An essay in dialogue form: what is the videogame medium?
Z ? a one who inquires into the art of videogames
X ? a one who points out all of the holes in Z?s analysis but to whom understanding of Z?s ideas does not necessarily come easily.
X and Z are enjoying a competitive multiplayer game of Halo ? combat evolved, on the traditional blood gulch map.
X ? Well this is very fun indeed, the sci fi graphics are very cool, and the guns are richly diverse but all very satisfying to use. I also appreciate the different options and game types available; we could play on a different map, with different vehicles, weapons or powerups enabled, we could play capture the flag, oddball, race...
Z ? Well this is all very true, but you fail to get to the essence of what makes this such a satisfying experience. You see, every time we encounter each other and fight, and indeed during the whole time of play (but most pronounced during these encounters), we are faced with a goal and a set of rules with which we must engage in order to achieve this goal. I propose that it is in thinking about these rules, making decisions and observing the outcomes; that we derive the pleasure that we now experience.
X ? But are we to ignore or downsize the importance of the graphics and guns and vehicles and such?
Z ? I should hope not, for I too take great pleasure in the simplistic visual style and alien architecture, weapons and vehicles. And the formal voice which announces ?slayer? at the beginning of the match, the crickets and sound of footsteps which create such a wonderfully calming atmosphere, giving the combat both space and character. Then there?s the individual sounds of all of the weapons and vehicles, all of which so recognizable in relation to their respective objects. Of course none of this would count for much were they not attached to the rules which govern them in the game, but this is not a fundamental property of videogames as a medium at large. Rather it is down both to the focus of this game on communication through rules, and in fact the lack of interesting context, that is the sounds and visuals that we just described, along with any symbolism and narrative, which are of little interest relative to, say, a good film such as Star Wars for instance, in which the subject matter consists entirely of these contextual elements.
X ? So your saying that film consists only of contextual elements while videogames consist of rules with more or less interesting contextual elements to back up the rules?
Z ? Well not exactly, a ?videogame? could very conceivably consist of a landscape, city or the like, in which, unlike with a painting or film, you could move around and view from different angles. There would be rules, such as, ?certain objects are solid, so you cannot move through them?, perhaps the position and direction of your view could represent a person and would thus obey the laws of gravity, or perhaps you would just control a floating camera-like object which could move to any position. But either way, the rules would not be very interesting or entertaining in themselves; and so the artistic value of the work would live and die with the visual ?context? (though the use of the word context does not seem so appropriate here, since it is the main subject matter as opposed to the context for the rules).
X ? But this isn?t much of a game, it just a 3d graphic design. A videogame must have a purpose, a goal.
Z ? Quite right, it does not seem like much of a game. We need to define what properties contribute to make a videogame as opposed to a work of any other medium. Perhaps a game must reach a certain threshold of rules, though I think it is dangerous to say that a game must have a goal. A game could conceivably consist of a set of rules which are interesting simply to play around with, with no aim in mind. Perhaps The Sims is a good example of this; some may indeed play with the object of getting rich or making a nice looking home, or perhaps a more subtle aim to create aggression between two housemates or something, but one might also enjoy simply observing the outcomes of certain actions which are modeled on those that might occur in real life. Of course even in a game like halo which appears to have a clear aim, ? to kill your opponent 25 time before he does so to you?, the enjoyment comes (hopefully) not from winning as much as from observing the rules and trying things out. In this way, the ?aim? of winning could be seen more as a form used by a lot of games, which forces the player to engage with the rules in a certain way.
X ? But when I play halo, I play to win. I enjoy winning in Halo, or perhaps more accurately, I enjoy all of the achievements I make, such as getting one of those 25 kills, or maybe even just the satisfaction of a particularly skilful grenade throw. I don?t see how I could enjoy the rules just by virtue of their existence.
