|
Today I read a very thoughtful blog post by a game designer who I greatly admire, but with whom I absolutely disagree: Chris DeLeon wrote a scathing dismissal of the argument that games like Galaga are based on interesting decisions. (That argument was itself presented in response to Chris' previous blog post, titled "Many Games Are Not About Choices.")
I'd like to respond with an assertion: that Galaga really is a game based on interesting decisions; and that, in any game which includes anything that could possibly described as "challenge" (in other words, virtually all games), the gameplay is in fact entirely based around interesting decisions. My argument is that we should take Sid Meier's definition that "a good game is a series of interesting decisions" (which Chris dismisses as only applicable to certain types of games) and apply it in a deeper and more holistic way than it's typically applied; and that doing so will show how it is possibly the most important, fundamental law in the field of game design. Recognizing this may involve rethinking one's definition of the term "decision"; but I believe that thinking this way reveals certain fundamental truths about game design which seem to elude even many experienced game designers.
 - Mario's resume, like mine, is varied - though none of my jobs' descriptions have been "killing baby monkeys." Yet.
Learning the Ropes
I should provide a little background before I continue. My formal education isn't in game design, it's in software engineering; however, I've always had a great passion for game design, and several years ago I set about methodically self-educating myself in it that discipline. But for the most part, I was disappointed in the lack of rigorous academic material available - coming from a highly analytical and well-defined field like computer science, I kept feeling that there must be some hidden cache of "Game Design 101" educational materials that really explained what game design was about, but eluded me. To make a long story short, my education in game design has almost literally been a self-education - I was basically unable to ever find a "universal theory of good game design" which I found satisfactory... so I set about defining my own.
(Note that there are diamonds in the rough... in particular: virtually everything ever written by Marc LeBlanc; and most of the teaching coming from NYU's Game Center, especially the book Rules of Play by Eric Zimmerman and Katie Salen, which I'm currently reading and loving.)
 - Scientists spent years trying to decipher Einstein's coded Unified Theory documents before realizing they were actually chords for Rolling Stone songs.
Guitar Heroes and Unified Theories
My personal "unified theory of fun gameplay" didn't begin to crystallize until a couple of years ago. Until then, my definitions of "fun gameplay" and "good game design" were rather fuzzy and non-rigorous: various theories and definitions floated about in my head, but it was unclear how they related to one another. (I now recognize that this is pretty much the current state of game design theory in general.) One of these definitions was Sid Meier's "interesting decisions" quote, which I intuitively felt to be extremely important, though it was hard to explain why.
Then I read a blog post by Chris Bateman which directly challenged the Meier quote, holding up Guitar Hero as the ultimate proof against it:
"...these rhythm action games do not rely upon a series of interesting decisions, for the most part they have no decisions of any kind!"
I realized this was an important question: was the idea of Interesting Decisions fundamental to good game design, or was it optional and disposable?
I thought about it extensively and realized that it was the former: all good gameplay is comprised of interesting decisions ... but only if one expands one's definition (and understanding) of what a "decision" is. And once I expanded this definition, I finally found the "uniform theory of good game design" that I had sought all along.
 - Does decision-making break down somewhere between these genres? Also, what would happen if Princess Peach fought Kerrigan? That would be so sweet. Sorry, what was I talking about?
Who Turned Off the Choices?
I played Guitar Hero obsessively, and much like I played any other game: I'd go to a level that I hadn't completed yet, attempt to complete it, and fail. I would then try again and again until I succeeded, at which point I would move on to the next challenge. I noted that this was exactly the same pattern that I applied to a game like Advance Wars: Dual Strike. And though those two games clearly had huge differences, it was clear that there was some kind of fundamental similarity between them as well. Advance Wars (a turn-based strategy game) was clearly about making interesting decisions. But Guitar Hero wasn't... right?
But consider the following genres of game, and tell me when they stop being about "interesting decisions":
- Turn-based strategy [Advance Wars]
- Slow-moving real-time strategy [Kohan, Neptune's Pride]
- Fast-moving real-time strategy [Starcraft]
- Tactical "action" games [Defense of the Ancients]
- Pure action games [Super Mario Bros, Galaga]
- Rhythm action games [Guitar Hero]
At what point in this spectrum does the gameplay stop being about "interesting decisions"?
