a number of methods used for this purpose in prior works. These are examined in the literature review in Chapter 2, which revealed that one of the problems with identifying a population of Computer Games is in defining the term game. The problem is addressed in this chapter by compiling a list of elements considered essential for an activity to be considered a game. The elements are used as the basis for a Computer Game identification test. This provides a means to unambiguous identify a population of Computer Games to be classified in Chapter 4. Chapter 4 Characteristics for Classification of Computer Games: builds on the identification work in the previous chapter and argues that the previous classification work done to date has been less than rigorous. The methods used in prior works are examined and a range of problems highlighted. Of the two competing methodologies revealed by this examination, the one with the least identified risks is applied to develop a new characteristic system. This set of characteristics provides an unambiguous means to classify Computer Games belonging to the population identified in Chapter 3. The characteristic system developed in this chapter is sufficient to duplicate the functionality of the classification systems in the prior works that were developed using the Characteristic-First methodology.

Duncan C. Blair

- 17 -


Chapter 5 Grouping and Specialisation of a Classification System: firstly looks at building classification groups. By developing a layer of groups on top of the characteristic system developed in Chapter 4, the functionality of the classification systems developed using the Group-first methodology can be reproduced. This allows the classification system developed in this work to address the same needs as the previous classification systems for computer game; without the ambiguity and completeness problems. The new system is demonstrated to verify that it is capable of addressing a selection of the systems in the prior works. Chapter - 6 Conclusions and Further Work discusses the implications of this work and presents some directions for future investigations. Appendix A – Glossary is included to assist with clarification of how certain terms are used in this thesis. Appendix B - Collected Genre Lists compiles available lists of Genres applied by a number of classification systems. This reveals the wide variety of names applied by these systems.

Duncan C. Blair

- 18 -


Chapter - 2

Literature Review

Following is an examination of the major areas of academic literature dealing with computer and Video Games. This provides an overview of the current state of research into Computer Games and illustrates the context within which this research occurs. Section 2.1 covers research which looks at the effects of Computer Games. This includes work on correlating violent behaviour and playing violent Video Games, Computer Game addiction and the effect of Computer Games on Learning and Literacy. Work on Gender and Race in Computer Games is then examined. Section 2.2 looks at research into the application of Computer Games for more formal purposes than entertainment; the limited amount of research in this area is reflected in the size of the section. The conclusion of the research is that Computer Games display unrealised potential for Education purposes. Section 2.3 then looks at the growing body of research that applies critical theory to Computer Games. These works apply critical theory drawn from fields such as Cinema, Literacy and New Media. Sections 2.4, 2.5 and 2.6 look at groups of prior work involved in the Classification of Computer Games. Section 2.4 looks specifically at prior work presenting classification systems. This reveals an inherent flaw in many of the systems, which is failing to first identify the population that is being classified; section 2.5 looks at work addressing this problem. This section presents a problem fundamental to methods used for identifying a population of Computer Games. This is the ambiguity in the definition of the term game. Prior work that addresses this problem is examined in section 2.6. This chapter concludes with a summary of the major points and intentions.

Duncan C. Blair

- 19 -


2.1

COMPUTER GAMES AS A SOCIAL PHENOMENON

This section examines the literature that treats Computer Games as artefacts with effects on the players and the social context of the players. The research is derived from Social Science and Behavioural Science fields which, while they raise important issues about the social attitudes towards Computer Games, do not reveal much about the intrinsic nature of Computer Games themselves.

2.1.1 EFFECTS OF COMPUTER GAMES

The first major theme that developed was research attempting to correlate Video Games and violence. This mirrored the early social concerns about the effects of film and other immersive media forms such as television and music. As the media began to become pervasive, conservative social groups, especially in the United States and Britain voiced concerns and placed the blame for all sorts of social ills at the feet of the emerging medium. Social Science quickly followed with reactive research examining these claims; this produced a range of literature and studies that tested the effects of various forms of Video Games on everything from eyestrain and an as-yet un-named repetitive strain injury, through to violence, obesity and delinquency among young males. Many of these finding have been summarised in articles and collections by historical researchers on Computer Games [Marilyn Brennan] [Jonas Heide Smith, 2002] The primary focus of this body of research has been on violence in Video Games and its effect on children and adolescents. There are a growing number of articles both for and against correlation. [D. Scott, 1995] [N. S. Schutte, J. M. Makouff, J.C. PostGorden and A.L. Rodasta, 1988] [S. J. Kirsh, 1998] [M. Griffith, 1997] [C.A. Anderson, 2002] Research that seeks to contradict the earlier work correlating aggression in subjects and violent Video Games [Jeffrey Goldstein, 2001] [Lillian Bensley and Juliet VanEenwyk, 2000] also exists. These works however are contradicted by research painting a quite different picture [Elisa Hae-Jung Song and Jane E. Anderson, 2001] and so the argument continues. Violence and children are recurring themes among research involving Computer Games. In general, there seem to be some fundamental flaws in the line of reasoning Duncan C. Blair

- 20 -


taken with this sort of research; it is based on a simplified cause and effect model that assumes that certain effects emerge directly and predictably from narrowly defined causes. For instance, games that include aggressive acts will cause players to become aggressive. This does not take into account the complexity of human lifestyles and cultural environments that may influence aggression through a number of other social pressures. For a researcher to claim that they have established a methodology to remove all these other social pressures from their statistical model would stretch credibility. The ethics of the studies would also have to be examined carefully. In the case where a researcher attempted to prove the proposition that playing violent Video Games caused violent behaviour; to take a subject who did not exhibit violent tendencies and then for experimental reasons expose them to a stimuli, which fundamentally changed their behaviour, would be considered extremely unethical. As such, the studies correlating violence and Video Games are retrospective in nature. They must work with subjects who already have exposure to Video Games and already display some aggressive or violent behaviour. Obviously, there is the potential for some bias in the selection of subjects for this sort of study. As the studies for and against correlation of violence and Video Games should be considered dubious due to the difficulty of collecting unbiased samples and the problem of building a complex enough regression model to isolate a single influence on a human subject’s development. Since the spate of reactive research, there has been a slow but steady stream of more balanced effects research. This has aimed to determine effects of Computer Games on visual and motor skills rather than address social concerns caused by appearance of a new media. [Daphne Bavelier and C.Shawn Green, 2003] Other research in the Effects area is examining the effects of Video and Computer Games on Literacy and Learning. [James Paul Gee, 2003] This research is looking at the effect on the way players learn when engaged in games, compared to the way students learn in traditional education. Gee then proposes that these ideas can be applied to traditional topics and radically change the success of learning for students who have experience with Computer Games. [Marc Prensky, 2000] Looks at the way games are used to train in business and the military. This work also presents the idea that those learners who learn from Computer Games do so in a way different to traditional training methods. This idea is approached by suggesting that the method Duncan C. Blair

- 21 -


accidentally applied by Computer Games for teaching always existed; and has just been accidentally re-invented by Computer Games.

2.1.2 COMPUTER GAME ADDICTION

There is limited academic research into the area of Computer Game Addiction; however, there is small amount of anecdotal discussion about the subject. There has been at least one study, which has correlated Computer Game use with increased dopamine release in the brain of the player. [M. J. Koepp, R. N. Gunn, A. D. Lawrence, V. J. Cunningham, A. Dagher, T. Jones, D. J. Brooks, C. J. Bench and P.M. Grasby, 1998] This is an extremely rigorous quantitative study, which has implications for learning as much as it may have implications for addiction. This study has been referenced by a number of people who are concerned about or have children that display addictive behaviour. Much of the discussion lumps all computer and Video Games together without attempting to differentiate between any particular activities. Anecdotal discussion suggests the subjects are treated similar to other forms of addiction to particular activities; there is no suggestion that computer or Video Games have any unusual properties that specifically cause addictive behaviour.

2.1.3 COMPUTER GAMES IMPACT ON THE BROADER CULTURE

The History of Computer Games has been examined by a number of researchers and authors. They mainly focus on tracing the evolution of the technology and the advances in the art and depth of the games. [William Hunter, 2003] [Electronics Conservancy, 2003] [Steven L. Kent, 2001] [Russel DeMaria and Johnny Lee Wilson, 2002] [Van Burnham, 2003] [John Sellers, 2001] [Steven Poole, 2000] [Leonard Herman, 1997] [Michael Hayes and Stuart Dinsey, 1996] In general, these seek to document historical fact rather than presenting any subjective evaluation. Material is available which documents individual games, consoles, companies and people who have been involved in the Computer Game Industry. These works indirectly describe some of the effects of Computer Games on the social context of their players. This tends not to be the focus of the works, rather an anecdotal counter point to their investigation of the path the technology has taken. Duncan C. Blair

- 22 -


A number of books focus on specific companies that were and in some case still are making history in the Video Game Industry. Atari™ [Scott Cohen, 1984], Nintendo™ [David Sheff and Andy Eddy, 1999], Microsoft™ [Dean Takahashi, 2002], Id [David Kushner, 2003] and Sony™ [Reiji Asakura, 2000]. The books either documenting companies which have achieved greatness, in the case of Atari and then gone out of business or are still in business and have a stake in how they are portrayed in the media. As such, much of this material is more anecdotal and of historical interest only. These companies being commercial entities are careful to maintain control over information that may provide a competitive advantage. As such, these works may contain a certain amount of bias. The influence these companies have had on the entertainment market places and the wider implications on the development of and adult leisure industry are described in passing. Finally, the history of Online Computer Games has been collected into a timeline. [Raph Koster, 2002]This work documents the origins and influential cultural artefacts that contributed to the origins of Computer Games in all their forms. It does however focus only on the Online Multi Player games, while leaving the development of single player games to others.

2.1.3.1 ECONOMICS OF GAMES Continuing the theme of Online games, the Economics of an Online game is examined in [Edward Castronova, 2001]. This paper examines the real world economy generated by the Massive Multi Player Online game called EverQuest. [Verant_Interactive, 1999] This work links the fictional economy of the game work to the real work economy via the sale of game item through online auction sites such as e-bay [ebay Inc., 2003].

2.1.3.2 SOCIAL INTEGRATION Within the Online game Community and Specifically the MUD community there is an extensive history of academic study. Much of this has focused on examining the social interaction of the players. One highly influential article titled Hearts, Clubs, Diamonds, Spades: Players who suit MUDs [Richard A. Bartle, 1996] is well quoted when discussing social interaction in Online Spaces. This article Duncan C. Blair

- 23 -


presents the four main types of players observed using the MUD systems written by and played by the author. It provides a description of player social dynamics, motivations and activities within online environments and presents a number of detailed analyses of how these dynamics can be manipulated and controlled. This work has been extended in a book Designing Virtual Worlds [Richard A. Bartle, 2003] which brings together much of the theory for the development of virtual spaces and communities. The book also looks closely at methods for critically evaluating virtual spaces in ways other than just their technical elements.

2.1.3.3 POLITICAL COMMENTARY The use of Computer Games for political purposes has become a feature of late with releases of a number of games by various government and political bodies. While a game may not be a scholarly piece of research, they are clearly being used to make social and political commentary. [EscapeFromWoomera.org, 2003] [Federal_Office_for_Refugees, 2003] The first is a game by an Australian pro-refugee protest group trying to raise the awareness of the refugee issues in Australia; the second is by a Swiss Government department trying to reduce social perception of the Refugee issue in Switzerland.

2.1.4 GENDER IN COMPUTER GAMES

Gender is one of many social topics that have been examined by researchers. Socalled Girl games have been identified as a niche by a number of media and industry studies. [G. Beato, 1997] The suggestion was that girls represented an untapped niche that was not being satisfied due to the predominance of the male teenager as stereotypical core market for the commercial development industry. This prompted a flurry of companies to appear to address the newly discovered market niche. They produced so-called Pink games that were described as being geared to traditional feminine interests and sensibilities. [T.L. Taylor, 2003] This paper examines women playing MMORPGs (Massive Multi-player Online Role Playing games) and presents the idea that female players are not an anomaly, rather are a normally represented part of the player population. There is still a sharp divide in ideas on how the girl market

Duncan C. Blair

- 24 -


should be addressed or if it should be addressed at all. [Justine Cassell and Henry Jenkins, 2000] Recent research has shown that women and girls are not the previously assumed, minority, among gamers as had previously been assumed. [Steve Jones, 2003] [IDSA, 2001] The current number of online gamers revealed by research has 50.4 % being female. This research suggests that there is a preference for online games among women; however, the correlation between the players’ sex and any specific game element is still under debate. There does seem to be a number of differences in preference of games between males and females, although this also changes with different age demographics so the correlation is not clear. [Dr. Kathryn Wright] [T.L. Taylor, 2003] With the growth in the market and the penetration of game consoles and computers into more homes, the market place for Computer Games has spread to virtually all the demographics available. There is still some focus on the assumed market of young males. This however seems to be a fading myth among game development companies. There is disagreement among commentators as to what is the ‘magic formula’ for a Girl Game. [Dave MacQueen, 2000] The formula has been suggested in a number of articles, however it is still being argued over by various commentators. [Ernest Adams, 1998] [Meghan Fox, 2001] [Janese Swanson, 2001] [Jonas Smith, 2001] Gender issues within Computer Games are examined in a number of articles. Many of these seem to be highlighting that there is an issue, without suggesting any remedy. [Kathleen Vail, 1997] [Melissa Chaika, 2001] With the rapid pace of acceptance of computing in schools and homes these articles now appear quite dated. Just to balance the argument, there have also been suggestions that the discovery of games for girls is really just a cynical marketing plot based on political correctness. [Ernest Adams, 1998] As a number of the companies that targeted this niche as part of their business model have failed, there may now be some evidence to support this angle. Claims of Sexism and objectification of women in Computer Games has been examined along with gender issues and violence. [Tracy L. Dietz, 1998] There are Computer Games that provide evidence to support the claims made by these researchers. However, these example games no longer reflect any sort of mainstream

Duncan C. Blair

- 25 -


subject matter within the game development community. There are more opinion pieces available on this topic than formal research. Very little of the research addressing Gender issues in Computer Games is specifically targeted at Computer Games, rather the works are based on examining Gender issues across a range of new media forms. This suggests that there may not be enough material within ‘Computer Games’ to support more focused analysis and debate on this topic.

2.1.5 RACE IN COMPUTER GAMES

Another aspect of the social impact of Computer Games is the portrayal of Ethnicity and Culture within Computer Games. This is demonstrated overtly by games produced by some race supremacist groups. However, the discussion is not concerned with these products, as they can be identified as being overtly racist and classified with other similar hate literature. The subject matter of the discussion is more about products that are presented within the cultural mainstream but which contain certain race based stereotypes and assumptions. This is encountered in ways such as the heroes and villains in the game having some racial representation that is considered to show some bias. Whether this is by intention or ignorance of the developers is subject to contention. Similar to the discussion of gender within Computer Games, the examples chosen to illustrate the discussion tend to be from a rather small pool and may be more representative of the extreme cases or changing attitudes rather than the total population of Computer Games overall. The examination of Computer Games produced for one cultural market in another often reveal more about the social attitude of the different cultures. For instance [Alan Amory, Kevin Naicker, Jackie Vincent and Claudia Adams, 1998] conducted a study examining the educational aspects of certain games. One of the games used was Duke Nukem 3D [Westwood_Studios, 1996] A game produced for the American Market place. As the study was conducted in Durban, South Africa, the students were noted as commenting on the racism and sexism portrayed in the game. (This game was censored by the Australian Office of Film and Literature before being modified by the developers for the Australian Market)

Duncan C. Blair

- 26 -


The examination of race representation within Computer Games appears to be a part of a larger examination of race within electronic media and specifically Cyberspace. Race in Cyberspace [Beth Kolko, Lisa Nakamura and Gilbert Rodman, 2000] presents ideas gained from operating an online virtual environment called MOOScape; which was set up to investigate race as a subject and stimulus variable in virtual communities. This same topic is examined in Designing Virtual Worlds [Richard A. Bartle, 2003] which presents race as a totally optional component to the virtual experience. This is due to the fact that race, like identity is a fluid thing in cyberspace. Many of the online games provide little means to establish conclusively another player’s ethnicity, unless he or she chooses to reveal it. This raises implications both for and against the representation of race within virtual environments.

2.2

COMPUTER GAMES WITH PURPOSE

The next body of research examines Computer Games as a phenomenon that might be harnessed for a variety of purposes. Here we see various attempts to experiment with teaching via Computer Games and such uses as corporate training [Peter R. Sugges, 1979], recruiting[U.S Army, 2002], propaganda [Cho Myung Chol, 2001] [Hezbollah, 2003] and experimental analysis [Eston Martz, 1997].

2.2.1 COMPUTER GAMES IN EDUCATION

The use of Computer Games as educational tools and for CAI (Computer Aided Instruction) has been a topic of interest among researchers almost as long as computers have been available. The PLATO network was being developed for this purpose in 1976. [Norman D. Hinton, 1976] This network was designed as a distributed teaching tool similar to the Online teaching that is again becoming popular. While PLATO was not intended as a Computer Game, it was quickly utilised for the purpose by programmers who would rather play than learn. [Raph Koster, 2002] and provided one of the early Online Computer Game platforms available. The general tone of the vast majority of the research in this area is that Computer Games have potential for education in a number of ways if only they can be Duncan C. Blair

- 27 -


harnessed and used correctly. There are writers who feel the exact opposite however. [Jane M. Healy, 1990] [Jane M. Healy, 1998] [Clifford Stoll, 1999] [Eugene Provenzo, 1990] Stoll considers that there is a danger in sacrificing content and rigor within the curriculum in an effort to turn education into a game. There is always some danger of this sort of over-application of a new idea, while it is possible, it seems unlikely to happen with so many critical minds in the education systems. There are reports about people and organisations using and learning from game playing with great amounts of success. These tend to focus more on Board games and large-scale business training games than on Computer Games. The principles are suggested to be transferable [Jay Teitel, 1998] [Martin Shubik, 1972] Different researchers have reported on attempts to build simulators and business training tools using Computer Game techniques. These projects have had mixed successes. [Peter R. Sugges, 1979] The papers discussing them tend to focus more on the technology of the systems than attempting to examine how or why the system was a success, which contributes more information to the field of Computer Science than Computer Games. Authors have also sought to examine the learning quality of various game styles [Alan Amory, Kevin Naicker, Jackie Vincent and Claudia Adams, 1998] which produced some limited results. More recently according to a report [Ulrich Boser, 2002], the cost of using business simulators has come down enough to allow them to be accessible to most corporate trainers. As such, they are reported to be ‘booming in use’. As mentioned above, a number of books have been published examining the effects of Computer Games on learning and exposing a range of possibilities for their application to other subjects. [James Paul Gee, 2003] [Marc Prensky, 2000] Both books examine the way learning and learners may have changed due to exposure to Computer Games; they also examine how this effect could be applied to teaching other subjects. An article which examines the current state of Computer Games and education [Simon Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2003] details some of the damage which attempts to merge games with education, dubbed Edutainment, have caused to this area of research, and how it may have delayed the constructive merging of these two areas. Judging by the range of research, there is a snowballing amount of interest in the area of CAI (Computer Aided Instruction) with government and private industry both cooperating to explore the area constructively. This cooperation has produced a growing body of Duncan C. Blair

- 28 -


work examining how to construct educational Computer Games and the theoretical principles upon which they should be based. This area appears to be considered as the acceptable rout for credible research involving Computer Games. [Tomas W. Malone, 1980] [Joanna Lynn McGrenere, 1996] [Roger Grice and Larry Strianese, 2000] [Yasmin B. Kafir, 2001] [Jyrki J. J. Kasvi, Unknown] [John V. Dempsey, Barbara A. Lucassen, Linda L. Haynes and Maryann S. Casey, 1997] [Aloka Nanjappa, 2001] These works do not subscribe to the edutainment concept rather are attempting to extract valuable techniques from entertainment oriented games which can be applied directly to enhance teaching and retention of any desired curricula. They are somewhat conflicting due to an ongoing debate about How do People Learn, which presents different ideologies on learning principles and thus the best ways to address them.

2.2.2 SIMULATIONS

Simulation and the study of Simulation have contributed to the development of some Computer Games. Virtually all strategy, management and war games draw inspiration from simulation work done for the military and business communities. The line between the two fields has tended to blur constantly. However, the academic simulation field, the commercial developers of business and military simulators and their consumers have tended to distance themselves from entertainment oriented Computer Games for a number of reasons. These are primarily to do with the perception of Computer Games designed for entertainment; very few shareholders would approve of a company purchasing a $10m Computer Game. As such, simulators have defined themselves as a specialist-training tool distinct and different from Computer Games. Simulators have been constructed for industrial process training tasks along with instruction packages for vehicles where the cost and risk of hands-on experience makes the use of simulators attractive. Consequently, the research, which is targeted at the Simulation field, makes very little reference to Computer Games. Therefore, while it may be applicable and interesting there is no way to claim it as part of a literature review on Computer Games.

Duncan C. Blair

- 29 -


2.2.3 ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

Similar to the simulations field, there appears to be a gap between the Artificial Intelligence (AI) research field and the commercial Computer Game community. This could be due to a perceived credibility issue with linking serious research with what have been described as children’s amusements. AI researchers have certainly produced ideas that have been implemented in Computer Games. Such games as the Creatures Series [Cyberlife Technology Ltd, 1996] and the more recent Black & White [Lionhead_Studios, 2001] have explored highly complex systems of artificial intelligence and Artificial Life (A-Life). The current runaway success story is The Sims [Maxis_Software_Inc, 2002] which explores Artificial Intelligence and A-Life and is now moving to a Massive Multiplayer On-line format with The Sims Online [Maxis_Software_Inc, 2002]. Much of the published work on Computer Game AI is anecdotal in nature rather than being presented as formal research. This reflects the rapid pace of change in the industry compared to the rather slower pace among pure AI research. The fact that workers in the industry are busy developing products with commercial motives also could limit their ability to engage in and publish research. Another contributing factor is the undocumented nature of much of the work in Computer Games. It appears much of the Computer Game research field is changing with the acceptance of Computer Games as a serious field of study. The result of this is that while there is a body of published research on Artificial Intelligence very little work has been published specifically directed towards Computer Games. A number of websites and books of collected essays currently provide sources for much of the written knowledge on AI in the games industry [Steve Rabin, 2003] [Steve Rabin, 2002] [Mark DeLoura, 2000] [Mark DeLoura, 2001] [Dante Treglia and Mark Deloura, 2002] The major areas of AI that are currently of interest to the games development industry seem to be A-Life, Path Finding and Terrain Analysis, Formations, Flocking and Emergent Behaviour. Genetic Algorithms, which were flavour of the month along with Neural Networks, have currently fallen into disfavour. [Steven Woodcock, 2000] State machines and hierarchical AI’s seem to be the preferred choices for Non Player character and Unit Intelligence in Computer Games although the holy grail of realistic

Duncan C. Blair

- 30 -


Non Player character conversations is still eluding the game Development Community.

2.3

ANALYSIS OF COMPUTER GAMES

The next group of literature can be described as critical analysis of Computer Games; as there is no formal theory specifically for the critical analysis of Computer Games; researchers in this body of work have tended to apply critical theory from other media fields. This is providing a valuable amount of understanding, while fuelling debate among certain groups claiming that these other fields are attempting to colonise the new area of Computer Games to extend their own fields. One of the constant problems with much of the analytical work being done is the generalisations made about Computer Games as a group of things. Very few of the works take any time to define what is being discussed, rather make overgeneralizations about an amorphous group that possess an amazingly homogenous set of properties. This in itself is a basis to cast doubt on many of the claims made. The second problem is in the duality in the application of the term Computer Game. This term is applied to both software products marketed as Computer Games and the abstract games that these product represent. The majority of the research discussed in this section assumes that “One Computer Game Software Product equals one Computer Game Game.” This assumption can be traced back to the foundation premises of the related fields where for example items of cinema are considered as a single unit, and similarly items of literature are seen as being a single unit even when collated as a collection of short stories. Computer Software is difficult to consider the same way. The biggest problem is drawing a line around what is a piece of software. Software is modular; so much depends on other modules provided by operating systems and graphics libraries. While these may be considered as part of the software being described, they are often used as part of other similar products being described, as such the researchers risk inaccuracy and ambiguity by not clarifying these issues. A piece of software as described in general terms can be used to implement more than one game; alternatively, may mix application software with game software. This issue is further explored in section 4.1.2.4 in Chapter 4. For the most part this issue does

Duncan C. Blair

- 31 -


not directly affect the arguments being put forth, due to their use of broad generalisations and so does not affect the conclusions drawn.

2.3.1 COMPUTER GAMES AS LITERATURE

The comparison between Computer Games and Literature has taken a number of forms over the past decade, with work and comments on the connection having been made since games with text interfaces were first released. The first perspective seems to be the argument as to whether Computer Games are really a form of literature. The second is the use of the tools of literary theory to analyse Computer Games to understand them. Different academic works have approached both subjects and blended the two over the years. The first perspective seems to be quite well debunked while the second does provide a valuable set of critical theory that can be used to analyse Computer Games to understand them. Unfortunately, many of these articles are deeply steeped in the language and assumptions drawn from the field of literature theory. This makes them difficult to penetrate and evaluate without extensive experience of both literature theory and Computer Games. There are a number of academic works that analyse Computer Games using literature theory; The first generation of major works are Hamlet on the Holodeck [Janet E. Murray, 1997] and Cybertext: Perspectives on Ergodic Literature [Espen Aarseth, 1997]. These books analyse Computer Games alongside Hypertext and Virtual Reality across a wide range of fronts, from the understanding and interpretation of the work to description of the forms found. They both tend to generalise Computer Games as homogenous groups of products that causes the works to look rather dated and narrow when observed from the games side of the fence. Since the publication of these books a number of academic works have been produced building on [Marie-Laure Ryan, 2001] or arguing with them [Jesper Juul, 1999], [Jesper Juul, 2001] , [Markku Eskelinen, 2001]. Other articles that deal with the topic in more or less rigorous ways focus as much on fighting for ideological ground as for developing any useful theory of games.

Duncan C. Blair

- 32 -


2.3.2 COMPUTER GAMES AS CINEMATOGRAPHY

The relationship between Computer Games and Cinematography has been examined in a number of academic works. There are primarily written by people familiar with cinema theory. This tends to saturate their work with domain terms derived from cinematic theory. [Mark J. P. Wolf, 2001] [Bo Kampmann Walther, Unknown] [Bo Kampmann Walther, Unknown] [Bo Kampmann Walther, 2003] [Steven Poole, 2000] [Espen Aarseth, 1997] These works suggest that Cinema shares a number of physical traits with Computer Games, and can be seen as a close relative. They use the theory of Cinema to examine Computer Games from the point of view of describing them. Much of the description focuses on the aspects in common such as the use of space and time and the application of animation to convey information. This research has begun to provide a language to describe many of the traits of more cinematic Computer Games while being unable to address those elements of Computer Games that are not shared by cinema. This leads to a somewhat one-sided examination. Cinema theory is however much more able to express certain of the visual nature of Computer Games than literary theory.

2.3.3 COMPUTER GAMES AS NEW MEDIA

The branch of Academia defining themselves as New Media Studies has chosen to define Computer Games as a new form of popular media. New Media is a still evolving branch of theory that looks at such digital media forms as Hypertext, Animation, comics, software and similar non-traditional forms. A significant work in this field is The Language of New Media [Lev Manovich, 2001] the theory this work presents seems to be a mix of literary, cinema, hypertext and assorted other media theories. It appears, according to this work, that Computer Games are but one among the many different mediums available to artists and communicators. The perspective taken is more about the application of Computer Games for communication and artistic purposes rather than examining the intrinsic nature of Computer Games or their design, as such this group of work currently brings little to the understanding of Computer Games. Similar to the other work applying critical theory drawn from other

Duncan C. Blair

- 33 -


fields, this work draws questionable generalisations about Computer Games from a very small number of examples.

2.3.4 COMPUTER GAMES AS ART

There is little quantitative research on this topic due to the difficulty of subjectively measuring art. Objectively however, there is a certain amount of experimental work being produced with and inspired by Computer Games under the label of art. The art of Machinima described by [Hugh "Nomad" Hancock, 2003] has taken Computer Game engine technology and turned it to the creation of pure cinema. [Brad King, 2002] Artists and hackers who have patched games in creative ways has been examined as a separate art form in Cracking the Maze [Anne-Marie Schleiner, 2003] This looks at some of the people who make Computer Game Patches and Mods as culture hackers. There is a certain amount of debate among Computer Game Developers as to whether Computer Games themselves are art or not. The general tone being summarised in this article Three Finger Salute [Tom Chick, 2001] This presents the perspective that Computer Games must be art because people who like them, think they are. This point of view is possibly rational for many of the stand-alone Computer Game Products that can be appreciated in a holistic kind of way. It does become murkier for the online virtual spaces such as MUD’s and Massive Multi-player games that are a sum of all the people playing at any time rather than a static product and are much harder to appreciate as a whole. A much more detailed analysis of the question is presented in Video Games and Online Worlds as Art [Raph Koster, 2003] in which the author determines that yes, games are Art.

2.3.5 COMPUTER GAMES AS GAMES

As a counterpoint to the idea that Computer Games are a subset of literature or cinema has arisen the idea that Computer Games are games. This may appear obvious but has turned out to be strangely contentious. The term Ludology has been coined to describe this particular field; which represents what could be described as, if it exists, Duncan C. Blair

- 34 -


formal Computer Game Theory. The research developing the idea of Ludology has concentrated on defining the ideological turf rather than examining the subject matter of the field. Much of the research is focused on refuting arguments put forward which presents Computer Games as being some form of literary narrative or cinema. Ludology Meets Narratology: Similitude and differences between (Video)games and Narrative [Gonzalo Frasca, 1999] puts forward the idea that narrative theory applied to Computer Games has value, but Computer Games should be considered as games. The author places Cybertexts in a similar category as Computer Games and suggests that they can be critically examined as games. The author makes a clear definition of the terms game and play, based on work in Man, Play and games [Roger Caillois, 1979]. The remainder of the work is dedicated to contrasting Narratology and Ludology using a range of examples and generalisations. Other research that can be considered as being within the ludology field has thankfully abandoned the overarching ludology vs. narratology argument and is concentrating on exploring the subject matter within Computer Games. For the most part games have previously been seen as unworthy of specialist academic examination. They were described by anthropologists and Behavioural Scientists. A formal branch of analysis called game Theory was developed for use by Economists based on simplified structural models which had very little to do with the actual playing of games for recreation. The three main sources for historical examination of games are Homo Ludens: A study of the play-elements in Culture [Johan Huizinga, 1950], Man, Play and games [Roger Caillois, 1979] and The Study of games [Brian Sutton-Smith and Elliott M. Avedon, 1971]. These books provide much of the historical context of all research on Computer Games as games. The first book looks from a sociology point of view at play as an important precursor and contributing factor to culture. He proposes that culture arises from the formalisation of the play instinct into commonly understood and valued structures that allow people to cooperate and resolve problems. The second book proposes a similar point of view on play, but goes further and describes play and games as being opposite ends of a spectrum separated only by the amount of structure imposed on the activity. Caillois proposes that there are four basic types of games along with a number of combinations of theses four types, which provide a means to classify all games. The third book contains a number of sections, which delve into the theory of games in an abstract sense. A key section is The Structural Elements of games [Elliot M. Avedon, 1971] Duncan C. Blair

- 35 -


which addresses the author’s ideas on the architectural element of a game. This will be further examined in chapter 3. Beyond the ideology research, defining the field of Computer Games as games; has emerged a small but expanding body of theoretical research exploring the field of Computer Games as a unique form that draws from games, Cinema, Literature and Media for the theory side, and both hard and soft sciences for the implementation.

