It has been a very long time since I posted here apparently, a little over an entire year!  Wow…that is a pretty long time and surely anyone that might have read this thing back then has abandoned me by now.

I have been busy with many other things over the past year, and have not been able to spend quite as much time thinking about this subject as I would have preferred.  However I think I have more than enough stuff in my brain to be able to complete the mission that I set myself over a year ago now.  Also I should have far more time to spend on this particular project.   Well, enough to post more than once ever 13 months or so anyway

So this post is mostly for myself, to help get me back into the swing of blogging again and maybe someone else that was wondering about the gap in posting might read it someday!

That is all for now!

An earlier blog entry defined a game as such:

“Any recreational activity bound by a set of constraints on permissible player actions, with the intention of achieving one or more objectives.

So if one goes by this definition then all games have at least one objective.  As a game is a recreational activity it is fairly obvious that one objective of any game is to have fun.  This should clearly be any games primary objective.

However many other games often have other objectives, typically to develop some skill or some set of skills.  Two objectives of Scrabble for instance are to develop ones language and pattern recognition skills.  An objective of Minesweeper games is typically to exercise one’s ability to conduct reasoning by elimination (reasoning by elimination is the process of analyzing a problem to identify possible alternatives and then eliminating the undesirable alternatives).

Every objective should be there for a definite reason and reasonably achievable given enough time and a certain level of skill which is not unreasonably difficult to obtain (although it is reasonable to make it unlikely for the player to be able to achieve the objective without first acquiring a certain degree of skill).  By definition an objective is meant to be attainable, any perceived objectives that do not seem reasonably possible at some stage quickly frustrate players and detract from their enjoyment.

Are there objectives that a game should not include?  Generally there are relatively few objectives that are no game should ever include.  Any objectives that are clearly too difficult for the target audience to attain in a reasonable time frame are clearly to be eliminated.  Any objectives that clash with any other objective of the game should not be included.  Any objective that cannot be made clear is pointless.  Any objective that clashes with the values of intended audience are dubious, and should generally be avoided.  However, generally any reasonable objective may or may not be warranted depending on the case in question.

How many objectives should a game be designed around?  Well I would suggest that the answer to that depends on the nature of the game.  Although a certain number of the objectives of a game need to be determined before the nature of the game is determined, without clear objectives that the game is meant to achieve the vast bulk of the nature of a game cannot be determined at all, at least not beyond very vague generalities.

The game might even provide a broad range of objectives, not all of which every player necessarily share.  However typically the more reasonable objectives a game is perceived to have the more enjoyable a game is perceived to be.  However too many objectives can become confusing, so can seemingly clashing objectives, and might make the game seem frustrating and obviously less fun as a result.

It is important to keep in mind that the objectives of the creators of a game are not necessarily the same objectives of those playing the same game.

For example: the creators of some computer game where you type in the answers to arithmetic problems in order to shoot aliens might be for the players to practice their arithmetic skills, some people might not have this objective in mind when they play this game, they might simply be  simply trying to have fun.   Or maybe they are trying to improve their typing speed.

These different objectives might lead the players to have different expectations of the game then the creator expected.  Such a player might not enjoy having to solve harder arithmetic problems and might quickly come to resent having to do so and might stop playing before long.  Even though the creators of the game thought that it was important to provide harder such problem in order to provide the players some degree of challenge while playing the game.

One of the main facts I want this blog entry to highlight is that game creators need to understand the likely motivations of the players they are trying to sell their games to so that they can give the game appropriate objectives.  The creators need to provide objectives of the game that the intended players are likely to understand and to find worthwhile attempting to achieve.  The objectives might simply be to have fun although typically a game may want to set other objectives in to set the game apart from other games on a basis apart from being more or less fun than other games.

For instance say that you decide to produce a new game.  You decide that the game is to be a multiplayer card game.  That is a decent start clearly.  However what do you plan to be achieved by playing this card game?  Simply for a few people to meet up and have  bit of fun?  Well in that case you know that the game does not need to be very complicated and fairly simple rules will probably do.

However you still need to know more….

Is another objective of the game for the players to beat each other in same way?  Are players meant to try and defeat by clever bluffs or some such thing?  Well you decide that yes it that would make it a lot more fun.  Now you know you need to provide rules that give the players some chance to do so.

However then you decide that instead the game should really just about be having fun.  So you decide on very simple rules and to try to make a game that encourages teamwork and very little competition.  So you try to think of some rules that get players to work together perhaps to achieve some common goal that will end the game in a satisfying manner, but which is more likely to occur if the players work together.

Eventually once set the objectives for the game you will know enough to be able to determine how to go about starting to determine the games rules and how the game-play should work.  However until you set some objectives for the game then you will never make much progress in determining the rules or anything else in an objective manner.

Are there any objectives good games tend to share?  Yes there are, which shall be the topic of an upcoming blog entry. However I will provide some indication now:

Developing certain skills is often a good objective for a game.  Obviously by definition all games should share the objective of providing enjoyment.  Many games provide a good setting for people to socialize, some games even help one make new friends.

That is about all on the issue of objectives for now.  In the near future I shall explore some common objectives shared by many of the best games around.

However next time I shall look at the importance of rules, so stay tuned!

A theory is any attempt to explain observed facts in terms of a possible explanation that accounts for the observed facts.

The theory of games ( not to be confused with the mathematical discipline of game theory which although can be used to help analyse games, is something quite different) is a body of theory intended to explain the nature of games, how games work, why games succeed or fail, who to judge the quality of a game, how to create new games or improve existing games, how to better understand the role and possible importance of games, and how to better play games and more still.

