Master's Thesis: Gameplay: The Elements of Interaction

This article represents a body of research which was undertaken in partial fulfilment of a Master's Degree in 'Digital Games' at John Moores University, Liverpool (2001).

Based largely on the work of previous authors, it attempts to analyse gameplay and its continued evolution in the light of technological advances. This is achieved by discussing the work of previous authors with the intention of formulating a general description. Once this has been established, a more in-depth analysis is developed by decomposing gameplay into its constituent parts.

Introduction

In 1958, William A. Higinbotham - an engineer working at the Brookhaven National Laboratory, devised a simple two-player tennis game for visiting members of the public.

"An analogue computer showed trajectories of bouncing balls drawn as
ghostly blips on an oscilloscope, controlled by a button and a knob."
[Poole, 2000, p.30]

With the help of some friends, Russell set about creating a videogame, which would later be known as Spacewar. It used the PDP's array of console toggle switches as its control mechanism. There were four controls; rotate anti-clockwise, rotate clockwise, rocket thrust and fire torpedos. [Herz, 1997, p. 7]

It was simple but it worked well as a game concept. Like Higinbotham, Russell doubted it's commercially viability due to the high cost of the PDP-1 and subsequently shelved it. However, unlike its tennis game predecessor, it was widely copied and distributed to the extent that anyone who had a PDP-1 was likely to have had a copy of Spacewar.

This proved to be a defining moment in videogame history, heralding an era of rapid change in which significant improvements were made in both software and hardware technologies and, most important of all, the cost of electronics took a nosedive as integrated microchips replaced solid state circuitry.

Today, game development is still in a constant state of flux - made all the more profound by the advent of new game consoles like the Playstation2, XBox and GameCube. Consequently, the definition of 'gameplay' is evolving at a pace that is directly proportional to the changes seen in both software and hardware technology. Today's game players are afforded a level of control that would have been viewed as almost impossible - perhaps even science fiction, only a few years ago because, back then, the technology wasn't up to it.

What is gameplay used for?

Above all else, video games manage interactivity in such a way as to make it enjoyable for the end-user. Chris Crawford, who has written a number of articles on the game development process comments,

"…the highest and most complete form of representation
is interactive representation. Games provide this interactive element, and
it is a crucial factor in their appeal." [Crawford, 1982, p.10]

The importance of interactivity, as Crawford suggests, is undeniable. However, when discussing interactivity within a game development context, it is important to clarify some semantic issues surrounding how it is to be interpreted.

In a 1994 article, published in the British roleplaying journal "Interactive Fantasy", Greg Costikyan discusses the level of participation demanded by a game in comparison to other forms of media art. He suggests that:

"When you go to the movies, or watch TV, or visit the theatre, you sit and
watch and listen. Again, you do interpret to a degree; but you are the audience.
You are passive. The art is created by others." [Costikyan, 1994, p.3]

Whilst it is true that TV and cinema audiences cannot control the outcome of the scenes they witness, one can suggest that they are not entirely passive throughout the experience. Films can induce a physical response in their audiences, (e.g. an adrenalin rush, a release of endorphins, the shedding of tears - either from induced sympathy or from sentimentality). Therefore one could argue that the audience is interacting with on-screen events at an emotional level.

Video games also generate a strong physical connection to their audience. Sherry Turkle, in her 1984 book The Second Self: Computers And The Human Spirit, makes the observation that,

"When today's child stands in front of a video game, there is contact
between the physical child and the physical machine." [Turkle, 1984, p.79]

But videogames go one step further than traditional media art forms. In addition to emotional interaction, they offer control. The audience is given the power to actively change the outcome of on-screen events.

Patricia Marks Greenfield, in her book Mind and Media, devotes a chapter to video games and recounts several interviews made with children from the ages of eight to fourteen - who were asked about their preferences to television or videogames.