2.4

COMPUTER GAME CLASSIFICATION

This section looks at research dealing with the classification of Computer Games; however, focusing specifically on the work dealing with classification provides only a few pieces of formal research; none of which deal specifically with classification, rather treat classification as a minor point on the path to their main focus. The majority of the work dealing with Computer Game classification appears in less formal works on the design and development of Computer Games within the commercial game development Industry. These books tend to treat the subject quickly and offer little or no supporting argument for the choice of classification system and methodology. Additional examples of Computer Game classification systems can be seen at work on a number of web sites that deal with Computer Games. These also suffer from a lack of rigor and supporting argument and so generally do not provide much useful information. The general form these systems take is a variation on the common Genre system as described below. These classification systems have been developed to suit the needs of the author or web site users, which have the effect of producing specialised systems. For example, the systems used by web databases such as Mobygames [MobyGames, 2003] are tailored for ease of use rather than detailed description of the games being classified. The systems suffer from a range of weaknesses; such as failing adequately to identify the population being classified, incompleteness, ambiguous classification and are poorly documented. In general, there are two methodologies applied to classification systems for Computer Games, these will be described as the Group-First and the CharacteristicFirst forms. The Group-First systems take the approach of identifying a group, Duncan C. Blair

- 36 -


describing it and then grouping population members into the group. The Characteristic-First systems define a set of characteristics that are shared by the population members. These are then used to classify the population into groups, which share similar values for specific characteristics. Both methodologies are applied to the problem of Computer Game classification under a range of different style labels such as Taxonomy and Genre. These labels tend to be applied in an arbitrarily fashion which reflects the lack of rigor in the systems. As such, the labels provide little useful information when sorting the classification systems.

2.4.1 TAXONOMY SYSTEMS

Taxonomies in other fields take the form of narrow, deep hierarchies of nodes with each node representing a particular characteristic/value pair with individual members of the population being classified by the chain of nodes above them. The exact number of levels in the hierarchy is usually defined by the number of characteristics required to differentiate one sub-group from another. In the case where additional differentiation is required, additional nodes can be added to refine the classification further. The assumption being that an individual will be placed exclusively into a single node within the hierarchy and any individual placed within a node will possess all the descriptive characteristics/values of the nodes above. This style of system represents the Characteristic-First methodology.

2.4.2 GENRE SYSTEMS

The second popular label for classification structures is the Genre System. These systems tend to be broad, flat structures of groups with each group being called a Genre. Genre systems are used in Literature, Cinema and Fine Arts to describe strong styles that are shared by a group of works. The style of the Genre is described in an idealised way and works that are similar to the ideal or share some recognisable characteristic are classified relative to the Genre; for example, a work can be said to belong to a particular Genre or to combine two or more Genres. The classification of a work in a particular Genre is based on subjective evaluation, which can and often is disputed by different critics based on their personal understanding of the ideal of the Duncan C. Blair

- 37 -


Genre and the way the particular work relates to that. This results in a certain amount of churn with the ideal of the Genres and the classification of works being constantly re-interpreted by different critics. The use of the Genre system for Computer Games has produced the exact same result with one additional problem. There is not even agreement on a basic list of Genres that are appropriate. This has resulted in each author developing their own list of Genres and ideals which bare little resemblance to what has been done before. In general, the Genre system is applied to Computer Games much as in other fields. Each group in the system describes a strong style of game; the group is presented to the reader with a description of the ideal that it describes. This is often illustrated with a group of example games to help the reader get the idea. Individual members of the Computer Game population are ideally placed into a single group that best characterise their mix of characteristics. This style of system represents the GroupFirst methodology. Some systems allow members to be placed in multiple groups in an effort to describe the work more accurately. Mobygames provides an example of this form [MobyGames, 2003]. Genre systems have a difficult choice to make, which is how narrow to make the groups. In the case where the group covers only a narrow range of values in the population, it may only have a small number of members, but may describe the member games quite well. On the other hand, a broader group will describe more members but will not describe any particular game as precisely. One approach to solving this problem is a hierarchy of general and specialised groups. An example can be found in The Art of Computer Game Design [Chris Crawford, 1982]. This approach involves defining general groups and subdividing the members of this group further into specialised sub-groups. These specialist sub-groups may be defined to subdivide completely the members of the parent groups but there is no reason this should be so. This does not violate completeness as long as all members are still classified. In general, Genre systems suffer from completeness, specificity and ambiguity problems due to the choice of characteristics used for the description of groups and the lack of clear population description. There is also confusion due to the mixing of terms such as taxonomy and Genre. The other major problem is that these systems classify software products rather than games. The assumption is that these systems were

Duncan C. Blair

- 38 -


designed on the assumption that one Computer Game software product equals one Computer Game Game; which is challenged in Proposition 4 in Chapter 1.

2.4.3 MIXED SYSTEMS

The terms, Genre and Taxonomy have been mixed in a number of works that describe hierarchical structures of groups resembling a list of Genres rather than a formal Taxonomy. These compose a shallow hierarchy of Genres and sub-genres, rather than the broad flat single level of depth found in other Genre Systems. This suggests a generalised/specialised relationship between the groups in the structure rather than the composition relationship that the hierarchy represents in a formal taxonomy.

2.4.4 PROBLEMS OF CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS

Several of the Classification systems examined in the following sections display similar problems. The first is failure to identify the population being classified. Methods to address that issue will be examined in Section 2.5. The second problem is that described in Proposition 4 in Chapter 1 that of classifying Software Products rather than abstract games. A more detailed examination of classification problems will be covered in chapter 4.

2.4.5 GROUP-FIRST CLASSIFICATION

The Taxonomy system has been applied to Computer Games by a number of writers; The Art of Computer Game Design [Chris Crawford, 1982] presents a classification system described as a Taxonomy; however it does not match the more formal style of Taxonomy design. Rather it is a set of general and specialised groups arranged in a shallow hierarchy; this is a clear example of the Group-First style of Classification. Each group is described generally and illustrated with a number of example games. Due to the simplicity of the groups selected and the evolution of gaming styles since publication, there are now multiple examples of games that would have ambiguous classification under the system. Duncan C. Blair

- 39 -


The Genre system has been applied in a number of works; some such as The Medium of the Video Game [Mark J. P. Wolf, 2001] do so with rigor. This book presents a well-developed set of groups and supporting descriptions. Game Development and Production [Erik Bethke, 2003] presents a less formal treatment with less description of the Genre groups. Examples are also found on the Internet A Guide to Computer Game Genres [International Hobo, 2002], All Game Guide [AEC One Stop Group Inc, 2003] which tend to present lists of groups with little or no description beyond some example games. There are approximately 10 common Genres, which appear in many of these systems. The Common Genres Action

Fast paced, Hand Eye Coordination

Adventure

Plot based exploration and puzzles

Role Playing

Character progression in a complex environment

Strategy

Tactical analysis and planning

Simulations

Specific Equipment or environment Operation

Sports

Playing and managing sports

Fighting

Hand to hand fighting

Management

Omnipotent construction and management

Massive Multi-player

Huge Social environments for a variety of play

Other, Unique, Misc.

Everything else

Figure 2-1 Common Genres The range of different lists of Genre groups is quite diverse; Appendix B contains a collection of different group lists from a range of sources. Most contain a small number of groups, while a few contain larger numbers; 44 groups [Mark J. P. Wolf, 2001] and 154 groups [AEC One Stop Group Inc, 2003] although the second is arranged as a hierarchy suggesting a generalised/specialised relationship between the groups without explaining it. In the more rigorous Genre systems examined, each group is described using a description of characteristics in addition to example members. This leaves the reader to try to 'get the idea' by drawing conclusions about the characteristics of the group based on their knowledge and experience of the example games. This can produce ambiguity in the membership of the group with the reader drawing different Duncan C. Blair

- 40 -


conclusions about the characteristics of the example members. This style of Genre system tends to be based on the assumption of exclusive placement. That is, any member of the population classified by the system will be placed in a single group within the system structure.

Game Design: The Art & Business of creating games [Bob Bates, 2001] describes Genres as sets of Conventions. This idea is also mentioned in The Medium of the Video Game [Mark J. P. Wolf, 2001]; with an additional example found in Game Guru: A lesson in gaming Taxonomy [Nate Birkholz, 2000]. This follows the above description of Genres representing an idealised work; that is used as a baseline for the comparison with the members being classified. In the system of Genres of Conventions individual games can be related to the Genres which describe conventions which the game shares. This style does not assume exclusive placement of individual games and recognises that some games will be best described by the conventions of multiple Genres. An example of a system similar to this in use can be found at Mobygames [MobyGames, 2003]. Their system of listing the same population member in a number of shallow Genres allows the product to be cross-referenced and classified on all its representative traits. The main difference between these Genre of Convention systems and the more common Genre system is in the terms used. Conventions describe an idealised form, which may not exist, while the basic Genre systems describe a group using characteristic/value pairs. The second major difference is the move from exclusive placement to multiple placements. This addresses some of the problems caused by the narrowness of groups causing a need to specialise the group as more members are placed in it.

2.4.6 CHARACTERISTIC-FIRST CLASSIFICATION

EGGG: The Extensible Graphical Game Generator [Jon Orwant, 2000] presents a Taxonomy from a game designers’ point of view. This is a formal taxonomy rather than a hierarchical arrangement of groups as in the previous example. This example demonstrates the Characteristic-First method of developing a Classification System. Duncan C. Blair

- 41 -


This system is based on twelve identified characteristics of Computer Games, with a fixed range of values for each characteristic. The selection of the characteristics is based on the needs of the thesis in which it is located. This makes it difficult to apply as a more general-purpose classification scheme. It does however present a valuable example of how a rigorous classification system for Computer Games may be developed. Orwant’s system does not attempt to define the population that is being classified by the system. As the system is presenting a method to generate games, it is not attempting to classify a specific population. This prevents the system from being proven complete or specific. The system however is one of the few that does not make the assumption of one Computer Game Software Product equals one Computer Game game. The system is specifically describing games rather than Software Product and so stands almost alone in that respect. The choice of some of the characteristics that form the basis of the taxonomy is well described along with the range of values for each. Due to the small number of values for the characteristics, the descriptive ability of the system is quite limited and can only express a finite number of games composed of the combinations. However, this can be extended because one of the characteristics, Topology, is open-ended; the system has only a sample of possible values for the characteristic. This theoretically allows an infinite number of boards of different shape. This system shows the most promise as a template for a general-purpose system.

Playing Together: A Taxonomy of Multi-User Video Games [Wai-ling HoChing, Kori M. Inkpen and Katherine Mason] presents a structured breakdown of console games by the way the games utilise a single display screen to service multiple players’ views of the game environment. This system is narrowly focused for classification based on a single characteristic, of a subset of Computer Games. Multiple View Handling Strategy

Description

Split Screen

Screen is divided with a section dedicated to each player POV (Point Of View).

AI Focus

Artificial Intelligence determines the appropriate shared view

Duncan C. Blair

- 42 -


Tethered

Shared Screen with players’ prevented from moving too far from each other.

Fixed

All players’ are visible on a fixed view and are prevented from leaving the view area.

Turn Taking

Players’ alternate, and the complete view area is dedicated to a single player during their turn.

Hybrid

Use a variety of the above techniques. Figure 2-2 Console games Styles of Handling Multiple Players’ Views

The system presents a list of values for this characteristic based on observed examples. These are summarised in Figure 2-2. No claim is made that this list of values is exhaustive. Due to the unknown nature of the design space of Computer Games, this is the only reasonable approach to the identification of values for a classification system. As this system focuses on Multi-player Console games, it does not address single player games in any way. A different approach to classification is presented in the book Online Game Interactivity Theory [Markus Friedl, 2003]. This book focuses on Online games, and presents a system of classification based on characteristics that span the entire population. The author presents a set of Criterion that is objective and reproducible. The exception being Genre, which the author reluctantly includes due to the view that Genre are imprecise and subject to contention. Markus Friedl - Criterion Criterion

Values

Online Integration

Optional multi-player, Multi-player-only/Round based, Multi-player-only/Persistent

Technology

Web Based Model, Peer-to-Peer Model, Client Server Model, Dedicated Server Model

Genre

Action/Arcade, Strategy, Adventure, Simulation, Role-playing

Purpose of Play

Imaginary Environments, Laboratory Environments, Game Environments

Duncan C. Blair

- 43 -


Business Model /

Pay Client/ Free Online Service, Pay Client/Monthly

Distribution Channel

Fee, Flat-Fee Subscription, Advertising, Per-Play Fee, Per-Episode Fee

Figure 2-3 Criterion presented in Online game Interactivity Theory Figure 2-3 illustrates the set of criterion presented by the system and the list of identified values for each criterion. These are again values drawn from examining the current population of games rather than the complete range of values possible for each criterion. As stated above, this is a reasonable approach while still being potentially incomplete. The Criterion presented are primarily characteristics of the implementation, which do not describe the internal structure or content of the actual games under discussion; This is addressed by the use of a Group-First Genre system; with the problems of this style of classification system mentioned above, left unaddressed. As this system is not focused on discussing game design issues, this is reasonable and provides a valuable illustration of an alternative method of classification. The system is obviously classifying Software Products rather than games as the Products are discussed as having a multi-player mode. It can be assumed that some of them have other modes. This would not be the case with individual games. In the book Man, Play and Games [Roger Caillois, 1979] presents a Characteristics-First classification system for all games. As the system was developed prior to the arrival of Computer Games, it does not map precisely to them. The system uses a characteristic describing the general style of activity in the game as the basis for the system. The broad generalisation of the values of the system is explained by the hugely diverse range of games and game-like activities that have been developed all over the world. General Values Agon Alea Mimicry Illinx

Description games based on Competition games based on Chance games based on Simulation and Pretend games based on Vertigo

Figure 2-4 General Values for Caillois Classification System Specialised Values Agon – Alea Duncan C. Blair

Description games of Competition and Chance - 44 -


Agon – Mimicry Agon – Illinx Alea – Mimicry Alea – Illinx Mimicry – Illinx

games of Competition and Simulation games of Competition and Vertigo games of Chance and Simulation games of Chance and Vertigo games of Simulation and Vertigo

Figure 2-5 Specialised Values for Caillois Classification System A set of four general values are presented and described. These values are then combined to provide six more specialised values. Figure 2-4 and Figure 2-5 summarise the range of possible values for the system. Many Computer Games would fall somewhere into the classification of Competition – Chance. The classification of Agon (Competition) is flexible in that it does not assume multiple players’, rather it emphasises the establishment of superiority over a challenge through skill while the classification of Alea (Chance) describes the surrender of control to fate. By classifying the games on the single characteristic of the players’ activities, Caillois is not attempt to describe anything else about the games. His classification of Agon (Competition) does suggest something about the structure of the game; this however does not appear to be his primary aim for the system. This system is designed to cover the entire population of games. Due to its extreme generalisation of the activities it seems unlikely that the system would fail to adequately describe the whole population of Computer Games, so it appears complete. The system has also been designed to avoid ambiguity with groups for combination of values for the games that mix elements from more than one group. Finally, the system having been designed to cope with all forms of games does not make any assumptions about a connection between game and representation. This allows the system to avoid the pitfall common to most of the systems designed specifically to classify Computer Games.

2.5

IDENTIFICATION OF COMPUTER GAMES

For a classification system to address a population specifically and completely the population must first be identified. A number of the classification systems presented in section 2.4 addressed this issue while others did not. Identification of Computer Games has been approached in a number of ways. The first is by assuming that the reader knows what a Computer Game is and Duncan C. Blair

- 45 -


understands what characterises them. This relates what the author is describing to the reader’s experience, which could be anything from expert to miss-informed. This presents problems for authors who are moving beyond commonly understood areas of the population of Computer Games where the reader could reasonably be expected to have some familiarity. Some examples of authors relying on the readers’ experience are [Andrew Rollings and Ernest Adams, 2003] [Jessica Mulligan and Brigette Patrovsky, 2003] [Neal Hallford and Jana Hallford, 2001] [Erik Bethke, 2003] [James Paul Gee, 2003]. The problem is compounded by the duality of the meaning of the term Computer Game. This results in the Reader Experience method of Computer Game population identification being imprecise.

The approach taken in Game Design Foundations [Roger E. Pedersen, 2003] p.15-17 is to present a list of ideal conceptual features which together define what a game is. This avoids an outright definition by presenting a list of the author’s idealised features for a game. They are similar to the list presented in the article I have no words & I must Design [Greg Costikyan, 1994] (Writing about non-computer role-playing games) Which presents features which the author considers essential to a good game. These are based on the author’s past experience and are skewed towards the pen and paper role-playing games. They are however a representative set of the features considered important in many of the published analyses of the components of a game, computer or otherwise, such as Goals and Decision Making. These features are not ranked in any sort of order and no mention is made of the importance of each feature. The conclusion that can be drawn is that all the features are of equal importance and must be possessed by any product to be considered a Computer Game. Costikyan summarises the list of features with a short definition that leaves many of them out, thus contradicting the assumption that they are all of equal importance.

A game is a form of art in which participants; termed players, make decisions in order to manage resources through game tokens in the pursuit of a goal.[Greg Costikyan, 1994]

This definition makes the politically motivated claim that games are art, which is difficult to justify. The political motivation comes from an argument within the games Duncan C. Blair

- 46 -


Industry that is split between those who see games as the work of artists, with the consequent demand for recognition of those artists and the other faction, which see games as the work of teams of skilled professionals lacking any artistic merit. This is motivated by various factors such as recognition and respect along with more basic issues such as compensation and working conditions. However, the rest of the definition does go some way to addressing what are seen as fundamental elements of games by other authors.

Alternately, to presenting an ideal list of features for a good game, authors present a definition of the term Computer Game or Video Game, whichever term is invogue. The definition presented is then used as an interpreted rule to measure candidates against. This approach is used on the term Video Game in The Medium of the Video Game [Mark J. P. Wolf, 2001] to build a definition over 6 pages. The approach taken by this work is to break down the words Video and Game and define each separately. Then combine the meaning in an attempt to understanding what is and is not a Computer Game (Or a Video Game in the terminology of the book). The definition of game presented is minimal although it contains similar elements to that of other works specifically Conflict, Rules, Player Ability and Valued Outcomes. The generalised form of this Definition style of population identification is to define what a game is and apply it to products on any computing platform that will support the required input and output. The weakness of this system is that the formal definitions of the term game are subject to debate. This approach is taken by The Art of Computer Game Design [Chris Crawford, 1982]. Definition Element Representation Interaction Conflict

Safety

Description A closed formal system that subjectively represents a subset of reality Audience generates causes and observes effects Conflict between the player trying to reach goals and obstacles in the game trying to prevent it Games provide the illusion of danger and harm from conflict while excluding their physical realisation

Figure 2-6 Crawford's Elements defining game

Duncan C. Blair

- 47 -


The definition of game developed in the text is rather long; the key points are summarised in Figure 2-6. Interestingly Crawford has re-visited the subject with a recent book Chris Crawford on Game Design [Chris Crawford, 2003] and has taken a different approach. Firstly, by placing games in a context of other abstract groups, such as Art, Toys, Puzzles and Competitions; then using the differences between these contextual groups to define games as:

“…conflicts in which players directly interact in such a way as to foil each others goals.” [Chris Crawford, 2003]

The discussion supporting this definition differs somewhat from the opinion stated 20 years prior with the key difference being the emphasis on products only being a game when they involve multiple players actively opposing each other. His earlier definition did not rule out single player games. This idea that for a game to be suitably challenging it must include multiple human opponents rules out a great deal of the existing and potential products that are currently accepted as Computer Games. Another point raised by Crawford is that a game is differentiated from a puzzle by its apparent complexity. He argues that once a player figures out how it works, they can then treat it as a simple puzzle to be solved with the appropriate set of steps. This is an interesting point, but means that products can drift in their classification based on the experience and cognitive ability of the player. What is initially classified as a game can become a puzzle, as the player becomes more experience and learns how the systems of the game environment function. Does this mean the product should be classified as a game or a puzzle? What if it takes more time to overcome the complexity of the game than the average player may be willing to spend? Should the member be classified as a game or puzzle? Is this complexity a property of the activity or a result of the players’ cognitive ability? Is this a property of a good game or any game? This definition of a game introduces ambiguity into this identification system. An alternate definition of a game can be found in An Exploratory Study of Forty Computer Games [John V. Dempsey, Barbara A. Lucassen, Linda L. Haynes and Maryann S. Casey, 1997] which answers the question ‘what is a game?’ with this response:

Duncan C. Blair

- 48 -


“A game is a set of activities involving one or more players. It has goals, constraints, and consequences. A game is rule-guided and artificial in some respects. Finally, a game involves some aspect of a contest or a trial of skill or ability, even if that contest is with oneself.”

While this reinforces many of the points which are made by other authors, this study does not explicitly link the definition with Computer Games. This leaves some question as to the author’s means of differentiation between a Computer Game and everything else as the definition can apply to a range of human activity. While many of these techniques are useful in their context, they are difficult to apply to a specific product for determining if it is a Computer Game and why. This is due to their being constructed by their respective authors for the sake of the discussion at hand rather than formalised into a general test. The lesson to be drawn from these various approaches to identifying the population of Computer Games is that at the root of identifying Computer Games is the definition of what is meant by the term game. The approach used by a number of authors has been to define a game as being an abstraction resulting from the interplay of an essential set of Elements. The following section looks as the range of different lists of these Essential Elements that have been identified by various authors. These are discussed in more detail in Chapter 3.

2.6

ELEMENTS OF A GAME

A number of authors have presented lists of elements that they believe are essential to games. Often the language used is different while the concepts under discussion are similar. The Figure 2-7 presents a compilation of different lists that are available.

Source and Author

Authors list of Elements of a game

I have No words & I

Decisions Making

must design. [Greg

Goals

Costikyan, 1994] writing Opposition about paper and pen Duncan C. Blair

Resource Management - 49 -


Role-Playing games.

Game Tokens Information Diplomacy Colour Simulation Variety Position Identification Role Playing Socialising Narrative Tension

game Design

Non-Linear

Foundations [Roger E.

Goals

Pedersen, 2003]

Winnable

Examining Computer

Start Position

Games

Middle/Ending

Andrew Rollins and

Artificial Universe governed by Rules

Ernest Adams on games

Player Role

Design [Andrew

Obstacles / Challenges

Rollings and Ernest

Player Actions

Adams, 2003]

Victory Condition

examining Computer

Competition

Games.

Setting or World Interaction Model Avatar / Omnipresent Perspective

The Structural Elements

Purpose of Game

of Games [Elliot M.

Procedure for Action

Avedon, 1971] In The

Rules governing Action

Study of Games [Elliott

Number of Participants

M. Avedon and Brian

Roles of Participants

Sutton-Smith, 1971]

Result or Pay-off

Describing non-

Abilities and Skills required for Action

Computer Games.

Participant Interaction Patterns

Duncan C. Blair

- 50 -


Physical Setting and Environment – requirements Required Equipment Making and Breaking

Components

Games: A Typology of

Environment

Rules. [Aki Javinen,

Procedures

2003]

Theme

Section of an

Interface

unpublished Thesis by Aki Javinen, writing about Computer Games The Game, the Player,

Games are rule based

the world. A transmedial

Games have variable, quantifiable outcomes

definition of Games.

In games, value is assigned to possible

Unpublished Manuscript

outcomes

by Jesper Juul described

The player invests effort in order to influence

in Making and Breaking

the outcome

Games: A Typology of

The player is emotionally attached to the

Rules. [Aki Javinen,

outcome

2003]

Its it optional whether a Game has real-life consequences

The Art of Computer

Closed formal Representation of subset of

Game Design [Chris

reality

Crawford, 1982]

Interaction Conflict Safety

Chris Crawford on

Direct Conflict between players

Games Design [Chris

Goals

Crawford, 2003]

Possibility of impedance Competitors Interactive Apparent Complexity

Designing Virtual Duncan C. Blair

Goal Oriented - 51 -


Worlds [Richard A.

Concept of winning /Losing

Bartle, 2003] referring

Scores

to work by Pavel Curtis

Cannot be extended by players

on the difference between MUD’s and Adventure-style Games. Eric Zimmerman,

Rules

mentioned in Chris

Activity

Crawford on Game

Outcome

design [Chris Crawford, 2003] The Medium of the

Conflict - against an opponent or circumstance

Video Game [Mark J. P.

Rules - determining what can and cannot be

Wolf, 2001]

done and when Player Ability – Such as skill, strategy or luck Valued Outcome – winning vs. losing, or the highest score

Swords and Circuitry: A

Strong Character Development

designer’s guide to

System of reasonable, unbreakable rules

computer Role-playing

Immersive Exploration

Games. [Neal Hallford

Epic Story

and Jana Hallford, 2001]

Combat Interim Quests Grabbing Treasure Resource Management Problem Solving

An Exploratory Study of

Activities

Forty Computer Games

Players

[John V. Dempsey,

Goals

Barbara A. Lucassen,

Constraints

Linda L. Haynes and

Consequences

Maryann S. Casey,

Rule-guided

1997]

Artificial in some respects

Duncan C. Blair

- 52 -


Contest or trial of skill or ability Figure 2-7 Different authors’ lists of elements of games The authors’ discussing other forms of games tend to include elements that are either inapplicable or implemented quite differently to Computer Games. A number of these elements are desirable qualities of some Computer Games; however this does not imply that all Computer Games will posses them. These elements are discussed in detail in Chapter 3, which brings consistency to the terms used by the various authors. This is then used to provide a basis to formulate an identification system for the Computer Games population that is classified in Chapter 4.

2.7

SUMMARY

This chapter has examined a number of bodies of literature dealing with Computer Games the first being research into the effects of Computer Games on players. The most notable block of research deals with correlation of violent behaviour with playing violent games. This type of research is based on a dubious premise and has been refuted by studies that are more rigorous. The other notable group of effects research is studies looking into the implications of Computer Games on learning. This is a contentious area due to conflicting theories of learning rather than conflict over the results of any studies. The results of research on Computer Games in learning and education suggest that there are benefits to be drawn from applying Computer Game design techniques to educational needs. The second major group of Computer Game research is composed of work into the critical analysis of Computer Games. Researchers have applied critical theory from the fields of Literacy, Cinema, traditional Communications studies and the newly emerging field of New Media. This has produced a range of different points of view on Computer Games and enriched the theoretical foundations for the field. The last major section of the chapter looked at the literature that deals with the topic of the thesis, classification of Computer Games. This was approached in three sections, Classification, Identification and game Elements. Section 2.4 examined how Computer Games have been classified; the previous work was separated into two general methodologies, Group-First and Characteristic-First. These two approaches Duncan C. Blair

- 53 -


have been applied by a number of authors under a number of different labels. In general, the Group-First approach involves defining groups based on a game Ideal or set of game Conventions. Members of the population are then described by the group depending on how much they share the Ideal or Conventions of the Class. The Characteristic-First methodology involves the definition of a characteristics or set of characteristics, which are shared by all members of the population. The members are then classified based on the particular value(s) that they display for that characteristic. Both methodologies are capable of classifying Computer Games in slightly different ways, however the systems which have been developed suffer from a number of problems; failure to identify the population leads to violations of specificity and completeness, ambiguity is introduced by overlapping groups and poor documentation of the systems results in confusion on the part of readers. Section 2.5 examined work on identification of the population of Computer Games. This is intended to provide support for addressing the completeness and specificity problems encountered by the classification system. The investigation of prior work dealing with identification revealed that the primary difficulty was in the definition of the term game. Section 2.6 looked at the elements of a game that had been explored and developed in prior works. These provide a basis for a definition of the term game for use in this thesis. By exploring the topics of classification, identification and game Elements in the order presented, the reason for their inclusion becomes more obvious. Were they presented in the reverse order the reasoning behind their inclusion would be less clearly expressed. All together, the last three sections provide the foundation for the following two chapters, which now the argument for their existence has been presented, reverse the order. Chapter 3 begins with an exploration of the term Game based on the work in section 2.6 on elements of a game. This is developed into a test that provides a means to identify a population of Computer Games. This population is then used as the basis for the development of a characteristics system in chapter 4, which also draws on the prior works explored in section 2.4 above. Specifically the problems with prior classification systems are explored in an effort to understand their implications for the system that is developed in chapter 4.

Duncan C. Blair

- 54 -


Chapter - 3

Identifying Computer Games

Classification of Computer Games cannot occur without a means of defining the population being classified. By defining the population via systematic identification method, provides a foundation for a complete and specific classification scheme. The way new Computer Game Products explore the potential design space of Computer Games demonstrates the drawback to not having a clear means to identify the current and potential population of Computer Games. Comparative referencing often forms the basis of current identification systems by identifying Computer Games in terms of other existing games. This causes many new products to be derivatives of the reference games and closely cluster around the accepted defining games for fear of moving too far out into the unexplored design space and ceasing to be recognised as a Computer Game. A generalised method for identification of Computer Games independent of existing products would allow new product no matter how strangely innovative to be identified and accepted within the design space. The core problem of this chapter is that of identification of a population of Computer Games. The term Computer Game is widely applied to activities with a range of characteristics, uses and styles. The use of the term must firstly be clarified, then differentiated from any similar activities. This chapter begins by examining the different collections of game Elements considered important for defining games by different authors. The elements listed by the various authors display a certain amount of consistency and by combining their separate lists; a cohesive image is constructed. The elements presented will be grouped and examined to resolve redundancy and build a consistent language to be used in the following sections. A test based on the list of collated game elements is then developed, which adopts the strengths and addresses the weaknesses of existing identification systems examined in chapter 2. This thesis proposes that an identification test can be constructed as a useful artefact rather than an abstract component of a discussion and by its application will provide an objective means to understand the population of Computer Games and form a basis for classification of individual members. Duncan C. Blair

- 55 -


The proposed identification test will then be demonstrated using a varied range of products and games. This will provide a foundation for the following chapter that looks at the classification of Computer Games.

3.1

IDENTIFYING COMPUTER GAMES AS A POPULATION

The potential population from which Computer Games are drawn is quite varied. The characteristics, which differentiate Computer Games from everything else, are that they are a game involving a computer. The current definitions of what constitutes a game are varied but do have enough commonality to suggest general characteristics that can be applied to identify a game from other things. Section 3.1.1 examines these in more detail. It should be clarified that by the use of the term game, we are referring to the abstract game rather than the game as it might be represented physically or by software.

Figure 3-1 Venn diagram of All games Figure 3-1 illustrates an abstract set that contains all possible games including those that have actually been developed. Once we have established exactly what criteria are required to define the term game we can theoretically determine all the members of this set. We shall return to this problem in the next section. The next characteristic of Computer Games that we can be sure of is that there is a computer involved.

Duncan C. Blair

- 56 -


Figure 3-2 Venn diagram of games Involving computers The sub-set called games Involving computers contains all games that involve a computer in any way. These may range from using a computer as a token on a monopoly style board game, through to games involving attempting to hack a computer for a prize, and on to games in a computer generated virtual reality environment. Assuming these activities meet the criteria to be considered games, these are then all possible as a form of game that involves a computer. We will agree that software and firmware are synonymous for the purpose of this discussion and that if the logic of the game is etched into the chips in the computer it will be considered the same. The point being that the Elements of the game are represented by some stored sequence of instructions (Software) and executed by a computing device without becoming involved in an exercise of defining what is meant by the common usage of the term computer. The question then becomes how much of the game should occur in the computer software for the product to be considered a Computer Game. By referring to Proposition 3 in the introduction, it will be agreed that all the Elements of the game should be completely represented in software. This means that the Elements that are part of the game are defined in and represented by the software that is then executed by a computing device. This is an arbitrary line. Obviously, it is possible to define a test that will accept games that are only partially represented in Software. However to define such a test becomes increasingly complex and difficult to apply when the essential Elements of the game and their relative importance is only loosely understood. As such, this thesis uses the rule that all the elements of the game must be represented in Software.

Duncan C. Blair

- 57 -


Games, which cross this line, exist. So-called Mixed-reality Games involve players’ real world locations being tracked by GPS systems, which provide input into a Computer Game. This may be seen as simply a complex input device; however, the other games involve real world Tokens such as brief cases being manipulated in the real world and tracked in the virtual. [Søren Aamand Jørgensen, 2003] This definition in no way derides these activities, rather recognises them and places them into the set of games that involve a computer but outside the set of Computer Games.

Figure 3-3 Venn diagram of Set of All games Involving a computer We now have three distinguishing characteristics. That a Computer Game is a game, involving a computer and that it is represented in computer Software. Figure 3-3 illustrates this. Venn diagrams are neat and tidy and suggest that reality might be the same. However, the situation is not quite so clear-cut.

Duncan C. Blair

- 58 -


Figure 3-4 Venn diagram of the current population of Computer Games The shaded area in Figure 3-4 suggests the population of things which are currently being classed as or like a Computer Game. The diagram is intended to suggest the complexity of the population not accurately model it. The main reason for the apparent complexity is not due to the difficulty in the part of the definition relating to software or computers; it is rather in the part defining game. Without some method to distinguish a game from, for instance the reading of a Digital Novel or a Chat Room, there is no useful way to differentiate Computer Games from other software that has some similar characteristics.