Z - To re assert/elaborate then, because it is a crucial point, a game consists of events and actions; that is rules which determine the outcomes (actions), of certain events. The developer (hopefully) chooses interesting or entertaining rules and presents them in an illuminating order in space and time. Rules may involve actions which change the outcomes of future events, or they may simply trigger a non impactful contextual action or both. A rule in a hypothetical game about the shenanigans in a family home may state, ?when the player makes the child not brush his teeth before bed, the mother?s love for the child will decrease by one gradation (where the mother?s love determines how likely she is to cook dinner for the child)?, to state a silly, melodramatic example, which fits nicely into the first rule type. Another rule may state that when you water the plants, they grow, which has no effect on the rest of the game. Now in chess, there is a rule that says, ?when a players king is taken, the game ends and the opposing player wins?, the game ending, naturally has an effect on the rest of the game at large, while the opposing player winning has no effect on future rules, it is simply a stand-alone action which expresses the game makers idea of the world, or rather whatever he wanted to express at that point in time; in this case, something along the lines of, ?when someone eliminates another persons important component, they win?. Or, ?when one civilization defeats another?s king, they win?. Or, perhaps most accurately, ?when one person displays the skills required to take the opponents king piece in chess, they win? (where in all cases winning is a rather peculiar human concept which means what it means to each individual player). One type of rule is not necessarily better then the other (that is the action which sees the game end and that which names on player the ?winner?), the point I?m trying to make is that both are simply messages communicated by the game maker. Hopefully they are interesting message, but they are essentially there to be appreciated. Winning is simply a rule like any other; an event and action if you will, ?when this happens, this happens?, just like, ?if you water the plant, it grows?, in the case of this rule, the game designer communicates something of his idea about ?winning? in real life, arguably a slightly dated or generally boring one. Except in the case of winning chess, the conditions are more complex and if viewed as an aim, may require a great deal of skill to achieve them. But you shouldn?t necessarily try to achieve the conditions for this action and more then another.
X ? So winning this game of halo is just a couple of actions, that of the game ending, and that of the screen saying, ?player 2 wins?, which are triggered by the events of me shooting you x number of times, and these actions are comparable to (arguably) less important ones such as the one governing the mothers love for the child, both are modeled on the game creators ideas of the real world, and should be interesting in their very existence, but not necessarily strived for. Well that?s all fine, but the point is that there are some rules, such the one about winning in Halo, which we do try to make happen, and that?s why I?m playing; because I want to make certain things happen, because I enjoy it when they do. I don?t want to just mill about appreciating what the game designer said would happen if x happens, besides, if I don?t have an aim, how will I know what to try out and appreciate the outcome of?
Z ? Right. Now as far as having an aim in general is concerned, whether it be winning, or decreasing the mothers love for you, this needn?t be a fundamental to any game; the game simply presents a load of rules to you which are either interesting and entertaining or not, and with which you can do as you please. Sure a game may require you to kill x many enemies before you can progress to the next level, but this is just another rule, ?one must kill 20 aliens before the allied spaceship coincidentally turns up to find you?, of course this is a positively ludicrous rule, but a rule nonetheless which should express an idea of the creator, but this is similar to some completely un thought out scene in a film which just doesn?t make logical sense.
X ? But you?re just repeating yourself. The fact is that most games aren?t like that, they actually tell you that you DO have an aim or at least heavily imply it, as is the case with the rule you just mentioned.
Z ? Indeed, and as I said (and was just getting to again, if you would stop interrupting), this can be used to force the player to engage with certain other rules and in a certain way (the way which you are enjoying now as we play Halo with the aim of winning), but it is certainly clear now that such aims are not fundamental to the medium at large.
X ? No it isn?t, maybe I only play Halo because there is an aim, and maybe I wouldn?t play your hypothetical family home game because there is no aim (and for other reasons mind you!).
Z ? Well this brings up the important issue of how the player is expected to engage with the system. There are rules which we are persuaded to use, or rather actions that we are meant to trigger, which are common to most games of a certain genre, or even to all games of a larger category type. The aim of winning, which is usually triggered by eliminating the enemy, or a crucial part of the enemy, is used in so many different sorts of games that it may be seen not so much as an interesting rule, as it may as a form, similar to a musical form which provides a sort of structure in which subject matter can be presented, many games use this method to help shape the manner in which the rules are presented to the player and the way in which the player will approach them. Perhaps you think that it is indeed this type of interaction with a set of rules (requiring the players skill in order to trigger a certain action which is seen as the aim), which defines a videogame. This would mean that my theoretical family home game would in fact not be a game by your definition unless the player decided they would make it their aim to trigger a certain action, in which case, this action should require a degree of skill in order it be a good game.
X ? Right?
Z ? So case closed
X ? Erm?
Z ? Until next time, when we will further our discussion on the matter of, ?what is the videogame medium?
X ? Right. Good. Well I?ll see you then then.
Z beat X on that particular game of halo by 25 kills to 17.