My answer: they don't stop being about interesting decisions. Each genre is fundamentally about making decisions during every moment of gameplay. There are decisions being made in every one of these games; they're just extremely different decisions, which occur in different layers of the brain.
At the bottom of the spectrum, the decisions are so minute that they're no longer what we would call "decisions" in a normal definition. In other words: the exact way you configure your fingers across the buttons to prepare for the next set of notes coming towards you in Guitar Hero is a decision that you make.
Again, this is not what we'd typically call a "decision" in day-to-day language - we might normally call it a "choice" or even just an "action." But fundamentally, they're all the same thing.
 - These games each use different parts of your brain. They're also both so hard that they make you want to lobotomize yourself... but each in a different part of your brain.
Fretting Over Tanks
Is there a difference between choosing what configuration my fingers are going to be in during a given millisecond-long period of Guitar Hero, and choosing what configuration my tanks are going to be in during a given turn of Advance Wars? Of course there are differences: in Advance Wars, my conscious mind is rationally considering the battlefield and making an intellectual decision; in Guitar Hero, my unconscious mind, my physical instinct, my muscle memory, and my intuition are deciding where my fingers need to be this instant, and moving them there as best they can.
But though they're happening on different levels of consciousness, they are still fundamentally the same thing. Now that we've acknowledged the differences, consider the commonalities:
- Each are actions defined solely by my own initiative. What actions I take, and what exactly the action is comprised of, are defined entirely by myself. I never move my hand on a Guitar Hero controller without it being my decision to move it; and no one but me is deciding where my fingers are going and how they're getting there.
- Both are always decisions which may be either "better" or "worse" than other decisions I might have made. My line of tanks could be more or less optimal for defense; the arrangement of my fingers could be more or less optimal for allowing me to hit the notes currently moving down the screen.
- My decision-making improves as I learn. I don't just get better at Guitar Hero because I'm memorizing the level: my hand is also constantly learning better ways to move and arrange my fingers on the keys. With time, my skill increases and allows me to take on new and greater challenges.
I admit that there's a big difference between decisions that a player must make under time pressure, and decisions that the player has infinite time to make. Playing my puzzle game Connectrode (which has no time pressure) is very different from playing Dr. Mario (which does), though the games have mechanical similarities. But both types of decisions are still decisions: just because a decision has to be made within a time limit doesn't mean that it stops being a decision. They're just different flavors of decisions.
 Boom, headshot. No more decisions for you.
Counter-Semantics
Essentially I'm expanding the definition of "decision" here to encompass something that happens on all levels of human consciousness. Consider a game like Counter-Strike, where within one round the player must make "strategic" decisions (what configuration he and his squad should take and what points of the level to assault with what strength); "tactical" decisions (what vectors to approach from, what hiding places to choose); and minute "action" decisions (whether to use gross-movement muscles of the arm, or fine-movement muscles of the wrist, in order to maneuver the mouse so as to place the crosshair over an enemy player's head onscreen). I think it's best to holistically view all of these as "decisions" which are made during gameplay, but which simply exist in different layers of the operations of the human brain. (For a more detailed analysis of the varied decision-making in a Counter-Strike game, read Tynan Sylvester's excellent Gamasutra feature Decision-Based Gameplay Design.)
Now, I'll admit that calling these things "decisions" does seem silly (or at least inaccurate) once we start talking about minute movements of fingers on the buttons on a plastic guitar! In regular language, no one calls what you're doing in Guitar Hero "decision-making." I would probably be better understood if I said instead: Guitar Hero tests a skill, and so does Advance Wars; and though these are very different skills, they're still both clearly skills, testing different areas of human mental (and physical) performance. But I believe that all "skills" have, fundamentally, the same "structure" - they're composed of actions.
In the end, all games that are based on an element of challenge are by definition based on testing and challenging one or more skill. (If you think that your challenge-based game isn't based on testing any player skills, then either you're wrong and you're not looking hard enough for the skill... or else you're right and your game is neither challenging nor fun.) And all skill levels are essentially defined by what decisions you're making and the quality of those decisions. As you play the game, you learn more, thereby improving your decision-making capacity - which is the same thing as saying "improving your skills".