3.1.1 DEFINING THE TERM GAME

How to define the term game has been examined by a number of different authors. Their work is surveyed in the previous Chapter, with the conclusion being that there is no one clear definition or test that can be applied to determine what is and is not a game. The closest method to a practical test that has been presented in prior work is a list of essential criteria that is considered as defining a game. This thesis

Duncan C. Blair

- 59 -


proposes that by identifying the common Elements of games, it will be possible to identify their representation on digital platforms. The Elements listed by the various authors in the Section 2.6 of the Literature Review display a certain amount of consistency; by combining their separate lists, into one, from which the basis for a definition of the term game will be developed. The Elements presented will be grouped and examined to remove redundancy and build a consistent language that can be used in the following sections.

3.1.1.1 GAMES ARE FOCUSED ACTIVITIES The first group of Elements to be discussed is those that deal with the activity of a game. Games are built around specific activities. A game is not a general-purpose play system allowing the player to do anything they feel like; each game is refined to allow the player to focus on some specific activity or group of related activities. In the case where that something might be a complex activity, the game of necessity can become quite complex and in so doing may gain a certain amount of flexibility which allows the player to do some unrelated activities. The key point being that a game is refined to allow the player to do something in particular. Various authors describe the activities of games using terms such as goals and purpose. These terms however are used for a number of different characteristics in the discussion of games so the term Focused Activity will be used to describe this characteristic. Examples of focus activities would be managing an army in Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos[Blizzard_Entertainment, 2002], fishing in Trophy Bass 4 [Sierra_Entertainment, 2000] or solving a quest in Arcanum: Of Steamworks & Magick Obscura[Troika_Games, 2001].

For the activity to be meaningful, the activity should be able to be done both well and poorly. In other words, there should be scope for performing the activity with different levels of competence. Without this scope for differing levels of performance, games cannot be won or lost and all uses of the game will inevitably be similar. This will be described as Variability of Performance. This has also been described using the term Uncertainty. Variability of Performance depends on the concept of Challenge along with the requirement for the player to make Meaningful Decisions about their Duncan C. Blair

- 60 -


performance. These two terms occur in a number of element lists. Elements listed by various authors, such as Resource Management and Diplomacy are examples of the requirement for decision making, as they cannot happen without it. A method to include Variability of Performance in an activity is to establish the activity in a challenging environment with uncertain Outcomes. This way the new player will not be experts enough to overcome the challenge of the activity without having to stretch themselves. Obstacles are a physical manifestation of Challenge and are a much-described element in games that have a physical manifestation. Opposition is both the abstract idea that an obstacle conveys and the effect of an intelligent force with conflicting desires to the player. Opposition is often a desirable concept in games that emphasise conflict as a means to cause players to feel challenged and spur meaningful decision-making. This can be considered as one method for providing Challenge. Additional Elements are often added to the game system to highlight the Focus Activity and assist the player with conceptualising it and relating it to their real world frames of reference. These will be grouped together as Immersive Context Cues. Placing the player in an imaginary Scenario and giving them a set of Goals to accomplish within that scenario is a common method to bring structure to the Focus Activity on which the game is based. The Scenario Goal(s) of a game are in themselves meaningless outside the scenario and only help the player to become immersed in the activity at the heart of the product. The language used by some authors would suggest that their use of the term Goal relates to discussing the Focus Activity of the product, while others are discussing Scenario Goals that give meaning and structure to the Focused Activity within the game. Scenarios build a set of circumstance and motivation for the performance of activity. This sets the scene and gives the player reason to move forward, the player then pursues the task and reaches the goals of the scenario. Once the player reaches the goals of the scenario, something happens! This is the foundation for the invention or reinvention of Payoff. There must be something in reaching the goals for the player. Payoff provides the meaning for the player for playing within the scenario of the game. To win a game is more fun with social recognition. When there are other players in the game this is easily done by having the software declare the winner and allow the social recognition be provided by the other players, when there is only a single player, there is still the scope for some virtual Duncan C. Blair

- 61 -


backslapping and congratulations to be provided by the game designer via the software. As such, single player games appear to need payoff; the very idea of a single-player game, suggests that there are no spectators around to provide the payoff result. As such, payoff is an abstract concept attempting to encapsulate all the various results that game designers have developed to give the player a meaningful result for their unreal activity. This can be anything from concluding the quest in a role-playing game and seeing the bad guy given his just-deserts to receiving a pleasing animation sequence after solving a solitaire Card game. Fundamentally, payoff is acknowledgment of the outcome of the game. Games based on serial scenarios often provide a payoff result for each scenario. This may be a sequence of animation or the display of a score. The term Payoff has been borrowed to describe all these things without attempting to judge their merits. Payoff comes in two distinct variations; Static Payoff is when the payoff is fixed and pre-determined. Variable Payoff is where the players’ activities have some result on some property of the payoff. This is most obvious with games that have a summary score metric. The player can affect the quantity of the score through their actions. Another commonly described Immersive Context Cue is the so named Backstory found in many games. This is provided to help the player build a context and allow them to become engaged in what otherwise might seem an alien environment or completely unfamiliar activity. Additional Context Cues’ such as the theme, Colour, decorative style and language used by the product also help the players’ immersion in the core activity of the game. Examples that have minimal Immersive Context Cues are abstract products like Chess and Tetris that shows they are not essential to a game, but can add meaning and motivation. These characteristics will be grouped together using the term Game Play and are summarised in Figure 3-5. The collected Elements from prior works that translate roughly to these characteristics are summarised in Figure 3-6.

Game Characteristics Grouped under Game Play Game Play Focused Activity(s) Variability of Performance

Duncan C. Blair

- 62 -


Challenge Meaningful Decision Making Immersive Context Cues Scenario, Scenario Goals, Scenario Payoff Theme, Style, Colour, Backstory Figure 3-5 Game Characteristics grouped under gameplay The characteristics grouped under Immersive Context Cues are collected together to emphasise their interconnectedness. As the concepts described are difficult to clearly separate, this method allows the concepts to be articulated as clearly as possible without additional descriptions. Author

Elements listed by Author

Greg Costikyan

Decision Making, Goals, Colour, Variety

Roger E. Pedersen

Goals

Andrew Rollings and

Obstacles / Challenges, Player Role, Player

Ernest Adams

Actions

Elliot M. Avedon

Purpose of game, Role of participants, Participant Interaction patterns

Aki Javinen

Procedures, Theme

Jesper Juul

Games have variable, Quantifiable outcomes. The player invests effort in order to influence the outcome

Chris Crawford 1982

None Applicable

Chris Crawford 2003

Goals

Richard A. Bartle /

Goal Oriented

Pavel Curtis Eric Zimmerman

Activity

Mark J. P. Wolf

Conflict

Neal and Jana Hallford

Immersive Exploration, Epic Story, Combat, Interim Quests, Grabbing Treasure, Problem Solving

Dempsey et al.

Activity, Goals, Consequences, Contest or trial of skill or ability

Duncan C. Blair

- 63 -


Figure 3-6 Author Elements referenced under Game Play Products which have no specific Focus Activity tend to fail as a game; also product which are designed with too many Focus Activities all rolled into one suffer, with the players activities becoming more and more diluted. General-purpose MUD environments (Including the plethora of variations; MUSH, MUCK, MOO etc), virtual chat environments and Text Editors are all examples of products which do not focus on a specific activity in the way games do.

3.1.1.2 GAMES HAVE SUCCESS STATE(S) One of the interesting properties of games is their ability to teach skills for which the player has no prior experience. Examples are easy to find, just look at games which ask players to engage in activities which they cannot possibly experience in real life such as piloting a Space Craft in Wing Commander: Prophecy[Origin, 1997]. As the player often is not an expert at the focus activity of the game, they require constant information about their performance. This is not simply feedback about the consequence of an action, but requires the game to provide some judgment information about the relative values of the player’s actions. This is most commonly framed in terms of good and bad. These are universally understood concepts, but lack the granularity required for the range of different activities that have been or might be encapsulated as games. Finer grained systems have been developed using scores, success/fail states, experience points, rewards, penalties, waypoints etc. These all serve to give cues to the player letting them know if they are making positive progress or not. All these concepts will be abstracted using the term Performance Evaluation Information. Simple feedback will be examined in the section on Player Representation. To be able to evaluate performance however there must be some baseline to measure against. This is often provided by the designer of the game, with the intention of giving the player some guidance as to the expected or idealised concept of what the activity should be like. In competitive multi-player games, this baseline is more likely to be a relative one, using the player’s competition performance, be it against other human players or artificial competitors.

Duncan C. Blair

- 64 -


In single player games, the designer must provides a baseline metric to compare against the player’s performance. This may be implied by the relative difficulty of the challenges that the player faces or the time within which the player must overcome them. This idea will be described using the term Performance Ideal. Irrespective of where this is drawn from the game needs to provide some means for the player to determine if they have performed the Focus Activity well or not. The Performance Ideal only comes into play during the game and may vary in different section. A number of the authors have identified the importance of Success States for a game. The existence of different success states allow players to achieve results depending on their activity within the game. Some game activities allow players to find success in the state of doing, rather than completing and activity. Games based on fishing and hunting simulations do have a conclusion, but the success of the product is more about the challenge and the process of performing the activity well rather than the conclusion. Methods for Evaluating Player Success in a game Success is evaluated by reaching the final conclusion Success is evaluated on performance of activity until the conclusion Success is evaluated by avoiding a particular conclusion Success is evaluated by surviving elimination Figure 3-7 Values for Evaluation of Success characteristic For a game to have different Success States, it must support some method of determining the Players Success. Some of the methods are summarised in Figure 3-7. The common form of Success States is the concepts of Winning and Losing which are Outcomes of the game rather than feedback during the game. All the Challenges and Variability of Performance comes to nothing if every time the game is played the Outcome of the game is fixed. Games must have a range of possible Outcomes; abstract games which have only the concept of success and failure, have a very limited range, while games with a summary score often have a huge range of possible results. Summary Scores allow different instances of the game to compares. They can also be used to determine an additional success state by comparing them to a pre-determined level that must be achieved such as the high-scores table. Value Duncan C. Blair

Description - 65 -


Win/Lose or Win/Lose/Draw

Basic Outcomes relative to other competitor(s)

Summary Score Comparison

Metric summarising performance

Field Finish Position

Relative success at conclusion against other Competitors

Figure 3-8 Values for Outcomes Characteristic To be able to determine a Winner and Loser however a game requires something that is not often mentioned by many of the above authors. This is the game must conclude in some way. Activities such as fishing and driving which are pursued for the pleasure of the doing are not well suited to neat conclusions although obviously they can have conclusions such as Catching and Arriving. Thus, the activity needs to be structured to give a conclusion that will facilitate determining an outcome. This will be referred to as a Conclusion Format. This group of Elements will be described by the term Player Action Evaluation. These characteristics provide a means of differentiation between products that provide interaction with the users but without the value judgments important to games. These Characteristics are summarised in Figure 3-9. The Elements identified in prior works that refer to ideas similar to the characteristics in this section are summarised in Figure 3-10. Characteristics grouped under Player Action Evaluation Player Action Evaluation Performance Ideal Performance Evaluation Information Success States Conclusion Format Range of Outcomes Figure 3-9 Player Action Evaluation Characteristics Author


Greg Costikyan

Opposition, Position Identification

Roger E. Pedersen

Winnable, Ending

Andrew Rollings and

Victory Conditions, Competition

Duncan C. Blair

- 66 -


Ernest Adams Elliot M. Avedon

Results or Payoff

Aki Javinen

None Applicable

Jesper Juul

In games, value is assigned to possible outcomes

Chris Crawford 1982

Conflict

Chris Crawford 2003

Conflict, Competitors, Possibility of Impedance

Richard A. Bartle /

Concept of Winning / Loosing, Scores


Outcome

Mark J. P. Wolf

Valued Outcomes


None Applicable

Dempsey et al.

Consequences, Contest or trial of skill or ability

Figure 3-10 Author Elements referenced under Player Action Evaluation Products, which encapsulate an activity that does not have any software enforced baseline concept of evaluation of performance, are unlikely to be a game; examples of such would be screen savers, music and interactive novels and movies where the only activity is making choices. If the player cannot fail at making a choice, even a poor one then there is no way to do the activity in a good or bad way. Products which do not have any agreed conclusion are unfeasible to be evaluated in a way that results in a win/lose or win/lose/draw format. This is not to say that the product must terminate at the conclusion. Myst [Cyan and Red Orb Entertainment, 1994] has both a conclusion and no termination. Once the player reaches the conclusion (And achieves the Success State), the game then allows infinite further exploration. This is a similar pattern to products with serial scenarios like Warcraft III: Reign of chaos [Blizzard_Entertainment, 2002] (Single Player Mode) where the player, having completed all the scenarios to the conclusion is then able to continue by replaying earlier scenarios in no fixed order.

3.1.1.3 GAMES CAN BE UNREAL SPACES One of the key Elements identified in the activity of a game is that of being insulated from the Real World. This is for the reason that the Focus Activity of the

Duncan C. Blair

- 67 -


game cannot continue if the real world keeps interrupting. Things in the real world like the player being injured or there being no equipment or opportunity to perform the Focus Activity would quickly prevent any game going ahead; thus, games often have a requirement to remove Real world interference and supply any components required for the game that are otherwise missing. It is a small step from providing an imaginary fishing pole for a game, to providing an imaginary fishpond, then to providing a completely imaginary world. Players thus understand that Safety exists in the real world; they are in no danger from the game. Their real body is insulated from the cause and effect of this unreal space. The consequence of this is that the player is freed of their usual understanding of safe behaviour. They can engage in activities that they might otherwise not feel were feasible due to risk. This idea leads onto games allowing the player to engage in unrealistic activities. This does not suggest that games have no consequences in the Real world; this is in no way guaranteed, as the real world is outside the scope of the game. This is examined in Proposition 1 in Chapter 1. If the players want to form a Play Agreement that translates the Outcomes of the game into real world consequences, they are entirely free to do so. By constructing an insulated environment, not subject to the cause and effect of real life, and freed of the material requirements to provide all the game Elements, games not based on reality become feasible. One of the strengths of computers is in the ability to represent these unreal environments insulated from reality populated with convincing objects and situations. To borrow from film theory, the term Diegetic Environment is used to describe these not-real conceptual environments. This is drawn from the book The Medium of the Video Game [Mark J. P. Wolf, 2001] which presents a very thorough examination of the range and variety of these spaces occurring in Computer Games. A number of other works drawing on film theory also examine space in Computer Games. Computer Game Spaces: Genealogy, Classification and Reflection [Bo Kampmann Walther] describes the environment within Computer Games into three different spaces, Narrative space, Phenomenological space and Semiotic space. These discussions are interesting but miss the fundamental reasons of what an unreal space is used for in a game. Quiz games; such as You don’t know Jack [Berkeley_Systems and Jellyvision, 1995] require very little insulation and few Elements; thus have a quite limited Duncan C. Blair

- 68 -


environment to support a game of answering questions. On the other hand, games involving extreme risk and a great deal of Elements not provided by the real environment such as Serious Sam: The Second Encounter [Croteam_Ltd and A Few Screws Loose, 2002] require an environment which features unreal everything, from physics, creature intelligences and even an unreal player representation to be maimed and killed. The unreal environment required for some games has become a very important and rich aspect of the whole Computer Games experience. These have grown beyond the need to simply provide safe insulation between the game and reality or supply a non-existent fishing pole. However, the environment is a foundation for the game and fundamentally exists for no purpose other than that to support the Focus Activity(s) of the game. As such, the essential characteristics of a Diegetic Environment can be described by the insulation and game Elements it provides. Only once this information is visualised is it possible to begin to asses the filmic qualities of the visualisation. However as anyone with a programming background should realise, there is no reason to display the information as a rendered space. It can just as easily be described as a database of records or a set of two-dimensional maps much less engaging perhaps but still feasible. As such, filmic qualities are not an indicator of something being a game. Their evaluation will be left to others. Figure 3-11 summarises the characteristics identified and grouped under Diegetic Environment. The game Elements from prior work that refer to similar ideas are summarised in Figure 3-12.

Characteristics Grouped under Diegetic Environment Diegetic Environment Subtracted Real world Elements Added game-space Elements Figure 3-11 Identified game Characteristics grouped under Diegetic Environement Author


Greg Costikyan

None Applicable

Roger E. Pedersen

None Applicable

Andrew Rollings and

Artificial Universe governed by rules,

Duncan C. Blair

- 69 -


Ernest Adams

Setting or world

Elliot M. Avedon

Physical Setting and environment

Aki Javinen

Environment

Jesper Juul

None Applicable

Chris Crawford 1982

Closed formal representation of subset of reality, Safety

Chris Crawford 2003

None Applicable

Richard A. Bartle /

None Applicable


None Applicable

Mark J. P. Wolf

None Applicable


Immersive Exploration

Dempsey et al.

Constraints, Artificial in some respects

Figure 3-12 Author Elements referenced under Diegetic Environment This basic idea has been visualised into the rich virtual spaces that support some of today’s games. Virtual environments in computers have also been explored for a wide range of other applications beside games. Many are tailored for specific uses rather than specific activities. The plethora of text and graphical MUD’s, MOO’s, MUSH’s, MUCK’s and VRML chat environments are good examples along with a group of products going under various names such as Massive Multi-player games (MMPG), Massive Multi-player Online Role-playing games (MMORG), Persistent Game Worlds etc. Some of these have been structured as game style environments while others are more general-purpose, supporting a great range of social, creative and research activities. Suffice to say that just because a product has some form of unreal environment component does not make it a Computer Game.

Duncan C. Blair

- 70 -


3.1.1.4 GAMES INVOLVE PLAYERS It may be stating the obvious; Computer Games, like other games involve Human Player(s). As such, a distinguishing characteristic is that a game must be able to be used by one or more people. Because a game occurs in an unreal environment, the player does not really enter it and so cannot carry their physical abilities and properties into it. The game must provide the player with the appropriate set of actions to interact in the game; in the case of games that involve some of the properties of the player, these properties must be available in some fashion. This is further extended by games which require the player to have abilities and properties which they do not really posses. For example, the player may, in the game have a body that can be damaged and may have the ability to cast magic spells. The game must represent these real and unreal properties and abilities in such a way as to maintain the player’s real world safety and still allow them to access their game abilities. This requires the game to provide some mapping between the players’ real self and their game self. As Computer Games occur in computer software, some interface device(s) will be involved which allow the player to enter conceptually the unreal environment and play. This requires mapping the players’ real world abilities onto their unreal abilities in the game environment. Ideally, the interface will also map the internal game environment and players state within it back into some information accessible to the player. This is commonly done through visual and auditory information channels. This state of mapping back and forth and the act of using it has been given the hazy name Interactivity. For the sake of this discussion, the mapping of the player’s real ability and properties to unreal ability and properties will be described as the Player Ability Model. The return paths, that involve the mapping of the game and player states into structured information accessible to the player, will be described as the Players Information Model. These two concepts together form the Players Interaction Model. For games with a limited Player Ability Model such as You Don’t Know Jack [Berkeley_Systems and Jellyvision, 1995] in which the player is restricted to selecting from a list of canned answers. The only ability the player has is to select an answer from the list. On the other hand are games such as Thief II: The Metal Age [Looking_Glass_Studios, 2000] and Arcanum: Of Steamworks & Magick Obscura Duncan C. Blair

- 71 -


[Troika_Games, 2001] which have complex Player Ability Models involving large numbers of in-game objects and a long list of unreal abilities with which the player can directly and indirectly affect them. The Player Information Models are similar for the examples, with the simple game having a quite simple amount of information returned to the player by the game system, and the complex games giving the player multiple screens full of information to try to understand what their position in the game is. These examples illustrate that the two components of the Player Interaction Model is a reflection of the Focus Activity(s) of the game. Simple activities have simple requirements. Products in which the player has conceptual presence in the virtual world in some fashion provide a place marker or set of place markers that represent the locations of the player’s presence. These are described with a range of domain specific terms, such as Avatars when there is a single one and units when there are multiple; troops in some styles of War games, party in Role-playing games etc. Costikyan in I have no words & I must Design [Greg Costikyan, 1994] uses the abstract term Token derived from the language used for Board games. These tokens form the visual manifestation of the player in the game and are a component of the Players Information Model. There are different degrees of control over the tokens, in most Computer Games where the player controls more than a single Avatar; the tokens are manipulated by software intelligence in some limited fashion. This allows the player to issue high level orders and see them carried out by the invisible assistants without having to micro manage every single movement of what is often a highly complex set of interactions between multiple units. This artificial assistance however does not remove the unit from the players’ control. It is just a property of the unit the same as its colour. As long as the player can understand and predict the behaviour, it can still be considered as controlled. The other side of the Player Interaction Model is the state of the game as it is described to the player. The information about the state of the game, how the player is placed within it and the state of any other players is crucial for meaningful playing. Some games give the player complete information, such as Chess where others have limits placed on the amount of information they allow the player. Examples of this sort are easy to find, Tomb Raider [Core_Design_Ltd, 1996] only allows the player to see a small amount of the virtual environment at any time, that which is ahead and around Duncan C. Blair

- 72 -


the players avatar, which represents the conceptual location of the player within the virtual world in which Tomb Raider is played. Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos [Blizzard_Entertainment, 2002] uses the concept of Fog of War to restrict the amount of information available to the player about the position of the competition. The ideas behind the Player Information Model have been expressed using a range of different terms, the main one being perspective. Much has been made about the choice of different camera angles, in some styles of game, which camera angle to use is essentially a choice about how much and what information to provide to the player at any time. The second term used with some frequency is that of Views. This is a term derived from a popular programming paradigm, the View / Control model. Essentially this encapsulates the idea of representing information in different ways based on the needs of the software user. In terms of Computer Games, this is more obvious in games requiring management of a large number of objects and resources. Games such as Pharaoh [Impressions, 1999] in which the player manages an early history Egyptian town. The amount of information available to the player is huge, and is presented in a range of different views. One view gives only a restricted view of the local map of the town, showing buildings and the activity of the population. Another view shows a large-scale map of the neighbouring countries and the trade routs and alliances between them. Other views contain statistical information about the town and the population that cannot be displayed on the local map. Both of these ideas approach the same concept, that of providing the player with a set of information which describes the game state. Different game styles benefit from different approaches to the Players Information Model. To encapsulate all these ideas, the term Player Representation is used in the following sections. Figure 3-13 summarises the characteristics that have been identified and grouped under Player Representation. The game Elements from prior works that refer to similar ideas are summarised in Figure 3-14.

Characteristics Grouped under Player Representation Player Representation Played By Human(s) Unreal Player Abilities and Properties

Duncan C. Blair

- 73 -


Interaction Model Player Ability Model Player Information Model Figure 3-13 Identified game Characteristics grouped under Player Representation Author


Greg Costikyan

game Tokens, Information, Position Identification

Roger E. Pedersen

None Applicable

Andrew Rollings and

Player Actions, Interaction Model, Avatar /

Ernest Adams

Omnipresent, Perspective

Elliot M. Avedon

Rules governing Action, Number of Participants, Role of Participants, Abilities and Skills required for action, Participant Interaction Patterns

Aki Javinen

Interface, procedures

Jesper Juul

None Applicable

Chris Crawford 1982

Interaction

Chris Crawford 2003

Interactive

Richard A. Bartle /

None Applicable


None Applicable

Mark J. P. Wolf

Player Ability


Strong Character Development

Dempsey et al.

Players, Skills or abilities

Figure 3-14 Author Elements referenced under Player Representation Most of the software products implementing activities with some form of interaction model, information perspectives use some form of representative tokens in the form of semiotic symbols. None of these Elements alone is sufficient to identify a Computer Game; however, activities that lacked some or all of these Elements are unlikely to be a Computer Game.

Duncan C. Blair

- 74 -


3.1.1.5 GAMES ARE RULES…SO WHAT? One of the last remaining groups of Elements that are identifiable among the different lists is that of rules. Prior to computers, with their ability to visualise unreal spaces, the necessary Elements to remove from the real world and add to it for games to be played was constructed by players agreeing on rules to represent the unreal Elements of the game. As such, rules have become ingrained as a concept that games cannot exist without. We would suggest that rules were merely the means by which a game was implemented. Granted they are highly successful in non-Computer Games as a means to understand and communicate what is essentially imaginary constructs. With the arrival of computers and their ability to hold and display all the Elements of the game, there is no longer any use for the language of rules as a means of inter-player communication. This is not to say that they do not potentially exist in Computer Games. The code base of the games can always be translated into a set of rules if one so desires. The same way it can be translated into graphics or a narrative description. Rules are just a commonly understood language for the expression of a complex idea, namely the game. This is clearly demonstrated by the total lack of rules available in the manuals for Computer Games. Rules exist at the implementation level and are of no interest to the player. This is not to say that players are not aware of the implications and at some level bound by them, just they are now free to immerse in the game without the need to understand it first as an abstract set of rules. That understanding will come at a more fundamental level through the exploration of the game. Computer Games can still be expressed as rules, but honestly, who cares? Rules are now used for everything from business databases through to describing the standard way to use a motor vehicle on a public road. There is no reason for players to be burdened with a set of rules for a Computer Game, because with the software silently enforcing them all, there is no way the player can break them (beyond the developers leaving bugs in the software). The players can now become immersed in the game without the need to keep a mental eye on themselves to see that they are not breaking any rules. This may enhance

Duncan C. Blair

- 75 -


immersion, while also resulting in a greater sense of interruption when some inconsistency in the rules of the game jars their understanding of what should happen. The exception is where the players might agree on an additional rule, which the software as referee does not know about. For example, the players agree between themselves to play a game like Doom [Id_Software, 1993] without using any health packs. This allows players to extend and modify their games into different experiences but is outside the scope of the actual software artefact under examination. An example of this is Doom Speed Demos [Opulent, 2003] in which the players are attempting to get through a level of doom as rapidly as possible and record their progress as a demo movie. Figure 3-15 summarises the game Elements from prior works that deal with games as rules. Author


Greg Costikyan

None Applicable

Roger E. Pedersen

None Applicable

Andrew Rollings and

Artificial Universe governed by rules


Rules governing action

Aki Javinen

None Applicable

Jesper Juul

Games are Rules Based

Chris Crawford 1982

None Applicable

Chris Crawford 2003

None Applicable

Richard A. Bartle /

None Applicable


Rules

Mark J. P. Wolf

Rules


System of reasonable, unbreakable Rules

Dempsey et al.

Rule-guided

Figure 3-15 Author Elements referenced under Rules Rules are not an indicator that an activity is a Computer Games. Firstly because virtually no Computer Game available directly exposes any rules for the consumer to see. Secondly, because any piece of software and a great many non-game activities can be expressed as a rule set. Duncan C. Blair

- 76 -


Games on the other hand may be turning out to have implications for teaching rules for real world systems. This is being examined in What games have to teach us about Learning and Literacy [James Paul Gee, 2003].

3.1.1.6 NON-ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS The Elements listed in Figure 3-16 that were not covered in the discussion to this point will now be examined individually to determine if they can shed further light on the subject of the identification of Computer Games. Author

Elements

Greg Costikyan

Simulation, Role-playing, Socialising, Narrative Tension

Roger E. Pedersen

Non-Linear, Start Position

Andrew Rollings and

None Applicable


Required Equipment

Aki Jarvinen

Components

Jesper Juul

The player is emotionally attached to the outcome, Its it optional whether a game has real-life consequences

Chris Crawford 1982

None Applicable

Chris Crawford 2003

Apparent Complexity

Richard A. Bartle /

Cannot be extended by Players


None Applicable

Mark J. P. Wolf

None Applicable


None Applicable

Dempsey et al.

None Applicable

Figure 3-16 Author Elements not yet Addressed Greg Costikyan in the article I have No Words & I Must Design, was writing about pen and paper based role-playing games when this list was compiled. As such,

Duncan C. Blair

- 77 -


there are a number of Elements that are included which are quite valid but appear more idealised than essential. Simulation is a widely used term and while the simulation of Focus Activities is at the core of the idea behind games, the inclusion of such a fuzzy term in the discussion cannot help but add confusion. So while simulation is a major component in spirit, it will be quietly ignored for the sake of clarity. Role-playing is another component of some activities while being immaterial to others. This element highlights the origin of the article without adding anything significant to the discussion. Socialising has nothing to do with many activities. It is again a desirable component of some while being immaterial to others. Narrative Tension reveals that the article was written during one of the on going debates about storytelling in pen and paper role-playing games. While it is certainly a valuable and worthwhile component of anything involving narrative, it has no particular value for a great many activities that may form the basis of a game.

Roger E. Pedersen in the book Game Design Foundations, was writing about Computer Games and specifically on the topic of their design. Non-linear relates to diverging paths with the game. This extends the idea of the player making meaningful decisions that affect the outcome of the game. This is a valuable and worthwhile concept for games, while being awkwardly expressed. Start Position suggests that a game should have a known starting configuration. This may be useful and valuable for some game activities but causes many others to be rather deterministic and predictable; the idea of knowing exactly where all the obstacles are as opposed to a randomly generated scenario forces a game to become more of a memory challenge rather than an activity challenge. This should not be confused with the concept that a game must be started. Players should never slowly realise that they are playing a game and have been for some time. The player must agree to play the game and accept that they are safe from real world harm before a game can begin.

Elliot M. Avedon in the book section The Structural Elements of Games, was doing field research for anthropology, as such, the basis of his list of Elements is the games that he observed and described. Duncan C. Blair

- 78 -


Required Equipment for a Computer Games is assumed to be, a computer and any additional interface equipment required. There exist various pieces of specifically designed equipment for playing Video Games, such as joysticks and game consoles. However, these can be utilised for other purposes so do not provide a means to identify Computer Games.

Aki Jarvinen’s work in Making and Breaking Games: A Typology of Rules, is to do specifically with Computer Games. The thesis paper this material was drawn from is still under development and so may change. Components are a term used to encapsulate all the Elements within a game; this includes player representation tokens and all the Elements that the player can interact with and influence, which is everything in the game. This is a little too abstract to be applicable and so does not provide a means to identify Computer Games.

Jesper Juul’s work is summarised within Aki Jarvinen’s thesis paper above, so the exact meaning and intention of his definition of game components may not be as clear as could be hoped. The player is emotionally attached to the outcome. The statement points towards the cognitive state of players. While players may in fact invest emotionally in a game, the amount and the nature of that investment is beyond the scope of this work. It would seem apparent that motivation is an important factor in many games however, the exact nature is difficult to determine from the game, the identification of which is the focus of this work. It is optional whether a game has real-life consequences. This statement alludes to the on-going discussion about the separation between real-life and games. This appears to be based on implications of the need for safety in a game space and the suggestion that any real-life consequence might compromise this safety. This would logically not be the case. As a game in which the focus activity is illegal street racing, such as Need for Speed: Hot Pursuit 2 [Electronic_Arts, 2002] has the requirement for safety based on the player not being harmed while engaged in the activity of illegal street racing. There is no reason why the player cannot bet on the outcome of the game or play the game while engaged in other high-risk activities as these in no way compromise the safety of player from the game activity. Proposition 1 in Chapter 1 also deals with this point. Duncan C. Blair

- 79 -


The other side of the argument is that realistically the playing of games always has real world consequences. Players spend time, energy and electricity playing games. They pay real money for the equipment and media to access the games and their investment depreciates over the course of playing the game. Games are also being acknowledged as having some cognitive effects, players learn to play the game and may learn transferable sills such as problem solving; if books such as What Video Games Have to Teach Us about Learning and Literacy [James Paul Gee, 2003] are to be believed. It seems incredulous to attempt to suggest that playing games do not have reallife consequences. It is only a question of the type, magnitude and the eventual consequences of those effects. This however is not a useful element in the identification of Computer Games.

