Interactive - non-Interactive and Staic - Active
Puzzles are static, games are interactive. -Greg Costikyan
The first thing I must ask here is:
Are Puzzles static?
Are Puzzles non-interactive?
Can we compare even puzzles to games on the grounds that one is static and the other is interactive? What are we talking about here? Can the two words even be compared to each other?
The state of the thing will change depending on your decision. -Greg Costikyan
A puzzle starts unsolved, and you complete it when there is nothing to solve anymore.
Assembling a car is unfinished until all that go into it are assembled and no parts a left over.
A game is not finished until the last objective is completed and a player has won.
In each example we have two states:
Puzzle: unsolved - solved
Car: unassebled - assembled
Game: uncompleted - completed
Each has a goal: Some kind of completness. Each time we make a decision, the puzzle becomes a little less unsolved, the car a bit more assembled the player in the game a bit closer to completing the last objective.
A crossword puzzle can be solved in any order of words. The player makes a choice, depending on his choices (even bad ones) he gets closer and closer to solving it.
You can assemble a car in many different ways, there is no defnite route, though some are obviously not possible and wrong.
A game has many decisions for him to make. Go left or go right. Buy a property in Monopoly or not. There will be eventually a final decision taht will lead to one player winning the game and the game is completed.
The above quote sais something is interactive (allows Interaction) if it's state can be changed.
In a puzzle the state is not just purely black and white as solved/unsolved as it is in a game uncompleted/completed. True there are puzzles where you have only one solution and one action to do it. But that makes the puzzle still interactive.
A puzzle is like a lightswitch when it is that simple.
A light switch is interactive. You fl ick it up, the light turns on. You flick it down, the light turns off. That’s interaction. -Greg Costikyan
According to that then: Puzzles are interactive, games are interactive.
Now, where do puzzles after all differ from games?
Greg sais puzzles are static. But are they? Puzzles don't have change, or little change. They lack development. (see the definition of the word static below).
We clearly have shown that Puzzles are interactive. Can something that is interactive be static? The opposite of static is active. Is a puzzle active? By itself it is not, but through player interaction is becomes active. Each time we solve something and interact with it, it changes a bit more towards a solved state. With little to no change it is meant that the change is so small, the outcome doesn't change whatsoever. Bbut in a puzzle, a change definitly has a strong direct impact on the outcome.
A videogame is static unless there is some kind of input, be that the user or another piece of code such as AI that adds activity to it. The moment you add activity to it, you can get interaction. You can't have interaction without activity.
"Games," by contrast, are not static, but change with the player's actions. -Chris Crawford paraphrased by Greg Costikyan
But so do puzzles!
Puzzles are interactive, games are interactive.
Puzzles are active, games are active.
Are puzzles a game then?
Some puzzles are obviously so (static); no one would call a crossword a “game.” -Greg Costikyan
Why not? It has many of the same aspects that we associate with games.
There is no opposition, there is no roleplaying, and there are no resources to manage; victory is solely a consequence of puzzle solving. -Greg Costikyan
Now this part contains something that makes a difference where we are concerned.
Let's compare it with a dice game.
A dicegame usually doesn't have roleplaying, doesn't always have resource management BUT you can't SOLVE a dice game. There is nothing to solve. Mainly chance and sometimes some skill or prediction via decision making is involved to win a dice game.
A puzzle on the other hand MUST be solved using knowlege. You can try to guess and rely on chance, but more often then not it won't get you anywhere. You either solve a problem using your wits, or you don't.
Puzzles require logical thinking.
What we consider as games on the other hand don't require logical thinking. Poker doesn't require logic to win. You can bluff your way through. DOOM doesn't require logic, it requires skill in aiming and moving skillfully though the world. Yahtzee! doesn't require logic, the player relies on chance to win the game.
Puzzles can only be won by logic, games can be won anyway. Thus, Puzzles could be considered not games. They can be however, be included inside games.
With this we found one additional trait we could add to our definition of game.
Games can be completed by other means then just logic.
However, if we don't consider this a facter of excluding puzzles from being a game, then puzzles must be a kind of game.
NOTES:
You might ask why I go and rely on dictionary and thesaurus definitions of words. Game design is a young, to some degree subjective and term inconsistent business. Since there is no common terminology, we must rely on the exact meanings of the words we are using. To illustrate that I feel that some words are used wrongly, I like to show what they actually mean, and how they should be applied to our critical dialogue.
I also want to add that my conclusion is far from the last word spoken on this topic, and I encourage anyone who reads my article to try and disprove my statements and show my err in reasoning. It serves as a grounds for debate and help us define more clearly in the overall scheme of understanding game design, what games actually are, and how we can determine if something is a game or not.