Letting your ship get captured: The classic risk vs. reward decision. Thing is, it represents about 1% of the decisions you make in this game.
Galaga and Garrison Keillor
While playing Galaga, I definitely make decisions, at a rate of about 60 per second: I'm either pointing my ship in a direction or not, hitting the Fire button or not... every moment of action (or inaction) is my own decision. But a large number of those minute choices are made by my "lizard brain"... or my "muscle memory", or my "instincts", whatever you prefer to call it. For some reason we don't usually call such choices "decisions"; but I believe that classifying them holistically with other types of decisions clarifies their role, and their importance, in game design, and allows us to better understand and compare game designs.
And what of the decision in Galaga to allow my ship to be taken away, so that I might recover it later as a power-up? Clearly this is a higher-level, "strategic decision", and it's actually unusual and is used to break up the constant low-level "action decisions" that the gameplay is mostly comprised of. Many great games have multiple layers of decision-making, often taking place at the same time - this is an example of that.
Ultimately, that one decision in Galaga is the one that's easier to talk about (and recognize) than the many tiny "wrist decisions", because it's the one occurring at the higher level of our consciousness. But a truly far-seeing game designer is willing to acknowledge the importance of all types of decisions, which may compose all types of mental and physical skills. Garrison Keillor said "Nothing human is beneath a writer's attention." Similarly, no human capability for decision-making should be beneath a game designer's attention... from leading a civilization, to moving a finger over the correct button - and remember, the former is never possible without the latter.
[Shay Pierce is a game programmer/designer with over 8 years of experience in the AAA, social, and mobile game development industries. This post is reposted from the game design blog for his personal microstudio, Deep Plaid Games, which released popular iOS puzzle title Connectrode earlier this year. He currently holds the position of Lead Game Developer at social game developer OMGPOP, Inc. Shay develops games and lives in Austin, Texas, and doesn't plan on changing either of those things in this lifetime.]
|
Concepts are given names to diferentiate them.
My approach is:
In good game, player must have enough (and not too much) meaningfull things to do.
Thing to do can be: decision and execution (WHAT you DO).
Some turn based strategy games have trivial execution (but if unfortunately lot of times boring and tiring) and interesting decisions.
Quitar hero have trivial decisions and interesting execution.
The fun of Guitar Hero lives in the mastery of where to put your fingers. The fun of Chess lives in the mastery of where to put your pieces. Once you see that both of these things are composed of "decisions" (whether or not that's a word you would usually apply to both classes of thing - use some other term if you like), you can realize the important ways in which both game designs have similarities... while also more clearly recognizing what their real differences are.
This is ALL about trying to describe the behaviour the word game represents an application of in a consistent, objective manner, whilst TRYING to also show how it is related to other, similar, concepts - (like puzzles and competitions etc.).
But ALL of these words, such as decision, choice, power and influence, etc. are simply UNSUITABLE for the job - which is why you're all merely going round in circles all the time...
As for the reason WHY they're unsuitable - it's a very basic mistake - but if you don't mind, I'd like to add a more general reply to the original post separately?
Again - we need to be able to describe the behaviour (thing that happens) the word game itself represents, both in ISOLATION, and in RELATION to other, similar acivities, (represented by similar words), such as puzzles, competitions and art. Nouns of this type in general, are therefore unsuitable - we need verbs, here, not nouns, adjectives or adverbs etc..
But verbs need an anchor - something to be applied to - and this is what my blog is here for - to help people understand what it is the word game itself must represent, based on its use, and how best to describe it in such a manner - (as I've already said in the post below). But that first means correcting the descriptions of noun and verb first...
Merely being something we do, means that games can be seen as involving concepts that many different words are used to describe, and yet very few, if any of these, truly describe the behaviour the word game itself represents because of what it represents in general, (in combination with it's application), and how it's related to other, similar activities.
An argument can be made that the word activity in general can encompass the behaviour words such as decision, choice, power and influence represent applications of.