Chris Crawford has been writing about Computer Games for a respectable amount of time. The book Chris Crawford on Game Design, deals specifically with Computer Games but is applicable to other forms of game. Apparent Complexity refers to the argument that if a player can figure out how a Computer Game works then it becomes more a puzzle than a game; Crawford considers puzzles not to be games. This is a contestable argument because for a player to play any game they are required to figure it out to some degree. For them to interact with any object in a game they must understand it in a way that its behaviour becomes predictable. This is not to say that they must understand everything about it, but enough to achieve their goals. The total complexity of the game may be too great for the player to conceptualise the totality as a single integrated puzzle, but it is still quite feasible to decompose the whole and approach each small part as a puzzle solving exercise. This argument is weak when the game system becomes too fast or each scenario is too complex for the player to take the time to understand all the important parts and their interactions. This is also dependant on the amount of information the game system returns to the player, by reducing the amount of information the player has available to them and their ease of access to it, even a simple exercise can become complex. The converse of this argument is that if there is a lower limit to the complexity of a game before it is classed as a puzzle, is there an upper limit, beyond which the activity becomes something else? Fundamentally, complexity is a characteristic of the Duncan C. Blair

- 80 -


player not the game. It depends on their ability to understand a system. As this cannot be guaranteed to be uniform across all players, this argument would result in the same activity being classified as different things by different people. This does not result in a reproducible classification. As such, this proposed characteristic does not provide a useful means to identify Computer Games, rather this is a desirable characteristic.

Pavel Curtis was writing about MUD’s in the paper discussed in Designing Virtual Worlds [Richard A. Bartle, 2003] that this quote was derived from. The point was actually being used to describe MUD’s relative to Adventure-style Computer Games. These are a style of text-based game, which allows the player to navigate around a fixed environment performing activities such as exploration and puzzle solving. Cannot be extended by Player; This statement makes an interesting point about the nature of a game while games have been produced for quite some time with additional editors that allowed the player to add content to the game and extended the life of the product. This is not the meaning of the statement; this refers to the nature of MUDs', which were at that stage able to have content built into them by the players as they chose. Some MUD systems allowed players to make fundamental changes that expanded the available command set and enriched the range of possible actions a player or more correctly a user could perform. The extension of a game beyond its focus activity into a more general-purpose system should be considered as a bad thing. For a user to be able to do that as a part of normal play would turn the product from a game into something else. Where the player is able to add and change rules and content in the system, there is no longer any reason for the player to be bound by the rules that exist. Games like Magic The Gathering [Wizards_of_the_Coast_Inc, 1993] provide a way for the players to modify the core rules of the game using cards which effect the way the game is played after they are played. These modifications are strictly controlled to maintain balance and do not constitute the player having freedom to modify the game.

Duncan C. Blair

- 81 -


3.2

PROPOSED CHARACTERISTICS OF COMPUTER GAME DEFINITION

This thesis is primarily concerned with examining Computer Games based on their characteristics as a game. The properties of the software representation of the game are of less interest. As such for the purpose of this thesis, Software Product will be considered as referring to the software package that may represent one or more Computer Games. Computer Game will be considered to refer to a single specific game implemented by a Software Product(s). All the characteristics identified to this point will now be brought together to form a definition of Computer Game which can be used to identify a Population to be classified. Game Play Characteristics Focused Activity(s) Variability of Performance Challenge Meaningful Decision Making Immersive Context Cues Scenario, Scenario Goals, Scenario Payoff Theme, Style, Colour, Backstory Player Action Evaluation Characteristics Performance Ideal Performance Evaluation Information Success States Conclusion Format Range of Outcomes Diegetic Environment Characteristics Subtracted Real world Elements Added game-space Elements Player Representation Characteristics Played By Human(s) Unreal Player Abilities and Properties Interaction Model Player Ability Model Player Information Model Duncan C. Blair

- 82 -


Figure 3-17 Summary of Characteristics for Definition of Game The summary list of characteristics in Figure 3-17 will now form the basis of an identification system for Computer Games. This will allow systematic identification and further establish a set of criteria upon which to construct a classification system in the next chapter.

3.3

TEST FOR IDENTIFYING THE COMPUTER GAME POPULATION

The test is structured to evaluate a candidate against the set of Characteristics that have been described above. The test provides a means to identify reasons to reject a candidate member from the population of Computer Games. The first part assesses the abstract activity against Propositions 1, 3 and 4 in Chapter 1. These criterions serve to reduce the potential population of members to only those abstract activities that are represented by computer Software. Proposition 2 is the basis for the characteristic part of the test and so is not addressed individually.

Test Acceptance rule: To be accepted as a Computer Game, the Candidate member must meets the Proposition criterion and express all Characteristics considered essential to a game. Propositions

Assessment

Is encapsulate-able in a play agreement Is represented in computer Software Is identifiable independent of representation Characteristics

Assessment

Game Play Focused Activity(s) Variability of Performance Challenge Meaningful Decision Making Immersive Context Cues Scenario, Scenario Goals, Scenario Payoff Theme, Style, Colour, Backstory Duncan C. Blair

- 83 -


Player Action Evaluation Performance Ideal Performance Evaluation Information Success States Conclusion Format Range of Outcomes Diegetic Environment Subtracted Real world Elements Added game-space Elements Player Representation Played By Human(s) Unreal Player Abilities and Properties Interaction Model Player Ability Model Player Information Model Figure 3-18 the Computer Game Identification Test Template The first three Elements are based on the highlighted Propositions mentioned in an earlier section. These obviously are open to a certain amount of challenge. This should not be confused with the test being indecisive. Part of the application of the test should determine the amount of variability permitted in each of these characteristics

3.3.1 DEMONSTRATION OF THE IDENTIFICATION TEST

The above outlined test will be applied to a range of candidate members to demonstrate its application. Sample data items will be drawn from two classes of product. Firstly, items will be drawn from the available products that have been marketed as Computer Games or similar. This includes some Edutainment and socalled software toys. The second class of products are those that have been marketed as other than Computer Games. Again, this sample will be drawn from the products available. These products include productivity, graphics creation and manipulation, text editors, game editors and system utilities.

Duncan C. Blair

- 84 -


A clear distinction must be made at this point between Product and game. Of the products marketed as Computer Games, a number display the possibility of implementing multiple discreet games. Where possible the single player or Main game option will be evaluated. This in no way suggests that the rest of the potential games implemented by the product have been assessed, as some of the products appear to be able to generate a great many similar games. These will not be individually assessed, as this would generate a great deal of repetitious data of no benefit to the demonstration.

3.3.1.1 SAMPLE SELECTION No attempt has been made to simulate a random sampling process, as this would have no credibility. This is due to the lack of means to compile comprehensive lists of the potential population of Computer Games and secondly for the researcher to realistically access a significant portion of that population if it were part of such a list. As such, the sample products have been selected to provide as much diversity as possible from those available. As this is a demonstration rather than a formal test, bias may exist within the samples selected; however, this does not invalidate the demonstration. This demonstration is not intended to simulate a statistical experiment and so the quantity of samples reflects the number of possible samples that are available rather than being a statistically significant number. The samples are restricted to computer software, as it should be obvious that any thing, which is not computer software, will fail the acceptance rule and would add little value to the conclusions available from the demonstration. Figure 3-19 lists the first part of the population of potential Computer Games drawn from products marketed as Computer Games. These products will be tested to see if what they implement should not be considered as Computer Games. These products potentially represent more than one Computer Game each. As such, they will be examined using their default settings as much as possible rather than attempting to examine all potential games. Where there is a choice the Single-player Mode will be selected and examined. Refer to Chapter 4 for a discussion of modes. Figure 3-20 lists the second part of the population of potential Computer Games. These products are not marketed as representing any Computer Games. These

Duncan C. Blair

- 85 -


products will be tested to see if what they do represent should not be considered as a Computer Game. Class 1 – Products marketed as Computer Games Index Product

Description

1

Multi-player trivia

You don’t know Jack [Berkeley_Systems and Jellyvision, 1995]

2

Myst [Cyan and Red Orb

Single Player Puzzle / Exploration

Entertainment, 1994] 3

Tetris [Crystal_Office_Systems,

Single Player tetranomio stacking puzzle

1999] 4

Serious Sam: The Second

Multi Mode Third person outdoor shooter

Encounter [Croteam_Ltd and A

(Single Player game Evaluated)

Few Screws Loose, 2002] 5

Need For Speed: Hot Pursuit 2

Multi mode Simulation allowing player to

[Electronic_Arts, 2002]

mimic an illegal street racing driver in various competitive modes (Single Player pursuit mode Evaluated)

6

Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos

Multi mode goal driven fantasy strategy

[Blizzard_Entertainment, 2002]

game (Single Player Campaign Evaluated at Normal Difficulty)

7

8

Sim City 3000

Single player simulation of city planner

[Maxis_Software_Inc, 1999]

manager

Creatures 2

Virtual Pet breeding environment

[Cyberlife_Technology_Ltd, 1998] 9

Super Mario 64 [Nintendo,

Single Player Platform Adventure

1996] 10

Zoombinis Logical Journey

Single Player math and logic puzzles

[The_Learning_Company, Unknown] 11

Worms World Party [Team_17,

Multi-mode Side Scrolling turn based

2001]

tactical shooter (Single Player Death-

Duncan C. Blair

- 86 -


Match Mode Evaluated) 12

Daedalian Opus [Vic Tokai,

Single player serial puzzles

1990] Figure 3-19 Example Products of Class 1 - Marketed as Computer Games Class 2 – Products marked as not Computer Games Index Product

Description

13

Graphics Creation and Manipulation

Adobe Photoshop 5 [Adobe_Systems_Incorporated, 1998]

14

Microsoft Windows XP

PC Operating System

[Microsoft_Corporation, 2002] 15

Microsoft Word XP

Word Processor Suite

[Microsoft_Corporation, 2002] 16

Opera 6.03 [Opera_Software, 2002]

Web Browser Suite

17

Eudora 5.1

Email Suite

[QUALCOMM_Incorporated, 2000] 18

Winamp 2.5 [Nullsoft_Inc, 1999]

Digital Media Player

19

Serious Editor [CroTeam_Ltd, 2001]

Scenario Media Creation Tool for Serious Sam: The Second Encounter

20

Visual C++ 6

Programming Environment

[Microsoft_Corporation, 2000] Figure 3-20 Example Products of Class 2 - Not Marketed as Computer Games

3.3.1.2 TEST DEMONSTRATION PROCEDURE AND RESULTS Each product will be assessed on the Propositions and Characteristics with the aim of determining if there is sufficient reason not to consider it a Computer Game. In the case where the Candidate does not meet a Proposition or posses a Characteristic, the Candidate will be rejected from the population of Computer Games. Figure 3-21 shows an example of assessment results for Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos [Blizzard Entertainment, 2002] (Single Player Campaign Mode at Normal Difficulty). The assessment is that there is no evidence presented by the test to reject what is Duncan C. Blair

- 87 -


represented by this sample from the population of Computer Games. As such Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos [Blizzard Entertainment, 2002] (Single Player Campaign Mode at Normal Difficulty) is considered as a Computer Game by this test. Propositions

Assessment

Is encapsulate-able in a play agreement

Yes

Is represented in computer Software

Yes

Is identifiable independent of representation

Yes

Characteristics

Assessment

Game Play

Yes

Focused Activity(s) Variability of Performance Challenge Meaningful Decision Making Immersive Context Cues

Yes

Scenario, Scenario Goals, Scenario Payoff Theme, Style, Colour, Backstory Yes

Player Action Evaluation Performance Ideal Performance Evaluation Information Success States

Yes

Conclusion Format Range of Outcomes Yes

Diegetic Environment Subtracted Real world Elements Added game-space Elements

Yes

Player Representation Played By Human(s) Unreal Player Abilities and

Properties

Interaction Model

Yes

Player Ability Model Player Information Model Figure 3-21 Example Assessment 1 - Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos [Blizzard_Entertainment, 2002] (Single Player Campaign Mode at Normal Difficulty) Duncan C. Blair

- 88 -


Figure 3-22 shows the second example test results, for Adobe Photoshop 5[Adobe_Systems_Incorporated, 1998]. The result of the test is that there is sufficient evidence to reject what is implemented by this sample from the population of Computer Games. The conclusion is that Adobe Photoshop 5 [Adobe_Systems_Incorporated, 1998] is not considered a Computer Game by this test. Propositions

Assessment

Is encapsulate-able in a play agreement

Yes

Is represented in computer Software

Yes

Is identifiable independent of representation

No

Characteristics

Assessment

Game Play

General

Focused Activity(s)

Purpose Tool,

Variability of Performance

No Intrinsic

Challenge

Challenge

Meaningful Decision Making Immersive Context Cues

None

Scenario, Scenario Goals, Scenario Payoff Theme, Style, Colour, Backstory Player Action Evaluation

No Performance

Performance Ideal

Ideal, No

Performance Evaluation Information


Success States

No

Conclusion Format Range of Outcomes Diegetic Environment

Reproduces real

Subtracted Real world Elements

world painting,

Added game-space Elements

Adds missing tools

Player Representation

Yes

Played By Human(s) Duncan C. Blair

- 89 -


Unreal Player Abilities and

Properties

Interaction Model

Enhances real

Player Ability Model

world ability

Player Information Model

without adding anything unreal

Figure 3-22 Example Application 2 - Adobe Photoshop 5 [Adobe_Systems_Incorporated, 1998] Figure 3-23 presents a summary of the conclusions from the remaining tests for the samples. Product

Conclusion

Index 1

Insufficient Evidence to reject the sample as a Computer Game

2


3


4


5


6


7

Lacks meaningful feedback on the progress of the player due to no baseline to compare performance against, No Conclusion Format, No success states. This provides sufficient evidence to reject this product as a Computer Game. (Simple City Process Simulator)

8

Lacks meaningful feedback on the progress of the player due to no baseline to compare performance against; No Conclusion Format, No Success states. This provides sufficient evidence to reject this product as a Computer Game. (A-life Simulator)

9


10


11


12

There is no meaningful feedback on the performance of the player as there is no baseline for performance with the software. The player is provided with the time taken to complete a puzzle without any judgment being provided. This provides sufficient evidence to reject this product as a

Duncan C. Blair

- 90 -


Computer Game. (A collection of puzzles with a stopwatch) 13

Not considered a Computer Game by the users, The product is a generalpurpose tool suite, No intrinsic challenges to performance of Activities, No immersive context for the Activity, No Performance Ideal and hence no performance evaluation information, There is no attempt to remove real world interference or add unreal Elements, Enhances real world ability without adding anything unreal. This provides sufficient evidence to reject this product as a Computer Game.

14

The product is a general-purpose middle ware component, There is no focus activity, There is no meaningful evaluation of the users’ activity, There is no conclusion and hence no concept of success or failure. This provides sufficient evidence to reject this product as a Computer Game.

15

There is no focus activity, There is no conclusion and hence no concept of success or failure. This provides sufficient evidence to reject this product as a Computer Game.

16

There is no focus activity, There is no conclusion and hence no concept of success or failure, This provides sufficient evidence to reject this product as a Computer Game. (This product however can implement embedded games in HTML, Flash and Java this was not Evaluated)

17

There is no conclusion and hence no concept of success or failure. This provides sufficient evidence to reject this product as a Computer Game.

18

There is no focus activity, There is no conclusion and hence no concept of success or failure. There is no Diegetic Environment. (Everything happens for real), There is no player (user) representation. This provides sufficient evidence to reject this product as a Computer Game.

19

The product is not considered a Computer Game by the users. There is no focus activity There is no conclusion and hence no concept of success or failure, There is no player (user) representation. This provides sufficient evidence to reject this product as a Computer Game. (This product also supports testing of game levels within the editor. This however is not the main mode of the product, which is a complex 3d editing environment. This would be a case of a product implementing both a productivity application

Duncan C. Blair

- 91 -


and a game. The game however was not evaluated) 20

There is no focus activity; There is no player (user) representation. This provides sufficient evidence to reject this product as a Computer Game. (This system can test software, so can be programmed to represent a game. This however was not Evaluated.) Figure 3-23 Conclusions from application of test to Sample Products

3.4

SUMMARY

This chapter has examined the methods of identifying a population of Computer Games. By examining the way identification has been approached in prior works, it was determined that a method for defining a population is based on developing a definition for the term game. This was approached by examining the critical Elements important to games as identified by prior works. The Elements from these works were collated to form the basis for a simple test that allows a population to be defined. This test can be applied to determine if there is evidence to reject what is represented by a software product from the population of Computer Games. This test was then applied to a brief range of products to demonstrate its application. Chapter 4 builds on this work by examining ways to classify the population that has been defined by the test developed in this Chapter.

Duncan C. Blair

- 92 -


Chapter - 4

Characteristics for Classification of

Computer Games

The previous chapter looked at the first part of a classification system, which is the definition of the population being classified. This chapter looks at determining a set of characteristics that are shared by the members of the population, which has been identified. This provides the key structure of the classification system. The values for these characteristics that are expressed by the members of the population then provide the means to differentiate between one member and another. These members can then be arranged into groups based on their shared similarities of these values. The next chapter builds on this one by looking at some of the ways groups can be developed from the characteristics identified in this chapter to provide a method for researchers to define chunks of the population sharing common characteristics and discuss them in a consistent way without ambiguity. Fundamentally, a classification system is a language shared between an author and a reader. It provides a systematic method to describe groups and single members within a specific population. By clearly identifying the characteristics before forming groups, allows the reader to understand not only the classification of a specific member, but also what that implies about the members relationships to all other members of the population, how they are similar and any points of difference. The benefits of a systematic classification system are varied depending on the task. It should provide a way for authors to describe conceptually different chunks of the population without providing endless specific examples to illustrate a point. This provides a means to draw representative examples from different sections of the population for conducting population-spanning experiments. More important than just discussing games, a classification scheme allows inferences to be drawn about the population being classified. Readers can now grasp the whole design space in a structured way and conceptualise it. Designers of Computer Games can see unexplored space as well as the explored areas. They can see

Duncan C. Blair

- 93 -


how different games relate to each other and draw inferences about why one was successful and another failed. This research is seeking to develop a classification system for Computer Games that has a number of specific properties. As a classification system, it requires completeness, specificity and no ambiguity; meaning it must span the current population and the potential population; it must not classify products outside the population and the results must be reproducible in the future. The other properties are that the classification system sorts games based on game structure characteristics. This specifically is to facilitate exploration of the design space of Computer Games. The chapter begins with an examination of problems found in current classification systems. These provide an overview of the different methods that have been employed and attempts to map the reasoning behind them. A characteristics matrix based on the characteristics used in the identification test presented in a previous chapter will then be developed and demonstrated. This will form the basis for the next chapter to explore the development of groups.

4.1

ASPECTS OF CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS FOR COMPUTER GAMES

By examining the existing systems and specifically the weaknesses which prevent their being applicable for this research, a system will be illustrated which is able to classify Computer Games from a Design Perspective. Currently there are a number of different styles of classification system being applied to Computer Games; each of these styles will be examined in turn.

4.1.1 METHODS FOR DEVELOPING CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS

The review of the prior work in Chapter 2 revealed that there are two distinct styles of classification, which have been applied to Computer Games. The first will be described as the Group-first methodology, where a group is described using an ideal notion of what a member of that group should be like. Members of the population are placed into the group if they match the description. This is illustrated by Figure 4-1. There are two slight variations on the Group-first methodology. The first establishes the description of the group as an ideal or convention. The second describes the group Duncan C. Blair

- 94 -


as a set of characteristics with values in specified ranges. Both variations result in a similar system, with the members of the population to be classified being placed into a group, which reflects their description.

Figure 4-1 Group-first Classification Examples applying this methodology can be found in The Medium of the Video Game [Mark J. P. Wolf, 2001] and The Art of Computer Game Design [Chris Crawford, 1982]. Groups must be defined to cover the complete range of values for a minimum of one characteristic common to all members of the population to achieve complete coverage of the population.

The second methodology will be described as the Characteristic-first methodology, where a characteristic or set of characteristics are found which are common to all members of the population. Each member is then classified into groups depending on the value of the characteristic expressed by the member. Characteristic-first means that a classification is generated by combination of a set of characteristic/value pair with each characteristics occurring only once in the description of a particular member. The method demonstrated in EGGG: The Extensible Graphical Games Generator [Jon Orwant, 2000] uses a matrix to arrange the characteristics and values; illustrated in Figure 4-2. Alternate methods use a hierarchy of nodes as in a formal taxonomy; illustrated in Figure 4-3. This system works where members of the population can be split into families that all share one particular set of characteristics and values while no members of the population do.

Duncan C. Blair

- 95 -


Figure 4-2 Characteristic-first Classification using a Matrix

Figure 4-3 Characteristic-first Classification using a Hierarchy of Nodes A classification for a member is represented by the grey values for the characteristics. The use of a table rather than a hierarchy to arrange the nodes allows games to be composed of any combination of values and includes the potential for multiple values for a single characteristic. Another example of Characteristic First Classification is the system presented in Online Game Interactivity Theory [Markus Friedl, 2003] which does not present the system as a table, rather just as a set of descriptions of the characteristics and the values. This achieves the same result while being less graphically appealing. Like the previous methodology, members of the population can be collected into defined groups based on the values for the characteristics identified in the population. This method reduces ambiguity by determining what the representative values for the population are before defining the groups. We will now examine the problems shared by these methods and follow with an examination of problems specific to them individually.

Duncan C. Blair

- 96 -


4.1.2 PROBLEMS COMMON TO BOTH METHODOLOGIES

This sections looks at problems that were observed in both systems implementing both methodologies. This is followed by sections examining problems observed predominantly in the systems grouped under each separate methodology.

4.1.2.1 DEFINING THE POPULATION - COMPLETENESS AND SPECIFICITY A number of the current classification systems are built without any definite means of determining the population being classified. The lack of any identification process for the candidate population means that the classification system cannot be proven complete or specific. Completeness is the ability of a classification system to address the whole population. Specificity is the ability to classify only the population.

Figure 4-4 Venn diagram of Identified and Classified Populations There is a direct relationship between an identification system used to define a population and a classification system used to classify it. In Figure 4-4 the white oval represents the identified population and the grey the classified population. Since the identification of the population must precede the classification, the classification system must match populations with the Identification system. For the classification systems discussed in chapter 2 to attempt to classify a population without explicitly identifying it is a weakness. It will always remain unclear as to the success of the classification system. It can be assumed that the systems without explicitly identified populations are operating on what is accepted as Duncan C. Blair

- 97 -


the common understanding of the population of Computer Games. However, as has been discussed in the previous chapter, this is an ever-moving target.

4.1.2.2 NOMENCLATURE –NAMING CONVENTIONS The naming systems used for classification systems have traditionally been left to the whim of the author. Some of the systems described in prior works take an approach where the selection of names for a group is descriptive or in the case of Caillios where the names are seemingly drawn from any archaic languages available. As a number of the obvious descriptive names have appeared in common usage in various Genre systems, this carries some risk of misunderstanding if they are reused by another classification system. This risk is mitigated by the author of the classification system by documenting their use in the system and removing any misunderstanding. In general, the naming systems applied by the various authors cannot be criticized. They meet the requirements of names in that they are unique within the system. The creation and application of a systematic naming convention for elements of a classification system can mitigate the problems with names. However in the event this produces non-sensical or confusing names, the system can render a Classification system useless. Nomenclature is a problem for the Group-first Systems only in the selection of names for the Groups in the system. This problem is compounded with the increase in the number of groups in some systems. If the groups are arranged in a flat structure such as a list, ambiguity can creep in where group names are similar. Where the groups are arranged in a hierarchy of generalized/specialised groups and the relationship is reflected in the group name, problems can be encountered with the length of names becoming unmanageable. Nomenclature affects Characteristic-first Systems in the selection of names for both the Characteristics of the system and the Values for the Characteristics; as these names provide the internal language of the system this can generate a large number of terms that must be understood and documented to remove ambiguity.

Duncan C. Blair

- 98 -


4.1.2.3 ABSTRACTION IN DESCRIPTIONS Classification systems rely on defining descriptions for Groups or Characteristics and Values. These descriptions are always to some extent abstract. There exists a constant trade off between producing an abstract description that can be generally applied and using concrete examples that may be only narrowly applicable which can produce inconsistency in the system. How a Classification system deals with this trade-off will determine the degree of expressiveness and complexity of a system. 4.1.2.3.1 ABSTRACT GROUPS Groups in classification systems are always an abstraction. They are designed to encapsulate the common nature of all the members of the group. The only control the designer has is how much the group abstracts the real values of its members. An example of an abstract system is found in The Art of Computer Game Design [Chris Crawford, 1982]. The system has groups that are designed to find common nature between hundreds of games. Consequently they describe very little of the unique nature of each game. It is worth noting that this system is attempting to encapsulate the whole nature of the game into one concise term. This produces a very lowresolution description of each game. 4.1.2.3.2 ABSTRACT CHARACTERISTICS AND VALUES The characteristics chosen to describe some aspect of a game can similarly be designed to cover a larger or finer amount of the nature of the game. Where a system attempts to encapsulate the whole nature of the game in a single characteristic, the characteristic must consequently be abstract enough to cover all the possible variations or reduce them all to a consistent same. Characteristics do not operate alone; they are always partnered with values. The characteristic provides a structured and consistent way to manage the information in the values. Consequently, characteristics can describe simple or complex ideas, but the abstraction is implemented in the value.

Abstract Values are challenging to create well; as they require increasing amounts of explanation for the users as the values become more abstract. The Duncan C. Blair

- 99 -


intentions of the designer need to be very well described. This works well for simple characteristics as is shown in the system EGGG: The Extensible Graphical Game Generator [Jon Orwant, 2000]. However for characteristics of any complexity the more abstract the values, the more chance they will become ambiguous; perhaps not in the eyes of the designer but in the eyes of the readers who do not have the designers understanding of the abstraction. This usually results in the designer having to provide a range of concrete examples of the abstract value in an attempt to explain their ideas. The benefit of abstract values is that there exists the ability to cover a great deal of the possible range of values of a characteristic.

Concrete Values suffer from multiplicity of names. Similar concepts can be described in a number of ways. This may result in a characteristic having a large number of similar values. Concrete values will be discovered as they are implemented in games rather than being known before hand. Some may possibly be guessed, however completeness in a system may be difficult to achieve with this method. The benefit of concrete values is that they are simpler to understand and apply without the extensive descriptions required for ones that are more abstract. The multiplicity of names can also be seen as a benefit, as a characteristic with a great deal of values would tend to suggest one that has been explored quite thoroughly. In summary, the amount of information, which must be expressed by a classification system, remains constant. Abstraction allows some of the descriptive information to be represented by abbreviations so the system can become more concise in its expressive power. However, the information has just been relocated to the supporting descriptions for each abbreviation. For a classification system that is being used by domain experts, this may be sufficient. However, for systems which must be accessible to readers who are not domain experts it may prove more useful to keep much of the explanation within the terms used rather than the supporting descriptions. The systems examined in the literature review vary in their degree of abstraction. Most rely on single word names for characteristics and values. These consequently require extensive supporting descriptions with the additional cognitive load associated with learning the system and applying it.

Duncan C. Blair

- 100 -


4.1.2.4 NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE GAME AND REPRESENTATION OF THE GAME A number of the systems in prior works do not make a distinction between the terms “Computer Game” meaning a Software Product and “Computer Game” meaning the abstract game represented by the Software Product. These works present a classification system that is based on characteristics of both the game and the implementation software. Examples of this are found in Online Game Interactivity Theory [Markus Friedl, 2003] which characterizes Computer Games based on the way that Software which represents Some games makes use of Computer Networks. Playing Together: A Taxonomy of Multi-User Video Games [Wai-ling Ho-Ching, Kori M. Inkpen and Katherine Mason] presents a system that uses a characteristic of the Software implementation to define the population of games being studied. This work defined the population by restricting the Computer Games being studied to those on home Video Consoles. This is in part due to the list of samples that the study was based on; which were drawn from the games available for the Nintendo64™ home Video Console. The following section presents a list of a number of different implementation models for Computer Games. As the examination of how Computer Games are implemented is not the primary focus of this research they will be examined briefly and left for future research to describe in more detail. The models presented are by no means a complete list of all the possible combinations. There are infinite ways Computer Games can be implemented and combined in Software Package with other Application Software. The following examination of models seeks to highlight their existence and present a number of forms that have been observed in Software Products to assist with clarifying the distinction being made between the Software Products and games. 4.1.2.4.1 COMPUTER GAME IMPLEMENTATION MODELS If we can differentiate between two games implemented as different Software Products, such as Tetris [Crystal_Office_Systems, 1999] and 3D Pinball for Windows [Microsoft_Corporation, 2001] which use the same middle-ware (Operating System) then its reasonable to differentiate between two games which share some software components such as those in Shanghai Dynasty[Activision_Inc, 1997]. This game Duncan C. Blair

- 101 -


contains a number of Mah-jongg variants, which share the same graphical interface. The opposite of this is a game which requires multiple software components such as Diablo II [Blizzard_Entertainment, 2000] when in multi-player mode. Diablo II uses a client/server model for multi-player mode across Blizzard Entertainment’s Battle.net™ game servers. The basic model for a Computer Game Software Product is of a single game with some supporting options and maybe a help system. An example would be Solitaire [Microsoft_Corporation, 2001], which demonstrates the One product equals One Game model.

Figure 4-5 Basic Computer Game Software Product Model This model is still being conceptually used as the basis for the term Computer Game. However, this is no longer the only model for Computer Game Software Products. 4.1.2.4.1.1 S I N G L E S O F T W A R E P R O D U C T - M U L T I P L E G A M E M O D E L S Along with the One product equals One Game model described above, there are a number of variations on the single product model with illustrate the argument that games must be referenced independent of the software package.

Duncan C. Blair

- 102 -


Figure 4-6 Computer Game Software Product with Multiple Games Possibly, due to the demands of the customer expectations or the desire for designers to provide more game play for the same development cost, game products are now being released which contain a number of individual games. Often these are single player and multi-player versions of the same idea. This model no longer agrees with the assumption of “One product equals one Game”. These are appearing in a number of quite different formats: •

Game Packs – A collection of unrelated games with a common software interface.

•

Multiple Modes of Play products – The product supports a range of different modes of play, Eg single player, multi-player and Massive Multi-player, differentiated by modifications in the rules and outcomes.

•

Variations – The same base game with a range of difficulty settings and modification options.

•

Scenario Collections – The same game engine applied to a range of different pre-made or generated stand-alone scenarios.

•

Random Game Generators – Each game is uniquely generated.

The next variation, which challenges the single product/single game model, is the inclusion of a game in another non-game software product. The addition of games as “Easter Eggs” in some products is one form of this practice. This is the practice of Duncan C. Blair

- 103 -


hiding a game inside another product. This happens erratically in different versions of software as a form of humour by the developers. Examples are Microsoft Excel 97 [Microsoft_Corporation, 1997] which contains a small flight simulator, Macromedia Flash 4 [Macromedia_Inc] which contains a game called Gary’s Car Jump Game, Macromedia Flash 5 [Macromedia_Inc] which contains a variant of Tetris and Macromedia Homesite 5 [Macromedia_Inc] contains a game involving matching HTML tags in outer space. A more recognized form of this occurs with the chat software MSN Messenger that includes a selection of games that can be played by people while chatting. These are not hidden in any way, rather are presented as a value-adding feature of the system. Mobile phones have used this style of integrated game as a means to differentiate different models from competing products. While these games may be separate products to the developer, often they are presented as an integrated product to the consumer. More recent high-end phone models allow additional games to be downloaded from the Internet, which gives the phone user the chance to see the games again as unique products.

Figure 4-7 Productivity Software with embedded Game(s) The tradition of software “Easter Egg” games is also popular with Computer Game developers with products such as Final Fantasy IX [SquareSoft, 2000] containing a Black Jack game hidden in the end screen of the game and EverQuest [Verant_Interactive, 1999] having a Gems game hidden in the interface. Games which overtly contain other games is a variation on this which is seen in such games as Donkey Kong 64[Rare_Ltd, 2000], Banjo-Kazooie [Rare_Ltd, 1998], and Crash Bandicoot [Naughty_Dog, 1996]. Mario Party [Hudson_Soft, 1998] is an Duncan C. Blair

- 104 -


extreme example that contains dozens of Mini-games, which all have different rules affecting the way the player(s) interacts with the environment and each other. The term Mini-game has been applied to describe these short, simple games-within-games. Each game has its own challenge, rules and outcomes. These examples are all components of the main game however, with the results of the mini-game flowing through into the main game with some benefits to the player.