Z ? a one who inquires into the art of videogames
X ? a one who points out all of the holes in Z?s analysis but to whom understanding of Z?s ideas does not necessarily come easily.
X and Z are enjoying a competitive multiplayer game of Halo ? combat evolved, on the traditional blood gulch map.
X ? Well this is very fun indeed, the sci fi graphics are very cool, and the guns are richly diverse but all very satisfying to use. I also appreciate the different options and game types available; we could play on a different map, with different vehicles, weapons or powerups enabled, we could play capture the flag, oddball, race...
Z ? Well this is all very true, but you fail to get to the essence of what makes this such a satisfying experience. You see, every time we encounter each other and fight, and indeed during the whole time of play (but most pronounced during these encounters), we are faced with a goal and a set of rules with which we must engage in order to achieve this goal. I propose that it is in thinking about these rules, making decisions and observing the outcomes; that we derive the pleasure that we now experience.
X ? But are we to ignore or downsize the importance of the graphics and guns and vehicles and such?
Z ? I should hope not, for I too take great pleasure in the simplistic visual style and alien architecture, weapons and vehicles. And the formal voice which announces ?slayer? at the beginning of the match, the crickets and sound of footsteps which create such a wonderfully calming atmosphere, giving the combat both space and character. Then there?s the individual sounds of all of the weapons and vehicles, all of which so recognizable in relation to their respective objects. Of course none of this would count for much were they not attached to the rules which govern them in the game, but this is not a fundamental property of videogames as a medium at large. Rather it is down both to the focus of this game on communication through rules, and in fact the lack of interesting context, that is the sounds and visuals that we just described, along with any symbolism and narrative, which are of little interest relative to, say, a good film such as Star Wars for instance, in which the subject matter consists entirely of these contextual elements.
X ? So your saying that film consists only of contextual elements while videogames consist of rules with more or less interesting contextual elements to back up the rules?
Z ? Well not exactly, a ?videogame? could very conceivably consist of a landscape, city or the like, in which, unlike with a painting or film, you could move around and view from different angles. There would be rules, such as, ?certain objects are solid, so you cannot move through them?, perhaps the position and direction of your view could represent a person and would thus obey the laws of gravity, or perhaps you would just control a floating camera-like object which could move to any position. But either way, the rules would not be very interesting or entertaining in themselves; and so the artistic value of the work would live and die with the visual ?context? (though the use of the word context does not seem so appropriate here, since it is the main subject matter as opposed to the context for the rules).
X ? But this isn?t much of a game, it just a 3d graphic design. A videogame must have a purpose, a goal.
Z ? Quite right, it does not seem like much of a game. We need to define what properties contribute to make a videogame as opposed to a work of any other medium. Perhaps a game must reach a certain threshold of rules, though I think it is dangerous to say that a game must have a goal. A game could conceivably consist of a set of rules which are interesting simply to play around with, with no aim in mind. Perhaps The Sims is a good example of this; some may indeed play with the object of getting rich or making a nice looking home, or perhaps a more subtle aim to create aggression between two housemates or something, but one might also enjoy simply observing the outcomes of certain actions which are modeled on those that might occur in real life. Of course even in a game like halo which appears to have a clear aim, ? to kill your opponent 25 time before he does so to you?, the enjoyment comes (hopefully) not from winning as much as from observing the rules and trying things out. In this way, the ?aim? of winning could be seen more as a form used by a lot of games, which forces the player to engage with the rules in a certain way.
X ? But when I play halo, I play to win. I enjoy winning in Halo, or perhaps more accurately, I enjoy all of the achievements I make, such as getting one of those 25 kills, or maybe even just the satisfaction of a particularly skilful grenade throw. I don?t see how I could enjoy the rules just by virtue of their existence.