She writes,

"They were unanimous in preferring the games to television. They were
also unanimous about the reason: active control." [Greenfield, 1984, p.91]

The term 'active control' can lead to confusion however, when you take into account that the technology used to support television has numerous interactive components. For example, the TV Remote is an interactive device that can be used to exercise control over the channel being shown, in addition to the sound level and Teletext information. With the advent of digital cable and satellite multi-channel networks, the level of user participation in the programmes carried by these systems is certain to increase.

One current 'buzzword', widely touted by cable TV networks is 'convergence', meaning: "The coming together of two or more disparate disciplines or technologies." One example would be the 'active news channels', where users can select specific headline news or even vote on the issues of the day.

However, we must be clear about one thing. Whilst the TV viewer can interact with the technology via a remote handset, they cannot change the outcome of the programme they're watching in real-time. At least at the time of writing this article this appears to be the case.
Ultimately, a video game enables the user to fully interact with both the technology and the program running on it - and this is what distinguishes it from interactive TV.

Based on the issues previously discussed here, perhaps a general description of gameplay can be formulated as:

A set of basic elements, which - when implemented in an interactive environment, ensure that the end-user can make interesting choices, thus leading to a vicarious experience which is both memorable and fun.

A more in-depth, decompositional analysis of these basic elements of gameplay follows.

Element 1:Challenge versus Frustration
Games must provide a challenge, and to an extent, deliberately induce a degree of frustration at certain strategic points in the game. But this must be handled wisely. A game can be made so frustrating that the player will soon become disillusioned and simply abandon it. On this issue David Perry of Shiny Entertainment says:

"Keep gameplay challenging, but don't let players get lost or blame the
game for their problems."
[Saltzman, 2000, p.18]

It is important to let the player feel a sense of accomplishment when they are able to triumph over the cause of their frustration. In addition, credence must be given to the fact that not all players are alike in their ability to tolerate frustration. Children tend to have more of a tolerance to it than adults do. Also, those who are experts will inevitably suffer less frustration than those who are novices. Chris Crawford points out that,

"If a game is to provide a continuing challenge to the player, it must also provide a continuing motivation to play. It must appear to be winnable to all players, the beginner and the expert." [Crawford, 1982, p. 73]

This leads on to the issue of 'risk and reward' management.

Element 2: Risks versus Rewards
The player must receive an adequate pay-off for the successful completion of a difficult task particularly if the player has to take risks - such as the possibility of losing health or life points if they put a foot wrong. Tim Willits a level designer working for ID Software - a company best known for first person perspective games like Doom and Quake, makes the comment that,

"Every time you have an area in the map that looks important and there's
a fight to reach it, you need to reward the player with some 'goodie'."
[Saltzman, 2000, p. 114]

The level of reward should be directly proportional to the level of risk taken by the player. If there is an imbalance the player may feel hard-done-by and question whether it's worthwhile to continue the game. If a game is well balanced it can rapidly become an enjoyable and an addictive experience. Of course, the notion of addiction is a weighty issue, which has raised numerous concerns and spawned many academic research projects about the psychological implications of it. In a 1991 article published in the Journal of Adolescence, M.D. Griffiths wrote,

"…playing a videogame could be considered a non-financial form of
gambling…a non-substance form of addiction." [Ferguson, 1998, p. 5]

Element 3: Reality versus Abstraction
The earliest videogames were very abstract, in terms of what the player experienced visually. The technology was unable to produce anything other than simple blocky graphics, which didn't resemble anything found in the real world. Gameplay was also limited by technology, to the extent that numerous early games revolved around trying to rack up the highest score. This was similar in many ways to the Pinball craze. Players competed as much with each other as they did with the machines.

Over a number of years, videogames - fuelled by ever more powerful hardware, have started to simulate real-world environments. This has proved to be most noticeable in flight simulators and driving games. However, realism is not universal to all videogame genres and it can lead to problems.

