A
Unified Classification Plane
Taking
these three forms, the ludic game, narrative and simulation, we
can construct a classification plane as a triangle with one form
at each point, as shown on Figure 1. It is then possible, as a heuristic
(ie. a useful working tool) for comparing different games and genres,
to place games and genres on that plane, emphasizing the relative
degree to which they embody elements of ludic gaming, simulation
and narrative.
In
this scheme we can place avatar worlds and vehicle simulators at
the simulation extreme. Early avatar worlds were three dimensional
virtual spaces in which a user could be represented by a movable
avatar. These worlds rarely presented much to do, however, since
they lacked any ludic or narrative content.
Board
games and games that do not represent any kind of fictional world,
such as Tetris, belong at the game play extreme. These games
are very abstract, but still engaging. Tetris can be placed
above and to the less narrative side of chess, since chess is an
abstracted representation of warfare, while Tetris presents
a very active functional model.
At
the narrative extreme we place the fixed narrative structures of
digital linear movies. Multipath movies hint at game-like interaction
by presenting choices for the viewer, while hypertext adventures
provide a high degree of interaction in the player's creation of
specific narrative experiences.
Action
games, strategy games and RPGs incorporate prominent features of
all forms, being games, simulators and narratives. RPGs generally
have more narrative content than action games, and strategy games
have more simulation than narrative.
Gambling
and A Three-Dimensional Classification Space
Gaming
is often also understood in the sense of gambling. The world of
computer gamers usually appears to be very separate from the world
of gambling, although gambling companies are certainly game companies
that deliver many gambling products as games. To continue with our
definition fetish, we can define gambling as: decisions of gain
or loss made by chance within a framework of agreed rules.
Chance
is central to the idea of gambling. Of course, many forms of gambling
have scope for skill; but these can be placed somewhere between
gambling and ludic gaming by the definitions presented here. In
fact, we can add another point to our classification system and
extend our two dimensional classification plane to produce a three-dimensional
classification space, as shown on Figure 2.
The
different points within this space represent different degrees by
which a production represents a game, a narrative, a simulation,
or a gambling system. For example, the game of poker has elements
of pure gaming and also elements of gambling, since it presents
a win/lose scenario played according to a rule set, in which chance
has a significant impact upon the outcome but within which skill
can also have a major role. If we look at the dimension from gambling
to simulation, we enter a very undeveloped zone of virtual economies,
while the dimension heading towards narrative suggests experiences
structured in time but significantly determined by chance.
From
Fiction to Non-Fiction Gaming
There
is another distinction to be made between games involving the creation
of a fictional world and those that do not involve a fictional world.
Since this is a range of variation between two extremes, we can
represent the distinction as a third dimensional extension of our
basic classification space, as shown on Figure 3. We're running
out of easily pictured representations, but this can be solved by
representing only three of the previous categories, such as the
ludic/simulation/narrative classification plane. The result is a
three dimensional triangular prism in which we can classify games
according to the degree to which they involve pure ludic form, narrative
and simulation, and also to the degree that they involve a fictitious
world. In this space we can place team sports and game shows as
highly ludic experiences, but with no creation of any kind of fiction.
Adventure sports, like mountain climbing, caving and diving are
similarly non-fictional, but have more of the nature of narratives
than of games, being structured in time, usually not competitive
and having rule structures concerning safety rather than constituting
arbitrary game rules.
Military
vehicle simulators lie strongly at the simulation extreme, but combine
elements of both real and fictitious worlds. The fiction is realized
by imaginary (ie. simulated) components like enemy vehicles and
battlefields, while the non-fiction elements include accurate functional
modeling of real systems, and the use of physical vehicle models
as interaction and staging technology.
Live
action role-playing, or LARP, games involve performances of game
characters in physical space. LARPing may be more or less game-like,
depending upon the degree to which players use rule sets. But most
of the experience is a form of improvisational theatre in which
the players are the audience. Hence LARPing tends to be highly fictional,
but lies between simulation and narrative.
From
Virtual to Physical Gaming
The
last main classification dimension to be considered here is that
between virtual and physical gaming. By virtual gaming we mean games
that have most of their mechanics processed within a computer and
have their audiovisual content delivered by computer peripherals,
rather than being played out and experienced in physical space.
The continuum between virtual and physical gaming can, like the
fiction to non-fiction continuum, be represented as the third dimension
of a classification prism, as shown on Figure 4.
Sports
games by this definition are very much at the physical extreme,
while current computer games are predominantly virtual. New forms
of location based and mobile gaming combine both virtual and physical
gaming, often using a computational and mobile infrastructure to
support game play action in the real world. Only a small number
of technology based games have been developed that use real-world
location as a significant factor in gameplay. Perhaps the most famous
example is Botfighters, developed by the small Swedish mobile-games
studio It's Alive! [7]. The game tracks GSM-cell location and allows
players within range of each other to score kills and gather resources
to buy upgrades. Portugese company Ydreams have recently launched
a Botfighter-like anti-terrorist game introducing the concept
of physical sanctuary in certain locations, malls and restaurants.
