The end of games?

I saw on Greg Costikyan's blog, his Nov. 18th entry, that there's been some recent discussion about whether certain games, especially MMOGs (massively multiplayer online games), are, in fact, "games." The key issue is whether a game without an ending is really a game, or something else. According to Greg's blog, Raph Koster, who lead the Star Wars Galaxy project, has labeled his product a "persistent world," saying that it's not really a game as we know it.

Eric Zimmerman, co-author of the otherwise excellent new book, Rules of Play, writes that a game must have a "quantifiable conclusion," otherwise it's something else, but not a true game.

Lisbeth Klastrup, Assistant Professor at DIAC at the IT University at Copenhagen, writes in her blog on Nov. 20th: "I believe some virtual worlds have so many game elements that they could be considered as marginal forms of games (such as EQ and the other RPG worlds). However, I do prefer the term gameworld instead of game, to me there is a difference: EQ is both a world and a game at the same time, not either-or. I know a lot of games project a world, but they are not primarily gameworlds. I wish we could reserve the term 'gameworld' for those virtual worlds which are dominated by gaming activities."

Okay, since I've got this little blog thing, I get to toss in my two tokens.

Scott's Screamingly Obvious Point #1: I find it ludicrous that we cannot call EQ, SWG, UO, and all other MMOGs "games." The opposing idea is that something without a win condition doesn't qualify as a true game. But, in this day and age, a win condition is NOT a required goal. Games are also designed around short-term goals, such as getting a better weapon, acquiring new skills, reaching new areas of the gameworld, and so on. These many short-term goals are really mini-games that do have a "quantifiable conclusion." The be-all, end-all quantifiable conclusion is simple not a requirement.

Scott's Screamingly Obvious Point #2: Asteroids. Space Invaders. Pac Man. Defender. Robotron. Five of the biggest arcade games ever. Oops! Can't call them "games" -- they don't have an ending.

Um, they ARE games. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs a good spanking.

Scott's Screamingly Obvious Point #3: If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck... This is the point that Greg made in his blog. Let's not get hung up on silly technicalities. If gamers of the world all say, "Hey, are ya gonna buy that new 'online game', EverQuest 2?", then the game industry as a whole, including academics, should step in line with the lingo.

Finally, one last opinion that I'll toss in purely as a bonus: Who cares!!! Seriously, it's not like we need to work out the definition of the word "game" to make 'em! And frankly, I prefer to think of what we do as making "entertainment." Not that it matters, though. But there's a reason our company was renamed from Apogee Software in 1994 to 3D Realms Entertainment, because we saw the bigger picture. We saw that we could -- hopefully! -- make games that would have life in other entertainment industries, such as the movie industry, in comics, novels, or as toys. When you think in terms of making entertainment, it gets you thinking about including hooks that might interest the other media branches. And maybe best of all, you don't need to worry if your game has an ending.

And with that, this post comes to a quantifiable conclusion.

Comments

[J.]

Most discourse on MMOGs separates the "world" aspect from the "game" aspect. Costik was just mulling (in the entry you referenced) over the MMP titles that are trying to -not- define themselves as games -- There and Second Life. They're basically graphical chat rooms with some cooperative content that just barely qualifies as "fun," unless you factor in a lot of cameraderie.

Then again, the same could be said about many aspects of games like UO, EQ, DaoC, etc. -- they're not much fun except when other people are around, especially if you've done them over, and over, and over. :) Costik's point was that these new titles aren't even -trying- to market themselves as "games", and not just because they don't end.

Your final point is well taken, though. Who cares?

[Scott Miller]

I see your point, J. Having not played There or Second Life, I was not aware that they are as you describe.

Still, my primary beef is with Zimmerman's statement, which appears to blanket the entire industry.

[ADoomedMarine]

I've always thought of a game as something you play, obviously right. So you are playing your character in these "gameworlds" right? So I would call it a game.