Figure 4-8 Mini-games - A Game within a Game Variations on these ideas, with multiple games in the same product along with nested mini-games within each or the nesting of some productive software with a game, are conceptually feasible. The emergence of the internet as a means to deliver software and media directly to the desktop has totally changed the software distribution model that the one product/one game premise was based on. With the ability to embed a range of flash or java games and applications into a website, it’s now feasible to deliver a multitude of games and productive software from the same interface without the user ever considering them as discrete software packages. 4.1.2.4.1.1.1 GAME PACKS At one end of the spectrum are products that are collections of different games, which share a theme and/or are integrated into a single piece of software. Examples such as Shanghai Dynasty [Activision_Inc, 1997], Hoyle Card Games [Sierra_Entertainment, 2003] and Sierra Sports Game Room [Sierra_Entertainment, 2003] are based on traditional games converted to software. Some are games of skill, Duncan C. Blair

- 105 -


while others are games of chance. These game Packs also have two sub-types, the first being those where the games are integrated into the same software interface and presented to the consumer as an integrated product. The second are those composed of a group of individual Software Products delivered on the same media and may be installed separately; these for all intents can be treated as a collection of different products with a common marketing image and delivery stream. Examples of the second type are not hard to find such as the Microsoft Entertainment Pack [Microsoft_Corporation]. 4.1.2.4.1.1.2 MULTIPLE MODES OF PLAY The concept of multiple play modes in games is presented in the classification system presented in Online Interactivity Theory [Markus Friedl, 2003]; which examines products on the way their online mode is integrated with the rest of the product. A common form of recent commercial Computer Game Products is to provide a single player mode, and some variety of multi-player modes. There are additional varieties, which are often dependant on the style of game. Computer Game Products such as Unreal Tournament [Epic_MegaGames_Inc, 1999] include deathmatch and other multi-player maps, which can be played as stand-alone games. Products like Need for Speed: Hot Pursuit 2 [Electronic_Arts, 2002] include highly configurable single player and various multi-player modes. The Games within this Product however are very strictly driving games with the different modes modifying the environment somewhat and the player’s goals in some modes. This contrasts with a Product like Worms World Party [Team_17, 2001] which has a range of single player modes, from multi-team combat through to more puzzle solving style single worm missions in addition to a multi-player melee combat mode. The use of the term Play Mode will be used to describe the ways players can be combined in a specific game. In the case of a game product that has multiple ways to combine players in games, each separate Play Mode can be described as a selfcontained game. Primarily play modes look at the ways that players relate to the game and to each other. This is usually determined by the range of outcomes possible in the specific game.

Examples of play modes are:

Duncan C. Blair

- 106 -

Identification and Classification of Structural Elements in Computer Games •

Single Player – One and only one human player is involved for the game to be complete. Some games allow other modes to be playable by a single player with artificial players filling other roles. These are also classed as single player modes. This is the basic format of a game with the outcomes allowing the player to succeed or not.

•

Multi-player cooperative mode – more than one human player playing in a cooperative fashion. For this to work the outcomes of the game must recognize multiple cooperative successes.

•

Multi-player Competition – More than one human player in directly competing. The outcomes of the game only recognize a single player’s success at the cost of all other players.

•

Multi-player Teams Competition – More than one player, organized into teams. The outcomes of the game support all members of a team being recognized as successful at the cost of all other teams.

•

Massive Multi-player – Large numbers of players involved in play with support for a range of outcomes. As this form of play often does not conform to a game format this is a separate product.

Individual products name their modes in different ways. These may reflect the style of the product or identify a different style of play mode with different sets of player activity evaluation and roles. Examples are found in many products such as Arcanum: Of Steamworks and Magick Obscura [Troika_Games, 2001], which has a number of modes: •

Single Player

•

Multi-player Free-for-all

•

Multi-player Cooperative

•

Multi-player Role-play

These play modes emphasize different combinations of player activity and outcome. Need for Speed: Hot Pursuit 2 [Electronic_Arts, 2002] has a range of different modes: • Duncan C. Blair

Single player modes - 107 -


o Hot Pursuit mode with 33 Scenarios o Championship mode with 33 Scenarios o Single Race, Be the Cop, Lap Knockout, Tournament and Free Run (Which is a simulator not a game) with track, car, and opponent variations. o Quick Race with track, car and opponent variations •

Multi-player Modes o Lap Knockout with track, lap, car and Opponent variations o Single Race with track, lap, car and Opponent variations

These again emphasize different game structures and outcomes. With some games rewarding the winners of races while others rewarding activities such as catching and arresting other racers. 4.1.2.4.1.1.3 VARIATIONS ON PLAY MODES Play mode variations are player controlled configuration variables that can be applied to a Play Mode to modify the play experience. Examples are easy to find, Doom [Id_Software, 1993] had a range of difficulty levels to modify the play in the single player mode. Vehicle driving simulators such as Need for Speed: Hot Pursuit 2 [Electronic_Arts, 2002] offer very complex sets of variations for modifying the vehicles and traffic conditions within scenarios in addition to the variety of play modes available. Variations provide a means for the designer to multiply the value of the content in a game. By constructing a play mode, such as a single player map and providing a means for the player to experience it at a variety of difficulty levels, allows the player to get more play time out of the content. This way the value of the content is multiplied to the player and the cost of providing the number of hours of play is reduced to the developer. Variations also add to the player’s level of control and enjoyment. A common example is the convention of difficulty settings. These are provided so the player may select the difficulty of the challenge in a particular mode. An example is Serious Sam: The Second Encounter [Croteam_Ltd and A Few Screws Loose, 2002] which provides Tourist, Easy, Normal, Hard, Serious and Mental variations of increasing difficulty.

Duncan C. Blair

- 108 -


There are a number of forms of variations to be considered; the first are Cosmetic Variations. An example of this is changing the colour of the players’ car in Need for Speed: Hot Pursuit 2 [Electronic_Arts, 2002]. The impact of this variation on the structure of the game is probably negligible and does not generate a unique game as the rules and conditions of the game remain the same. However, there is a potential cognitive effect for the player that provides a perceptible change in the game experience for some players. These changes are very much subjective to individual players rather than generating a unique game for all players. On the other hand are Game Play Variations. The example used above of Serious Sam: The Second Encounter [Croteam_Ltd and A Few Screws Loose, 2002] where the player chooses to vary the difficulty has a meaningful impact on the game that results. This result is consistent for all players who select that variation. As such, this should be seen as generating a unique game. The last form of variation that is common will be called System Variations. These adjust the software system representing the game, such as changing the audio volume, or changing some graphics options. Some options do not have a direct impact on the game play; however, for games in which these system variations do effectively change the game consistently for all players the variation should be considered as generating a unique game. The results of system variations are often inconsistent between different players or hardware platforms; this is especially true for home computers that may have different components. Certain options like flipping the mouse X-axis and changing the keyboard mappings can be seen as fine-tuning a player’s experience, while variation that for instance, toggle players’ ability to taunt opponents during a multi-player game remove a valuable tool players can use to influence the outcome of the game. These variations should be seen as generating a unique game. 4.1.2.4.1.1.4 SCENARIOS AS UNIQUE GAMES A great many game products are composed of collections of scenarios. These scenarios are often built specifically for one particular player mode as in Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos [Blizzard_Entertainment, 2002] which has a set of single player scenarios and a set of multi-player scenarios. Each scenario can be played as a complete game in itself with a different set of winning or completion criteria. This means that the product, which is composed of these multiple scenarios, may contains a Duncan C. Blair

- 109 -


host of possible mode/Variation/Scenario combinations all of which are identifiable as separate games. Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos [Blizzard_Entertainment, 2002] uses the single player mode as a training tool in support of their multi-player modes. As such, the scenarios are built to assist the players to learn to perform specific activities that are important to the game. All of the single player mode scenarios are also hard-coded to force the player to play a specific race in the scenario. This makes each of them a uniquely identifiable game. While any two Single Player Scenarios in Warcraft are relatively similar, with the player still performing the similar activities, there are game products such as Giants: Citizen Kabuto [Planet_Moon_Studios, 2000] which have scenarios which are quite radically different. This game again uses the Single Player Scenarios as a training platform for the player to learn all the race types and magic/weapon types available. Again, the scenarios are hard coded to force the player to play a specific race/weapon combination; the difference comes in the structures of the scenarios. Many are based on the player manipulating their avatar to achieve scenario goals, while a small number see the player permanently attached to a jet-ski style vehicle in a race. As such, the scenarios go from being a traditional avatar based running and shooting style of activity to being a jet-ski race simulator. A further example is presented by Worms World Party [Team_17, 2001] that provides a range of single player mode scenarios called Missions. These are puzzlesolving exercises that utilise similar skills to the other modes of play; however, they are used in a quite different environment. The main modes of play in the product are multi-player turn based melee. This can also be played as a single player mode against artificial players. As such, this product contains some quite different play experiences. This style of products will be referred to as having Independent Scenarios. In contrast to this are games that are composed of Interdependent Scenarios. This style of scenario is also commonly referred to with the term Levels. This is a slightly archaic term derived from older dungeon-style environments that were conceptually composed of multiple descending layers. Each layer was loaded as a separate file and was referenced using this term. A classic example is Doom [Id_Software, 1993] which also popularized the activity of Level Editing; this involved the construction or modification of one of these levels by a member of the player community. The meaning and the use of the term has evolved into a general Duncan C. Blair

- 110 -


descriptive term referring to any modularity scheme used to split up the content of a game. A scenario on the other hand is a self-contained setting for a game, in which the player is placed with a rationalization, a starting state, a set of goals, challenges and outcomes. Scenarios can be spread across multiple modules. In the case of Doom, the levels are dependant on each other, with the player collecting weapons, ammunition and health that are carried between successive levels. Doing poorly in one level can have consequences in the following. Consequently, Doom is a single scenario composed of a large amount of content modularized for platform performance reasons into Levels. Further examples of games with Interdependent Scenarios are Max Payne [3D_Realms and Remedy_Entertainment, 2001] and Metal Gear Solid [Konami, 2000] in which the section scenarios while still having a unique set of success criteria are not uniquely addressable as a complete game. These are an integrated product suitable for classification as a whole rather than a collection of many games. 4.1.2.4.1.1.5 SUB-ENVIRONMENTS AND MINI-GAMES Once the Pandora’s Box is opened and game products are no longer seen as neatly integrated products that only contain one game each, classification becomes more difficult. It is clear that in some products with multiple player modes and independent scenarios, there are often a number of discreetly selectable games available to the player. The question is how else can a product be sub-divided? Many games have multiple diegetic environments. These come in an amazing array of types and combinations. An example is the game Diablo [Blizzard_Entertainment, 1996] which consists of a classic role playing scenario; the adventure party under the players’ control start in a Safe village environment, where supplies are available, before descending into a dungeon environment for some monster killing and looting. The difference between the village and the dungeon is that the rules restricting the player’s actions are different in the two environments. In the village environment, the player cannot kill or loot; there are also restrictions on casting magic and using potions that are freely usable in the other environment. Many games have separate environments where the rules are adjusted to prevent or allow the player to perform different actions. The physical order and arrangement of these environments is dependant on the game developers needs. Arbitrarily naming one environment as Main and others as Duncan C. Blair

- 111 -


Sub or Peer is purely done for referencing sake. There is no obvious way to determine a consistent hierarchical relationship or the value of the relationship in many cases. The only structured relationship might be found in the order that the players encounter these different environments, which will be unique to each game. Mini-games take the idea of sub-environments and add a scenario and success criteria. This in effect turns the sub-environment into a complete game. This format is quite common with character driven adventure style games on home video consoles. Examples are Donkey Kong 64[Rare_Ltd, 2000], Banjo-Kazooie [Rare_Ltd, 1998], and Crash Bandicoot [Naughty_Dog, 1996]. Mario Party [Hudson_Soft, 1998] is an example that contains dozens of mini-games, which all have different rules affecting the way the player(s) interacts with the environment and each other. Each of these mini-games and sub-environments must be uniquely designed and constructed by the developers. This makes them worthy of some attention. However, theses subenvironments and mini-games are not in themselves playable as complete games by a player without also playing the rest of the game in which they are nested. As such, they may not need to be uniquely identified and addressed by a classification system concerned with complete games or complete products. Interestingly, mini-games require some encapsulating translation layer much like a play agreement discussed in proposition 1 in chapter 1. The result of the mini-game must be translated into some consequence for the player in the encapsulating master game. Examples are, Mario Party [Hudson_Soft, 1998] where the winner of the minigame is rewarded with coins which are of value in the encapsulating game scenario. Donkey Kong 64 [Rare_Ltd, 2000] translates the results of the mini-games into coloured bananas, other resources and access to other areas which are of value in the scenario of the master game. 4.1.2.4.1.1.6 GENERATED GAMES This style of game product is built on the idea of a basic template game, which defines the environment and activities of the players but places game elements such as obstacles and challenges in a randomized fashion. As the designers still wish to control the amount of randomness so the game is still playable, the placement of the elements will still occur within acceptable parameters for the player. This is similar to the idea of shuffling cards before dealing. An unacceptable variation is to remove cards randomly from the deck. As this could produce games that are unplayable, or Duncan C. Blair

- 112 -


already lost before they begin. Its worth noting that this variation is only unacceptable due to assumptions held about the terms of the play agreement. We assume that all games are winnable and that there is a fair chance to do so. This is identified by only a single author as an essential characteristic of games.[Roger E. Pedersen, 2003] Games definitely need to appear to be winnable for most players to begin playing. Whether they must be proven winnable before someone will play is a question for Behavioural Science to answer. This method of moving around the start positions of elements will produce a certain amount of variation for the players without really changing the game. If the scenario and the outcomes are still fixed, then the designers must still provide the player with sufficient elements to complete the game or the play agreement between the player and designer has been violated. Essentially, if all instances of the game are equally random, this can be considered as the normal state of the game rather than different games. Examples of this type of game are easy to find among card games such as Spider Solitaire [Microsoft_Corporation, 2000] and FreeCell [Microsoft_Corporation, 2001]. Role playing games use this technique to populate empty areas of their maps with Random Encounters; these are encounters between the players character and random amounts of monsters which allow the player to gather experience and some treasure. Fallout 2 [Black_Isle_Studios, 1998] and Arcanum: Of Steamworks and Magick Obscura [Troika_Games, 2001] both use this technique. A variation on the random encounter model sees use among games with a dungeon or cavern exploration component such as Diablo [Blizzard_Entertainment, 1996] and The Elder Scrolls: Daggerfall [Bethesda_Softworks, 1996]. Both these games generate dungeons using some random elements for the players to explore. In games which add a random element to the goals or outcomes of the scenario, the designer must still place some limits on the range of possibilities otherwise the player may again find themselves in a game which they have no chance of winning. The effect is there are still a finite number of combinations of elements and positions and so the potential number of unique games represented by the product can still be calculated if anyone wanted to.

Duncan C. Blair

- 113 -


4.1.2.4.1.1.7 NON-GAME COMPONENTS Products have been released which contain game(s) along with component(s) of the software package which do not meet the requirements to be identified as a game. The vast majority of these additions are directly related to the game involved. However, this may not always be the case. Some examples are: •

Level Editors and Map generators.

•

Training tutorials and Simulators

•

Help, Manuals and background information.

•

Chat, Discussion, Player Matching and Website Integration

The reverse of this issue is that of games which are tacked onto other products or integrated with them. Operating systems such as Microsoft Windows and the various distributions of Linux distribute games with their software. These however are treated as separate products. This is differentiated from products such as MSN Messenger 6 [Microsoft_Corporation, 2003] which is bundling games into the same interface as other services. This same model is being copied by other products directly competing in that market segment. These games are more difficult to separate and classify individually due to the effect of the players being able to chat to each other during play; this can be an important part of the playing experience of these games. The examples given above of the Easter egg games hidden inside productivity software products, which are then marketed without the mention of contained computer games, are more of an aberration than a specific group of products. They do however demonstrate the possibility. While Computer Games designed for entertainment are not likely to become standard inclusions in business application software, it is conceivable that games designed as training tools for specific products may be included to assist with the integration of new software packages into workplaces as software assisted training systems. 4.1.2.4.1.2 M U L T I P L E S O F T W A R E P R O D U C T – S I N G L E G A M E M O D E L Games are implemented in a number of ways that involve multiple software components. A common model is the Client/Server architecture which is used in distributed multi-player games such as EverQuest [Verant_Interactive, 1999] and Diablo II [Blizzard_Entertainment, 2000]. Duncan C. Blair

- 114 -


There is no point listing the number of different forms of software architecture that might be applied to implementing Computer Games. As the implementation of a game in software always becomes a software engineering problem, there is no direct relationship between the architecture choice and the game. Suffice to say that games can be implemented using all the distributed programming models applied to any other group of software. These include: •

Component Object Model

•

Client/Server

•

Peer-to-peer

How the choice of architecture influences the game itself may be a fruitful area of future research. The one constant factor between all these different software models is that computer games have interfaces for people to play them. Often from the players point of view the only distinction between games using the same software components is in the interface. 4.1.2.4.1.3 I N T E R N E T I N T E G R A T I O N The internet has had a large effect on some software delivery and packaging options. It provides a valuable means to keep software up to date and marry services together with customer’s interests. Computer Games have been involved as much as any other group of software. The integration of a website into a software package that includes computer games raises the question where the software package ends and the internet begins. It is easy to arbitrarily draw a line and say definitively that the product stops with the software on the client machine. This idea falls down completely when considering the delivery streams which are being developed such as WildTangent Web Driver [WildTangent_Inc, 2003] and Steam [Valve_Software, 2003]. The first is a game publishing channel that delivers games to clients through push broadcasting technology. The second is similar, with an additional maintenance capability and integrated chat system for use while playing the games over the internet. Web sites are also being created which contain embedded games using technology such as Java and Macromedia Flash. These websites provide a consistent Duncan C. Blair

- 115 -


interface that is composed of dozens of software components being executed by an unknown number of different computers. There is no reasonable way to address these games using a simple description model such as the “One software product equals one game!” idea. 4.1.2.4.2 REPRODUCIBLE GAME REFERENCING With game products being delivered with tens or hundreds of unique games based on various Mode/Variation/Scenario/Generation combinations, there is a need for a classification system to recognize that there is a difference and either classify Computer Games or classify Software Products. In the case of products implementing only a single game, the game can be referred to using the title of the product. In the case of products implementing multiple games, each game must be differentiated with a unique name. This will often be based on whatever the developers of the product has provided, which may be notes on the options selected, play modes, scenario names or map names in addition to the title of the product. This may require some additional explanation by those doing the classification to assist the reader with identifying the exact game in a reproducible fashion. The formal referencing scheme applied in this thesis to reference Software Product uses the Title, Developer, Publisher, Date of Publication and Platform of Publication. This allows the exact identification of specific Software Products. The referencing style for specific games presents more difficulty. The problem is developers rarely identify discrete games within a software package as discrete games, instead lump them together and call them all by the title of the software package. The result is many of the potential discrete games within the package having to be referenced based on the variables that determine their uniqueness. Creating a formal referencing style for these games begins with the Title of the Software Package along with the formal reference for the Software Package as specified above, to this is added a description composed of the variables and play mode that allow the specific game of interest to be uniquely reproduced for identification.

Duncan C. Blair

- 116 -


4.1.3 PROBLEMS WITH THE GROUP-FIRST METHODOLOGY

This methodology is equally able to produce a consistent classification system as the Characteristic-first approach. However, the classification systems examined in the prior works failed to use a consistent approach to describing their groups. This resulted in ambiguity between groups through overlapping and incomplete coverage of the range of values in the definitions for the groups. The Group-first methodology as applied in the prior works has problems when members of the population do not fit any of the defined groups, or fit within multiple groups. This produces ambiguity in classifications and reproducibility of classifications by different researchers. The problems of Ambiguity can be difficult to detect, but could quite reasonably be present in the Group-first systems due to their description of the groups, which were not very rigorous and tended to use generalizations rather than specific characteristics and values. This whole group of problem is avoided by basing the descriptions of the groups on clearly defined characteristics and values.

4.1.3.1 AMBIGUITY THROUGH INCOMPLETE POPULATION COVERAGE Classification systems based on Group-first Systems have a requirement to provide the reader with clear information about the members within a group. This is done with a description that creates a set of Inclusion and Exclusion rules for the groups. These define the range of values acceptable for members of the group. For instance, the group of Male has an Inclusion Rule that a member posses both an X and Y chromosome; While the group of Female has an Inclusion rule of two X chromosomes. Both groups have an implied Exclusion rule that excludes members of the other. However, this set of rules does not take into account hypothetical members of the population with three chromosomes. As long as these hypothetical members have been excluded from the population, this does not present a problem. However if they have not, then the classification system is ambiguous. This is due to ambiguity in the member rather than the groups and results in the member either being included in a group that does not adequately describe it, or being left out of all groups and “Slipping through the cracks”.

Duncan C. Blair

- 117 -


Figure 4-9 Ambiguity due to Incomplete Coverage When classification is based on a simple characteristic, it is easy to describe comprehensive inclusion and exclusion rules. However, Computer Games have a huge number of potential characteristics to describe and consequently any classification system using Group-first Systems designed to operate on them will need to do so on a limited set of characteristics or run the risk of leaving gaps between groups. This has been addressed in some classification systems by the use of a miscellaneous group; also called The Others or Unique in some systems. The existence of such a group in a system is clear evidence of ambiguity in the other groups.

4.1.3.2 AMBIGUITY THROUGH INCOMPLETE OVERLAPPING GROUPS The other side of ambiguity is where groups overlap. This is not ambiguity due to a members being difficult to classify rather this is ambiguity due to more than one group covering the same section of the population.

Duncan C. Blair

- 118 -


Figure 4-10 Ambiguity through Overlapping Groups These problems can only occur when members are being classified on more than one characteristic at a time and not all the permutations of the values for the characteristics have been taken into account by the group designers. This becomes difficult for more than a few simple characteristics/value sets.

4.1.3.3 AMBIGUITY THROUGH PARTIAL DESCRIPTION The last form of ambiguity in Group-first Systems is caused by the some of the groups being described differently. Figure 4-11 illustrates that by describing a group only partially, a problem similar to overlap is caused.

Figure 4-11 Ambiguity through partial Description This problem occurs where the descriptions of the groups are not developed in a rigorous manner. This is an easy flaw to introduce into a system. The system described in The Medium of the Video Game [Mark J. P. Wolf, 2001] displays this problem by describing each group using different terms. The system takes care in specifying what should be included and what should be excluded for some groups while not doing so for others.

Duncan C. Blair

- 119 -


4.1.3.4 GROUP PROLIFERATION The Group-first methodology has a fundamental relationship between the number of groups required for completeness and the number of characteristics which are used to describe the groups. Where a system is based on one characteristic which has five values, it is simple to create up to five groups to describe the population.

Figure 4-12 Groups based on a single characteristic However, when more characteristics are introduced, it becomes obvious that the number of value combinations to describe a group is multiplied. Figure 4-13 extends the system presented in Figure 4-12 by adding a second characteristic with three values. The code used in the diagram (C2/V1) represents ‘characteristic 2/ value 1’.

Figure 4-13 Groups based on two characteristics Obviously, a group does not have to contain members who express only a single value for a characteristic. They can describe members that express a group of closely related values or any other combination that the system designer chooses. Where

Duncan C. Blair

- 120 -


groups overlap by describing the same combination of values or level combinations of values unaddressed, ambiguity as described above, results.

4.1.3.5 GROUP RESOLUTION A classification system that is composed of groups is limited to the number of groups to define its expressive capability. The system presented in Game Design Foundations [Roger E. Pedersen, 2003] has ten groups which give it ten unique classifications to describe all Computer Games. For a system developed using the Group-first methodology to increase its descriptive ability, additional groups must be developed. This results in major structural change to the system. This should be contrasted with the discussion of Characteristic Resolution in section 4.1.4.4.

4.1.4 PROBLEMS WITH THE CHARACTERISTIC-FIRST METHODOLOGY

This methodology is based on defining characteristics shared by the whole population and identifying a set of suitable values for these characteristics. Problems can occur with both the identification of Characteristics and Values.

4.1.4.1 IDENTIFYING CHARACTERISTICS COMMON TO THE POPULATION The identification and documentation of the characteristics is the foundation of the Characteristic-first methodology. For systems that use a set of characteristics to identify the population, it makes sense to use these same characteristics as a basis for the classification system. This ensures that the population being classified matches exactly the population established by the identification process and the terms used to describe them will be consistent. For systems focusing on a specific characteristics, such as the one presented in Playing Together: A Taxonomy of Multi-User Video Games [Wai-ling Ho-Ching, Kori M. Inkpen and Katherine Mason] This system looks at a population of multi-player Console Computer Games on the characteristic of the way they managed multiple players’ views; the identification of the characteristic is a subset of the characteristics used to define the population.

Duncan C. Blair

- 121 -


Where the characteristics selected for the classification are not possessed by all members of the population being classified, the system is unable to classify some members of the population and violates the assumption of Completeness. Ambiguity can be introduced into a Characteristic-first System in the description of the Characteristics. Where these are unclear, the reproducibility of any classification may be affected.

4.1.4.2 IDENTIFYING CHARACTERISTIC VALUES The identification of the range of possible values for each characteristic can be difficult. As the potential range of values may exceeds the system designers experience or imagination. This is potentially true of Computer Games that occupy a design space still being explored. The Characteristic-first systems examined in prior work address this problem by presenting limited lists of values for each characteristic. The values selected are based on observation of the current population of Computer Games. This leaves the systems able to cover the current population, but with the possibility of a new game being developed with a value for the characteristic which does not appear in the list. In this case, the system becomes unable to classify the member and violates the assumption of Completeness. None of the systems addresses the issue of whether their lists of values presented cover all the possible values for the characteristic. Orwant’s system does leave some of the characteristics with an open-ended set of values. This suggests that the system is flexible enough to accept new values.

4.1.4.3 INCOMPLETE DESCRIPTION OF CLASSIFIED ARTICLE The characteristics control how much of the thing being described is actually in the system. For instance a classification system attempting to describe the nature of cars, which had only a single characteristic for the number of wheels would lack the ability to describe a great deal of the uniqueness of many cars. The characteristics selected for the system need to provide the ability to describe the article being classified.

Duncan C. Blair

- 122 -


Figure 4-14 Incomplete Coverage by Characteristics This can be a challenge where the article being described is a complex system such as a Computer Game. Playing Together: A Taxonomy of Multi-user Video Games [Wai-ling Ho-Ching, Kori M. Inkpen and Katherine Mason] presents a system which describes only one particular feature of the games. If the system was intended to describe a complete Video Game as the title suggests, it would illustrate the idea of incomplete coverage quite well. Note that the system is intended to address only the screen management strategy and did so quite well.

4.1.4.4 CHARACTERISTIC RESOLUTION The characteristics selected must be appropriate for the resolution of the description provided by the system. The term resolution is used here to describe the amount of information conveyed by the system about the article being classified.

Figure 4-15 Constant Information over multiple characteristics Duncan C. Blair

- 123 -


The same amount of descriptive information can be encapsulated in one characteristic if there are sufficiently rich values available to describe the uniqueness of the thing being characterised. On the other hand, where there are a number of characteristics to cover the same area, the values for each can be simpler to express the same amount of information. Figure 4-15 illustrates this idea. The two groups provide a description with a similar resolution. Where the resolution of the description desired is very low, the use of a large number of characteristics would provide little value. This is often the case where the classification system is being used to describe a complex article using a very concise description. An example can be found in Man, Play and Games [Roger Caillois, 1979] where the author is describing complete games using a single characteristic and a simple abstract description. This produces a system that can describe ten different classifications. The opposite can be observed in the system described in Online Game Interactivity Theory [Markus Friedl, 2003] where the author describes each game using five characteristics with between three and six values each. This produces a system that has one thousand and eighty different classifications; a significantly higher descriptive ability.

4.1.4.5 GROUPING MEMBERS Characteristic-first systems produce a characteristic/value matrix as their primary structure for classification. The matrix structure provides the complete means to describe and thus classify every member of the population. The description of groups within the population is an optional construct built on top of this structure. Unlike the Group-first methodology, these groups do not need to be orthogonal as the whole population has already been classified by the matrix. Rather, these groups provide a means to highlight specific sets within the population for the convenience of the author. Where there is a single characteristic with a defined set of values, each value often becomes a de-facto group and the name of the value can be used to refer to the group of population members which express that value. Playing together: A Taxonomy of Multi-user Video Games [Wai-ling Ho-Ching, Kori M. Inkpen and Katherine Mason] provides an example of this form. Duncan C. Blair

- 124 -


Figure 4-16 Characteristic-first groups using a single characteristic In more complex system where there are multiple characteristics being evaluated, groups can be formed across multiple characteristics without having to be across all. As shown in Figure 4-17.

Figure 4-17 Arbitrary groups in Characteristic-first system This allows the groups created to be specific to the discussion without the need to form a complete structure of groups which, if there are a large number of characteristics in the system, could be a huge amount of work which is not relevant to the discussion.

4.1.5 SUMMARY OF ASPECTS OF CLASSIFICATION

The Group-first classification methodology may suffer from problems due to not defining the population, poor choice of nomenclature, poor balance between abstraction and concreteness in descriptions of groups, failure to address games rather than software products and a number of forms of ambiguity caused by group design and description. To apply this methodology in a complete and specific way requires Duncan C. Blair

- 125 -


identification of a set of characteristics and values that can be used to describe groups without ambiguity. These groups must be orthogonal to provide complete coverage of the population by covering the complete range of at least one characteristic. The simplest approach is to base the description of the groups on a small number of characteristic. Members of the population can then be described using these groups. If the groups are well designed, there will be no ambiguity and the classification will be reproducible. In the event of ambiguity being discovered in the system, one or more groups will need to be created or changed to address this ambiguity; this may affect members that are already classified. For this style of system to be successful, it will be based on a very small number of characteristics, as a larger number multiply the number of combinations that must be accounted for if the system is to be complete. These systems are fundamentally restricted in their descriptive ability by the number of groups in the system. Due to the difficulty of defining the groups without ambiguity, this suggests that these systems will only be capable of low-resolution classification. The definition of new groups will only ever add to the expressiveness of the system.

On the other hand, the Characteristic-first methodology may suffer from problems due to not defining the population, poor choice of nomenclature, poor balance between abstraction and concreteness in descriptions of characteristics and values, failure to address games rather than software products, failure to identify characteristics common to the whole population and failure to identify suitable values for the characteristics. To apply this methodology in a complete and specific way requires the identification of a set of characteristics that are common to the whole population. The characteristics selected will depend on the purpose of the classification system. The values for the characteristics can be discovered by examining members of the population. The provision of a well-developed set of values for each characteristic will simplify the reproduction of a classification. Additional values may be added as they are discovered without changing the structure of the system or the classification of members already classified. A population member can be classified by examination and determination of the values expressed for each characteristic. If the descriptions of each characteristic are clear, the classification should be reproducible. The development of groups on top of the classification matrix provides a ready means to Duncan C. Blair

- 126 -


address sub-sections of the population without the need to develop a complete set of groups as in the methodology above. These systems do not suffer from the problems which limit the resolution of Group-first style systems. By adding refining characteristics and identifying additional values, the expressive capability of the system is multiplied.

4.2

PROPOSED CHARACTERISTIC SYSTEM FOR CLASSIFICATION OF COMPUTER GAMES

The two methodologies described above present a set of strengths and weaknesses. As this thesis is exploring methods to produce a classification system capable of describing the structure of Computer Games, the Group-first methodology presents a greater risk than the Characteristic-first methodology because the population of Computer Games can reasonably be expected to grow and explore more of the potential design space of Computer Games. In the event that this reveals values for characteristics used in the classification system which are not currently known, this would introduce ambiguity into a Group-first system and should cause changes to the existing Groups of the system, with the result that games which had been classified may suddenly be classified as something different. Additionally, as this system is exploring Computer Game structure elements, it would be of little value to attempt to encapsulate the complete design of a Computer Game in a single characteristic. As the design of a computer game is often described using multiple page documents, the values for the characteristic could be very complex. An example of a system that seeks to use a single characteristic to describe everything about a game can be seen in Caillois’s system. This system cannot express much variation due to having only ten abstract values to describe all games. A better approach is to decompose this one master characteristic. By refining the characteristics in the system to describe finer and finer aspects of the game structure, the system becomes more expressive. It can capture more of the unique structure of each member. The drawback being that it becomes larger and requires more work to use effectively. This suggests that there will be a number of characteristics in the system and with the increase in the number of characteristics, the value of a Group-first methodology is rapidly outweighed by the amount of work involved in defining and describing each group without ambiguity. Due to the chance of classification drift and Duncan C. Blair

- 127 -


the difficulty of actually applying the Group-first methodology to a large group of characteristics, the Characteristic-first methodology will be applied. The proposed classification system for Computer Games is based on the population described by the identification system in the previous chapter. This allows the classification system to use the same set of characteristics as the identification system described in the previous chapter. These characteristics reveal more about the unique structure of each member and allow the classification system to be more sensitive to variation than one based on a single crude characteristic. The only change from the identification template is the removal of the criteria based on the propositions in chapter 1, as the game must have already passed the identification test to be a part of the population of Computer Games; the proposition values should all be true. Thus, they do not need to be repeated each time a game is classified.