Z - To re assert/elaborate then, because it is a crucial point, a game consists of events and actions; that is rules which determine the outcomes (actions), of certain events. The developer (hopefully) chooses interesting or entertaining rules and presents them in an illuminating order in space and time. Rules may involve actions which change the outcomes of future events, or they may simply trigger a non impactful contextual action or both. A rule in a hypothetical game about the shenanigans in a family home may state, ?when the player makes the child not brush his teeth before bed, the mother?s love for the child will decrease by one gradation (where the mother?s love determines how likely she is to cook dinner for the child)?, to state a silly, melodramatic example, which fits nicely into the first rule type. Another rule may state that when you water the plants, they grow, which has no effect on the rest of the game. Now in chess, there is a rule that says, ?when a players king is taken, the game ends and the opposing player wins?, the game ending, naturally has an effect on the rest of the game at large, while the opposing player winning has no effect on future rules, it is simply a stand-alone action which expresses the game makers idea of the world, or rather whatever he wanted to express at that point in time; in this case, something along the lines of, ?when someone eliminates another persons important component, they win?. Or, ?when one civilization defeats another?s king, they win?. Or, perhaps most accurately, ?when one person displays the skills required to take the opponents king piece in chess, they win? (where in all cases winning is a rather peculiar human concept which means what it means to each individual player). One type of rule is not necessarily better then the other (that is the action which sees the game end and that which names on player the ?winner?), the point I?m trying to make is that both are simply messages communicated by the game maker. Hopefully they are interesting message, but they are essentially there to be appreciated. Winning is simply a rule like any other; an event and action if you will, ?when this happens, this happens?, just like, ?if you water the plant, it grows?, in the case of this rule, the game designer communicates something of his idea about ?winning? in real life, arguably a slightly dated or generally boring one. Except in the case of winning chess, the conditions are more complex and if viewed as an aim, may require a great deal of skill to achieve them. But you shouldn?t necessarily try to achieve the conditions for this action and more then another.
X ? So winning this game of halo is just a couple of actions, that of the game ending, and that of the screen saying, ?player 2 wins?, which are triggered by the events of me shooting you x number of times, and these actions are comparable to (arguably) less important ones such as the one governing the mothers love for the child, both are modeled on the game creators ideas of the real world, and should be interesting in their very existence, but not necessarily strived for. Well that?s all fine, but the point is that there are some rules, such the one about winning in Halo, which we do try to make happen, and that?s why I?m playing; because I want to make certain things happen, because I enjoy it when they do. I don?t want to just mill about appreciating what the game designer said would happen if x happens, besides, if I don?t have an aim, how will I know what to try out and appreciate the outcome of?
Z ? Right. Now as far as having an aim in general is concerned, whether it be winning, or decreasing the mothers love for you, this needn?t be a fundamental to any game; the game simply presents a load of rules to you which are either interesting and entertaining or not, and with which you can do as you please. Sure a game may require you to kill x many enemies before you can progress to the next level, but this is just another rule, ?one must kill 20 aliens before the allied spaceship coincidentally turns up to find you?, of course this is a positively ludicrous rule, but a rule nonetheless which should express an idea of the creator, but this is similar to some completely un thought out scene in a film which just doesn?t make logical sense.
X ? But you?re just repeating yourself. The fact is that most games aren?t like that, they actually tell you that you DO have an aim or at least heavily imply it, as is the case with the rule you just mentioned.
Z ? Indeed, and as I said (and was just getting to again, if you would stop interrupting), this can be used to force the player to engage with certain other rules and in a certain way (the way which you are enjoying now as we play Halo with the aim of winning), but it is certainly clear now that such aims are not fundamental to the medium at large.
X ? No it isn?t, maybe I only play Halo because there is an aim, and maybe I wouldn?t play your hypothetical family home game because there is no aim (and for other reasons mind you!).
Z ? Well this brings up the important issue of how the player is expected to engage with the system. There are rules which we are persuaded to use, or rather actions that we are meant to trigger, which are common to most games of a certain genre, or even to all games of a larger category type. The aim of winning, which is usually triggered by eliminating the enemy, or a crucial part of the enemy, is used in so many different sorts of games that it may be seen not so much as an interesting rule, as it may as a form, similar to a musical form which provides a sort of structure in which subject matter can be presented, many games use this method to help shape the manner in which the rules are presented to the player and the way in which the player will approach them. Perhaps you think that it is indeed this type of interaction with a set of rules (requiring the players skill in order to trigger a certain action which is seen as the aim), which defines a videogame. This would mean that my theoretical family home game would in fact not be a game by your definition unless the player decided they would make it their aim to trigger a certain action, in which case, this action should require a degree of skill in order it be a good game.
X ? Right?
Z ? So case closed
X ? Erm?
Z ? Until next time, when we will further our discussion on the matter of, ?what is the videogame medium?
X ? Right. Good. Well I?ll see you then then.
Z beat X on that particular game of halo by 25 kills to 17.