Then again look at the definition of the term game at dictionary.com:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=game

Every single definition is based around winning and losing, I think it's time to recreate the meaning of the word game since they've obviously advanced from that point. With your obvious point 2 they'd still classify as games under this definition since you win via the biggest score which would probably fall under this definition in the dictionary:

"The score accumulated at any given time in a game: The game is now 14 to 12."

So technically they are right but then again you do fight for kills and that sort of stuff so that could come under the term 'score'.

[ADoomedMarine]

I think I just confused myself :P But to sum it all up yeah they are right if you're looking a the cultural meaning of the word game.

Who reckons we should rewrite it!? :P

[J.]

Well, you could use "interactive art or experience" as a definition for game, and of course There and SL would qualify, even if there was no competition or problem to solve (ADM's point about there being no winning or losing.)

One thing I've been saying that I haven't heard a lot of other people in MMOG circles saying is that "veterans" of the genre are the least likely to have what I'd call a healthy sense of what "fun" is. Those games are so steeped in advancement, whether it be character advancement, item acquisition or what have you, that players learn to suspend their expectations of "fun" and focus on advancement, or pure social experience.

Put another, less controversial way: Most games are designed, or are uncomplicated enough, such that players can sit down and figure out how to play them. Even without reading a manual, they locate the problems to solve or widgets to collect, and dive right in.

Not so with MMOGs. The experience is fundamentally different in that way, just because there is either so much to do, the motivation for doing -anything- isn't obvious to players. Unless the players bother to read the manual (or player-run fansites, which are often more useful, depending on the title), or there's some contrived system put in place to usher newbies in, or they can find fellow players to help them out, there's not much hope for them.

I do think that the gaming world needs to broaden its vocabulary, ADM, but we don't need to get so deep into academia or lingo that we forget how to talk. A bigger problem is making sure gaming continues to mature as a medium, and that means strengthening a widespread understanding of what games are and why people play them. You can do that without making up new terms.

[Gestalt]

Actually PacMan does have an ending - it stops after 256 levels. Of course, it takes six hours of non-stop play to reach that point, but it is possible to complete it. :) See here for more details...

[Todd]

All of those games will have an end once one of those huge meteors hits the earth.

"Game over dude" - Bill Paxton

[Aldo]

Maybe we should make a difference between a game and a toy. A toy does not have an end but you can play with it and create new rules for it.

[J.]

"Maybe we should make a difference between a game and a toy. A toy does not have an end but you can play with it and create new rules for it."

Yeah, that word's getting used a bit more too. Problem is that "toy" sucks as a marketing term. Even "real" toys aren't called toys anymore, except as Toys R Us. Plus there are adults who feel castigated enough just playing "games". :P

[Charles E. Hardwidge]

>Seriously, it's not like we need to work out the definition of the word "game" to make 'em!

Lack of definition makes understanding imprecise.

>And frankly, I prefer to think of what we do as making "entertainment."

Yes, I think you're right, though I prefer to think games can be educational and informative as well as entertaining. I've been unhappy with the term "game" for years. It skews perspectives and is restrictive. I prefer to think the focus is a story, or other presentation, using interactive technology as a medium. A new game for games, and better seperation between genres and age groups would make me a happier man.

[Raph Koster]

My comment had to do with the fact that as a a platform, online worlds can encompass games (and SWG/UO/EQ etc are undeniably exactly that) but they don't HAVE to. They can hold games within themselves, but they are not games themselves. There's online worlds that are professional meeting rooms, accredited educational institutions, and just chat spaces. There's ones that are professional military simulation and ones that are used for therapeutic purposes.

The reason why I challenged Eric Z on this at the State of Play conference (from whence Greg's original blog post originates) is because we were discussing online worlds and the law there, and narrowing the focus to games only would certainly mislead us as we discussed issues like IP rights in online, free speech in online, and so on.

PS, such disdain for academia... makes me sad when I see that in the industry though I am certainly familiar with it by now... that gulf needs to be crossed.