The underlying problem we have, is a matter of how we use the language to describe what OTHER WORDS in the language represent. And it's currently failing - for words such as noun, verb and adjective - especially in relation to this particular (type of) concept, so it should be unsurprising why we're having problems with words such as game, art, puzzle etc..
EDIT: At the end of the day, most of the problems with words such as game, art, puzzle, competition etc. come back to understanding and recognising the differences of, and the relationship between:
Things a person (or other entity) DOES FOR themselves.
Things a person etc. DOES FOR others.
Things that happen TO a person etc..
But one of the reasons for this is that such descriptions don't really do a good enough job - but we have a problem related to that, in that NONE of these words - (game, art, puzzle, competition etc.) - are ever described/defined FOR what they represent in a manner that ALLOWS them to BE related in the only possible way - to and by the/any person/entity taking part in such an activity.
By leaving out such a thing - it allows it to be replaced by a subjective representation which people normally use - (think pronouns) - which automatically adds some subjectivity into the perception and understanding of what such words represent. This is one of the underlying problems we have with the word game at this time.
Choice, power, decisions, influence etc. are merely side-effects of the behaviour the word game represents an application of, and also exist for puzzles and competitions too, and even for art. To view these activities in such a manner, is to lose sight of the actual behaviour they represent, and therefore what it is they are, and so how to design, create and use them effectively. Which isn't to say they're not involved in such activities, but only as part of their subjective application, within and for their definitions, rather than being part of its definition to begin with.
To say that games are about decisions, is the equivalent of saying that aircraft/cars etc. are about travelling - not very useful in itself. How and why they're about choices and decisions, mainly depends on their subjective application - it will differ for types of games, puzzles or competitions, like the method of travel will differ for cars and planes.
Unless you're a demigod of Guitar Hero who can play it on expert difficulty in his or sleep, chances are you're going to be making many fundamental decisions while playing, several per second in fact. Guitar Hero is, aside from an exercise in coordination and relfexes, also all about risk/reward and trade-offs during gameplay. Do I go for a note streak to keep my combo going, or give up in order to hit a more difficult part afterwards, knowing that I could fail the song due to it? When do I activate star power to build up my score - do I take the easy road and pick the note streak that's going to result in an easy score boost, or go for a much more complex section of the song, knowing I could waste my bonus due to a mistake? More generally, do I play on an easier difficulty to pump my score up and make easy money to purchase new items and songs, or do I take a risk and push myself to succeed at a higher difficulty level?
It's easy to label these sorts of decisions as something like "instinct", or call them too simple, or say that they don't require enough conscious thought, but the fact is that in a game like Guitar Hero, you're constantly evaluating and re-evaluating your position while you play, and making quick assessments regarding strategy in order to ensure you get out of a song in one piece. If that process is not fundamentally a decision-making process then I don't know what is. As a designer, recognising that all games revolve around some element of risk vs. reward, which is pretty much the most basic decision a player can make in any game, is absolutely key to building good gameplay.
To me, the fact that this theory (or "lens") lets us talk about similarities and differences between video games as different as Guitar Hero, Counter-Strike, and Advance Wars (and, for that matter, sports like baseball, or board games) speaks to its real usefulness. It's applicable to any kind of game with a "challenge fun" element; and I plan to post more about revelations that have occurred to me by viewing game designs through this "lens."
This is, again, ultimately a matter of linguistics - (that then becomes a problem of semantics).
Why linguistics? Because the basic, fundamental problem we have is how we're TAUGHT/informed to use, and by using, the language itself, to describe what OTHER words in the language represent.
The basic problem, is really that - basic. A very basic, simple, fundamental mistake is being made, even at a very basic level of the language itself, that is being repeated here:
Using a word that represents one type of concept, to describe and represent another type of concept that is merely related, but NOT the SAME.
In short, we're using NOUNS, representing an APPLICATION of behaviour (things that happen), (such as decision/choice/power or influence), instead of VERBS, that are used to represent behaviour (things that happen) itself, to actually describe and represent the behaviour the word game itself represents an application of.
Considering certain dictionaries use the same approach to describe the word verb itself - it should give you some idea of how common this mistake is.
