|
What do the systems of games amount to?
The goal here is not to list what the objective or victory condition is in a game, but to say “what the game amounts to” or “what is actually happening”, “what is the player actually trying to do?”
The biggest problem with this list is whether to include the psychological or just the “physical”. Poker is about bluffing, about reading the other player, yet what the game amounts to in each hand is a form of pattern-matching plus collection (of money). I think I’ll leave the psychological out of this list, and stick to the systems.
At some point another problem is, what is a game? For example, I’d say most single-player video games are actually interactive puzzles, not games, but we call them games. Fortunately, the list below also applies to many if not all puzzles.
“Achieve a particular state” is the generalized version. Victory points are a generalized way of doing several different things at once. Sometimes the “state” is very simple, as in rock-paper-scissors where you want to make a pattern, such as paper to the opponent’s rock.
The list includes the general activity, then some of the common variations.
When we come down to it, most games are about just a few things–in no particular order:
1. Get to a particular place
Get there fastest (a race) [player interaction may be missing]
Get your any of your pieces there (Axis&Allies enemy capital)
Get a special piece there (football, hockey, many other team sports)
Get to end of the story (console RPGs)
2. Collect something (many card games, many video games)(sometimes economic)
Find something (exploration) (Easter egg hunt)
It drops in your lap (draw a card)
Take it from someone else (Monopoly, some card games especially trick-taking)
Don’t collect something (Old Maid, Hearts, etc.)
3. Wipe someone or something out (Risk, shooters, checkers, bowling!)
Wipe out one thing—chess
4. Achieve patterns in something (getting to a place could be seen as part of this!)
Patterns in piece location (this includes rock-paper-scissors, Tetris, many puzzle games)
Only your pieces (Tic-Tac-Toe), or yours plus opponent’s (rock-paper-scissors)
Patterns in relation to the “board” (Scrabble, Carcassonne)
Patterns of cards (related to sets–e.g. Canasta)
5. Improve your capabilities. This is often subsidiary, a way to achieve something else. Common in RPGs, vehicle simulations, construction/management simulation, collectible card games)
6. Survive, Especially common in arcade games (which are generally unwinnable).
I’m not sure about “engine” games, where you’re trying to make the right moves to take full advantage of an often economically-based system. In the end, you’re likely doing one of the six things above when you make a “right move”.
So what have I missed? I’m sure other people have made such lists, but I need references to such.
|
A lot of the points under #4 could just as easily be sub-points to #1, too often must you solve some pattern or resolve some mystery to achieve the ending of a story or get to a particular place.
Not 100% certain but where would a game like diplomacy fit? Because you don't win by getting to a particular place, but you do go somewhere and you do collect resource points. You have to survive, but you don't have to eliminate your opponents, there's also a lot of politics involved so perhaps some category for such diplomatic/political/interpersonal games. I suppose it could just be some hybrid of multiple points.
How about bluffing games? Where the entire point of the game is to convince an opponent to do something (Balderdash), not 100% certain if that can fit under the current list.
You can read more about game development in my blog.
Mac
http://aboutmakinggames.blogspot.com/
Some additional possibilities for play goals -- which I think fit as squarely into "gameplay" as any of the items previously listed -- include:
* establish personal relationships with other players
* map a possibility space
- create a literal map of some physical space ("What's the best route from here to Sulex City?")
- understand the processes of an abstract space ("How does combat work?")
* construct a new thing
- produce new instances of predefined objects (crafting, or "building something" as Mac put it)
- design new kinds of objects or processes (e.g., City of Heroes "Mission Architect")
(Note: "mapping a possibility space" is not the same thing as finding individual tangible objects (collection) or achieving a pattern relationship among several objects. Mapping a space is not about producing a transient winning pattern -- it's about comprehending long-term relationships among objects and processes, which may or may not have competitive utility.)
I suspect this question about ways to "achieve a particular state" is high-level enough to provoke lots of debate about what fits that definition and what doesn't....
I've limited this list to the systems of games, not the psychological aspects, though I'll probably get to the latter in time.
Stewart Woods of Australia pointed me to a doctoral dissertation by Avi Jarvinen that describes in great detail the structural elements of a game. What I've been looking for here is what the player(s) actually do, both in system terms and in psychological terms, which is a different but related objective. If you're interested in the composition of games, read Jarvinen's Games without Frontiers: Theories and Methods for Game Studies and Design, downloadable via http://acta.uta.fi/english/teos.php?id=11046