[markus friedl]

hmmm.... my two cents....

I also DO think that the game-dev world needs to broaden its vocabulary and "standardize" its vocabulary so we all talk about the same thing (well... mainly in terms of game DESIGN and the artistic side of things... the idea of a standardized vocabulary already works pretty well on the purely technical side of things)...

BUT... and now to my point... I think we only need such a vocabulary if it helps us to push this media "video/computer games" to its next level (simply put... to make better games and achieve acknowledgement from a broader/mass audience)...

If such a vocabulary helps us to communicate with each other more easily/efficiently in order to achieve such a goal (which, of course, is not the only/primary goal in game design/development... and it shouldn't be)... then yeah... such a vocabulary makes sense I think...

But... I'm really NOT sure if a common understanding of the term "game" helps us to achieve such a goal... sad to say... kind of... but to quote Scott: "who cares"

[Scott Miller]

-- "Lack of definition makes understanding imprecise."

Charles, I tend to go with what the general perception is, and the general public already has a well understood definition for the word "game." It's fruitless to fight it, or try to refine it. It is what it is.

-- "...such disdain for academia... makes me sad when I see that in the industry though I am certainly familiar with it by now... that gulf needs to be crossed."

Raph, I certainly do not have any disdain for academia, as long as they try not to restructure the realities of the industry. Neither did my post contain any put-down of academia. My "who cares" comment merely suggests that we should not fight ingrained realities and perceptions -- it's a losing battle. And this is how I feel about any attempt to define game in a way that will not jive with the general public's understanding of the word.

I understand that this was not you're battle, though.

I think my next entry will stick with a subject far less scandalous, like book recommendations. ;-)

[Scott Miller]

-- "I also DO think that the game-dev world needs to broaden its vocabulary and "standardize" its vocabulary so we all talk about the same thing."

BTW, Markus, with this, I agree. There are many definitions that can be better nailed down that are *exclusive* to the game industry, such as for the word gameplay. And I've seen good articles (in private dev forums) proposing words that describe the simplest actions we can do in games, like jumping, shooting, turning, picking up an object, etc. Would be nice to have agreed upon jargon for these unique activities, which would help developers communicate ideas to each other, and allow for employees to more easily switch jobs.

This might be a fun entry at some point, coming up with a list of industry words pertaining to designing games. Not just for me, but for everyone reading this blog.

Off to karate...

[Charles E. Hardwidge]

Firstly, apologies for all the typos. Grrr.

"I also DO think that the game-dev world needs to broaden its vocabulary and "standardize" its vocabulary"

I agree completely. (What a surprise.) By opening the discussion to all parties, rather than keeping it behind closed doors, some agreement on whether change is required or not should be possible. If agreement is found among academics, developers, customers, and the media, I'm sure change will be possible. It might also go some way to addressing Scotts understandable pragmatism. Who knows, in five years time we might be laughing at our own modest ambitions.

"This might be a fun entry at some point, coming up with a list of industry words pertaining to designing games. Not just for me, but for everyone reading this blog."

In the spirit of Douglas Adams and John Loyds book "The Meaning of Liff," it might be amusing to peg gaming related terms to politicians and celebrities names.

"I think my next entry will stick with a subject far less scandalous, like book recommendations."

I wondered when that was coming.

"Financial Dynamics: A System for Valuing Technology Companies" by Chris Westland.

Hold onto your hat. :P

[chris fog]

Its interesting that the category "games" was the case study for Wittgenstein's critique of classical categorisation theory. The classical view of categorisation can be considered the defining attribute view: that a category can be described by a set of defining attributes. The attributes are singly necessary and jointly sufficient to allow an item to be identified as a member of a category.

Wittgenstein argued the members of the category 'games' shared family resemblances rather than a set of defining features. Consider chess, Dungeons & Dragons, tennis, ring-around-the-rosey, dice, and pac-man. There are no common properties shared by all members, but many attributes are shared by many of the members. He proposed an alternative notion of cateogry membership based around the idea of family resemblence: members of a category may be related to one another without all members having any property in common.