To Greg Costikyan (if you happen to read it):
I apologize to you if I look like I am shredding your paper and reasoning apart and scupulously attempt to disect your reasoning and it upsets you. I know I can sound a bit harsh at times. I have chosen to use your article because I believe it is one of the best ones there is when attempting to define what is a game and what is not. I hope it serves as a constructive debate. I did this with the greatest respect for you and your work. -Simon
As such, it's as worthy of being included in computer-based entertainment products as other forms of play, such as storytelling and physical activity and the following of made-up rules.
I may have made the assumption unstated that we all agree that puzzles are a form of play. Maybe that assumption was a bit rash.
The problem that I tried to show at the beginning is that if you have something that is arguably static and opposed to games that are by nature interactive, we must argue that puzzles are non-interactive, because they are static. I showed that puzzles are anything but static, because you interact with it. If something can be interacted with, out of necessity it can be played with. Not that this is a must, but in the case of a puzzle, we could ask:
Do we "play" puzzles? Is the act of solving a puzzle play? Your answer is yes.
We never say though: "I will play a puzzle." That is true not just in English but also in German, French and I just assume here in probably all languages that puzzles are "solved", not played.
Now I by no means want to say that they are not play. But I would like to bring Katie Salen and Eric Zimmerman up in this respect and how they define play.
Apart from them breaking it down into three categories, it generally says: Play is free movement within a more rigid structure.
In the subset of this definition I think it is clear that puzzles are not part of "being playful". They are definitely part of "lucid activities".
And thus yes, puzzles are "played". They are definitely a lucid activity.
But are they part of a very formal play activity of "game play"?
Since we still haven't established what a game really is, and even Salen and Zimmerman have no definite answer as to what makes a game or not, the argument is thus still open.
As a final note I want to say though, I consider puzzles as a subset of games. They have many of the same qualities as games. They have rules, quantifiable outcome, goals, they are safe, have boundaries and and and what we could add into a definition of a game. I think that to exclude them from being a game purely on the grounds that they can only (I want to use "can only" with care for one can cheat in some puzzles and leave it up to chance as well as mentioned before) be solved is not really a good way of forcing them into their own category separate from games.
I agree with you Bart, that they are definitely worthy of being included in entertainment products, of any kind in fact, because they are a form of play and can add to the experience.
PS: Sorry if I seem to question everything, I just can't help it in order to make sense of it all. Please prove me wrong at any time. It will be immensely valuable to me and nothing would please me more.
I agree somewhat (but not entirely ;-) ) on your assessment.
The problem with "interactive" stuff is that people dump in pretty much anything and everything with media inside, so it's a bit entangled. The definition of interactivity that you used appears to be based on the evolution process of the puzzle from "unsolved" to "solved". I suppose it's a valid point of view but I'll offer another one, also based on the definition you provided:
"acting one upon or with the other."
Using this, we can say that most games are interactive. If I play Street Fighter versus the computer and I try to it hit, it will respond by either blocking, moving away, or using a fast move (or failing to do so), hence giving me in return something to respond to.
However if I play a puzzle (or try to assemble a car), there is a unique solution to the outcome of each of my actions, and quite likely, I can know it before I proceed. Although some puzzles will obfuscate this in ways (e.g. in Puyo Puyo, if I destroy blocks at the bottom of a large stack, it is difficult to foresee the outcome of the chain reaction I might cause), the outcome remains deterministic.
So how the puzzle will play (or be solved) depends solely on my own actions.
Based on this, I can say that the puzzle does not meet the definition of interactivity, hence it is not interactive. To go back on my earlier example, Puyo Puyo does introduce extra elements such as randomness, and of course competitive play vs. the computer or other human players. Perhaps that's why it is often described as a "puzzle game".
We could argue that many computer games are in fact puzzles.
The computer will respond in scripted ways, sometimes deterministic even. However most games nowadays are too complex for this to be apparent to the player. Nevertheless, we could argue for a "strict" definition of a puzzle, which would encompass puzzle games as well as deterministic, one-player only games (many older computer board games and strategy games might fall in there), and a "strictly non-strict" definition whereby all games including some degree of unpredictability will fall.
On what you say about puzzles being played, I'll definitely agree that puzzle games are a subset of games. I'll go as far as to say that about every game I can think of is to some degree an aggregation of puzzles :-)
Personally, I disagree with the Salen & Zimmerman definition of play as occurring only within some formalized behavioral structure. I'm more with Caillois, who could see play as any activity, structured or unstructured, engaged in for enjoyment. He observed some particular forms within that broad definition -- experiential play, "pretending" play, challenge-driven play -- but only challenge-driven play ("agon") really requires rules, and thus clearly fits what we naturally think of as a "game."