4.2.1 CHARACTERISTIC TEMPLATE

This template is provided to clarify how the characteristics are arranged when classifying a Computer Game. This basic model can be re-arranged to allow for different needs. The arrangement that will be presented in the next section is that of a matrix. This simple template along with the explanation of the characteristics is the basic module of this classification system. As can be seen, the number of characteristics suggests that a Group-first methodology could produce a huge number of groups to cover the complete range of values for each characteristic explicitly. Game Name/Description

Characteristics

Values

Game Play Focused Activity(s) Scope for Variability of Performance Challenge Meaningful Decision Making Opposition

Duncan C. Blair

- 128 -


Immersive Context Cues Scenario, Scenario Goals, Scenario Payoff Theme, Style, Colour, Back Story Player Action Evaluation Performance Ideal Performance Evaluation Information Success States Conclusion Format Range of Outcomes Diegetic Environment Subtracted Real-world Elements Added Game-space Elements Player Representation Played By Human(s) Unreal Player Abilities and

Properties

Interaction Model Player Ability Model Player Information Model Figure 4-18 the Classification System Template This figure illustrates the characteristics of the classification system arranged as a template. The second part of the classification system is the description of the characteristics and their range of values. This provides the reader of the system with the information required for understanding the Computer Game being classified.

4.2.2 CHARACTERISTIC MATRIX

By rearranging this template into a large matrix it becomes feasible to compare the classification of multiple games visually. Due to page space limitations, the matrix will need to be broken up into chunks. The idea is illustrated by Figure 4-19. This matrix provides the basic structure of the classification system.

Duncan C. Blair

- 129 -


Characteristic 4

Characteristic6

Characteristic 7

Characteristic 5

Characteristic 3

Characteristic 2

Characteristic 1 Game 1 Value

Value

Value

Value

Value

Value

Value

Game 2 Value

Value

Value

Value

Value

Value

Value

Game 3 Value

Value

Value

Value

Value

Value

Value

Figure 4-19 Example of Classification Matrix

4.2.3 VALUES FOR CHARACTERISTICS

The values for the characteristics will be described with a minimum of abstraction. This may result in a certain proliferation of values for some characteristics. The benefit being that each value will require less explanation and supporting examples. The result should be more easily understood by readers of the system. These lists of values are presented as examples and for re-use purposes only. The lists are specifically left open ended. To be added to as more values are revealed. This provides flexibility for the system to adapt to the development of new values for each characteristic. As any population members that are being compared must all be classified with this system, the values of one can always be re-used to describe the other one, in the case that they share some value for a particular characteristic. The one rule of the Value system is that values are uniquely named or described. Characteristic

Value

Game Play A

Focused

Solving logic puzzles, one on one martial arts combat,

Activity(s)

manoeuvring armies, city management, system construction, fishing, completing quests, finding object, racing a vehicle, navigating mazes, investigating situations, playing professional sport etc

B

Variability of

Increase score by finding secrets, perform additional

Performance

activities, explore hidden areas etc

Duncan C. Blair

- 130 -


C

Challenge

Physical obstacles, opposition players, moral and ethical dilemma, incomplete information, uncertainty of outcomes, skill test, knowledge tests, time limits etc

D

Meaningful

On what to spend resources, when to use health packs,

Decision

which enemy to attack, whether to sacrifice a pawn etc

Making E

Opposition

Passive resistance and traps, active offence, active defence pseudo intelligent attack and defence rules, complex predator or prey relationship with player, strategic deployment and management of opposition units, complex interpersonal relationships involving trust/betrayal/loyalty etc, simulated human opponents, single and multiple unit opposition

Immersive Context Cues F

Scenario,

Scenario - the situation that the players find themselves in,

Scenario

including the start positions of all elements and their roles

Goals,

in the game

Scenario

Scenario Goals - the player’s goals within the scenario

Payoff

Payoff - the motivation and result for the player within the scenario if they achieve the goals

G

Theme, Style,

Theme - the decorations choices made in the game, such

Colour,

as historical period(s), film, literature or television genres

Backstory

or imaginary settings. Style - the feel and mood conveyed by the application of the theme Colour - additional elements and decorations that give the game context without adding useful game elements Backstory - provides some suggestion of a larger setting around the scenario. This may be presented as textual exposition, Full motion video exposition, narrated exposition or in-game character elements that present

Duncan C. Blair

- 131 -


historical exposition in a dialog format. Back-story is past or present events not dependant on the player’s activities. Player Action Evaluation H

Performance

What does the game suggest about what is required to be

Ideal

successful. staying alive, visit all rooms on the map, kill everything, find all secrets, collect loot etc

I

Performance

how the game informs the player that they are making

Evaluation

progress or not, Eg reward display, punishment penalty,

Information

incentive, active vs. inactive game elements, map is revealed, load new scenario, enemies ahead not behind etc.

Success States J

K

Conclusion

terminate on time limit, conclude without termination,

Format

terminate on reaching objectives, terminate on failure etc

Range of

win/lose/draw, win/lose, summary score/failure, summary

Outcomes

score, completion/failure to complete etc

Diegetic Environment L

Subtracted

players real world knowledge remove (game played in

Real-world

world with alien physics and behaviours), players physical

Elements

ability removed (game not played in real time), time is pause-able, time is turn-based, real-time, order based etc

M

Added Game-

artificial environment, game board, game pieces, cards,

space Elements monsters, artificial players, resources, tools, weapons, artefacts, information, non player characters, events, buildings, cities, loot etc. Player Representation N

O

Played by

fixed number of players, variable number of players,

Humans

substitute artificial players available

Unreal Player

Ability - fall without dying, rocket jump, fight with a

Abilities and

sword, martial arts, pick locks, give orders to orcs,

Duncan C. Blair

- 132 -


Properties

construct a dungeon, manoeuvre cavalry on a chess board, play pro sport, fly aircraft etc Properties - health, lives, strength, dexterity, intelligence, charisma, wisdom etc

Interaction Model P

Player Ability

Map the real player abilities to the game abilities, button

Model

pushing maps to aiming and firing a gun, mouse movement maps to turning the torso of a BattleMech, buttons-mouse combo map to issuing orders etc Inter player interaction – direct communication, taunts, team orders, resource swapping, item trading etc Inter player relations – fixed relationships, optional relationships, cooperative, competitive, alliances, teams, commander/subordinates, democratic, autocratic, guilds, parties etc

Q

Player

Abstract Information Model - zero information,

Information

incomplete information, complete information

Model

Current Information views – first person, third person, fixed camera, sniper mode, infra-red vision, local map, regional map, statistics, inventory contents etc Historical Information – Auto map of areas visited, logbook or diary, history of chess moves made in game, map with fog of war showing areas visited as visible. Passing information – what your competitors know about you, what you know about them, what you can tell teammates, what you can tell competitors. Figure 4-20 Values for Characteristics in the Classification System

Duncan C. Blair

- 133 -


4.2.4 CHARACTERISTIC MATRIX DEMONSTRATED

The Classification system presented above will be applied to a number of Computer Games to demonstrate its application. This will be done in a split matrix format to provide a means to compare the games being classified. Figure 4-21 describes the sample Computer Games used for the demonstration. Index Game

Description

1

Worms World Party

Single Human Player matched against a

[Team_17, 2001] (Single

number of artificial players based on skill

Player Deathmatch)

level. Turn based with scenario objective of wiping out all opponents worms using an array of weapons and abilities.

2

3

Quake III: Arena

One on one deathmatch, with success

[Id_Software, 1999] (Single

based on first player to reach fixed

Player Deathmatch – on map

number of frags (A frag is when the

“Q3DM1” against artificial

player kills another player’s character) A

player “Ranger” at difficulty

selection of weapons, armour and health

“Hurt Me Plenty”)

are scattered around the environment.

Need for Speed: Hot Pursuit 2 Two lap race around a closed circuit track [Electronic_Arts, 2002]

with oncoming traffic and police pursuit

(Single Challenge – Single

against 7 artificial players. Game has a

Race – with options

points outcome based on a combination

Police(on), Number of

of the players race finish order and the

Opponents (Full Grid),

number of times they are able to lose the

Opponents(Random),

police pursuit.

Difficulty Level (Advanced), Traffic (On), Track (Coastal Parkway Forward), Laps (2), Vehicle(BMW M5), Transmission (Auto), Colour(Red)) Figure 4-21 Sample Games and Descriptions for Classification Demonstration Duncan C. Blair

- 134 -


in a gladiatorial

Worms

Cartoon

and ammunition as

armour, weapons

Players’ health,

remaining weapons

their health and

worms still alive,

The number of

B

avoiding being fragged

and weapons while

controlling the character

Opposition players,

loosing worms

and health, avoiding

terrain, limited weapons

Opposition Players,

C

and use weapon

target and strategy to move

Choice of which weapon,

target and movement strategy

Choice of which weapon,

D

Game Play Characteristics

combat using

well as the number

Game A

projectile

of frags for and

2 Killing fighters

1 Killing

weapons

against you

Choice of whether to race for

position or bait police and

Opposition players and police, controlling the

avoid more pursuits

Racers finish position and

vehicle

- 135 -

Duncan C. Blair

3 Racing and avoiding Police

number of police pursuits avoided.

Figure 4-22 Classification Matrix Part 1


Game Scenario is all worms are on a generated

E

Style is cartoonish. No Colour, No

Cartoon style of violence and illustration,

F

Immersive Context Cues Characteristics

1 island(s) surrounded by water, goal is to kill all

backstory

environment with weapons, armour, health and

Scenario is the players are in a limited

Backstory.

Style is dark sci-fi. No Colour, No

Realistic theme with gothic undertones,

Scenario is an illegal street race, with police

Realistic Theme of current day coastal

do it to you, payoff is unlocking of more maps.

opposition a fixed number of times before they

ammunition scattered around, goal is kill the

rank.

opposition worms, and payoff is increase in

2

3

Colour is added with scenery, other

environment, Style is fast and flashy;

laps of the track, payoff is points which can be

vehicles, road signs etc. No backstory

- 136 -

Duncan C. Blair

attempting to arrest you. Goal is to complete 2

spent on new cars or unlocking new tracks.

Figure 4-23 Classification Matrix Part 2


Game

encouraged while injuring

Killing opposition is

G

status when objects collected

graphic animation of results of actions, Change in

Constant information on status of your worms with

H

Player Action Evaluation Characteristics

1

your own worms is

time you frag the

Your score increase each

collected

score if fragged, Change in status when objects

Graphic animation of results of actions, display of

discouraged

opposition and reduce each

Graphic animation of results of actions, narrated

time you are fragged.

Evading police pursuit is

dialog describing unseen police responses

- 137 -

Duncan C. Blair

2

3

encouraged being arrested is penalized.

Figure 4-24 Characteristic Matrix Part 3


Game Last player standing or until a fixed time limit

I Win or Lose

J

Success States Characteristics

1 has passed at which point the sea starts to

First player to reach fixed number of frags

Summary score

Win or Lose

raise and the game enters sudden death Mode.

2

Unlimited until all players complete the fixed

- 138 -

Duncan C. Blair

3

number of laps or are arrested.



Game 2D Cartoon environment with near

K

Supplies environment, worms, artificial

L

Diegetic Environment Characteristics

1

players, weapons and supply objects

Realistic 3D environment, simulated real

supply objects and weapons

Supplies environment, artificial Player,

Character does not stay dead. Play is realtime.

players, police and objects to hit.

Supplies track, vehicles, artificial

world movement, ballistics and physics.

Play time is turn-based with a countdown

normal ballistics and basic physics,

2

3 Realistic 3D environment with simulated real vehicle/object physics, Vehicles do

- 139 -

Duncan C. Blair

not need fuel and never completely break. Play is real-time.



Game Single Player with an artificial

M

has a team of worms with independent health and a

Player can fire weapons, move and jump a worm. Player

N

Player Representation Characteristics

1 opponent

Player can fire weapons, move and jump in an unrealistic

combined inventory of weapons.

Single Player with an artificial

but somewhat human way. Player has health with an

Player can manoeuvre as a car, forward or in revere.

default.

frag, the health is restored to full and the inventory reset to

inventory of weapons, ammunition and armour. After each

opponent

Single Player with 7 artificial

- 140 -

Duncan C. Blair

2

3 opponents



Game

keyboard. In-game objects are picked up by

button. Weapon selection is via scroll wheel or

combination. Weapons are fired with mouse

Player can move and jump via keyboard-mouse

game objects are picked up via moving over them

Weapon arming and firing if via keyboard, In-

Weapon selection is via mouse or keyboard.

via keyboard directions to move and jump

Player can only operate a single worm each turn

O

Player is displayed as humanoid figures.

Supply objects clearly display their type and value.

opposition’s health and inventory status are unknown.

location of opposition is only known when in sight;

First person perspective with incomplete information,

generically labelled. Player is displayed as a set of Worms.

objects are clearly marked as such other supply objects are

supply objects are unknown prior to collection. Health

Opposition weapons inventory is unknown. Contents of

Third person perspective with almost complete information,

P

Interaction Model Characteristics

1

moving over them.

First person, follow camera and rear view perspectives.

3

2

Player can move forward or in reverse and apply

Incomplete information, track obstructions, location of

- 141 -

Duncan C. Blair

brakes all via keyboard.

opposition and police is only known when in sight. Players are displayed as cars.


Building on these characteristics, descriptive groups can be composed of, for

instance, the games which involve manoeuvring around some terrain (All three),


games which are based on a win/lose set of outcomes (Only two), or games where the player has complete information (None). These groups can then be compared with other Computer Games or non-Computer Games such as Chess. This is illustrated in Figure 4-29. Classification Groups Game Manoeuvring around

Outcomes are win/lose

terrain

Complete Information

Chess True

True

True

1

True

True

False

2

True

True

False

3

True

False

False

Figure 4-29 Example Comparison between the example games and Chess It could be said that based on this the examination of the values for characteristics, Worms World Party [Team_17, 2001] (Single Player Deathmatch) and Quake III: Arena [Id_Software, 1999] (Single Player Deathmatch – on map “Q3DM1” against artificial player “Ranger” at difficulty “Hurt Me Plenty”) are similar games based on such characteristics as their Focus Activity, Range of Outcomes etc. The conclusion that can be drawn from this classification is that the three games being classified share a number of similar values for some characteristics and some quite different characteristics for others.

4.3

SUMMARY

The chapter begins with an examination of the issues of classification of Computer Games that were revealed by the examination of systems in prior works. These were described based on the apparent methodology approach of the authors of these systems, which are described as Group-first and Characteristic-first. The Group-first methodology consists of selecting a number of groups to divide the population into, then defining the characteristics or conventions representative of this group. The Characteristic-first methodology describes the approach of identifying a set of common characteristics of interest, which are shared by the population and Duncan C. Blair

- 142 -


identifying the values expressed by members of the population for these characteristics. Groups can then be formed of members of the population that share the same or similar values for a particular characteristic of interest. These two methodology groups displayed a number of possible problems. These were explored in an effort to understand the implications of selecting one approach over the other. This revealed that the Group-first methodology, if applied in a rigorous manner to a population as diverse as Computer Games, could only be developed on a small number of characteristics if it was to be complete and specific. By expanding the number of characteristics, the system risked ambiguity and the multiplication of the number of groups. The last problem highlighted for this methodology was the risk that the development of new games that expressed values for characteristics, which were not supported by the system, would result in the system becoming ambiguous. This poses a real risk with the innovative designs being produced within the computer game industry. The exploration of the Characteristic-first methodology revealed that this produced a more flexible system, which required less structural work on the part of the developer and could cope with larger numbers of characteristics with out introducing ambiguity in the same way as the Group-first methodology. This provides an error free structure which can then have groups of interest developed on top. The other benefit of the Characteristic-first methodology is the expressiveness of such a system, which can be developed to provide thousands of individual classifications with little difficulty. As the population of Computer Games contains a certain amount of uniqueness, this would allow the system to describe a great deal more than a Group-first style system. The chapter then presented a comprehensive scheme of characteristics as the basis for a classification system. These were drawn from the characteristics that were used for the identification test in Chapter 3. These characteristics where chosen as they were known to be shared by the members of the population that passed the test. Together they allowed a finer grained examination of the structure of each game. The system developed, addresses the problems found in classification systems in prior works by firstly clearly identifying the population to be classified. This was done in chapter 3. The system is developed by applying a Characteristic-first methodology rather than a Group-first methodology. This avoids the ambiguity problems that are difficult to avoid in systems developed using the Group-first approach. The system identified a set of characteristics that are guaranteed to be shared by all members of Duncan C. Blair

- 143 -


the population, as they are a component of the identification test; this avoids a potential problem with the Characteristic-first approach, which would have resulted in ambiguous classification of members who did not posses particular characteristics. The system used descriptive names for characteristics and values in an attempt to make the system more accessible to readers who are not domain experts. This will allow the system to keep supporting descriptions to a minimum. The characteristic system is then demonstrated by comparing the characteristics of a number of Computer Games. This provides a better understanding of the use of characteristics to describe a game. The problem of distinguishing between software products and abstract games is being clearly addressed in this demonstration by referencing the game explicitly using the internal settings and variable names provided by the game developers. The characteristic matrix developed in this chapter provides the information required to form a classification system for Computer Game. The last stage in a Characteristic-first approach to developing a classification system is to develop groups that are appropriate for the purpose of the classification. These can then be described in an unambiguous way using the information from the characteristic matrix. As the classification system developed in this chapter is not supporting any arguments beyond those discussing classification there is no motivation for developing specific groups. However in the interest of examining classification method for computer games in a more complete way, the next chapter examines defining groups based on the characteristic matrix developed in this chapter. This is followed by looking at how the complete classification system could be modified for the needs of different forms of research. This is demonstrated by modifying the system to reproduce the functionality of some of the classification systems examined in the Literature Review in chapter 2.

Duncan C. Blair

- 144 -


Chapter - 5

Grouping and Specialisation of a

Classification System

The previous chapter on classification developed a rational for why a particular methodology should be used to produce a classification scheme. The system developed is a characteristic matrix that provides the structure of the classification system sufficient to describe Computer Games based on their structural Elements in depth. However, the structure does not provide a simple means to refer to segments of the population except by specific characteristic/value pairs. This deficit can be addressed by the addition of a layer of groups defined using the characteristic/value pairs within the structure of the matrix. This chapter looks at ways that the system, which has been developed, can be adapted to a range of different purposes through simple refinements. This allows the specialist system to become more generally applicable and extends its usefulness for future research.

The addition of a layer of groups using the characteristics from the characteristic matrix provides a method to reproduce the functionality of systems much like the genre style systems described in the literature review. The difference being, the groups are described using the characteristics and values from the characteristics matrix to remove ambiguity. The groups can be developed for the needs of a particular discussion without needing to be orthogonal or complete; this is due to the characteristic matrix having already provided a clear classification for each member. Another avenue for specialisation of the system is the addition of further criteria to the population identification test. This provides a means to focus the system on subsets of Computer Games while still clearly defining the population relative to all other applications of this classification system. Similarly, the characteristic matrix can be specialised in a number of ways. Firstly, by refining characteristics and exploring how

Duncan C. Blair

- 145 -


that characteristic is expressed in detail by members of the population. The second option is to limit the characteristics being evaluated. By combining these specialisations, classification systems can be produced for specific needs that are still compatible with others based on this same pattern. This will allow the arguments and classifications from different research works to be compared and contrasted where they relate to the classification of Computer Games. The proposed system will be specialised to reproduce the systems discussed from prior works in chapter 2. This will demonstrate the flexibility of the system by showing that it can address the needs of prior research.

5.1

ADDING GROUPING TO THE PROPOSED CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

By defining a set of non-exclusive groups, each with specific values for characteristics, the classification system can be used to describe different groups within the population. This provides a means to refer to segments of the population in a general way. Each group is defined as a range or set of values for some or all of the characteristics in the matrix. Figure 5-1 illustrates the definition of a group describing multi-player games with a focus on finding and collecting objects where the players compete in a time-limited play-period and have their performance evaluated by a summary score. Group Definition Finding and Collecting Multi-player Games Characteristics

Values

Game Play Focused Activity(s)

Finding and Collecting Objects

Scope for Variability of Performance

Any

Challenge

Any

Meaningful Decision Making

Any

Opposition

Opposition Players

Immersive Context Cues

Duncan C. Blair

Scenario, Scenario Goals, Scenario Payoff

Any

Theme, Style, Colour, Back Story

Any - 146 -


Player Action Evaluation Performance Ideal

Any


Any

Success States Conclusion Format

Limited Time Play Periods

Range of Outcomes

Summary Score

Diegetic Environment Subtracted Real-world Elements

Any

Added Game-space Elements

Any

Player Representation Played By Human(s)

Multi-player

Unreal Player Abilities and Properties

Any

Interaction Model Player Ability Model

Any


Any

Figure 5-1 Example of Group Definition The group once defined in this way allows the author and readers of the research to have a shared understanding of what is being described when a reference is made in discussion, to the group.

5.2

SPECIALISING THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE POPULATION

Research dealing with sub-sets of the population of ‘All Computer Games’ will need to define clearly the population of the research using a method without ambiguity. This can be done by adding additional criteria to the population identification test presented in chapter 3. For Example to define the population of multi-player Computer Games, the population test can be specialised with the addition of criteria to the specific characteristics. This is illustrated by Figure 5-2 which includes an additional clause specifying that for a game to meet the criteria to be identified as a member of the population under discussion will require it to meet the normal identification test and the modification to the Played by Human(s) Duncan C. Blair

- 147 -


characteristic. As multi-player games can often provide artificial players to fill the role of a human player, authors discussing multi-player games may choose to limit this even further to specifically multiple human players. Propositions

Assessment

Is encapsulate-able in a play agreement Is represented in Computer Software Is identifiable independent of representation Characteristics

Assessment

Game Play Focused Activity(s) Variability of Performance Challenge Meaningful Decision Making Immersive Context Cues Scenario, Scenario Goals, Scenario Payoff Theme, Style, Colour, Back Story Player Action Evaluation Performance Ideal Performance Evaluation Information Success States Conclusion Format Range of Outcomes Diegetic Environment Subtracted Real-world Elements Added Game-space Elements Player Representation Played by Human(s) AND requires more than one player for each game Unreal Player Abilities and

Properties

Interaction Model Player Ability Model Player Information Model Figure 5-2 Example of Specialised Population Identification Test Duncan C. Blair

- 148 -


By clearly defining the population under discussion, ambiguity can be removed.

5.3

SPECIALISING THE CHARACTERISTIC MATRIX

The characteristic matrix presents a set of abstract characteristics. This can be specialised by decomposing a particular characteristic into sub characteristics to allow the exploration of specific variations within that area of Computer Game design. By refining the characteristic and exploring the range of different values that can be developed, it becomes possible to document the way these variations interact with and affect the whole design of a particular Game; while still allowing the classification and descriptions of Computer Games presented, to be compared using the broader Classification System. Interaction Model

Assessment

Player Ability Model Player Information Model Figure 5-3 General Interaction Model Characteristics Interaction Model

Assessment

Player Ability Model Player Information Model Knowledge of Environment Knowledge of Opposition Location and Status Knowledge of Own Location and Status Information Display Figure 5-4 Specialised Player Information Model characteristic Figure 5-3 presents the General form of a Characteristics description. This is contrasted with Figure 5-4 which illustrates a decomposed Characteristic that provides a means to describe the sub-characteristics of interest. The characteristic matrix can be specialised in a second way. This is by reduction of the number of characteristics that are involved in the classification. Where only a sub-set of characteristics are of interest for the discussion, the remainder Duncan C. Blair

- 149 -


can be addressed as being of some specific value or ignored where their effect is not relevant.

5.4

REPRODUCING CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS FROM PRIOR WORK

The classification systems for Computer Games found in prior works, are examined in Chapter 2. By showing, the proposed system can reproduce their functionality will be demonstrated that this system provides a consistent means for classification of Computer Games where the needs of researchers are quite different. The systems examined are summarised in Figure 5-5 along with the populations that they were intended to address. Due to the differences in the way populations are identified by the system proposed in this thesis, and the systems presented in the prior works, it is not possible to compare the systems on the populations that they attempted to classify. This is due to many of these systems being less than rigorous in their definitions of the population under discussion.

1

Classification System

Population

The Art of Computer Game Design [Chris

All Computer Games

Crawford, 1982] 2

Game Development and Production[Erik

All Computer Games

Bethke, 2003] 3

Game Design: The Art & Business of

All Computer Games

creating Games [Bob Bates, 2001] 4

Game Guru: A Lesson in Gaming

All Computer Games

Taxonomy [Nate Birkholz, 2000] 5

MobyGames [MobyGames, 2003]

All Computer Games

6

A Guide to Computer Game Genres

All Computer Games

[International Hobo, 2002] 7

All Game Guide [AEC One Stop Group Inc,

All Computer Games

2003] 8

9

EGGG: The Extensible Graphical Game

Sub-set of All Computer

Generator [Jon Orwant, 2000]

Games

Playing Together: A Taxonomy of Multi-


User Video Games [Wai-ling Ho-Ching,

Games

Duncan C. Blair

- 150 -


Kori M. Inkpen and Katherine Mason] 10

11

Online Game Interactivity Theory [Markus


Friedl, 2003]

Games

The Medium of The Video Game[Mark J. P.

Super-set of All Computer

Wolf, 2001]

Games with the addition of Demos and Game Console test Utilities.

12

Man, Play and Games [Roger Caillois,

Super-set of All Computer

1979]

Games with the addition of All non-Computer Games Figure 5-5 Prior Classification Systems and their target Populations

The functionality of the systems that address populations that are subsets of the population of all Computer Games can be reproduced by the proposed system by specialising the identification test that results in the population being a subset of ‘All Computer Games’. The systems that address a super-set population, which contains the set of ‘All Computer Games’ as defined by the identification test, (11 and 12) present additional problems. Their functionality cannot be reproduced by the proposed system without fundamental restructuring of the identification test and the examination of the new population to discover a set of characteristics that are common to all members. In the case of system 11 in Figure 5-5, this would be a challenge as the population defined contains Demos of Games, which may contain restricted functionality, and home video game console test Utilities. These may have functionality completely different to that considered as essential to be a game. System 12 in Figure 5-5 addresses a super-set population of ‘All Games’. Again, to address this population using the proposed system would require extensive adjustment of the identification test and identification of common characteristics. The original system addressed a population that contained a great deal of variation from unstructured play activities through to highly structured games of chance and competitions. These super-set systems will not be addressed here due to this thesis being interested in applications relating specifically to Computer Games.

Duncan C. Blair

- 151 -


Rather than reproduce each system, as a number are quite similar, the functionality of Systems 1, 3 and 9 will be reproduced, as they are representative of the different styles of System without being unduly complex.

5.4.1 EXAMPLE OF A GROUP-FIRST TAXONOMY

The classification system presented in The Art of Computer Game Design [Chris Crawford, 1982], described as A Taxonomy of Computer Games, is representative of Group-First systems aimed at classification of ‘All Computer Games’. The system contains a three level hierarchy of groups, in a generalised/specialised relationship. Figure 5-6 illustrates the arrangement of groups within the hierarchy of the system.

Figure 5-6 Hierarchy of Groups within Crawford’s System The descriptions of the groups presented in the work focus specifically on abstracting the focus activities. This level of functionality can be reproduced by presenting a generalised description of the Focus Activities for each group. A number of the groups also specify some of the conditions under which the Focus Activity is performed; this will be addressed by presenting a generalised set of values for other characteristics. As these groups are arranged in a generalised/specialised relationship, the properties of the general group are inherited by the specialised group. Where a value for a particular characteristic is not specified, it is assumed open to any value. Duncan C. Blair

- 152 -


5.4.1.1 GROUPS DEFINITIONS Group Definition Skill and Action Games Characteristics

Values

Game Play Challenge

Real-time reactions

Immersive Context Cues Theme, Style, Colour,

Emphasis on Graphics and Sound

Back Story Interaction Model Player Ability Model

Joysticks or paddles rather than Keyboard

Group Definition Skill and Action Games – Sub-Group Combat Games Characteristics

Values


Manoeuvre and shoot enemy while avoiding being shot


Single Player

Group Definition Skill and Action Games – Sub-group Maze Games Characteristics

Values

Diegetic Environment Subtracted Real-world

Maze of Paths with exit

Elements

Group Definition Duncan C. Blair

- 153 -


Skill and Action Games – Sub-group Sports Games Characteristics

Values

Immersive Context Cues Scenario, Scenario Goals,

Derived from real-world Sports

Scenario Payoff Theme, Style, Colour, Back

Derived from real-world Sports

Story

Group Definition Skill and Action Games Characteristics

Values


Intercept projectile with paddle controlled piece

Group Definition Skill and Action Games – Sub-group Race Games Characteristics

Values


Race

Group Definition Skill and Action Games – Sub-groups Miscellaneous Games Characteristics

Values


Any not Covered by other groups

Scope for Variability of


Performance Challenge




Opposition


Immersive Context Cues

Duncan C. Blair

- 154 -


Scenario, Scenario Goals,


Scenario Payoff Theme, Style, Colour, Back


Story Player Action Evaluation Performance Ideal


Performance Evaluation


Information Success States Conclusion Format


Range of Outcomes


Diegetic Environment Subtracted Real-world


Elements Added Game-space Elements






Properties Interaction Model Player Ability Model




Group Definition Strategy Games General Group Characteristics

Values

Game Play Challenge

Require No Motor Skills

Group Definition Strategy Games – Sub-group Adventure Games Characteristics

Values

Game Play Duncan C. Blair

- 155 -


Focused Activity(s)

Move through a Complex World Accumulating tools and booty adequate for overcoming each obstacle

Challenge

Obstacles

Diegetic Environment Added Game-space Elements

Complex World

Player Representation Unreal Player Abilities and

Move in World

Properties

Group Definition Strategy Games – Sub-group D&D Games Characteristics

Values


Defeat opponents

Group Definition Strategy Games – Sub-group Wargames Characteristics

Values

The description of the Wargames sub-group does not involve values for any distinguishing characteristics that are intrinsic to the game itself. Rather they are contrasted with board Wargames and the reader is assumed to know their defining characteristics. Group Definition Strategy Games – Sub-group Games of Chance Characteristics

Values

This sub-group is also not defined by any characteristics, rather is related vaguely to non-computer games of chance that the reader is assumed able to identify. Group Definition Strategy Games – Sub-group Educational and Children’s Games Duncan C. Blair

- 156 -


Characteristics

Values

This group is also not described using characteristics. The group is described as being ‘games with explicit educational goals in mind’; whose mind and the definition of ‘educational goals’ are not specified. Group Definition Strategy Games – Sub-group Interpersonal Games Characteristics

Values


Relationships between individuals or groups

5.4.2 SUMMARY OF A GROUP-FIRST TAXONOMY

This system was published in 1982 and provided one of the first attempts to classify Computer Games. As can be seen, the descriptions of many of the groups specify values for a small number of characteristics. A number of groups do not specify values for any characteristics to differentiate games of that group from games of other groups. The system also creates ambiguity by not specifying values for the same characteristics for each group. Thus, games can meet the criteria for inclusion into more than one group. By reproducing the functionality of this system with the proposed Classification system, it can be shown that the proposed system can provide consistency to the description of groups.

5.4.3 EXAMPLE OF A GROUP-FIRST GENRE SYSTEM

The classification system presented in Game Design: The Art & Business of creating Games [Bob Bates, 2001] is representative of the Genre system as it is applied in a number of different works. This takes the form of a Group-first methodology for the classification of All Computer Games. The system consists of

Duncan C. Blair

- 157 -


groups with supporting descriptions arranged as a flat list. This is illustrated in Figure 5-7.