In short, If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a goose ... its probably a bird

[J.]

>In short, If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a goose ... its probably a bird

The problem, some might say, is finding out what to call the "bird" in this case. Mine is more along the lines of, what do you call interactive experiences that involve very little or no problem solving and appeal most generally to social interaction between players within defined spaces?

When you track the development of text-based environments, the BBS and the first MUD were coming around at about the same time. (From what I read, the modem came in '77, the first BBS in '78, and Trubshaw/Bartle got MUD1 done in 1979, but since I was age 1, 2 and 3 in that time and a very small number of people were even aware this was all going on, I won't belabor the point.) Someone first thought of how to get people to talk to each other, and then someone else thought of how to get them playing with each other.

I won't talk like I'm an expert here (and you won't hurt my feelings if you tell me I'm full of crap), but before long, some of MUD's descendants came to be associated with purely social, or at least less competitive/achievement-oriented activities (MUSHes, MOOs.) They had a obvious kinship with the original product, both in code and in experience, but the "dungeon" aspect was gone.

But ask anyone from LambdaMOO if that place is a "game." I'd wager they'd look at you funny, or at least give you a weird smiley.

When Meridian 59 and Ultima Online came about, however, the market for multi-user environments that existed regardless of whether any particular person was playing was realized.

So I'm wondering where the market for commercial non-competitive graphical user environments is hiding.

My gut tells me that there has to be something other than a "graphical chat room" to hook people. There and/or Second Life might have those things, but given the recent humongous failure of The Sims Online (which in my mind had core design problems related to turning the whole god-game hook of The Sims upside down, then adding a monthly fee like insult to injury) and scattered early efforts (The Palace,) it won't be easy.

But if someone finds that market, what do we call those products? Especially if their makers don't want to call them "games"? Is it even important?

[Bill Crosbie]

Just a comment on screamingly obvious point number 2 -

All of your games do have an end. They don't end within the context of the narrative, but they do end within the context of the play mechanics - limited number of resources (lives) that are consumed.

I think that the argument of virtual worlds caused you to frame everything in term of the narrative rather than the mechanics. Is there anything in Zimmerman's definition that states that the frame of reference must be the story? (I haven't acquired Rules of Play yet, so I admit to going out on a limb here...)

[oh - and love the blog. Great reading! Please keep it coming.]

[Scott Miller]

-- "All of your games do have an end. They don't end within the context of the narrative, but they do end within the context of the play mechanics - limited number of resources (lives) that are consumed."

Great point, Bill. That is definitely an ending.

I was thinking in terms of a final goal, such as beating a final boss, reaching a certain score, finishing a final level, etc. Arcade games like Tetris, Galaxian, Donkey Kong, Star Castle, Armor Attack, Joust and Battlezone lack a win condition -- this is probably a better way to think of it.

[JP]

Re: disdain for academia: there is currently a very widespread, strongly anti-intellectual stance towards game design (design, not production or programming or art, which developers have become very process-minded about) in the industry. For a lot of developers the discussion begins and ends with "fun". It's either a very mushy, anti-empirical throw-yourself-off-a-cliff approach like John Romero thinking you can design the next Doom if you're "hardcore" and can come up with "cool moments". For other folks, if your only concern is making money, you eschew the difficult, sometimes unanswerable questions that academia asks, because they threaten to "restructure the realities of the industry" in which Scott and Co. have become successful organisms. Instead you want easy, proven answers. The codification of different kinds of "fun", both observational and what's been proven through many years of successful and unsuccessful games, seem to offer an answer there, but that body of knowledge is just the first step. We can't reproduce different types of "fun" just because we've identified some flavors of and attitudes toward it any more than Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation allowed us to create flying cars. Which indicates that "fun" isn't a good starting point at all - better to choose comprehensible, measurable design goals and judge your success based on those.