Note: Yes - the word behaviour is obviously a noun, too, but, based upon its use, it would appear to be consistent with representing merely 'things that happen' in isolation, rather than a more specific application. (Of course, it's mainly used for what it represents in relation to other words - namely things - (that are then behaving) - but its definition in such a context, should not be allowed to be confused for what it must represent in isolation. If you don't like me using the word behaviour in such a fashion, then that's fine - just substitute 'things that happen' instead ;) ).
So, how DO we describe the behaviour the word game represents (an application of) in a consistent OBJECTIVE manner, both in isolation, AND in relation to other words/concepts - (such as puzzles/competitions/art etc.?).
THAT is the question my blog is here to answer...
I think the reason is, the idea of making "interesting decisions" feels a little too broad and not really specific to games alone.
Cooking can be just as fun and interesting with just as many trade-offs to make as any game. You are constrained by the real-world "rules" of physics and chemistry and judged by the metrics of succeeding in making the dish or failing it. The creation of the food involves voluntary actions and choices, which I the agent choose to take. It also involves uncontrollable responses and results that my environment or the ingredients themselves exhibit. Story, rewards, and metagame-elements can be added on top of this activity to make it a more robust or challenging experience, comparable to a game (i.e. TV show cook-off with judges, prizes, and an audience).
I think all of these things (Goals, Interesting Choices, Constraints/ Limitations/ Rules, Player Skill and Execution, Rewards, etc.) are elements and/or principles that can go into making a good game. I guess the real argument here is whether all of these elements / principles are all needed all of the time and whether the lack of any one of these or a set of these would prevent something from being considered a game (or more specifically a "good" game, which would be a very subjective assessment in any case).
Anyway. Good Article. It made me actually want to comment and respond to something for a change :)
-Kaz
You have a good point that a "good game" could probably exist without actually containing "interesting decisions", even under my broader definition. I'd say that my definition here really only describes "good challenge-based gameplay"... it's not a formula for creating "fun", but it is (in my creation) a formula for creating "challenge fun" (which is only one of Marc LeBlanc's "8 Kinds of Fun").
In other words: good, fun games can (and probably does) exist without any interesting decisions at all. But I don't believe that good challenge-based gameplay can.
As you've shown in your list, time (that you have available) is only one factor in a decision. Whether it's an interesting choice or not depends on how it is balanced against the other factors. Too many factors, like multiple vectors, cost/benefit, odds calculation whatever, becomes silly if you have a split second, but interesting if you have a few minutes. And vice versa.
Execution is 'only' failing until you have amassed enough time to balance the other factors. Also known as practising.
Sorry about the 'troll' tone of voice, but it's late and I should be in bed. Carry on. :)
I'm not buying it.
Decisions are about conscious choices. If you're not deciding you're reacting, you're on autopilot, you're trusting your training, or you're a zombie. Skill, dexterity and the perfection of physical actions through training and repitition is not decision making. We have different words to make our communication more precise. Your lumping of everything together just makes everything muddy. If every movement represents some form of decision, then there would be no such thing as accidents only mistakes.
Now certainly some games like Super Mario Brothers and a host of shoot'em ups are skill centric. This is why old people can't play them as well. But that's fine. Many games mix skill with decision making to varying degrees. There's no need to reduce everthing to one thing.
You say "many games mix skill with decision-making", but I'd argue that any form of decision-making itself represents a "skill". Skills come in all flavors, from the skill of flicking your wrist to the strategic skill of playing chess. Games that test these varying skills have designs that are very different, but they also share real similarities that are worth recognizing.
I don't think game designers need to think much about the wording while doing actual designing. Later he might have to communicate it, but even then...
And lets not put too much stock in how conscious our decisions are. Studies show that we mostly use our reasoning and 'logic' to justify the decisions our gut made. :)
Yes. Exactly yes.
My contact with sport is such that I can only take a wild guess that you're talking about basketball. I haven't touched or even seen a basketball since PE classes in school, getting on for 35 years ago. As far as I can recall, I've never attempted a free throw.
So stick me in front of a hoop, shove a ball in my hand, and I'll be thinking HARD exactly how to position my fingers and arms, and how much force I should use, and so on. And I'll probably get all these decisions exactly wrong. Make me do it again and again, and I'll start getting some of them right. Only occasionally at first, but then more and more often as I learn what has to be done.
