Difference between revisions of "Underlying Assumptions and Concepts"

Revision as of 11:31, 19 November 2010

Assumptions

It is possible to name re-usable gameplay design concepts

This assumptions builds on similar assumptions from other design disciplines, most specifically the design pattern approach introduced in Architecture^[1] and commonly used in object-oriented programming^[2].

Games can be described as an Activity-Based Framework of Game Components

The original gameplay design patterns collection^[3] was created from analyzing specific ways game components could be instantiated in a game design. To support this, a framework describing generalized game components on different levels of abstraction was identified^[4]

Concepts

Agents

Making choices is often seen as one of the most important characteristics of games. Having this agency^[5] is typically at first assumed to relate to humans. However, given the presence of Algorithmic Agents and humans' tendency to anthropomorphize^[6] (including doing so for computer programs^[7]) and taking intentional stances^[8] people often behave as if non-humans also take decisions between choices. Several of the patterns relate to making choices or the impression of others doing so without requiring that it is actually humans involved, and due this the concept of agents is used instead.

Gaming

Although one typically say that one is playing a game, this can create confusion since this may be interpreted as having the same characteristics as the unstructured and non-goal-related activity done by (primarily) children. Rather than try to relabel this more common use of the word as for example free play, we use gaming as the structured goal-oriented interaction that games are designed to support. Note that games can support other types of activities as well, so not everything done while interacting with a game is gaming - other examples include socializing, teaching, and playing. Note also that gaming can be doing using other artifacts than games; games are simply the artifacts whose primary intended use is to support gaming.

This distinction between playing and gaming may be due to a cultural bias from the researchers involved in the project. As native speakers of Swedish and Finnish where there exists different words for the two types of activities, it has been conceptually natural to take this view (to play and to game translated to the Swedish att leka & att spela and the Finnish Leikkiä & Pelita).

Players

A human participating in a game is the common notion of what a player is. Due to the presences of Game Masters and AI Players this notion can be questioned, and many game designs use players as a concept regardless if it is a human (or more!) or a machine performing actions. Adopting this view, the gameplay design pattern sees a player as an abstract construct related to the specified ways of interacting with the game system and related to how the valorization^[9] of the outcome of the game instance is determined.

References

1. ↑ Alexander, C Ishikawa, S. & Silverstein, M. A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction. Oxford University Press. ISBN-10 0195019199, ISBN-13 978-0195019193
2. ↑ Gamma, E., Helm, R., Johnson, R. & Vlissides, J.M. Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software. Addison-Wesley Professional. ISBN-10: 0201633612, ISBN-13: 978-0201633610.
3. ↑ Björk, S. & Holopainen, J. (2004) Patterns in Game Design. Charles River Media. ISBN 1-58450-354-8.
4. ↑ Björk, S. & Holopainen, J. (2004) An Activity-Based Framework for Describing Games. Chapter 2 in Patterns in Game Design. Charles River Media. ISBN1-58450-354-8.
5. ↑ Wikipedia entry for Agency.
6. ↑ Wikipedia entry for Antropomorphism.
7. ↑ Wikipedia entry for the Eliza Effect.
8. ↑ Wikipedia entry for Intentional Stance.
9. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Juul

Cite error: <ref> tag defined in <references> has no name attribute.