In an article entitled "The Rules of the Game" - published in Edge magazine, issue 12 (September 1994), the following observation was made,

"simulation severely restricts the game designer's scope, because things have to
start following the laws of physics and be vaguely believable."
[Edge, 1994, p. 49]

It is the responsibility of the game designer to know when and where a real-world simulation, or its antithesis, is to be deployed. Richard Rouse makes the point that,

"If the designer in an attempt to achieve a greater degree of reality, decides to
include too many unnecessary and dull details, the game will likely become
tedious to play." [Rouse III, 2000, p. 130]

The right balance between realism and pure fiction can be achieved through the provision of appropriate options. However, care must be taken in the construction and management of these options - an option must never be trivial nor should it be so powerful that it undermines the practical use of anything else in the game world.

Element 4: Dominance
Videogames need to provide different ways of doing things. In other words, players must have access to a number of options that can be selected, or de-selected, depending upon the particular set of circumstances that they find themselves in. This could be a special kind of weapon, or some crafty movement, or if the game is a flight simulation it might mean a short burst of the afterburner.

But the designer must ensure that this option does not become the dominant option, i.e. something that is used all of the time. For example, the afterburner may give 50 percent more power but at the same time it must burn 25 percent more fuel. Without the 'down-side' to afterburner usage, the player would just turn the burners on and leave them engaged on a permanent basis. There has to be a positive and a negative quality to each option.

Dominance - the name given to an unbalanced asset or game feature, inevitably leads to the exclusion of all other options and the strategies that go with them. By the same token, a designer must never create an option that is worthless.

To borrow some terminology from the Rollings & Morris book Game Architecture And Design,

"An option that is never worth using under any circumstances is a dominated
strategy. An option that is so good it's never worth doing anything else is a
dominant strategy." [Rollings & Morris, 2000, p. 39]

Both the dominated option and the dominant option are the enemies of good gameplay. But by far the worst of the two is the dominant option. This makes all the other options pointless and futile. The choices available to the player are only interesting and worthwhile when they effect the game world in their own unique way and do not undermine each other. In addition, they must be repeatable, so that the player can rely on the effect that they have in the game and, as a result, learn about the most effective ways of using them.

Element 5: Repeatability
One of the most satisfying and endearing qualities, prevalent in good videogames at least, is the sense of mastery over the skills required to play them at a competent level. These skills are acquired through an investment in time, made by the player, which may see them endure countless defeats, dead ends, red herrings and gruesome deaths. It takes time to ride the learning curve of most games and the designer must ensure that, when the player thinks about the game retrospectively, he feels that it was time-well-spent. As Rouse points out,

"…players need time to learn how to play the game, and this learning
experience is often a crucial time in the player's overall experience with
your game." [Rouse III, 2000, p. 132]

Repeatability means that if the player were to kill a vampire with a stake through the heart at one point in the game then this technique should remain valid for other parts of the game as well. Albeit with the proviso that the type, or class of vampire is the same, i.e. there may be a 'head vampire' with some kind of magical force field protecting them, in which case a stake through the heart is not going to work.

"A lack of repeatability prevents you from being able to achieve any mastery of the situation." [Edge, 1994, p. 48]

Element 6: Polymorphism
A key feature of object-oriented programming is polymorphism, which means 'having many forms'. The general description of this phenomenon is that:

"…it allows different objects to respond to the same message in different ways, the response specific to the type of object." [Parsons, 1997, p.8]

But polymorphism is not exclusive to computer science. People exhibit polymorphic tendencies through interaction - either in the real world or in a virtual world. The best examples of this can be seen in how different people play the same video game. Some people will make frequent use of a save game option, whilst others believe that this spoils their enjoyment and is contrary to the true spirit of serious game play.

The question is, which of these opinions does the designer adopt when creating a game?

The answer should really be both. A good game compensates for the fact that different people will have their own style of play. Something like a save game option is, after all, optional - i.e. not compulsory in any way. The player is not necessarily forced to use it or rely on it.

To remove this option from a game ultimately restricts the style of play and therefore limits its potential audience. Thus, one could argue that it is wholly inappropriate for a designer to dictate to the player how the game should be played-out based on their own personal preferences.

Element 6: Balance
Balancing the elements within a game is one of the most important roles performed by the designer.