There are no easy answers, but of course people want to believe in them quite desperately - the alternative is to acknowledge and endure financial risk. It's strange to hear Scott give so much lip service to originality and innovation, because really what they're doing is adding new shellac to a very stable and proven structure. Like he says, marketing is about perception rather than reality, so the *appearance* of originality and creative spark - what Greg Costikyan calls "bullet point innovation" - is the real goal. Of course, this makes what you're doing seem especially bloodless and cynical and pandering, so you rarely hear it phrased thusly.

[The Baskinator]

"Um, they ARE games. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs a good spanking."

I agree with you, but. . . can I have a spanking anyway?

[Jennifer Olsen]

I have Eric's book and I'm absolutely floored at the many bends in the industry/academia river that he and co-author Katie Salen bridge.

One thing about all the definitions of "games" or "gameplay" being thrown about here and elsewhere, whether from dictionaries or game-design textbooks, is that none of them explicitly takes into account the creator of the game and his identity/role, whatever his intentions. PW games and other open-ended games (such as The Sims) prove that the creator doesn't need to explicitly define a play arc or even victory condition in order for a player to experience them during play; the task of determining goals and outcome conditions (and perhaps even the rules that apply to them) merely shift from the designer to the player, whether one's goal is finding an elf to flirt with or getting one's Sim promoted to astronaut.

Perhaps game designers might falter when they dwell excessively on their own role in any definition of a "game," and try to retain complete design ownership of the play experience. In many cases, games ultimately belong only to their players and how they choose to utilize the designer's framework.

Scott, I'm enjoying the site immensely, keep up the good work!

[J.]

Bah, all experiences have an end. For each individual, it's when they stop for whatever reason. Anyone can quit a game. :)

[Bill Crosbie]

--was thinking in terms of a final goal... Arcade games like Tetris, Galaxian, Donkey Kong, Star Castle, Armor Attack, Joust and Battlezone lack a win condition

I agree. Many arcade games of that time do lack a win condition, and I can't think of one game from that early era that was more than simply to see how far you could go. Each gamer had to face the inevitability of defeat. It was a question of how long you could prolong your playing time. In this framing the goal is to exceed your previous best score, or to defeat p2, or to get on the daily or all time high scorers list.

This was in accordance with the goals of the companies. Make it attractive enough to get gamers playing, simple enough to have some early success, but difficult enough so that the game would end, but be able to bring in the next quarter ("coin detected in pocket").

So, Scott, it seems like you are coming down of the side of narrative in gaming rather than play mechanics. Or am I reading too much in to your response to this one issue?

(aside: Was super mario the first arcade console to have a defined end state? I was starting to phase out of arcades and video games at around this time frame. I now call these the dark years... I'm afraid that I might be lacking some critical first person expereince with alternatives.)

[Tadhg]

I think there's several really good reasons for the MMOG crowd to want to distinguish themselves from games.

The main one is that gamer culture is a very boyish, well-defined space, and since MMOGs are supposed to appeal to women more, or so they tell me, they might want to separate themselves at a biz level.

Secondly, it could be a design thing. Games don't have to have an end point, but they do have to have a struggle/competitive element for them to be games. There's no way out around this, because gameplay is competitive play through and through. Gameplay is all about beating, killing, figuring out, and so on. You may say 'what about mini-games to get a weapon?'. But there are many MMOG gamers that acts as charities, many more who really get into the games just to be social, and so on.

There are gamey aspects to the design of a MMOG, in otherwords, but there are also toy-ey aspects too. Toyplay is completely different from gameplay, and toyplay is what some people prefer. Hence, are they not MMOTs?

Well no, because then there's the whole social side, which doesn't have to be gamerish, and doesn't have to be toyish either. Maybe you just like to hang out and quaff imaginary ales.

Thirdly, and maybe best, its because they're a new thing and maybe the creators of these new things don't fancy getting bogged down in the nightmare psychodrama of the games industry as it stands, and so they're adopting a little distance.