Особенности перевода текста из научно-популярного учебного пособия

Some of these rule statements define game objects and concepts. Objects, like the deck of cards, draw pile, and weapons, are the building blocks of each of these systems upon which the rest of the design depends. Other rules limit player behavior and proscribe reactive events. For example, if nails are for nail guns, you can’t use nails in the thunderbolt. If you have a Jack when you’re asked for one, you have to give it up; you can’t keep it, or you’re breaking the rules of the game. Who will stop you from breaking the rules? Your own sense of fair play? The other players? The underlying code of a digital game?

The concepts of both rules and procedures imply authority, and yet there is no person or body named in either description with whom to associate that authority. The authority of the rules stems from an implicit agreement by the players to submit themselves to the experience. If you don’t follow the rules, in a very real way, you are no longer playing the game.

So our next distinctive quality of games is that they are experiences that have rules that define game objects, proscribe principles, and limit behavior within the game. These rules are respected because the players understand that they are a key structural element of the game, and without them, the game would not function.

Exercise 2.4: Rules

Can you think of a game that has no rules? If so, describe it. How about one rule? Why is this exercise difficult?

Resources

In the discussion of each of these games, we have mentioned certain objects that seem to hold a rather high value for the players in reaching their objectives. In Go Fish, the cards of each rank are valued, and in Quake, the weapons, their ammunition, and the power-ups mentioned in the rule set are valued. These objects, made valuable because they can help the players achieve their goal, but which are made scarce in the system by the designer, are what we call resources.

Finding and managing resources is a key part of many games, whether those resources are cards, weapons, time, units, turns, or terrain. In the two examples we see here, one depends on a direct exchange of resources (Go Fish), while the other offers resources fixed in place by the game designer (Quake).

Resources are, by definition, items made valuable by their scarcity and utility. In the real world, and in game worlds, resources can be used to further our aims; they can be combined to make new products or items; and they can be bought and sold in various types of markets.

Conflict

As noted previously, both experiences we described lay out specific objectives for their players. And, as we’ve also noted, they dictate procedures and rules that guide and limit player behavior. The problem for the players is that the procedures and rules of games tend to deter them from accomplishing goals directly; and, in the case of multiplayer games like Go Fish, can also make players work against each other to accomplish these goals. For example, as mentioned earlier, you cannot simply ask everyone at the table to give you the other three Jacks all at once when you’re playing Go Fish. You have to ask each player one at a time, risking that you might not get a card and lose your turn, while revealing to the other players that you have a card of the rank you asked for.

Similarly, in Quake, if you could just leave the level of the complex you’re on, that would solve the objective, but it’s not that easy. To find the exit, you’re forced to make it through a mazelike obstacle course of enemies and hazards. In both cases, the relationship between the objectives of the players and the rules and procedures limiting and guiding behavior creates another distinctive element of games: conflict, which the players work to resolve in their own favor.

Exercise 2.5: Conflict

Compare and contrast the conflict in football to the conflict in poker. Describe how each game creates conflict for the players.

Boundaries

Another similarity between these two experiences, one that is not referred to directly in either description but is, however, implied, is that the rules and goals that are driving the players apply only within the game and not in “real life.” In the case of Quake, the architecture of the 3D space forms a virtual boundary. Players are precluded from moving their characters out of these boundaries by the underlying code.

In the case of Go Fish, the boundaries are more conceptual than physical. Players are not precisely bound in a physical sense by any of the rules, except that they need to be able to speak to one another and trade cards back and forth. They are, however, conceptually bound by the social agreement that they are playing the game and that they will not leave the game with some of the cards or add extra cards to the deck.

In his foundational book Homo Ludens, theorist Johan Huizinga (see Further Reading) describes the physical and/or conceptual space in which a game takes place as the “magic circle,” a temporary world where the rules of the game apply, rather than the rules of the ordinary world. He writes: “All play moves and has its beginning within a playground marked off beforehand either materially or ideally . . . the arena, the card-table, the magic circle, the temple, the stage, the screen, the court of justice, etc. are all in form and function playgrounds, i.e. forbidden spots, isolated, hedged round, within which special rules obtain. All are temporary worlds within the ordinary world, dedicated to the performance of an act apart.”

The idea that these experiences are somehow set apart from other experiences by boundaries is yet another distinction we can make about the structure of games.

Outcome

One last similarity between both of these experiences is that for all their rules and constraints, the outcome of both experiences is uncertain, though there is the certainty of a measurable and unequal outcome of some kind—a winner, a loser, etc. For example, in Go Fish, the player who achieves the objective of making the most books by the end of the game wins. In Quake, a player can either win (stay alive) or lose (be killed).

The outcome of a game differs from the objective in that all players can achieve the objective, but other factors within the system can determine which of them actually win the game. For example, in Go Fish, a number of players can accomplish the objective of creating books, but only one player will create the most books, unless there’s a tie, and that type of special case is usually addressed in the rules of a game.

The aspect of uncertainty in outcome is an important one for our playcentric process because it is a key motivator for the players. If players can anticipate the outcome of a game, they will stop playing. You have probably been in this situation before—when one player is so far ahead that no one will be able to catch up. At this point, everyone generally agrees to end the game. In chess, a player who has calculated that she cannot win will often concede the game without playing it to the conclusion.

Unlike favorite movies or books, which can remain entertaining even if we already know the ending, games depend on uncertainty of outcome in every play for their dramatic tension. And players invest their emotions in that uncertainty, making it the job of the game designer to craft a satisfying resolution to the game, usually in the form of a measurable and unequal outcome.

Formal Elements

The games you described in the Exercise 2.1 might also have other elements we have not mentioned here: perhaps special equipment, digital environments, complex resources structures, or character definitions. And of course Go Fish and Quake each have their own unique elements that we haven’t touched upon, such as the turn structure in Go Fish or the realtime element of Quake. But what we’re interested in right now are elements that all games share— elements that make up the essence of games.

A number of scholars from different fields have examined this same question from other perspectives. Some of the most influential have been those looking at games in terms of studying conflict, economics, behavioral psychology, sociology, and anthropology. Katie Salen and Eric Zimmerman do an excellent job of synthesizing these various points of view about the nature of games in their book Rules of Play (see Further Reading). But our perspective here is not strictly scholarly, and our purpose here is not to provide a definitive taxonomy. Rather, it is to provide a useful context, a set of conceptual tools, and a vocabulary for us to discuss the playcentric process of designing games.

The distinctive elements of games that are described above are important concepts for the game designer to understand because they provide structure (and form), which can help a beginning designer make choices in their design process and understand problems that arise in their playtesting process.

As with any art form, one of the reasons to understand and master the traditional structures is so that you can experiment with alternatives. (See sidebar on page 228 on the development of the experimental game Cloud.) The innovation we seek for the game industry very well might require going beyond these basic elements and exploring new forms of interactivity that lie at the edge of what we call “games.” Because they play an essential structural function in traditional game systems, however, we call these the “formal elements” of games. We will look at each of these formal elements in more detail in Chapter 3 and discuss how you can use them in various combinations to achieve your player experience goals.