"If the game is unbalanced then it is most likely going to be less fun for the
side that feels the weight of that unbalance." [Howland, 1998, p. 4]

However, it is important to note that there are two types of balancing that a designer must perform. Gameplay balancing - whereby the elemental features of the game, as described above, are balanced against each other, and resource balancing - whereby the basic assets of the game like weapons, ammo, tools and physical skills are distributed in appropriate quantities.

Resource balancing does not mean that the player is given equal quantities of assets in order to provide a perfect match with their enemies. Moreover it refers to the strategic distribution of units on a large scale. As Howland points out, "…not all of the parts are equally balanced but the sum of them is."

If the assets in a particular stage, or level, of a game are symmetrically distributed then it may induce a sense of disbelief in the player. In such cases, the availability of assets becomes conspicuous and superficial.

"A symmetric level is an obvious way to equalize the odds. In fact, it's too obvious.
As solutions go, it's almost an insult to the player's intelligence."
[Rollings & Morris, 2000, p. 75]

The most effective and least obvious method of balancing resources is to give each player the ability to choose from a wide variety of assets, whilst at the same time ensuring that each player has the same chance of success - given that their assets may be different.

Conclusion

In the time that has elapsed since Steve Russell and his friends released Spacewar on the PDP-1, the software and hardware used to produce videogames has changed dramatically. In fact, today's production methods bear little or no resemblance to the methods used during the embryonic era of game development. During the decades since Spacewar, gameplay has emerged as the deciding factor in defining whether a game is memorable and fun, or just another superficial jaunt into a uni-dimensional digital environment.

If the elements of gameplay are observed and understood by game designers then interaction with videogames, at both the emotional and the control level, will continue to be fun. However, if the focus shifts away from gameplay onto the more general aesthetic qualities that games can provide then their appeal will inevitably wane as their novelty value wares off. Graphical realism - sometimes referred to as 'gold-plating', will always be a crucial element in games, and as such must not be overlooked. But gameplay constitutes the most important and potent of all the components used in game production today and in the future.

The thirst for new and exciting experiences in video games is so insatiable that the future may herald an expanded - and in some cases totally re-defined, set of gameplay axioms. The only limiting factor will be our imagination and how far we are willing to explore the emotional and physical sensations produced by interacting with a machine.

References

Costikyan, Greg, 1994 "I Have No Words & I Must Design", Interactive Fantasy, Hogshead Publishing Ltd, London.

Crawford, Chris 1982 The Art Of Computer Game Design, 'Online' Electronic Edition,

Ferguson, Nicholas, 1998 Immersion And Emotion: The Psychological Impact Of Video Games

Griffiths, M.D., 1991 "Amusement machine playing in childhood and adolescence: a comparative analysis of video games and fruit machines", Journal of
Adolescence. Vol 14, 53-73.

Greenfield, Patricia Marks, 1984 Mind And Media - The effects of Television, Computers and Video Games, Hazell Watson & Viney Ltd, Bucks.

Hertz, J.C, 1997 Joystick Nation: How Videogames Gobbles Our Money, Won Our Hearts And Rewired Our Minds, Abacus, London.

Howland, Geoff, 1998 Game Design: The Essence of Computer Games

Parsons, David, 1997 Object Oriented Programming With C++ Second Edition, Letts Educational, London.

Poole, Steven, 2000 Trigger Happy: The Inner Life Of Videogames, Fourth Estate Limited, London.

Richard, Rouse III, 2000 Game Design: Theory and Practise, Wordware Publishing, USA.

Rollings, Andrew; Morris, Dave, 2000 Game Architecture And Design, The Coriolis Group, Arizona.

Saltzman, Marc, 2000 Game Design: Secrets Of The Sages - Second Edition, Macmillan Publishing, Indianapolis.

Turkle, Sherry, 1984 The Second Self: Computers And The Human Spirit, Simon & Schuster, N.Y.

'The Rules of the Game' (not authored), 1994 Edge magazine, n. 12, September, Pp.46-52.

Definition of 'Convergence' cited at: http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/c/convergence.html

______________________________________________________

Sound and Animation

Copyright © 2000-2001 CMP Media Inc. All rights reserved.