The projects Can You See Me Now and the recent Uncle Roy
All Around You, created by the UK mixed-reality performance
group Blast Theory [8], both use handheld computers, GPS location
tracking, and invisible online players to construct games where
fast physical movement and device-mediated teamwork are central
to gameplay.
Uses
of Game Classification Spaces
So,
we have a bunch of definitions, and we can use these to define some
classification planes and spaces. Of what use is this in practical
game design?
One
use is as a high-level road map for mapping out where other design
techniques can be applied. It is very important to have systematic
principles for knowing where more detailed techniques, such as abstract
formal design tools and game design patterns [4, 6], should be applied.
The distinctions of the taxonomy also allow us to see where techniques
from other fields can be applied. For example, acknowledging the
narrative elements of a game indicates where methods for the construction
of narratives, heavily developed for film script writing, can be
applied within games.
The
classification dimensions also allow us to separate concerns. A
good example of this is the previously described tension between
game play and narrative. Using definitions of game and narrative
that clearly separate them as forms makes it clear why there is
often a perceived tension between them. The distinction also suggests
a more clear-headed approach to resolving those tensions. If we
clearly identify which aspects of the game experience are to have
narrative structure and which are to be patterned gaming, we can
apply narrative techniques at the right level and consider detailed
mechanics for integrating narrative with game play. We can also
rethink some more fundamental questions, for example, can we define
game mechanics that do seriously advance the higher-level
narrative?
The
classification dimensions also support brainstorming for game ideas.
If a new game is placed in a particular place in the classification
system, designers can ask themselves about different possible techniques
for integrating the different formal aspects of the game. More than
this, if we look for areas of the planes and spaces that are empty,
we can explore new types, forms and genres of games. For example,
in the ludology/simulation/narrative plane, the space between narrative
and simulation is quite empty. As a thought exercise, we can explore
what it would mean to fill this space. That is, what does it mean
to create something that has aspects of both simulation and narrative,
but not much to do with game play? What might this feel like as
an experience? What will it require technically? Can we have worlds
in which the simulation functions interact to create experiences
that over time have particular kinds of narrative structure to them?
What are the simulation elements needed to facilitate such emergent
narratives?
The
most obvious use of the kinds of definitions presented here is to
follow Doug Church's suggestion of developing a common design vocabulary.
This must begin at the highest level, and can save much time and
confusion in high levels discussions about what a game project is
going to be. The distinctions presented here came out of practical
experiences in discussing game design, and discussions that often
suffered from confusion due to the lack of a well established design
vocabulary at the highest level. This happens a lot in discussions
about where games are going, what we can expect to see over a time
frame extending five or ten years into the future. New technical
possibilities for location-based and mobile gaming present many
new possibilities for game form and experience. We need clear languages
for discussing and making decisions about these possibilities.
High
level taxonomies are also a crucial precondition for defining the
scope of game design patterns [4]. While a number of patterns have
been identified [6], this is very preliminary work, and the most
useful forms of design patterns must be regarded as a topic of ongoing
exploration. In fact, this work will be endless, just as the scope
of possible games is endless. Our taxonomies must also continue
to evolve, as will the kind of heuristic design rules comprising
Hal Barwood's "400 Design Rules" [1,2]. All of these tools
represent complementary and evolving methods for game design. They
cannot yet be regarded as stable and fully validated, but a high
level classification system can nevertheless save much time and
confusion in game design, and provide a contribution to the eventual
development of comprehensive and systematic tools for designing
games of ever increasing complexity.
References
[1]
Hal Barwood "Four of the Four Hundred 2001", GDC lecture,
2001.
[2]
Hal Barwood and Noah Falstein "More of the 400: Discovering
Design Rules 2002", GDC lecture, 2002.
[3]
Doug Church, "Formal Abstract Design Tools" Gamasutra,
July 16, 1999.
[4]
Bernd Kreimeier, "The Case For Game Design Patterns",
Gamasutra, December 12, 2002.
[5]
Craig Lindley 2002 "The Gameplay Gestalt, Narrative, and Interactive
Storytelling", Computer Games and Digital Cultures Conference,
June 6-8, Tampere, Finland, 2002.
[6]
http://www.gamedesignpatterns.org/
[7]
http://www.itsalive.com/page.asp/
[8]
http://www.uncleroyallaroundyou.co.uk/
[9]
http://zerogame.interactiveinstitute.se/
______________________________________________________