"I Have No Words & I Must Design" - Greg Costikyan Article

 In 1994 Greg Costikyan wrote an interesting article that tried to identify the term 'game' as a whole. The article has been revised many times since, but the core meanings are still present. I have been asked to read this article and collect notes then blog about it. Whilst considering the following quote from Costikyan:
"A game is an interactive structure of endogenous meaning that requires players to struggle towards goals"
                                                                - Greg Costikyan (2004:24)

To start off: I completely agree with the statement made by Costikyan. The "struggle" involved in games is what draws players in and makes them keep returning to that game for years to come. Costikyan describes a game as "an amazingly plastic medium", with them being massively adaptable to the extent that they can cater to anyone, with anything. There's been such a large selection of games produced over the years that cater for so many different desires (e.g RPG, racing, MMO, MMORPG, card games, board games, play-by-mail and so many more), it has become so hard to define what a 'game' actually is. Costikyan tells us that in order to better understand games as a whole, talk about them intelligently, and to design better ones we must first understand what a 'game' consists of, breaking it into easily identifiable areas. So in order to better understand what a game is, Costikyan stated that we must create a "critical vocabulary for games".

The Art of Computer Game Design by Chris Crawford was published in 1982, and according to the article is one of the few decent books published about games design. Crawford compares his understanding of 'games' with 'puzzles'. Puzzles are static, a player is given a set logical structure that needs to be solved, often with the help of clues. 'Games' are not static and can change with the player's actions. According to Crawford, some 'games' are really just puzzles (e.g Zork). With the sole objective of that 'game' in solving puzzles, there are no opponents, no roleplaying, no aspects of what you may consider to be a 'game' at all! In order to win the 'game' you must solve the puzzle, with no other 'struggles'.

I strongly disagree with these observations, and I am glad to see that  Costikyan felt the same. Crawford uses Zork as a direct example of his theory. Zork is considered one of the earliest successful computer games, and Costikyan states that adventure games such as Zork are more than just mere puzzles. Almost every game has puzzle elements, in fact, any game that involves any sort of decision making, resource organisation, or item trade-offs can be treated as containing puzzle aspects. Even games like Call of Duty nowadays require a certain amount of puzzle-solving - choosing the correct tactics for the situation, maneuvering around the battlefield effectively are both prime examples of puzzle solving in a 'game', and if these aspects are puzzles, you can never truly remove the aspect of a puzzle from any 'game'.

We can still learn something from Crawford's observations:

"A puzzle is static. A game is interactive". 

'Games' aren't just computer media, there are many non-digital games. Costikyan uses Monopoly as an example to demonstrate how a 'game' is interactive: The game interacts with the players, and the players interact with eachother, changing state as they continue to play. All board games are interactive at their core. If a game is not interactive it is a puzzle,  not a game.

By introducing choice into interaction, for example you are able to choose decision A or decision B with the outcome being different for each. So what is it that makes decision A better than decision B? Or is B more suited to different occasions? What is the eventual goal, and how does decision A/B help to achieve that goal? Now this is no longer just simple interaction and has become 'Decision Making' - Interaction with a purpose. In order to consider something a 'game' it must involve decision making. Costikyan considers Chess as having a few of the aspects that make games appealing - "no simulation elements, no roleplaying, and damn little colour." But Chess has that main aspect of decision making, in order to achieve success you must obey the strict rules, reach the clear objective, and think several moves ahead. Being good at decision making (considering the multiple outcomes) is what brings success in this game, the one and only aspect. However games such as Mario or Halo success is dependent upon aspects such as quick response and interface mastery. However decision making is still a core aspect of these games, and is indeed a core aspect of what comes together to make any game.

Will Wright described Sim City (which he designed) as a 'toy', not a 'game'. He offered a ball as a comparison: A ball offers many different behaviors that can be explored by the user. It can be bounced, twirled, thrown, dribbled; and if you wish to it may be used as an aspect in a game such as football, baseball, basketball etc. But the game is not intrinsic to the toy, it is a set of rules applied by the players with a set objective overlaid on the toy. So Sim City itself has no 'completion' aspect, the user may apply themselves limitation and goals, but the game itself has no specific outcome. Sim City is simply a software 'toy'.

Roleplaying games and MUDs both involve controlling a single character in an imaginary world, non-player characters are either controlled by the gamemaster (D&D) or automated systems (MUDs). However in both types of games character progression is a huge aspect, your character can become more powerful as you progress past obstacles and reach goals. Implemented character progression/improvement is a fundamental aspect to both RPGs and MUDs - Players are motivated to improve their characters. Both of these types of games involve interacting and meeting other player characters, working together to achieve goals or creating new goals with eachother. The connections made with other player characters provide you with alternate goals, and alternate rewards.