Eventually, after a great deal of practice, these lessons and decisions might be transferred from the cerebrum (conscious thought) to the cerebellum ("muscle memory"). They're less consciously thought through, but to my mind that doesn't make them any less decisions.
Of course it could have far more interesting choices if it had an improvisation mechanic or such (splitting the input "roads", adding/cutting loops, choosing different paths, choosing either style and difficulty while playing...), but the point is that if you see decision making in Guitar Hero, you can see in everything else, all the time. It's considerably easier to design around interesting medium scale decisions than it's for long (planning what you`re gonna do when you're 80 isn't too interesting I guess, unless you're 79...) and abstract split seconds like tapping a button that the screen is telling you to tap when and how. But by seeing the decision process in every little thing can leverage one's understanding of what makes even small repetitive reflex actions so addicting in many games, helping to develop better experiences that feel just right even in the smallest of the tasks.
'Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.'
EDIT: I've made a number of small corrections in this post - (mainly spelling/grammar etc., but also a couple of better, further descriptions/extrapolations here and there).
Well - that video is okay - but again, without it being viewed and discussed in relation to the behaviour games themselves represent (an application of) - (does this seem like an ongoing complaint, or what? ;) ) - it's not (nowhere near) enough.
The problem, however, is that as soon as you view everything with such basic behaviour in mind, all these different conditions of such behaviour - (which they are) - become far more specific, not just in isolation, but in relation to how any game is being applied. The biggest impact, is of course the difference between games of (player) skill, and games of chance - but even then, the range of possibilities within can still be far wider than this video even gets close to describing.
What meaningful choice do I make for a game, when I try to see how far I can throw something, or how fast I can run a certain distance? What meaningful choice do I make when I try and see what number I can roll on a dice? The act of rolling a dice or throwing an object or running etc., is merely mandatory behaviour for the actual game itself to exist on behalf of an individual player. The end result of such an action, is of course not something we actually choose - though is generally the (varying) result of our power and/or influence.
Choice and decisions are not suitable to describe such behaviour as being contained within a game itself. Power and influence are, but still meaningless in isolation.
What we're missing, is the basic behaviour the word game itself represents an application of, within which ALL of these actions and descriptions thereof, on behalf of both the player(s) AND/OR the game, (on behalf of its creator(s)!), can be related to and understood in a consistent manner - the framework or 'box' within which everything takes place, and therefore limits such viewpoints of such behaviour as being related to a game itself, in conjunction with, and affected by, its application.
And that is currently a very big problem, which is why games are NOT currently consistently being made and designed AS games, but are also involving puzzles and competitions, (and even pure works of art) - nearly always at a game's expense - (assuming it's a game in the first place, and not just a puzzle or competition mis-labelled - (yes, this is happening, and has happened for a while - hangman and solitaire (patience) are, in fact, competitions. (To find out why you'll have to either wait for me to write the relevant post, or work it out yourself based on the definitions I give below).
The language we currently use to describe what the word game itself represents is a big part of, if not the main reason for, this problem. Part of the reason for that, is that the behaviour the word game represents an application of, is so basic, simple and fundamental, that trying to understand it in such a limited manner, and describing it as such, is a problem.
With current definitions and understanding, the only consistent way of describing such behaviour is as:
Something a person does FOR themselves.
But it doesn't really work in isolation. Of course, in combination with the application the word game represents, in order to describe and define such a word fully, it does make a little more sense:
A person (or people) competing in a structured, (created rules), environment BY doing something for themselves.
But, again, it has problems, not all of which are its own fault, because of how people currently perceive such activities the word game, and therefore this description, represents.
There are two main problems affecting the recognition and understanding of games at this time, for only one of which the definition and description of game itself can help with, and for which the above description does not really help in itself.
The first problem, is understanding and recognising games in relation to the rest of the language, and then, because of that, to and by other, similar, activities, such as puzzles, competitions and art. The underlying reason for this problem, is that the type of noun all such words belong to, isn't consistently described and then recognised and understood for what it represents - as representing applications of things that happen (behaviour) - (applications of what verbs are used to represent, either directly or abstractly).
