I think the way we understand games suffers from our lack of language for games. Which is a really difficult thing to write about, because ,duh, there is lack of language to use. Try and bear with me here as I haphazardly try to skirt around words like game and player.
I have a friend who is an investment banker working in the gaming sector. He figures out which casinos, race tracks, and resorts are profitable and worth his bank's money.
Another buddy is an art director for Naughty Dog. He thinks about how to make a consumer feel like the protagonist of a blockbuster movie.
My college roommate had traveled over most of the world and was really into flying in planes. So he spent thousands of dollars and crazy amount of hours setting up flight sim to experience flying commercial jets.
I like to watch (e)sports where a bunch of young guys (mostly guys) try to see who has managed to spend more hours drilling more variations allowing them make optimal decision within an artificial environment tightly constrained by transparent rules .
Technically all of us are engaged with games and gaming. But I would argue that all of these efforts are really more different than they are similar. I believe that our discussions, marketing, and perhaps even design could be better if we had the language to think about these as distinct efforts.
I propose (at least for the purposes of this blog) four categories: skinner's box, interactive entertainment, simulation, and mastery games. Hopefully, someone smarter than myself can come up with catchier names.
I don't think the areas are completely mutually exclusive and games usually take elements from a few areas. But, I believe that largely the core value proposition of each game rest in one of these sectors. And a 'game' can only be evaluated on how well it delivers its core value proposition. I also happen to think that games tend to be stronger when they focus on delivering on only one direction.
So to unpack this a bit more. Skinners box is the entertainment that focuses on providing small random reward. Slot machines are a classic example. But so is Candy Crush and a lot of other casual games.
The interactive entertainment category is where the interactivity is a way to tell richer stories. The game aspect allows for a deeper engagement with the content. By controlling the characters the consumer gets to become part of the story. And by giving limited freedom to the consumer, the author can add details trusting the user to curate their own experience.
Simulations allow the user to experience things that they could not experience otherwise. Flying planes or driving trucks. But also walking around fantastical landscapes. Or leading armies or conquering galaxies.
In mastery games the appeal is to learn and to figure out. This is largely competitive games, puzzle games, and the classic player vs environment games like platformers. My bias is showing here. This is what I personally tend to think of as games (and also the category that appeals to me the most) but thinking about the other categories distinctly helps me appreciate those works on their own merits.
I also think there is a category 4.5 which is basically a chat room. Games like WoW, Second Life and LoL fall in this bucket. This isn't a fifth category because this core value is not something is usually lumped into the singular blob of 'gaming'. I would argue the reason that these are called games is that WoW is exploration/simulation, LoL is about mastery, and Second Life is about Simulation, but none of the games really sell those features as much as they sell the interactivity and social connection.
In summary, by using the game as a blanket term it becomes too easy to judge a story game by a mastery standard or a gambling game by a simulation standard. We end up expecting fish to climb trees. (note, Einstein probably never said the fish quote that I am alluding to)
 |
| Babel babble |
Another buddy is an art director for Naughty Dog. He thinks about how to make a consumer feel like the protagonist of a blockbuster movie.
My college roommate had traveled over most of the world and was really into flying in planes. So he spent thousands of dollars and crazy amount of hours setting up flight sim to experience flying commercial jets.
I like to watch (e)sports where a bunch of young guys (mostly guys) try to see who has managed to spend more hours drilling more variations allowing them make optimal decision within an artificial environment tightly constrained by transparent rules .
Technically all of us are engaged with games and gaming. But I would argue that all of these efforts are really more different than they are similar. I believe that our discussions, marketing, and perhaps even design could be better if we had the language to think about these as distinct efforts.
I propose (at least for the purposes of this blog) four categories: skinner's box, interactive entertainment, simulation, and mastery games. Hopefully, someone smarter than myself can come up with catchier names.
I don't think the areas are completely mutually exclusive and games usually take elements from a few areas. But, I believe that largely the core value proposition of each game rest in one of these sectors. And a 'game' can only be evaluated on how well it delivers its core value proposition. I also happen to think that games tend to be stronger when they focus on delivering on only one direction.
So to unpack this a bit more. Skinners box is the entertainment that focuses on providing small random reward. Slot machines are a classic example. But so is Candy Crush and a lot of other casual games.
The interactive entertainment category is where the interactivity is a way to tell richer stories. The game aspect allows for a deeper engagement with the content. By controlling the characters the consumer gets to become part of the story. And by giving limited freedom to the consumer, the author can add details trusting the user to curate their own experience.
Simulations allow the user to experience things that they could not experience otherwise. Flying planes or driving trucks. But also walking around fantastical landscapes. Or leading armies or conquering galaxies.
In mastery games the appeal is to learn and to figure out. This is largely competitive games, puzzle games, and the classic player vs environment games like platformers. My bias is showing here. This is what I personally tend to think of as games (and also the category that appeals to me the most) but thinking about the other categories distinctly helps me appreciate those works on their own merits.
I also think there is a category 4.5 which is basically a chat room. Games like WoW, Second Life and LoL fall in this bucket. This isn't a fifth category because this core value is not something is usually lumped into the singular blob of 'gaming'. I would argue the reason that these are called games is that WoW is exploration/simulation, LoL is about mastery, and Second Life is about Simulation, but none of the games really sell those features as much as they sell the interactivity and social connection.
In summary, by using the game as a blanket term it becomes too easy to judge a story game by a mastery standard or a gambling game by a simulation standard. We end up expecting fish to climb trees. (note, Einstein probably never said the fish quote that I am alluding to)