My point is that "not a game" doesn't imply "not play." To say it more clearly, an activity can be fun even if it's not bounded by artificial rules. Young animals chasing each other is clearly playful activity. And there's always "Calvinball" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvin_and_Hobbes#Calvinball), which is fun *because* it's the deliberate antithesis of rules-based play. ;)
So the notion of excluding something from computer "games" purely because it doesn't fit into the "following of rigid formal rules of activity" category of play strikes me as unnecessary and even counterproductive. Why miss out on letting people have that kind of fun? Puzzle-solving may not be A Game in itself, but it certainly is play and it can easily be rendered in a game context by wrapping a layer of rules around it -- likewise for kinesthetic/experiential play and relationship/story-based play.
That's why I suggest not getting hung up on defining the word "game." Computer-based entertainment is whatever's fun implemented as a computer program. A lot of people enjoy rules-following play, where they're presented with a set of formal constraints and requirements and the enjoyment comes from optimizing results within those strictures. So a lot of computer games get made that are all about imposing complex rulesets and defining a victory condition. And there's nothing wrong with that.
On the other hand, there are also plenty of people who enjoy systems-exploration and discovery (of which puzzle-solving is a form) as a recreational activity, or interactive storytelling, or doing speedruns through the levels of some game instead of simply following its rules. Computers can create opportunities for those kinds of fun, too... and there's nothing wrong with that, either.
In short, it is helpful to be able to name and define and categorize things in order to be able to effectively analyze them and create with them. But such labels should never be allowed to get in the way of what is really important, which is creating play experiences that different kinds of people can enjoy.
@ JoaiThong: I like how you point out the transition of a fun activity becoming a game. I certainly agree that things that are enjoyable, can be turned into a game.
@ Olivier: I like your conclusion. I think that problem solving in games and puzzles are kind of the same thing. You mention: "So how the puzzle will play (or be solved) depends solely on my own actions." If you play an singe player FPS in its simplest form (you can shoot at a stationary enemy who shoots back, nowhere to hide, but you can move around to try and evade his bullets), the outcome of winning against your opponent also is purely based on your actions. If you don't do anything you die. If you don't do anything in a puzzle, it will just remain unsolved.
There are two observations to be made. 1. The FPS has a losing condition, which is finite (until you try it again). It can happen if you do something or not. The puzzle has no loosing condition, it just remains unsolved. It is indefinitely unsolved to you if you don't do anything and can't solve it.
2. The FPS reacts through it's own system to aim and follow your movement and tries to shoot you down. Regardless of you moving or not it will shoot at you. The puzzle will not on it's own react, only through your action will the state change, but your own decision and input has repercussions on your next action. In the FPS that is not the case.
I want to bring back the example that Greg made with the light switch. You flip the switch, the light turns on. Now you see more. The end. The light nor the switch didn't make an independent action from you input. You switch it, the state is now ON. You switch it again, the state is OFF. The new state of the light is not more active by itself then the next state of a solved puzzle on your next decision you make. But it still influences you. With the light now on, you can see and decide what to do next. With another piece of the puzzle solved, you can solve again another step in the puzzle.
If I go by your argument that the puzzle is not interactive because it doesn't "actively" influence you on your next decision because of its state change, then neither is a light switch. And by active, I mean an act it decided on it's own through the active ingredients that are included, such as a loop in code or a human making decisions and taking action).
We might go so far as to call certian interactions static and active in regard to the object you are interacting with is actively giving you a feedback or not. That it's state changes is a must, as is shown that a puzzle does.
@Bart: I didn't assume or expect you to prove me wrong. I rather hoped if you see a flaw in my argumentation you might point it out.
I can't find myself disagreeing with Salen and Zimmerman, but I also can't reject Caillois entirely either. Both make valid points for their arguments. Your examples of young animals chasing each other also falls into what Salen and Zimmerman refer to as a lucid activity in play.
I absolutely agree with Caillois though that play must include that is enjoyable. And like you said, the important part is that we create game experiences that people can enjoy. I refer to games not just computer games but all games of every kind.
Considering that trying to definie play, interactivity and games is bound to fall into fallacies and are so full of subjectivity, and almost requires a new invention of language, which has been attempted by many a bright mind with no success, we might almost consider abandoning the idea of trying to categorize such a elusive and subjective topic, for it can not possibly end in a infallable definition.