The main ramification of this, is to recognise and understand that the words game, art, puzzle and competition(s), are all used to represent (different) applications of (often different) behaviour on behalf of those people taking part in such activities - which may involve different people if they are to be compatible - (such as art being used to enable a game or puzzle). This sounds so simple and fundamental, and yet many games fail to be designed consistently with such behaviour in mind. What this means, is that all these concepts and words can therefore be understood and recognised to be RELATED to and by the person/people taking part.
And it's here, that our descriptions of such behaviour fail to do their jobs.
Why?
Because the English language, when dealing with, and describing other people and their behaviour, is generally used in a very SUBJECTIVE manner - (re: pronouns - he/she/me/them/us etc.). Without describing such words in relation to a person taking part, it allows such subjectivity to affect the perception and understanding of what they represent, and then, (unfortunately) how they are used. Since we don't fully understand how the word game is related to the rest of the language, (including similar concepts), an additional problem people have with the word, confusing its definition with its application, has meant that the word game becoming individually subjective, was inevitable. It may have taken the internet etc. to fully make this happen, but the industry itself is also part of this problem - (calling their products games even when they're not).
So, in order to help solve this problem we need a very specific solution.
We need to be able to describe the basic behaviour the word game represents an application of, in a fully consistent manner, to and by the person/people taking part, in an OBJECTIVE manner, that other related words can then also be described using aswell. What we need, therefore, is an OBJECTIVE representation of a person/entity, by which such behaviour can be described, then recognised and understood in relation to.
Rather than something a person/people/entity IS, we can instead use something they HAVE, (whether actual or perceived), that is affected by such behaviour in a consistent manner. Unfortunately, the word we have to represent such a thing, (a noun), based on how it's used, is not (or has ever been) perceived to do so. But in perceiving and describing this word in such a manner, we have broken the basic rules of English grammar - we've defined a thing to and by some ACTUAL behaviour, when the language treats such things as separate words used in combination, (like any and all other things and their actual behaviour), and since the word itself is not even related to, or derived from any words representing such behaviour themselves (verbs), it should be an obvious mistake.
This word, this thing we all have, by which our basic behaviour can be described in relation to, is:
STORY.
http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/DarrenTomlyn/20110321 /7279/Part_2_Descriptions_of_Behaviour.php
The behaviour the word game can be described as being an application of is:
Writing stories.
With that in mind we can then describe ALL of these words - game, art, puzzle and competition - fully, in a manner that shows how they are then related to each other.
Game: An activity in which people compete in a structured environment BY writing their own stories.
(http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/DarrenTomlyn/20110323 /7286/Part_3_READ_THIS_Defining_The_Word_Game.php)
Art: Creative story-telling
http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/DarrenTomlyn/20110902 /8355/Part_6_Art_And_Its_Relationship_With_Games.php
Puzzle: 1) Interacting with creative stories being told, through power of choice, discovery or inquiry. 2) Interacting with stories being told in order to solve a problem.
http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/DarrenTomlyn/20110718 /8008/Part_5_Puzzles.php
Competition: 1) As an application of compete - (trying to gain an outcome/goal (story) at the expense of, or in spite of, someone or something else.) 2) That which is being competed against. 3) An activity in which people compete to be told a story.
http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/DarrenTomlyn/20110417 /7450/Part_4_Competition_And_Competitions.php
So, power, influence, choices and decisions are, or can be, merely conditions of people writing their own stories, that MAY be also affected and influenced by any stories the game has to TELL. But telling ANY story is completely optional for games in general. For COMPUTER games, however, that is (obviously?) not the case.
The basic problem all of this is about - is understanding, recognising and describing the relationship between any stories being told - either as a setting, something on behalf of the player (the written story), or on behalf of the game itself within, either in reaction to something the player does, or to enable such behaviour - with the story/stories being written, and the mechanisms by which it happens. But because the words representing such things are not fully consistent with games in general, it's incomplete. For some games, the only meaningful CHOICE to make, is whether or not to take part, but that's not what is being discussed.
I'm going to leave that here for now - the main thing, now, is to logically extrapolate how everything fits together based on such descriptions and the perspective it all gives.