Figure 5-7 Flat List Structure of Groups in Bates System The description of the system does not specifically address the population might be which is being described, however it is not unreasonable to assume that this is the population of All Computer Games as the book in which the system is described deals with Computer Game design. A notable difference between this system and other genre systems is the lack of a catchall group such as Miscellaneous or Others. This suggests that the author of the system may not have intended it to be a complete system. The description of the groups within this system is quite vague and open ended. The causes some difficulty in identifying exactly what the author intended the defining characteristics of a group to be.

Duncan C. Blair

- 158 -


5.4.3.1 GROUP DEFINITIONS Group Definition Adventure Games Characteristics

Values


Puzzle Solving, exploring

Challenge

Non-real time

Immersive Context Cues Theme, Style, Colour, Back

Story Based

Story Diegetic Environment Added Game-space Elements

Large and Complex world, Interesting Characters, Good Story


Enter Commands or Point and Click


Text Based or Graphical, first person or second person or third person perspective

Group Definition Action Games Characteristics

Values


Shoot and kill enemies

Challenge

Real-time

Opposition

Computer Generated AI or Other Human Players


Computer Controlled AI


Snap Judgments Quick Reflexes


First person and Third person

Duncan C. Blair

- 159 -


perspective

Group Definition Adventure Games Characteristics

Values


Direct a group of heroes on a series of Quests

Player Action Evaluation Performance Ideal

Combat is important


Huge world with unfolding story, complex magic system, diverse races of characters


Micromanage party of heroes down to weapons and armour choices

Group Definition Adventure Games Characteristics

Values

Game Play Challenge

Achieve a goal, turn based or real time.


Manage a limited set of resources

Opposition

Human or simulated human opponents

Group Definition Simulation Games Characteristics

Duncan C. Blair

Values

- 160 -


This group is describing vehicle simulator games. There are no specific characteristics described to define the group. Rather some general trends are described about the games in the group. Group Definition Sports Games Characteristics

Values


Playing or managing a Sport


Accurate reproduction of rules and strategies of sport

Player Representation Unreal Player Abilities and

Play or Coach Sport

Properties

Group Definition Fighting Games Characteristics

Values


Attack and defend using combinations of “Moves”

Challenge

Opponents Attacks

Opposition

Other player


Two person Only


“Moves”

Properties Interaction Model Player Information Model

Side perspective

Group Definition Casual Games Characteristics Duncan C. Blair

Values - 161 -


This group is described as ‘traditional games such as chess, bridge, hearts and solitaire’; and ‘easy-to-play, short-session games on the web, such as Slingo, Poker and Concentration.’ No specific characteristics are provided to help identify these games or what is meant by ‘traditional’ or ‘on the web’, as these two terms could be rather broadly interpreted. Certainly, the phrase ‘on the web’ could be interpreted as being ambiguous when compared to the last group of Online Games. Group Definition God Games Characteristics

Values

The members of this group are described in such a way that they would fail the test for membership in the population of Computer Games as defined in Chapter 2. They are described as having ‘no goal’, “no ‘Correct’ way to play” and ‘no preset winning conditions’. All these characteristics would cause the activity to fail the test and would result in the activity not being accepted as members of the population of Computer Games. There are no additional characteristics supplied to describe the members of this group; consequently, this group may contain everything that is not a Computer Game. Group Definition Educational Games Characteristics

Values

The members of this group are defined by the characteristic ‘teach while they entertain’. This produces an ambiguous group that may contain the majority of Computer Games, as research suggests that all Computer Games may teach in some way and most successful games entertain. Group Definition Puzzle Games Characteristics

Duncan C. Blair

Values

- 162 -


This group is described as ‘exist purely for the intellectual challenge of problem solving’. No other characteristics are presented to describe the members; as such, this may cause ambiguity with other groups. Group Definition Online Games Characteristics

Values

The description of the members of this group present the fact that they ‘can include any of the preceding Genres, but their distinguishing feature is that they are played over the internet.’ As there is already a group which includes some web games (the Casual Games group), this causes additional ambiguity in the system. The proposed classification system does not classify games by their technical implementation so there is no characteristic that describes any network infrastructure that may be involved in the game. There are no additional characteristics presented to describe this group.

5.4.4 SUMMARY OF A GROUP-FIRST GENRE SYSTEM

While some of the groups are described with more detail in this example than the last system, there are still groups that have little or no description. Additionally some of the groups cause ambiguity through overlapping definitions. The proposed system is able to reproduce the groups that are adequately described; this allows the proposed system to be considered better than the example.

5.4.5 EXAMPLE OF A CHARACTERISTIC-FIRST TAXONOMY

The system described in Playing Together: A Taxonomy of Multi-User Video Games [Wai-ling Ho-Ching, Kori M. Inkpen and Katherine Mason] is a specialised system that targets a sub-set of the population of All Computer Games. The system differs from the previous two examples in that it uses a Characteristic-first methodology. The system is based on classifying the population based on a single characteristic. This will require the proposed system to be specialised both in the identification test for the population and the characteristics in the characteristic matrix. Duncan C. Blair

- 163 -


5.4.5.1 SPECIALISATION OF THE IDENTIFICATION TEST As the system described in the prior work is designed to address a population containing multi-player console games. To refine the population based on the target platform is not a characteristic of the proposed identification test; as such, it will need to be specialised to meet this need. Note that this sort of implementation characteristic is also not a part of the proposed classification matrix. However, this does not present a problem, as the system being reproduced does not use the characteristic as a component of the classification, so once the population is identified, the games can still be classified by the characteristic matrix. The identification of specifically multi-player games can be addressed with the addition of extra criteria to the current identification test. Figure 5-8 illustrates the change required to define the sub-set of the population of ‘All Computer Games’ that are multi-player. The addition of an extra characteristic to the identification test to select for console games is also illustrated. All other criteria of the proposed identification test remain unchanged. Player Representation Played By Human(s) AND requires more than one player for each game Unreal Player Abilities and

Properties

Implementation Executed on home Video Console Figure 5-8 Adjustment to the Identification Test Once the population is defined, the classification system can be tailored to classify it.

5.4.5.2 SPECIALISATION OF THE CHARACTERISTIC MATRIX The functionality of the system being replicated is based on classifying the games in the population based on the way they manage screen space for the competing

Duncan C. Blair

- 164 -


needs of multiple players. As such, the only characteristic that is under consideration is the Player Information Model. This is illustrated by Figure 5-9. Characteristics

Values

Player Information Model Screen View Model Figure 5-9 Limited Characteristic template The system presents a fixed list of values for the characteristic. These are summarised in Figure 5-10. The research that presents the system is based on examination of the current population and so this list will not be invalidated by future developments that may produce new multi-player game screen-management models. Values

Description

Split Screen

Screen is divided with a section dedicated to each player POV (Point Of View).

AI Focus

Artificial Intelligence determines the appropriate shared view

Tethered

Shared Screen with players prevented from moving too far from each other.

Fixed

All players are visible on a fixed view and are prevented from leaving the view area.

Turn Taking

Players alternate and the complete view area is dedicated to the single player during their turn. Figure 5-10 List of Values for the characteristic

The original system form groups based almost exactly on the values for the characteristic. However, there is a subtle difference, as there is an additional group, which has been added, called ‘Hybrid’, which describes members that express a number of the values for the characteristic. The description of the system presents this group as a value. This is obviously incorrect as it is then described as being a member that expresses a number of the other values. This in itself is not a possible value for the characteristic of the member; it is a value for a characteristic of the classification system. Groups

Description

Split Screen

Express the Split Screen value.

Duncan C. Blair

- 165 -


AI Focus

Express the AI Focus value.

Tethered

Express the Tethered value.

Fixed

Express the Fixed value.

Turn Taking

Express the Turn Taking value.

Hybrid

Express more than one of the values. Figure 5-11 List of Groups presented by the system

This is an interesting variation, which is based on the number of values for a characteristic rather than a specific value or range of values. The ‘Hybrid’ group can be concluded to contain all members of the population where more than one value is expressed for the characteristic. This demonstrates a group formed based on values of characteristics of the classification system and only indirectly on values of characteristics of the members. The second point worth noting is that the groups may overlap. A member that expresses the ‘Split Screen’ value and the ‘Fixed’ value can be described using the group terms, ‘Split Screen’, ‘Fixed’ and Hybrid. This is not clarified in the supporting description of the system. As the system still provides for the classification of all members of the population irrespective of the groups, the system is still complete. The descriptive groups are thus formed purely to facilitate the discussion.

5.4.6 SUMMARY OF A CHARACTERISTIC-FIRST TAXONOMY

The system reproduced here reveals a number of interesting variations on specialisation of classification systems. This system is not attempting to describe the whole game, rather is focusing on a single characteristic describing how the game specifically manages situations where multiple players need to share limited video display space. By showing that the proposed system can be specialised to address this type of niche need, it can be inferred that it could also be generalised to address the needs of other research discussing strategies applied by different games to address the same or similar problems.

Duncan C. Blair

- 166 -


5.5

CHAPTER SUMMARY

The chapter began by briefly discussing adding groups, specialising the identification test and specialising the characteristic matrix. These ideas were then combined in demonstrations where the general system was specialised to reproduce the functionality of previous classification systems for Computer Games found in prior work, it can be inferred that the proposed system is both flexible and powerful enough to address the needs of previous systems. One difference highlighted by the example in section 5.4.5 is that the proposed system is designed with the idea of classifying Computer Games on their structural elements and contains no characteristics that could describe how they are implemented. In the instance where a system was required that could describe the characteristics of how games are implemented as part of the discussion, these additional characteristics would need to be clearly identified and described. This is a complex area to describe, which has only been touched on in this work. Section 4.1.2.4 examines some of the implementation models for Computer Games encountered during this research. The next chapter presents conclusions for this research and proposes some directions for subsequent research.

Duncan C. Blair

- 167 -


Chapter - 6

6.1

Conclusion and Further Work

CONCLUSION

The thesis of this work is that Computer Games can be classified in a reproducible and unambiguous fashion. This requires firstly identifying what is meant by the term Computer Game and secondly a method by which they might be classified. An important part of defining the classification system is clarifying what the system will discuss. This work specifically focused on the internal structure of Computer Games, as this was at the heart of the systems that had previously classified Computer Games. The support for the thesis has been developed in a number of steps; firstly clarification of the meaning of the term Computer Game. This required untangling the less precise use of the term in prior works and establishing the term as referring to abstract games rather than software products. Secondly, examining the need for and the means to, identify Computer Games from a population of candidates. The structural elements of games were identified based on those considered critical in previous research examining games. These were developed into a test to define a population of Computer Games. This provided the foundation component of a classification system. Thirdly, by examining the approach used to produce classification systems constructed by others. This revealed problems and opportunities in the systems presented in prior works. The examination concluded that structures of different classification systems had the greatest influence on the success of the respective system. Where the system was based on more than a few characteristics, the most effective structure with the least chance of ambiguous classification is a matrix of characteristics and values. The system being developed was based on a large number of characteristics compared to the systems examined. This was due to the desire to

Duncan C. Blair

- 168 -


allow the system to classify Computer Games with more accuracy to express a higher level of variation within the population. A characteristic matrix was developed based on the critical game elements from the identification test. This structure provided the second component of the proposed classification system. Together these two components produce a classification system that does not suffer from the problems identified in systems presented in prior works. The system clearly defines the population to be classified. By using the matrix structure rather than a set of groups, it avoids the problems with ambiguous group definition. The system draws the characteristics from those used to define the identification test for the population, which removes any chance of the characteristics not being shared by all members of the population. Finally, the system places no restrictions on the values for the characteristics; this allows the values to be drawn from those expressed by the population as they are classified. This prevents the problem of the system being unable to or only poorly able to describe the way a particular member of the population expresses a characteristic.

6.2

LESSONS DRAWN FROM THIS WORK

•

There exists contradictory opinion about what characterises games and consequently what characterises a Computer Game. This has resulted in the term being redefined by authors and researchers without common understanding.

•

Clear identification of the population being classified provides the foundation for a classification system.

•

Clear identification of the purpose of the classification scheme provides the means to select appropriate characteristics to describe the article being classified.

•

Genres systems in the Computer Game field are prone to influences from fashions and reinterpretation. This causes products to drift from one

Duncan C. Blair

- 169 -


group to another as the group definitions evolve. This results in Genre systems being poor choices for classification. •

Computer Games must be referenced independently of their software implementation; this provides for software that implements more than a single Computer Game and Computer Games that are implemented by more than one unit of software.

•

Classification systems based on a group-first methodology tend to have problems of ambiguity. While systems based on a characteristic-first methodology exposing common characteristics shared by the population and allowing the user of the system to create classes as required, produces a more robust system with less chance of ambiguity.

•

A classification system developed using the group-first approach has two parts, the identification method for the population and the collection of groups with their supporting descriptions.

•

A classification system developed using the characteristic-first methodology has three parts, a means to identify the population being described, a set of characteristics shared by all members of the population and a set of values for the characteristics. It is optional to develop a layer of groups on top of the characteristics.

•

Every game can be encapsulated in a play agreement that acts as a set of meta-rules to control the terms under which the game is played. These terms dictate how the results of the game are translated into consequences outside the game. When these terms are violated, it is described as cheating and the violator as a cheat.

Duncan C. Blair

- 170 -


6.3

FURTHER WORK

Test this system: this system can be evaluated against a random sample drawn from a list of items identified as computer games by other parties. This would provide empirical evidence to support the thesis that this system is able to classify a population that is similar to that which is commonly identified as Computer Games. The selection of samples for such a test presents problems, firstly for the compilation of a comprehensive list of all Computer Games and secondly for gaining access to all the members of such a list for examination. Develop a critical language to describe the structures of games: the elements of a game identified in this and prior works provide a basis for developing a general model for a Computer Game. This will allow comparison of game structures and narrative structures in an objective way. It would also provide a means to begin to evaluate the structure of Computer Games and examine their individual success and failure as games. Automatic Generation of Computer Games: based on a classification system presents an interesting possibility for increasing the speed of development of games. The upper limits on this are the range of characteristics and values for these, which place limits on the expressiveness of the system. EGGG: The Extensible Graphical Game Generator [Jon Orwant, 2000] examines these possibilities. While this system relies on a clear set of abstract values to express the rules of the game in a way, which can be interpreted by software, this is not the only way to go. By developing a system that generates a description of the game rather than source code, the game description can be further developed with the addition of more creative elements by a human designer. This could involve a simple expert system of heuristics using the data from the classification system to generate possible games by simply filling in a template based on popular conventions or unpopular conventions depending on the design space the Game Designer wished to explore. The limits on this are the range of values in the classification system. Obviously slightly abstract values are of benefit here but do place a load on the designer to then find a way to make them concrete. It is more beneficial to be able to present some concrete examples and allow the designer to abstract them as desired. Population Experiments: once a population is defined, it becomes feasible to collect statistics on and to draw inferences about it. A consistent identification system Duncan C. Blair

- 171 -


is the basic tool required to describe this process. The range of potential experiments on the population of Computer Games or using a member of the population is quite diverse. Some examples are: •

What makes a particular group of games popular?

•

What are the information models appropriate to particular activities?

•

Which characteristics of a game are more useful to promote learning?

•

What is the most efficient structure for a Computer Game to promote learning or advertise a product?

This leads on to using population members as tools for research in other fields. Now rather than just arbitrarily selecting example games from some of the popular Genres and hoping they are a diverse representation of the population, it is feasible to present the games in a classification matrix and show that they display quite different structures of characteristics. Similarly, a selection of games can be selected which all share a common expression of a characteristic while being quite different in others. Related Populations: by defining the population of Computer Games as being a subset of software based activities a number of classes of activities, which were previously classified as Computer Games have in effect been orphaned. Work needs to be done on these products to identify their niches and determine if they are in fact some valuable class all of their own or just ambiguous members of currently developed classes. This will assist specialist research into the properties and values of these classes. Examples are ‘Edutainment’, ‘Virtual Worlds’ and ‘Interactive Fiction’. Game Referencing: a point of difficulty to the discussion of Computer Games in this research was the duality of the use of the term Computer Game to refer to both Software Products and abstract Games represented by them. This is ingrained into the discussion in many places and goes un-noticed. Future work is possible on better methods to reference abstract games independent of their implementation. This may be based on a general model of games, which would provide a consistent language for describing the components of the game. Classification of Computer Game Implementation: will provide a means to examine the ways Computer Games are presented to and accessed by their players. Many games use a layer of wrapper software, which provides for the physical transition between the real world and the Game. This allows the player to manage multiple games and to engage in a save/reload cycle. As the way the game is represented is outside the actual terms of the game, it is not covered by the Duncan C. Blair

- 172 -


classification system presented in this work. A range of models for Computer Game implementation was presented in Chapter 4. These may provide a starting point for this examining firstly the range of models that exist. The secondly question is to determining which models are more applicable, and their effects on the game experience. Exploration of the forces acting upon the marketplace for Computer Games: The forces acting upon the members of the Computer Game population exert some shaping influence on the games that are produced and on the success of games in the marketplace. Exploring the forces at work in the Computer Game market place may provide a model to predict forms of games, which have a greater chance of being commercially successful by meeting the players’ skill levels and expectations, and reduce the financial risk within the industry while allowing an expansion of innovation in design. This model could be based on the structural elements of games rather than on external predictors as has been the trend in the past.

Duncan C. Blair

- 173 -


TABLE OF REFERENCES

Each entry is prefaced with some indication of the type of work. This is included to assist with differentiation between traditional works such as journal articles and media such as Computer Games and Internet Web Pages. Entries in the bibliography are sorted by Author name. As Computer games and software products do not generally have one identifiable author; these products are instead listed by the name of the company which developed them. Where the company name contains more than a single word, the spaces have been replaced with underscore characters to assist with correct sorting.

Computer Game - Max

Payne, 2001 Developed: 3D_Realms and Remedy_Entertainment Published: Greenleaf. System: PC - Windows. Book - Espen Aarseth, Cybertext: Perspectives on Ergodic Literature. 1997: Johns Hopkins Press. Computer Game - Shanghai Dynasty, 1997 Developed: Activision_Inc Published: Activision Inc. System: PC-Windows. Article - Ernest Adams, Games for Girls? Eeeeww! Gamasutra.com, 1998. http://www.designersnotebook.com/Columns/004_Games_for_Girls/004_games_for_ girls.htm Software - Adobe Photoshop 5.0, Developer: Adobe_Systems_Incorporated Published By: Adobe Systems Incorporated 1998 Thesis - Alan Amory, Kevin Naicker, Jackie Vincent and Claudia Adams, Computer Games as a Learning Resource, 1998 http://www.und.ac.za/und/biology/staff/amory/edmedia98.html Article - C.A. Anderson, Violent Video Games and Aggressive Thoughts, Feelings, and Behaviors. 2002. Computer Game - America's Army, 2002 Developed: U.S Army Published: U.S Army. System. Book - Reiji Asakura, Revolutionaries at Sony: The Making of the Sony Playstation and The Visionaries Who Conquered The World of Video Games. 2000: McGraw-Hill Professional. Book Section - Elliot M. Avedon, The Structural Elements of Games, in The Study of Games, B. Sutton-Smith and E. M. Avedon, Editors. 1971, Wiley. p. 419-426 Book - Elliott M. Avedon and Brian Sutton-Smith, The Study of Games. 1971: John Wiley & Sons Inc. Book - Richard A. Bartle, Designing Virtual Worlds. 2003: New Riders.

Duncan C. Blair

- 174 -


- Richard A. Bartle, Hearts, Clubs, Diamonds, Spades: Players who suit MUDs. 1996. http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm Book - Bob Bates, Game Design: The Art & Business of Creating Games, ed. A. LaMothe. 2001: Prima Tech. Article - Daphne Bavelier and C.Shawn Green, Action video game modifies visual selective attention. Nature, 2003. 423: p. 534-537. http://www.bcs.rochester.edu/people/daphne/videogames.html Article - G. Beato, Girl Games. Wired, 1997. 5.04. http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/5.04/es_girlgames.html?person=brenda_laurel&t opic_set=wiredpeople Report - Lillian Bensley and Juliet VanEenwyk, Video games and real-life aggression: A review of the literature., 2000 http://www.doh.wa.gov/cfh/Videoresearch.doc Computer Game - You dont Know Jack, 1995 Developed: Berkeley_Systems and Jellyvision Published: Sierra. System: PC-Windows. Computer Game - The Elder Scrolls: Daggerfall, 1996 Developed: Bethesda_Softworks Published: Bethesda Softworks. System: PC-DOS. Book - Erik Bethke, Game Development and Production. 2003: Wordware Publishing. Web Page - Nate Birkholz, Game Guru: A Lesson in gaming Taxonomy, 2000, Date Accessed 12/6/2003 http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/0009/26.gameguru.shtml Computer Game - Fallout 2, 1998 Developed: Black_Isle_Studios Published: Interplay. System: PC-Windows. Computer Game - Diablo, 1996 Developed: Blizzard_Entertainment Published: Blizzard Entertainment. System: PC-Windows. Computer Game - Diablo II, 2000 Developed: Blizzard_Entertainment Published: Blizzard Entertainment. System: PC-Windows. Computer Game - Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos, 2002 Developed: Blizzard_Entertainment Published: Blizzard. System: PC - Windows. Article - Ulrich Boser, Gaming the system, one click at a time. 2002. http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/elearning/articles/02biz.htm Article - Marilyn Brennan, The Effects of Computer Games on Children's Development: Social Effects. http://wwwed.sturt.flinders.edu.au/DLT/CAD_98/Comps.htm /socef.htm Book - Van Burnham, Supercade: A Visual History of the Videogame Age 1971-1984. 2003: MIT Press. Book - Roger Caillois, Man, Play and Games (Translation of 1958 French Language Version). 1979: Schocken Books. Edited Book - Justine Cassell and Henry Jenkins, eds. From Barbie to Mortal Kombat: Gender and Computer Games. 2000, MIT Press. Thesis - Edward Castronova, Virtual Worlds: A First-Hand Account of Market and Society on the Cyberian Frontier, 2001 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=294828 Web Site - Christian Computer Game Reviews CCGR.org, Christian Computer Game Reviews Date Accessed 29/7/03, www.ccgr.org Article - Melissa Chaika, Ethical Considerations in Gender- Oriented Entertainment Technology. ACM Crossroads student Magazine, 2001. http://www.acm.org/crossroads/xrds2-2/gender.html Article - Tom Chick, Three Finger Salute. Computer Games Magazine, 2001. November 2001. http://www.cgonline.com/features/011117-c1-f1.html Web Page - Cho Myung Chol, Personal Computers and Games in North Korea, 2001, Date Accessed http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200104/200104010339.html Article

Duncan C. Blair

- 175 -


- Scott Cohen, Zap. 1984: Xlibris Corporation. Web Site - Electronics Conservancy, Videotopia: The Exhibit of the True History of Video Games Date Accessed 9/7/2003, http://www.videotopia.com/ Computer Game - Tomb Raider, 1996 Developed: Core_Design_Ltd Published: Eidos Interactive. System: PC-Windows. Web Site - Inetix Group Corp., WebGameList Date Accessed 14/7/2003, http://www.webgamelist.com/index.asp Article - Greg Costikyan, I Have No Words & I Must Design. Interactive Fantasy, 1994. 2. http://www.costik.com/nowords.html Book - Chris Crawford, The Art of Computer Game Design. 1982. Book - Chris Crawford, Chris Crawford on Game Design. 2003: New Riders Publishing. Software - Serious Editor, Developer: CroTeam_Ltd Published By: Cro Team Ltd 2001 Computer Game - Serious Sam: The Second Encounter, 2002 Developed: Croteam_Ltd and A Few Screws Loose Published: Gathering of Developers and Take-Two Interactive Software Inc. System: PC-Windows. Computer Game - Tetris, 1999 Developed: Crystal_Office_Systems Published: Crystal Office Systems. System: PC - Windows. Computer Game - Myst, 1994 Developed: Cyan and Red Orb Entertainment Published: Broderbund. System: Windows 3.x. Computer Game - Creatures 2, 1998 Developed: Cyberlife_Technology_Ltd Published: Mindscape Inc. System: PC-Windows. Book - Mark DeLoura, Game Programming Gems 2. 2001: Charles River Media. Edited Book - Mark DeLoura, ed. Game Programming Gems. 2000, Charles River Media. Book - Russel DeMaria and Johnny Lee Wilson, High Score! The Illustrated History of Electronic Games. 2002: McGraw-Hill Osborne Media. Report - John V. Dempsey, Barbara A. Lucassen, Linda L. Haynes and Maryann S. Casey, An Exploratory Study of Forty Computer Games COE Technical Report No. 97-2, 1997 Article - Tracy L. Dietz, An examination of violence and gender role portrayals in video games: implications for gender socialization and aggressive behavior. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 1998. http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m2294/n56_v38/20749198/p1/article.jhtml?term=gender+advertisement Simon Egenfeldt-Nielsen, The Game on conference and the current state of research into learning. 2003. http://www.game-research.com/art_game_on_conference.asp Web Site - Simon Egenfeldt-Nielsen and Jonas Heide Smith, Game Research: The Art, Business and Science of Computer Games Date Accessed 29/7/03, www.gameresearch.com Computer Game - Need for Speed: Hot Pursuit 2, 2002 Developed: Electronic_Arts Published: Electronic Arts. System: PC-Windows. Computer Game - Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos, 2002 Developed: Blizzard Entertainment Published: Blizzard. System. Computer Game - Unreal Tournament, 1999 Developed: Epic_MegaGames_Inc Published: GT Interactive. System: PC - Windows. Computer Game - Escape from Woomera, 2003 Developed: EscapeFromWoomera.org Published: EscapeFromWoomera.org. System: PC-Windows. http://www.escapefromwoomera.org/ Article - Markku Eskelinen, The Gaming Situation. Game Studies - The international journal of computer game research, 2001. 1(1). http://www.gamestudies.org/0101/eskelinen/ Computer Game - Swiss Checkin, 2003 Developed: Federal_Office_for_Refugees Published: Federal Office for Refugees. System: Unknown. Book

Duncan C. Blair

- 176 -


- Meghan Fox, I'm not that hard to write for! One woman's Opinion. 2001. http://www.womengamers.com/articles/write4me.html Web Page - Gonzalo Frasca, Ludology Meets Narratology: Similitude and differences between (video)games and narrative, 1999, Date Accessed 11/10/2003 http://www.jacaranda.org/frasca/ludology.htm Book - Markus Friedl, Online Game Interactivity Theory. 2003, Massachusetts: Charles River Media Inc. Web Site - Gamesurge, GameSurge Date Accessed 29/7/03, http://www.gamesurge.com/pc/reviews/index.shtml Book - James Paul Gee, What Video Games Have to Teach Us About Learning and Literacy. 2003: Palgrave Macmillan. Thesis - Jeffrey Goldstein, Does playing violent video games cause aggressive behavior?, 2001 http://culturalpolicy.uchicago.edu/conf2001/papers/goldstein.html Web Site - Google, Google Search Engine Date Accessed All the time, http://www.google.com Article - Roger Grice and Larry Strianese, Learning and Building Strategies with Computer Games. IEEE, 2000. Article - M. Griffith, Video Games and Aggression. The Psychologist, 1997. sept: p. 397-401. Book - Neal Hallford and Jana Hallford, Swords and Circuitry: A Designers Guide to Computer Role-Playing Games, ed. A. LaMothe. 2001: Prima Publishing. Web Site - Hugh "Nomad" Hancock, Machinima.com Date Accessed 23/7/03, http://www.machinima.com Book - Michael Hayes and Stuart Dinsey, Games War: Video Games - A Business Review. 1996: Bowerdean Publishing. Book - Jane M. Healy, Endangered Minds: Why Children Don't Think and What We Can Do About It. 1990: Simon & Schuster. Book - Jane M. Healy, Failure to Connect: How Computers Affect Our Children's Minds and What We Can Do About It. 1998: Simon & Schuster. Book - Leonard Herman, Phoenix: The Fall & Rise of Videogames. 1997: Rolenta Press. Computer Game - Special Force, 2003 Developed: Hezbollah Published: Hezbollah Central Internet Bureau. System: Unknown. http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0601game01.html Article - Norman D. Hinton, Modern PLATO gives individual lessons to 900. Illinois Issues, 1976. II(1 January). http://www.lib.niu.edu/ipo/ii760105.html Web Page - International Hobo, A Guide to Computer Game Genres, 2002, Date Accessed 12/8/2003 http://www.ihobo.com/forum/articles/genres.html Thesis - Wai-ling Ho-Ching, Kori M. Inkpen and Katherine Mason, Playing Together: A Taxonomy of Multi-User Video Games, Unknown Thesis - Wai-ling Ho-Ching, Kori M. Inkpen and Katherine Mason, Playing Together: A Taxonomy of Multi-User Video Games, Computer Game - Mario Party, 1998 Developed: Hudson_Soft Published: Nintendo. System: Nintendo 64. Book - Johan Huizinga, Homo Ludens: A study of the play-elements in culture. 1950, Boston: Beacon Press. Web Page - William Hunter, The Dot Eaters: Videogame History 101, 2003, Date Accessed 5/6/2003 http://www.emuunlim.com/doteaters/index.htm Computer Game - Doom, 1993 Developed: Id_Software Published: Id Software. System: PCDOS. Computer Game - Quake III: Arena, 1999 Developed: Id_Software Published: Activision Inc. System: PC-Windows. Report - IDSA, IDSA State of the Industry Report 2000-2001, 2001 Article

Duncan C. Blair

- 177 -


Computer Game - Pharaoh,

1999 Developed: Impressions Published: Sierra. System: PC-

Windows. - AEC One Stop Group Inc, All Game Guide Date Accessed 29/7/03, http://www.allgame.com/genres.html Web Site - CNET Networks Inc, GameSpot Date Accessed 29/7/03, www.gamespot.com Web Site - Hugh Falk International Interactive Enterprises Industries Inc, Classic Gaming Date Accessed 14/7/2003, http://www.classicgaming.com/gotcha/genres.htm Web Site - ebay Inc., ebay Date Accessed 10/10/2003, http://www.ebay.com/ Thesis - Aki Javinen, Making and Breaking games: A Typology of Rules. - Section of an unpublished thesis., 2003 Report - Steve Jones, Let the Games Begin: Gaming Technology and Entertainment among College Students, 2003 Web Page - Søren Aamand Jørgensen, Ubiquitous Games, 2003, Date Accessed 30/11/2003 http://www.mip.sdu.dk/~sorenj/ubiquitousGames.htm Thesis - Jesper Juul, A Clash between Game and Narrative, 1999 Article - Jesper Juul, Games Telling Stories? - A Brief note on games and narratives. Game Studies - The international journal of computer game research, 2001. 1(1). http://www.gamestudies.org/0101/juul-gts/ Thesis - Yasmin B. Kafir, The Educational Potential of Electronic Games: From GamesTo-Teach to Games-To-Learn, 2001 Thesis - Jyrki J. J. Kasvi, Not Just Fun and Games, Unknown http://www.interactive.hut.fi/persons/jkasvi/gamelinks.html Book - Steven L. Kent, The Ultimate History of Video Games: From Pong to Pokemon-The Story Behind the Craze That Touched Our Lives and Changed the World. 2001: Prima Publishing. Article - Brad King, Machinima: Games Act Like Films. Wired News, 2002. http://www.wired.com/news/games/0,2101,53929,00.html Article - S. J. Kirsh, Seeing the world through Mortal Kombat-colored glasses: Violent video games and the development of a short-term hostile attribution bias. Childhood, 1998. 5: p. 177-184. Article - M. J. Koepp, R. N. Gunn, A. D. Lawrence, V. J. Cunningham, A. Dagher, T. Jones, D. J. Brooks, C. J. Bench and P.M. Grasby, Evidence for striatal dopamine release during a video game. Nature, 1998. 393: p. 266-268. http://www.indyrad.iupui.edu/public/emorris/VirtualJournalClub/Koepp98NatureVide oGameRacloprideBindingChange.pdf Book - Beth Kolko, Lisa Nakamura and Gilbert Rodman, Race in Cyberspace. 2000: Routledge. Computer Game - Metal Gear Solid, 2000 Developed: Konami Published: Microsoft. System: PC-Windows. Raph Koster, Online World Timeline. 2002. http://www.legendmud.org/raph/gaming/mudtimeline.html Web Page - Raph Koster, Online World Timeline, 2002, Date Accessed http://www.legendmud.org/raph/gaming/mudtimeline.html Web Page - Raph Koster, Video games, and Online worlds, as Art, 2003, Date Accessed 23/7/03 http://www.legendmud.org/raph/gaming/games-as-art.html Book - David Kushner, Masters of Doom: How Two Guys Created an Empire and Transformed Pop Culture. 2003: Random House. Book - Francois Dominic Laramee, Game Design Perspectives. 2002: Charles River Media. Computer Game - Black & White, 2001 Developed: Lionhead_Studios Published: Electronic Arts. System: PC - Windows. Web Site

