Ostikyan's definition of a game was one of the first attempts to formally define the most basic building blocks of a game. But there\u00a0 are aspects of games that his definition doesn't capture. Lots of other people have articulated their ideas about the building blocks. None of these articulations are perfect\u00a0but by looking at all of them we can see some emerging themes that can shed light on the kinds of things that we need to create as game designers if we are to make games.<\/p>\n
We refer to these basic building blocks as \u201cformal elements,\" not because they have anything to do with wearing a suit and tie, but because they are \u201cformal\u201d in the mathematical and scientific sense: something that can be explicitly defined. Some designers refer to them as \u201catoms\u201d \u2014 in the sense that these are the smallest parts of a game that can be isolated and studied individually.<\/p>\n
What follows are some parts of games, and some of the things designers may consider when looking at these formal elements. You'll note that Costikyan already mentioned some of these. But this more detailed list of formal elements is what we will use in our analyses for the rest of this class.<\/p>\n
We'll start with the elements that Costikyan defined that show up in a lot of other people's lists of formal elements:<\/p>\n
Objectives (goals)<\/strong><\/p>\n What is the object of the game? What are the players trying to do? This is often one of the first things you can ask yourself when designing a game, if you\u2019re stuck and don\u2019t know where to begin. Once you know the objective, many of the other formal elements will seem to define themselves for you. Some common objectives (again, this is not a complete list):<\/p>\n\n Resources and resource management<\/strong><\/p>\n \u201cResources\u201d is a broad category, and we use it in this text to mean everything that is under control of a single player. Obviously this includes explicit resources (wood and wheat in Settlers of Catan<\/em>, health and mana and currency in\u00a0World of Warcraft<\/em>), but this can also include other things under player control:<\/p>\n\n What kinds of resources do the players control? How are these resources manipulated during play? This is something the game designer must define explicitly.<\/p>\n Decision-making<\/strong><\/p>\n Decision-making allows the player to control their destiny (to an extent).\u00a0 Through decision-making, the player expresses a personality, a strategy for how to win the game.\u00a0 Because decision-making is such a critical element of any game, I have written an entirely separate chapter about it. (See the previous chapter of this OER.)<\/p>\n Information<\/strong><\/p>\n How much of the game state is visible to each player? Changing the amount of information available to players has a drastic effect on the game, even if all other formal elements are the same. Some examples of information structures in games:<\/p>\n\n Now let's talk about some formal elements that don't show up in Costikyan's definition of a game.<\/p>\n Players<\/strong><\/p>\n How many players does the game support? Must it be an exact number (4 players only), or a variable number (2 to 5 players)? Can players enter or leave during play? How does this affect play?<\/p>\n What is the relationship between players: are there teams, or individuals? Can teams be uneven? Here are some example player structures; this is by no means a complete list:<\/p>\n\n Player Interaction<\/strong><\/p>\n This is an often-neglected but highly important aspect of games to consider. How do players interact with one another? How can they influence one another? Here are some examples of player interactions<\/p>\n\n Rules (mechanics)<\/strong><\/p>\n There are three categories of rules: setup<\/em> (things you do once at the beginning of the game), progression of play<\/em> (what happens during the game), and resolution<\/em> (what conditions cause the game to end, and how is an outcome determined based on the game state).<\/p>\n Some rules are automatic: they are triggered at a certain point in the game without player choices or interaction (\u201cDraw a card at the start of your turn\u201d or \u201cThe bonus timer decreases by 100 points every second\u201d). Other rules define the choices or actions that the players can take in the game, and the effects of those actions on the game state.<\/p>\n Let\u2019s dig deeper. Salen & Zimmerman\u2019s\u00a0Rules of Play<\/em>\u00a0classifies three types of rules, which they call operational, constituative, and implied (these are not standard terms in the industry, so the concepts are more important than the terminology in this case). To illustrate, let\u2019s consider the rules of\u00a0Tic-Tac-Toe<\/em>:<\/p>\n\n These are what\u00a0Rules of Play<\/em>\u00a0calls the \u201coperational\u201d rules. Think for a moment: are these the only rules of the game?<\/p>\n At first glance, it seems so. But what if I\u2019m losing and simply refuse to take another turn? The rules do not explicitly give a time limit, so I could \u201cstall\u201d indefinitely to avoid losing and still be operating within the \u201crules\u201d as they are typically stated. However, in actual play, a reasonable time limit is implied. This is not part of the formal (operational) rules of the game, but it is still part of what\u00a0Rules of Play<\/em>\u00a0calls the \u201cimplied\u201d rules. The point here is that there is some kind of unwritten social contract that players make when playing a game, and these are understood even when not stated.<\/p>\n Even within the formal rules there are two layers. The 3\u00d73 board and \u201cX\u201d and \u201cO\u201d symbols are specific to what Costikyan calls the color<\/em> of this game, but you could strip them away. By reframing the squares as the numbers 1 through 9 and turning spatial alignment into a mathematical property, you can get Three-to-Fifteen<\/em>. While\u00a0Tic-Tac-Toe<\/em>\u00a0and\u00a0Three-to-Fifteen<\/em>\u00a0have different implementations and appearances, the underlying abstract rules are the same. We do not normally think in these abstract terms when we think of \u201crules\u201d but they are still there, under the surface.\u00a0Rules of Play<\/em>\u00a0calls these \u201cconstituative\u201d rules.<\/p>\n Is it useful to make the distinction between these three types of rules? I think it is important to be aware of them for two reasons:<\/p>\n\n Game State<\/strong><\/p>\n Some \u201cresource-like\u201d things are not owned by a single player, but are still part of the game: unowned properties in\u00a0Monopoly<\/em>, the common cards in\u00a0Texas Hold \u2018Em<\/em>. Everything in the game together, including the current player resources and everything else that makes up a snapshot of the game at a single point in time is called the\u00a0game state<\/em>.<\/p>\n In board games, explicitly defining the game state is not always necessary, but it is sometimes useful to think about. After all, one way to think about rules is that they are the means by which the game is transformed from one game state to another.<\/p>\n In video games, someone must define the game state, because it includes all of the data that the computer must keep track of. Normally this task falls to a programmer, but if the game designer can explicitly define the entire game state it can greatly aid in the understanding of the game by the programming team.<\/p>\n Sequencing<\/strong><\/p>\n In what order do players take their actions? How does play flow from one action to another? Games can work differently depending on the turn structure that is used:<\/p>\n\n Theme (or narrative, backstory, or setting)<\/strong><\/p>\n These terms do have distinct meanings for people who are professional story writers, but for our purposes they are used interchangeably to mean the parts of the game that do not directly affect gameplay at all.<\/p>\n\n \t
\n \t
\n \t
\n \t
\n \t
\n \t
\n \t
\n \t