But, before I go...
Remember how I said there were TWO main problems affecting the recognition and understanding of games, and that one was not because of its description?
The other, main reason people do not fully understand games, is because of the lack of recognition and understanding of COMPETITION itself. Unfortunately, this is a problem my above post on the subject doesn't go into enough specific detail about to explain - (though the basic reason why it's a problem is there).
The problem I've found, is that people do NOT fully understand and recognise games as being a NATURALLY COMPETITIVE activity - which they are. This then affects what how and why they perceive games to function etc., in an inconsistent manner, and is causing problems for their application.
The reason for this, is that the second main method of competing isn't recognised in a fully consistent manner:
The ability to compete IN SPITE OF, someone, or someTHING else.
The main way in which such a type of competition is applied, is of course to enable INDIRECT competition, which is then the main reason why such a concept isn't fully recognised or understood, either.
The most basic, simple example of such a concept, which EVERYONE should recognise and understand, is of course, a time-trial. Competing against the ENVIRONMENT, to set the best time, in order to compete against someone else. You can also replace time with score to change it into golf, etc..
EVERY puzzle, single-player game and competition (3), involves INDIRECT competition by their very nature.
This is WHY games are naturally competitive activities, and need to be described, recognised and understood as such.
Extra Credits talks about choices, Shay about decisions. They are different things. Or more precisely, choices are a type of decisions. Since I love racing games, I'll use them as an example.
Let's have a time attack arcade race. No traffic, no obstacles, no strange routes or rules - just race as fast as you can. That game is just decisions of how to drive fast: how to tackle corners at the highest speed without spinning out. It's a sort of calculation or optimization: when to brake or turn to get the lowest time.
Now let's do a wrong-way duel race (like NFS Undercover's Highway Battle). You can try to make your rival car spin out, you can try running flat out and pray not to crash an oncoming traffic car, you can try to run safely dodging all cars and praying for the rival car to crash. That's not just driving, it's choice.
Players usually want to win. So choices become calculations when players play a lot to find the best way to win. If a game is well designed, players won't be abled to find the perfect way to become undefeatable, and will keep having to do interesting choices. If a game doesn't take that into account, players will soon find the best set of choices and it will become a calculation game. That kind of games can be entertaining too.
The moment to moment calculations are really engaging because we decide between the many calculations available (using up star power to get past a difficult riff, or how long to hold specific notes, or even what rhythm to use on the pick-bar in a shredding section) and look to the game and ourselves for a pass or fail. Those leaps of decision making build up in our memory banks and settle as muscle memory skills. The calculations in Advance Wars and Starcraft are no different, there are just more of them. To build up a muscle memory of unit placement and attack patterns is very difficult, but I'm sure we all have experienced that feeling that "this is totally going to work." Success in tactics, and in guitar hero is incredibly pleasurable, but it is not a choice.
Choices make no difference in the pass or fail decision. That is the fundamental difference between a choice and a calculation. Calculations look to the system for validation. Choices look to the observer (player) for validation. Players will be rewarded for their choices, yes, but for a decision to be a choice, it won't effect the final win/lose state of the game. Choice rewards are a different kind of reward than the rewards games have traditionally been very good at, like more points or a stronger character. Choices are based in larger personal and societal narratives.
Probably the most basic form of choice is character customization. If dressing up one's character changes no game stats in a competitive game, than a player's choice to customize their character stems only from their desire to change the narrative of the character. Put a tin-can hat on an engineer in Team Fortress 2, and you are telling yourself and the world that your character is a bum. That choice can combine with everything else of a player's countenance (their skills, their name, their clan, their place on the battlefield) which are a combination of choices and calculations to add onto that fiction of a bum engineer.
But one can also just pass that engineer by and pay no attention. I think Sid Meyer's definition of interesting choices refers to decisions a player makes, not to make their skills better or their avatar stronger or the narrative of the story move along, but rather to change their own relationship with the characters in a game. It's not just the act of presenting choices to the player that provides interesting decisions, but also also the presentation of those choices as relevant to the player. A hundred hats don't make for interesting choices unless somebody stops to look at them.