Duncan C. Blair

- 178 -


- Price Search Central LLC, Game PriceZone Date Accessed 29/7/03, www.gamepricezone.com Computer Game - Thief II: The Metal Age, 2000 Developed: Looking_Glass_Studios Published: Eidos Interactive. System: PC - Windows. Computer Game - Creatures, 1996 Developed: Cyberlife Technology Ltd Published: Millennium Interactive, Warner Brothers Interactive Entertainment. System. Article - Dave MacQueen, Games For Women? 2000. http://www.womengamers.com/articles/gamesforwomen.html Software - Macromedia Flash 4, Developer: Macromedia_Inc Published By: Macromedia Inc Software - Macromedia Flash 5, Developer: Macromedia_Inc Published By: Macromedia Inc Software - Macromedia Homesite 5, Developer: Macromedia_Inc Published By: Macromedia Inc Thesis - Tomas W. Malone, What Makes Things Fun To Learn? Heuristics for Designing Instructional Computer Games, 1980 Book - Lev Manovich, The Language of New Media. 2001: The MIT Press. Article - Eston Martz, In a Pig's Eye. Penn State Agriculture, 1997. http://aginfo.psu.edu/psa/fw97/eye.html Computer Game - SimCity 3000, 1999 Developed: Maxis_Software_Inc Published: Electronic Arts. System: PC-Windows. Computer Game - The Sims, 2002 Developed: Maxis_Software_Inc Published: Electronic Arts. System: PC-Windows. Computer Game - The Sims Online, 2002 Developed: Maxis_Software_Inc Published: Electronic Arts. System: PC-Windows. Thesis - Joanna Lynn McGrenere, Design: Educational Electronic Multi-Player Games A literature Review, 1996 Computer Game - 3D Pinball for Windows - Space Cadet, 2001 Developed: Microsoft_Corporation Published: Microsoft Corporation. System: PC-Windows. Computer Game - Freecell, 2001 Developed: Microsoft_Corporation Published: Microsoft Corporation. System: PC-Windows. Computer Game - Microsoft Entertainment Pack, Developed: Microsoft_Corporation Published: Microsoft. System: PC-Windows. Software - Microsoft Excel 97, Developer: Microsoft_Corporation Published By: Microsoft Corporation 1997 Software - Microsoft Windows XP, Developer: Microsoft_Corporation Published By: Microsoft Corporation 2002 Software - Microsoft Word XP, Developer: Microsoft_Corporation Published By: Microsoft Corporation 2002 Software - MSN Messenger 6, Developer: Microsoft_Corporation Published By: Microsoft Corporation 2003 Computer Game - Solitaire, 2001 Developed: Microsoft_Corporation Published: Microsoft Corporation. System: PC-Windows. Computer Game - Spider Solitaire, 2000 Developed: Microsoft_Corporation Published: Microsoft Corporation. System: PC - Windows. Software - Visual C++ 6, Developer: Microsoft_Corporation Published By: Microsoft Corportation 2000 Web Site - MobyGames, Moby Games Date Accessed 29/7/03, www.mobygames.com Book - Jessica Mulligan and Brigette Patrovsky, Developing Online Games: An Insiders Guide. 2003. Book - Janet E. Murray, Hamlet on the Holodeck. The Future of Narrative in Cyberspace. 1997: The Free Press. Thesis - Aloka Nanjappa, Educational Games: Learners as Creators, 2001 Web Site

Duncan C. Blair

- 179 -


Computer Game - Crash

Bandicoot, 1996 Developed: Naughty_Dog Published: SCEA. System:

Playstation. Computer Game - Super

Mario 64, 1996 Developed: Nintendo Published: Nintendo. System:

Nintendo 64. Software - Winamp 2.5, Developer: Nullsoft_Inc Published By: Nullsoft Inc 1999 Software - Opera 6.03, Developer: Opera_Software Published By: Opera Software 2002

Opulent, The Doomed Speed Demos Archive, 2003, Date Accessed 10/9/2003 http://www.doomworld.com/sda/doom_sda.htm Computer Game - Wing Commander: Prophecy, 1997 Developed: Origin Published: Electronic Arts. System: PC-Windows. Thesis - Jon Orwant, EGGG: The Extensible Graphical Game Generator, 2000 http://orwant.com/eggg.html Book - Roger E. Pedersen, Game Design Foundations. 2003: Wordware Publishing. Computer Game - Giants: Citizen Kabuto, 2000 Developed: Planet_Moon_Studios Published: Interplay. System: PC-Windows. Book - Steven Poole, Trigger Happy: The Inner Life of Videogames. 2000, London: Fourth Estate. Book - Steven Poole, Trigger Happy: Videogames and the Entertainment Revolution. 2000: Arcade Publishing. Book - Marc Prensky, Digital Game-Based Learning. 2000: McGraw-Hill. Book - Eugene Provenzo, Video Kids - Making Sense of Nintendo. 1990: Harvard. Software - Eudora 5.1, Developer: QUALCOMM_Incorporated Published By: QUALCOMM Incorporated 2000 Web Site - Steve Rabin, AIWisdom.com Date Accessed 22/july/2003, http://www.aiwisdom.com Edited Book - Steve Rabin, ed. AI Game Programming Wisdom. 2002, Charles River Media. Computer Game - Banjo-Kazooie, 1998 Developed: Rare_Ltd Published: Nintendo. System: Nintendo64. Computer Game - Donkey Kong 64, 2000 Developed: Rare_Ltd Published: Nintendo. System: Nintendo64. Web Site - Gord Roberts, Gamebase Date Accessed 29/7/03, http://130.113.103.18/comgames/fields.htm Book - Andrew Rollings and Ernest Adams, Andrew Rollings and Ernest Adams on Game Design. 2003: New Riders. Conference Proceedings - Marie-Laure Ryan. Beyond Myth and Metaphor. in Computer Games & Digital Textualities. 2001. Copenhagen. http://www.gamestudies.org/0101/ryan/ Web Site - Anne-Marie Schleiner, Cracking the Maze "Game Plug-ins and Patches as Hacker Art" Date Accessed 23/7/03, http://switch.sjsu.edu/CrackingtheMaze/ Article - N. S. Schutte, J. M. Makouff, J.C. Post-Gorden and A.L. Rodasta, Effects of playing video games on children's aggressive and other behaviors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1988. 18: p. 454-460. Article - D. Scott, The effects of video games on feelings of aggression. Journal of Psychology, 1995. 129: p. 121-132. Book - John Sellers, ARCADE FEVER The Fan's Guide to The Golden Age of Video Games. 2001: Running Press. Book - David Sheff and Andy Eddy, Game Over: Press Start To Continue. 1999: GamePress. Article - Martin Shubik, On the Scope of Gaming. Management Science, 1972. 18(5). Computer Game - Hoyle Card Games, 2003 Developed: Sierra_Entertainment Published: Sierra Entertainment. System: PC-Windows. Web Page -

Duncan C. Blair

- 180 -


Computer Game - Sierra

Sports Game Room, 2003 Developed: Sierra_Entertainment Published: Sierra Entertainment. System: PC-Windows. Computer Game - Trophy Bass 4, 2000 Developed: Sierra_Entertainment Published: Sierra. System: PC-Windows. Article - Jonas Smith, Column: What women want - (and it ain't Counter Strike). 2001. http://www.game-research.com/art_what_women_want.asp Web Page - Jonas Heide Smith, Computer Game Research 101 - A Brief Introduction to the Literature, 2002, Date Accessed 21/8/2003 http://www.gameresearch.com/art_computer_game_research.asp Article - Elisa Hae-Jung Song and Jane E. Anderson, How violent video games may violate children's health. Contemporary Paediatrics, 2001. http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m0BGH/5_18/75958495/p1/article.jhtml?term=%2 BVideo+%2Bgames+%2BSocial+%2Baspects Computer Game - Final Fantasy IX, 2000 Developed: SquareSoft Published: Square EA. System: PlayStation. Book - Clifford Stoll, High Tech Heretic: Why Computers Don't Belong in the Classroom and Other Reflections by a Computer Contrarian. 1999: Doubleday. Article - Peter R. Sugges, The use of computerized business games to simulate business behavior under different policies. Proceedings of the 11th conference on Winter simulation - Volume 2, 1979: p. 563-567. Book - Brian Sutton-Smith and Elliott M. Avedon, The Study of Games. 1971: John Wiley & Sons Inc. Article - Janese Swanson, WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE? From the research on play preferences of boys and girls. 2001. http://www.girltech.com/Mentors/MN_research.html Book - Dean Takahashi, Opening the Xbox: Inside Microsoft's Plan to Unleash an Entertainment Revolution. 2002: Prima Publishing. Article - T.L. Taylor, Multiple Pleasures Women and Online Gaming. Convergence, 2003. 9(1). http://social.chass.ncsu.edu/~ttaylor/papers/Taylor-WomenAndGaming.pdf Computer Game - Worms World Party, 2001 Developed: Team_17 Published: Titus Interactive. System: PC-Windows. Article - Jay Teitel, Wanna play.(role of games). Psychology Today, 1998. http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m1175/n4_v31/20845730/p1/article.jhtml?term=%2 BVideo+%2Bgames+%2BSocial+%2Baspects Computer Game - Zoombinis Logical Journey, Unknown Developed: The_Learning_Company Published: Broderbund. System: PC-Windows. Computer Game - Daedalian Opus, 1990 Developed: Vic Tokai Published: Vic Tokai. System: Gameboy. Web Page - tranceaddict.com, What's your favourite computer/console game genre ?, 2003, Date Accessed 29/7/03 http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/archive/topic/40363-1.html Edited Book - Dante Treglia and Mark Deloura, eds. Game Programming Gems 3. 2002, Charles River Media. Computer Game - Arcanum: Of Steamworks & Magick Obscura, 2001 Developed: Troika_Games Published: Sierra. System: PC-Windows. Web Site - Home of the Underdogs, Home of the Underdogs Date Accessed 13/8/2003, http://www.the-underdogs.org/ Web Site - unknown, Computer Game Station Date Accessed 29/7/03, http://www.computergames-station.com/cats/genre,start/ Web Page - Unknown, Internet Top 100, 2003, Date Accessed 15/8/2003 http://www.cdaccess.com/html/pc/pctop100.htm Duncan C. Blair

- 181 -


- Kathleen Vail, Girlware: Software companies are targeting girls, but is their marketing on the mark? Electronic School Online, 1997. June 1997. http://www.electronic-school.com/0697f1.html Software - Steam, Developer: Valve_Software Published By: Valve Software 2003 Computer Game - EverQuest, 1999 Developed: Verant_Interactive Published: Sony Online. System: PC - Windows. Thesis - Bo Kampmann Walther, Computer Game Spaces: Genealogy, Classification and Reflection, Unknown Thesis - Bo Kampmann Walther, Computer Game Spaces: Geneology, Classification and Reflection, Thesis - Bo Kampmann Walther, Logic and Diegetic Space: Reflections on Computer Games and Digital Cinematography, Unknown http://www.sdu.dk/Hum/bkw/logicspace.html Thesis - Bo Kampmann Walther, Space in New Media Conception - With Continual References to Computer Games, 2003 Computer Game - Duke Nukem 3D, 1996 Developed: Westwood_Studios Published: FormGen. System: PC - Windows. Software - WildTangent Web Driver, Developer: WildTangent_Inc Published By: WildTangent Inc 2003 Wizards_of_the_Coast_Inc, Magic The Gathering. 1993, Hasbro Inc. http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=magic/splash/welcome Edited Book - Mark J. P. Wolf, ed. The Medium of the Video Game. 2001, University of Texas Press. Article - Steven Woodcock, Game AI: The State of The Industry. Game Developer Magazine, 2000. August 2000. http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20001101/woodcock_01.htm Article - Dr. Kathryn Wright, The Gaming Industry and the Female Market. http://www.womengamers.com/articles/market.html Article

Duncan C. Blair

- 182 -


Appendix - A

GLOSSARY

Added Game-space Elements A characteristic that describes elements necessary for the game that is not available to the player in the real world and must be represented artificially. Arcade Game See Computer Game. Backstory A characteristic that describes narrative material of the game outside the control of the player; often used in much the same way as Colour, to enhance the immersive nature of the scenario of the game. See Immersive Context Cues. CAI (Computer Aided Instruction) Teaching using Computers Challenge A characteristic that describes the game elements that creates pressure on the player decision making. Characteristic-First A term used to describe a group of classification schemes observed in prior works that were similar due to having a clearly defined characteristic/ value structure. Colour A characteristic that describes the additional flourished which have no effect on the game play, but which are added to increase the appeal and enhance the immersive nature of the game. Computer Game Refers specifically to a game implemented in software which runs on general purpose Computers; primarily personal Computers but also across a wide range of other small and large systems. This can also be synonymous with PC Game, which is an abbreviation of Personal Computer Games. In much of the literature, the term Computer Game is synonymous with Arcade Game and Video Game. These are often used interchangeably; they are however slightly different meanings to different commentators. The term Arcade Games is used Duncan C. Blair

- 183 -


to describe the machines that are generally coin-operated entertainment units situated in public venues. In this case the term refers to both the platform and the game. Video Game has turned into a very general-purpose term. It has been used to refer specifically to Arcade Games or to a Game playable on home Video Consoles that can be attached to a home television set as the visual output device. Console Game is not used as a general term; it refers specifically to Games for the specialist hardware platforms which attach to televisions. These are primarily sold as home entertainment devices. They are commonly referred to as Game Consoles; Examples are the Nintendo64™, the Sony PlayStation™ and the Sega Genesis™. For the sake of simplicity, they will all be referred to as Computer Games except where a specific distinction is to be made. Conclusion Format A characteristic that describes how the activities of the game are structured to allow some conclusive evaluation of the result. Console Game See Computer Game. Consumer Both player and spectator are differentiated from the term Consumer, which is intended to mean an individual who purchases a Computer Game product. This however does not suggest that they automatically become a player; Computer Game products are sold to adults who make purchases for their children. Cybertexts Literature written in a non-linear fashion, often found on web sites. Uses hyperlinking to provide multiple paths through the text; also called hypertext. Developer Of the various terms used to describe the producers of Computer Games a number of definitions need to be made. Developer is commonly used to define the group, company or individuals who physically create the master copy of a software product. Diegetic Environment A group of characteristics describing the conceptual environment created by the rules of the game. See Removed Real-world Elements and Added Game-space Elements. Edutainment Duncan C. Blair

- 184 -


A style of game that is intended to be used for Computer Aided Instruction; a number of products developed for this market have been commercial failures while being critically acclaimed. Consequently, this remains a theoretical market niche more than an actual one. Focused Activity A characteristic that describes the main activity or activities, that the player is engaged in within the game. Game Play A term used to describe a multitude of different ideas by different authors; it is generally seen as a characteristic of a Game. It refers to the mechanics of the game and how they interact to generate the interesting activity described as a Game. In this thesis, the term is used to group a number of sub characteristics within the characteristic Matrix. Gamer Common term used to describe players of games. Games Houses Game Developers are also often referred to as Games Houses and Developer Houses. These both generally refer to the Development roles of the particular businesses. Genre A style of classification system based on defined groups, that often takes the form where each Genre group describes a strong style of work. GPS Abbreviation for Global Positioning System. Group-First A term used to describe a group of classification schemes observed in prior work that were similar due to having a set of defined groups as their main structure. Immersive Context Cues A group of characteristics in the characteristic Matrix that describe the context for the game play. See Scenario, Scenario Goals, Theme, Style, Colour, Backstory. Meaningful Decision Making A characteristic describing the core decisions which a player must take to achieve success. MMP Duncan C. Blair

- 185 -


MMORPG MMPG Abbreviations for Massive Multi-player, Massive Multi-player Online Roleplaying Games and Massive Multi-player Game; these terms are used to describe a group of multi-player virtual environments, these tend to be graphical in nature and may or may not meet the criteria presented in this research to be considered as games. MUD Abbreviations for Multi-User Dungeon (or Dungon), variations, differentiated by use and programming styles are described using a range of abbreviations including MUCK, MOO and MUSH. Payoff Characteristic in the proposed classification matrix; refers to the motivation to achieve a scenario goal and the result of a scenario within a game. PC Game See Computer Game. Performance Evaluation Information A characteristic that describes the systematic communication cues used to inform the player of the subjective value of their actions as judged by the unfamiliar rules of the game environment. Performance Ideal A characteristic that describes the performance standard that the game encourages the player to meet to be successful within the environment. This will be dictated by the scenario, the scenario goals, and the range of different approaches that are supported by the game that may successfully meet the goals. In the case of violent games that only, allow the goals of the scenario to be successfully achieved by violent actions, the performance Ideal would be described by these violent actions as these are the only actions that can be rewarded with success. Platform Describes the hardware system that the Software operates on; Consoles are an example of a Platform, as is Arcade machine hardware. Play Agreement The agreement between players that dictate the terms under which a game will be played; these terms are not a part of the game, rather provide the means to translate

Duncan C. Blair

- 186 -


between the real world and the artificial game. The terms may be implicitly or explicitly negotiated. Player A broadly used term but generally refers to an individual who is actively involved in playing a Game or has played the Game. Player Action Evaluation A group of Characteristics dealing with information supplied by the game to the player to provide subjective evaluation of the player’s activities within the unfamiliar rules of the game environment. Population Used to refer to the all the objects which a classification system is designed to classify Publisher A group in the industry whose role is primarily the duplication, marketing and supply of the copies of Computer Game products to customers. This with the proviso that some of the larger publishers also have development business units and some of the Developer Houses also self publish. Publishers can also be involved in a venture capital supply relationship with developers. Range of Outcomes A characteristic describing the total set of result values possible for a single player for the game and how the result relates to the results for other players. This may include comparative ranking rules to resolve draw situations. Scenario A characteristic that describes the initial situation and elements within the game environment that can be manipulated or effect the players’ activity. Scenario Goals A characteristic that describes the objectives of the player within the scenario. Spectator An individual who is observing another playing a Game. The line between player and spectator is becoming less well defined with some Game systems now allowing limited Player modes called Spectator mode. Style A characteristic that describes the decorative appearance of the environment and objects for the game. Duncan C. Blair

- 187 -


Subtracted Real-world Elements A characteristic that describes the elements of the real world that must be subtracted from the conceptual environment of the game for the game to occur. Success States A group of characteristics that describe the structure of the game that deals with the result of the game. See Conclusion Format and Range of Outcomes. Taxonomy A style of classification system that takes the form of a hierarchical arrangement of nodes representing characteristic/value pairs. Theme A characteristic that describes the atmospheric mood and tone, of the environment and scenario of a game. Variability of Performance A characteristic describing the amount of difference possible in the performance of the activity within the game. This allows players’ to improve their performance through learning. Video Game See Computer Game.

Duncan C. Blair

- 188 -


Appendix - B

COLLECTED GENRE LISTS

The Medium of the Video Game [Mark J. P. Wolf, 2001] Genres Identified: Abstract, Adaptation, Adventure, Artificial Life, Board Games, Capturing, Card Games, Catching, Chase, Collecting, Combat, Demo, Diagnostic, Dodging, Driving, Educational, Escape, Fighting, Flying, Gambling, Interactive Movie, Management Simulation, Maze, Obstacle Course, Pencil-and-Paper Games, Pinball, Platform, Programming Games, Puzzle, Quiz, Racing, Role Playing, Rhythm and Dance, Shoot ‘Em Up, Simulation, Sports, Strategy, Table-Top Games, Target, Text Adventure, Training Simulation and Utility.

Game Design Perspectives (p. 196) [Francois Dominic Laramee, 2002] These categories are referred to as a Taxonomy of Game Genres; however there is no attempt to arrange the genre into a Taxonomy. Genres Identified: Action Games, Management Games, Fast Strategy Games, Story-Driven Games, Simulators, Platform Games and Edutainment. Also mentioned in later parts are: turn-based strategy games, Multi-player game worlds and Online Games.

Developing Online Games: An Insiders Guide [Jessica Mulligan and Brigette Patrovsky, 2003] This book examines games from a social angle. Genres Identified: Single Player Games, Classic Games, Hybrid and Persistent Worlds

Game Development and Production [Erik Bethke, 2003] Genres Identified: Strategy, Adventure, Role-playing, Action and Simulation, Military simulation,

Duncan C. Blair

- 189 -


sports simulation, gambling, parlor, puzzle games, storytelling, toys, children’s games, text adventure games, arcade games, multi-player games.

Game Design Foundations [Roger E. Pedersen, 2003] Genres Identified: Action Games, Adventure Games, Casual Games, Educational Games, Role-Playing Games, Simulation Games, Sports Games with a subtype of Fighting Games, Strategy Games, Other Games (Toys and Puzzles)

Swords and Circuitry: A Designer’s guide to computer Role-playing games [Neal Hallford and Jana Hallford, 2001] Genres Identified: This book focuses on the Genre of Role-Playing Games.

Andrew Rollings and Ernest Adams on Game Design [Andrew Rollings and Ernest Adams, 2003] Genres Identified: Action Games (sub types Shooter, Fighter and Non-Shooter), Strategy Games, RolePlaying Games, Sports Games, Vehicle Simulators, Construction and Management Simulations, War Games, Adventure Games (with Subtypes of Text Adventures and Graphical Adventures), Action-Adventure Games, Artificial Life, Puzzle Games, Games for Girls, Online Games (With Sub types of Real-time and turn-based), Persistent worlds.

The Art of Computer Game Design [Chris Crawford, 1982] Genres Identified: Skill and Action games (with Subtypes of Combat Games, Maze Games, Sports Games, Paddle Games, Race Games, Miscellaneous Games), Strategy Games, Adventure Games, D&D Games (Also referred to as Fantasy Role-playing Games), War games, Games of Chance, Educational, Children’s Games, Interpersonal Games.

Duncan C. Blair

- 190 -


GameSpot [CNET Networks Inc, 2003] Genres Identified: Action Games, Adventure Games, Driving Games, Puzzle Games, RPG’s (Role Playing Games), Simulations, Sports Games, Strategy Games.

Moby Games [MobyGames, 2003] Genres Identified: Action, Racing/Driving, Sports, Adventure, Role-Playing, Strategy, Educational, Simulation

Christian Computer Game Reviews [Christian Computer Game Reviews CCGR.org, 2003] Genres Identified: Action/Adventure, Christian games, First Person Shooter, Kids, Racing, RolePlaying, Simulation, Sports, and Strategy.

TranceAddict Discussion [tranceaddict.com, 2003] List of Genre’s harvested from a discussion topic on Trance Addict Web Site. Genres Identified: Role-playing Games (RPG), Import Games, First Person Shooter (FPS), Realtime Strategy (RTS), 3D Shooters, Strategy, Racing, 2-D Zelda Games (RPG), Platformers, Turn-based strategy, Action Games, Sports Games, Adventure, Arcade, Cards, Management, Platform, Puzzle, Simulation, Shoot ‘Em Ups, Fighting,

Game Research [Simon Egenfeldt-Nielsen and Jonas Heide Smith, 2003] Genres Identified: Action Games, Adventure Games, Strategy Games, Simulation Games.

Game Price Zone [Price Search Central LLC, 2003] Genres Identified: Action/Adventure, Classic Racing, Fighting, Party Games, Simulation, Variety, Anime, Driving/Racing, Misc, Puzzle, Sports/Competition, Arcade Classics, Duncan C. Blair

- 191 -


Family, Music, Role-playing, Strategy

Game Surge [Gamesurge, 2003] Genres Identified: RTS, RPS, FPS, Arcade, Simulation, Strategy, Action, Racing, 3D RTS, Tactical, RPG, 3D Action, 3D RTS, God Simulation

Gamebase [Gord Roberts, 2003] Genres Identified: Action, Adventure, Simulation, Strategy, RPG, Sports, Arcade

Computer Game Station [unknown, 2003] Genres Identified: Action, Arcade and Shooter Games, Adventure and Role-playing Games, Board Games, Card and Casino Games, Driving and Racing Games, Golf Games, Mahjongg and Tetris Games, Miscellaneous, Pinball Games, Puzzle Solving Games, Shareware Games, Sports Games, Simulation Games, Startrek Games, Strategy Games, Trivia and TV Game Show Games, War Games, Kids Software – Thinking Games

All Game Guide [AEC One Stop Group Inc, 2003] Genres Identified: Action ( With Subtypes of Side Scrolling Platform, 2D Action, 3D Platform, Action/Adventure, Multi-game Compilation, Comic Action, Interactive Screensaver, Maze, Third-person 3D Action, Multi-Genre Action, Side Scrolling Combat, Overhead View Action, Combat, First Person Action, Survival Horror) Adventure (With Subtypes of Action Adventure, Interactive Movie, Action/RPG Adventure, First-person Adventure, Text-Based Adventure, First-Person Graphic Adventure, Mystery Adventure) Educational (with Subtypes of Art/Paint, Geography, History, Interactive Book, Language, Math, Music, Quiz Game, Reading, Science, Social Interaction, Spelling, Typing, Writing) Duncan C. Blair

- 192 -


Fighting (With Subtypes of 2D Fighting, 3D Fighting) Puzzle (With Subtypes of Action Puzzle, Adventure Puzzle, Maze Puzzle, Word Game Puzzle) Racing ( With Subtypes of Extreme Racing, Aircraft Racing, Biking, Dog Racing, Drag Racing, Horse Racing, Motocross, Radio Control (RC) Racing, Running, Snowmobile Racing, Boat/Watercraft Racing, Miscellaneous Racing, Go-Kart Racing, Demolition/Combat Racing, NASCAR/Stock Car Racing, Formula 1/Indy Racing, Futuristic Racing, Monster Truck Racing, Motorcycle Racing, Rally/Off-Road Racing, Sports Car Racing) Role-Playing (With Subtypes of First-person Action RPG, Isometric Action RPG, Third-person 2D RPG, First-person RPG, Isometric RPG, Persistent World RPG, Strategy RPG, Third-person 2D Action RPG, Third-person 3D RPG, Thirdperson 3D Action RPG) Shooter (With Subtypes of First-person Shooter, Fixed-screen Shooter, Side Scrolling Shooter, Third-person 3D Shooter, Platform Shooter, Vertical Scrolling Shooter, Overhead Free-roaming Shooter, Vehicle Shooter, Shooter with Weapon Peripheral) Simulation (With Subtype of Life Development Sim, Miscellaneous Sim, Space Combat Sim, World Building Sim, Business Sim, Flight Sim, Dancing Sim, Construction/Building Sim, Flight Combat Sim, Ground Vehicle Combat Sim, Musical Instrument/Band Sim, Naval Combat Sim, Political Sim, Singing/Voice Sim, Sports Management Sim) Sports (With Subtypes of Baseball, Basketball, Bowling, Boxing, Cricket, Darts, Dodge ball, Extreme Sports, Fishing, American Football, Arena Football, Canadian Football, Futuristic, Gliding/Parachuting, Hockey, Hunting, Ice Skating, Lacrosse, Miniature Golf, Multi-sports, Olympics, Pool, Rugby, Miscellaneous Sport, Shooting, Skateboarding, Skiing, Snowboarding, Soccer, Surfing, Swimming, Tennis, Track & Field, Volleyball, Wrestling, Water Skiing) Strategy ( with subtypes of 3D Turn-based strategy, 3D Real-time strategy, 2D Turn-based Strategy, 2D Real-time Strategy, Action Strategy, Empire-Building, Persistent Worlds RTS) Traditional (with subtypes of Board Game, Card Game, Casino Game, Game Show, Jigsaw Puzzle, Tile Game, 2D Pinball, 3D Pinball, Trivia Game)

Duncan C. Blair

- 193 -


International Hobo [International Hobo, 2002] Genres Identified: Shooter, Bat & Ball, Racer, Collector, Video Pinball, Puzzle, Strategy, Adventure, Video Boardgame, Fighting, Sim, Computer RPG (CRPG), Platform, Sports, Arcade Adventure, Rhythm-Dance

Internet top 100 [Unknown, 2003] Genres Identified: Action, Adventure, Arcade, Fighting, Interactive Fiction, Platform, Puzzle, Racing, Role-Playing, Shooter, Simulation, Sports, Strategy, Wargame

ClassicGaming [Hugh Falk International Interactive Enterprises Industries Inc, 2003] Genres Identified: Action (With Sub-Genres of Jump-n-run/Platform/Maze, Shooter(Destruction) Simulation (Imitation, Action-Oriented), Actions Contests (Dexterity Competitions) )

Strategy ( With Sub-Genres of Puzzle, Simulation (Imitation, strategic), RPG’s (Growth/Collection and their management) Card Games (Simulations or variations of real world card games), Strategy Contests (Intellectual Competitions) )

Action/ Strategy Hybrids.

WebGameList [Inetix Group Corp., 2003] Genres Identified: 2D Action, 2D Gamesm 3D Games, Action, Adventure, Arcade, Bingo, Board, Brain Teasers, Card, Casino, Cheats, Classic Arcade, Dice, Educational, Just-ForLaughs, Kids, Logical, Lotto, Mahjong, Memory, Mind, Miscellaneous, Online, Pinball, puzzles, Racing, Role Playing, SciFi, Shooters, Simulators, Sports, Strategy, Tank Combat, Tetris, Text Role Playing, Trivia, Virtual Pets, Word Duncan C. Blair

- 194 -


Games.

Home of the Underdogs [Home of the Underdogs, 2003] Genres Identified: Action (With Sub-genres of 3D action, Beat em-up, Multiplayer Shooter, Breakout variants, other action, Pinball, shoot em-up, space combat, driving, hybrid, military shooter, FPS, Giant Robot action, Platformer, Arcade, Multi-type Action ) Adventure (With Sub-genres of Traditional first-person, Traditional third-person, Multi-genre Adventure, Myst-style, Multi-media novel, Experimental, Space Exploration) Education (With Sub-genres of Arts/Literature, Social Studies, Typing/Writing, Various subjects, General Knowledge, Language, Math/Logic, Music, Problem Solving, Early Childhood, Science, Advanced Education) Interactive Fiction (With Sub-genres of Conventional, Story-driven, Cross-genre IF, Graphical IF, Monumental, Multiple-endings, Other IF, Real-time IF, Short and Sweet, Choose your own Adventure) Puzzle (With sub-genres of Word/trivia, Collection, Game Show, Lemmings Variant, Tetris Variant, Brainteaser, Building, Third Person, Reflex-oriented) RPG (With Sub-genres of First-person, Isometric, Console-style, Roguelike, Topdown) Simulation (With Sub-genres of Life, Ground Combat, Fleet, Flight-Civil, FlightMilitary, Hypothetical, Other Sim, Politics, Space Sim, Stock market, Submarine, Trade/management) Sport (With Sub-Genres of Golf, Baseball, Fighting, Fishing, Football (American), Football (Soccer), Futuristic, Hockey, Other Sports, Pool/Snooker, Racing, Racket, Rugby, Summer, Wacky, Winter) Strategy( With sub-genres of Casino, Board-western, Card, Board-Eastern, 4X in Space, 4X on Earth, Business, Empire Management, God game/micromanagement, Multi-Genre Strategy, Programming, Squad-level, Realtime strategy, tabletop strategy) War (With Sub-Genres of Table-top war, Hex/tile based, Miniture/Squad, strategic Scope, multi-level war, real-time/real terrain) Home of the underdogs also groups games by Theme.

Duncan C. Blair

- 195 -


Themes Identified:

Alternate History, Anime, Apocalypse Now, Business, Cartoon, Cyberpunk, design Tool, Epic, Fantasy, Freelance, Galactic War, Gangster, Grand Adventure, Historical, Horror, Humorous, Licensed, Modern, Mystery, Myth & Legend,Naval, Organized Forces, Oriental, Political, Science Fiction, Shareware, Unique, Western, World Wars.

Duncan C. Blair

- 196 -