It is quite often that games such as RPGs and MUDs result in a lack of interesting goals, leaving players trying to find the next interesting thing to do - to find their own goals. This is a huge flaw in these types of games. A good gamemaster will sense when the players are getting bored, and will introduce a new and exciting goal (e.g Self-preservation). In an RPG or MUD players do ultimately create their own goals, the requirements of these games is not to complete the single goal, but to offer a multitude of goals for the player to choose from and find one that they enjoy.

"Games are goal-directed interaction. But goals alone are not enough..."
       - Greg Costikyan


A 'struggle' is a critical aspect of any game. There are very few games that give you two simple decisions, and one correct outcome - why is this? Because there is no struggle involved! Competetive games involve a struggle against another player, direct competition. There is nothing

harder to overcome than a sneaky, lying human opponent. Competition is not the only way to achieve a struggle. In games such as D&D monsters and NPCs provide the struggle (for the most part). The plot of the game involves many different encounters resulting in multiple possibilities of rewards and such. There are multiple struggles in a game such as this - opposition posed by monsters and NPCs, exploration of the world and the story, traps, puzzles. Emotional decisions included in games such as Dragon Age, Mass Effect and Fallout 3 also offer a new kind of struggle - emotional struggle. I think we can all agree that multiple struggles are indeed a huge part of what makes a 'game' as a whole.



Game developers are constantly trying to find new struggle aspects to add to games; if the game is too hard, players will find it frustrating. If the game is too easy, they will find it dull and boring. This is where implementing difficulty settings comes in, giving the player the choice - If its too easy, turn the difficulty up, and vice versa. Whatever goals are in a game, you must make them work to achieve them. Setting player against player is a great way to achieve this, but not the only way - we want games to challenge us, to make us strive to achieve the goals set before us.

"There can be no game without a struggle. A game requires players to struggle interactively toward a goal."
                                                       -Greg Costikyan


"Games are structures of desire"
                                                              - Eric Zimmerman

Structure is what brings a game together. By 'desire' Zimmerman means that games must have goals, and players must agree to behave as if the goal is important to them. By structure Zimmerman means that the interaction with game rules, characters, obstacles, story etc. create a structure within which people play. This structure can fall apart if the players do not agree on a proposed rule, for example when kids play 'Cowboys and Indians' - "Bang, you're dead Indian!", "No, I'm not! Why am I?". We have to remember that we are all playing the same game, confined by the same rules. Without obeyed rules - there is no structure. Therefor, without structure - there is no game.
"A game is an interactive structure of endogenous meaning that requires players to struggle towards goals"
                                                               - Greg Costikyan (2004:24)

This quote is Costikyan's attempt to find a functional definition of a 'game'. According to the dictionary, one of the definitions of endogenous is "caused by factors inside the organism or system". Exactly as a game's structure creates its own meanings. The meaning is caused by the structure, it is directly endogenous to the structure. This definition covers all aspects of what constitutes a 'game', it poses questions when designing a game that are vital for the game to be a success, such as:
  • How does the player interact with the game?
  • Are these interactions meaningful?
  • Is the process of interaction enjoyable? - if not how can it be made more so?
  • Is there a single goal, or several?
  • What kind of playstyles do you want to support, and therefore what kind of goals should you allow?
  • Do the algorithms that govern the game fit in the context of the game world?
  • Are they both complex enough to challenge the player, but not so hard as to frustrate?
  • Where does the struggle lie?
  • What obstacles must be overcome by the user?
  • What meanings does the game create?
  • What pleasures does the game provide?
  • What connections can be made between game objects and objects in the real world?
  • If there's a story to the game, is it emotionally satisfying?

This list of questions continues, all posed by Costikyan's definition of a 'game'. A game is made up of structures that people are going to use in every possible way, including ways that we cannot anticipate. The shape of a game is created by the artist, but the experience of the game is created by the player. Game design is therefore the creative attempt to imagine the kinds of experiences that a player will have with your game. Using that imagination, also creating a structure to nudge them towards the kinds of experiences you would like them to have.

Three designer tips to be taken from this article:

  1. Begin by thinking about the experiences you want your players to have.
  2. Understand what makes a game.
  3. Understand what pleasures people find in games

I apologise for the long read, writing about this article has helped me to better understand what it is to be a games designer. The term 'game' can indeed be defined, and Costikyan has provided a strong insight into what constitutes a game; there are aspects that must be present, and some that are optional. But the most important aspect of a game is the structure, for the structure is what governs the entire game. As stated before

- Without structure (and its many aspects), there is no game.


Thankyou, and goodnight.



2 comments:

  1. Eddie Duggan said...:

    I think 1944 must be a typo, 'cos Kostikyan probably wasn't born until some time later!

  1. rob said...:

    This was a really good response to the Costikyan article. It has clearly got you thinking, which is great. Costikyan references the Crawford book, because at the time of this article, 1994 there was little formalised work about. The situation is much improved now as, hopefully, the readings for the module will demonstrate.

Post a Comment

 
Game Design with a Mallett! © 2011 | Designed by Chica Blogger, in collaboration with Uncharted 3, MW3 Forum and Angry Birds Online