It is only by theorising about games that games can be fully understood in the correct context(s).  Without proper understanding of the theory of games, it is not possible to systematically create new games in order to meet certain objectives or to understand the role of existing games and how they might be improved, how they should be best played, or why would should bother choosing to play them in particular in the first place.

All of the above reasons are important issues if games are not to be trivial uses of time, as they are often accused of being.  While as we shall see fun is an important element of any game, many ideal games should strive to be more than simply fun: They should offer something else that sets them aside from other passtimes which might be easier and less productive uses of ones recreational time.

Game theory is important not only to those that play games, it is obviously most important to those that make games, whatever form the games take: be they simple board games or all the way up to the latest high-definition computer game on the very latest hardware.

Creating an attempt at a game is often fairly simple generally ( at least if one is not attempting to create a computer game), creating a fun game is not generally all that difficult, however creating a game that is both fun and potentially beneficial for other reasons is generally a challenge which requires a fair bit of understanding what the needs and values of the target audience and how to best go about meeting these needs and appealing to these values.

This is the main promise of the theory of games, to facilitate the creation of truly good games that stand out as truly unique and fulfilling experiences.  Good games are often more than just fun, they have other things to offer as well.  At the very least, the theory of game allows the creation of fun games!

If you want to learn how to create, and or select the best games to play, then this blog is for you and I hope you enjoy the theories I intend to present.  I also hope they further the creation of what is currently relatively rare : truly great games!

As this is a blog about the theory of games, I thought that as I intend to this systematically that I should start with a brief post defining what a game actually is. You might think that I could tell you to open up a dictionary or to Google “define: game” instead, however you are not too likely to find a good definition for the concept of “game” by doing either of those. Which is a terrible shame and might explain why there some game design theorists out there that seem unable to provide a good definition for this simple enough concept!

My dictionary defines a game as:

“A passtime, a recreational activity, where players may compete against each other”

Well that is not much good. A huge of things could be validly referred to as a passtime or a recreational activity. Including: watching TV, reading a good book, sex, programming … depending on what you are into this could be a long list of things with very little in common besides the fact that they are often considered to be recreational passtimes.

A definition is a statement that identifies the units subsumed under it, for the purpose of differentiating the referents of the definition from other things. Definitions are in other words statements that uniquely identify certain concepts, so we can distinguish them from other concepts.

We need a statement captures the essentials of games, which allows us to distinguish games from anything else that might happen to be somewhat similar. This is done by restricting ones definition to the essentials of the concept in question and then attempting to differentiate a concept from all others on the basis of these essentials.

What are the essentials of a game? Well a game should obviously be somewhat fun. That is after all what differentiates a game from say something we might not find fun at all: such as many forms of work ( playing a game can be work, though if it is also fun it might actually be both ) which we might find are not entertaining, yet might be classified as a “passtime”. But a game clearly cannot be something that is simply fun, else we still have not differentiated games from a lot of other things…

Games have objectives. Every time you are playing a game you have some sort of goal in mind. It might be simply be throwing a ball around in order to practise your manual dexterity and/or to keep fit, and/or even just to have some fun with your friends while socializing. Or you might be seeking to play some computer game in order to practise your maths skills, games for this sort of thing do exist. However all games have certain objectives that the player is trying to achieve. The objectives might be very simple, or very complex, however in any case the nature of the objectives will have a definite impact on the game. Complicated objectives tend to result in more complicated games, however this is not the main point of this blog entry, so I shall return to this in a later blog entry.

In order to achieve the objectives of the game, all games also have some sort of constraint on permissible player actions. These constraints exist as an attempt to make meeting the games objectives easier / possible by preventing actions which would make meeting the games objectives more difficult or by encouraging the players to act in ways that are intended to make meeting the games objectives easier. These constraints are often referred to as “rules”. They might be very formal, or very informal, however all games have rules of some sort, even if not very many rules or very simple rules.

Is it essential for games to teach the players something and / or to allow them to practise skills? No, I do not think that either are essentials for games in general, though a great many games attempt to teach the players something, and most games are a good way to practise certain skills. Both of these are very common parts of the explicit objectives of most games that I know of, while for other games it happens that a side benefit is that certain skills are also potentially developed. Also in order to progress in many games one is required to develop a certain set of skills in order to progress past certain points of the game. However not all games are really about either of these.

What about the fact that many game theorists claim that storytelling is an essential aspect of any game? No, this also not true. While many games do tell some sort of story, this is not an essential aspect of games. Many activities that any reasonable person would be pressed to classify as a game, such as the card game Snap have no apparent storytelling aspect. When is the last time you heard a story when playing Snap? And what about the really detailed story behind Monopoly? Oh wait, that is right it does not have any story aspect either….

And finally what about the common claim that games are a form of art? Art is meant to express the artists [metaphysical] value judgements, and a great games, particularly those with a storytelling element do this. However what about simpler things like Snap once again, or Scrabble? It is pretty hard to see any sign of art in either of these activities…

So in short, I define a game as:

“Any recreational activity bound by a set of constraints on permissible player actions, with the intention of achieving one or more objectives.”

So in other words a game is some sort of activity that you do for fun, bound by some sort of rules in order to achieve some goal. Seems pretty simple right?

I believe that this is about the only completely valid definition of the concept of “game” that I remember seeing. It covers what I consider to be the essentials of gaming, and nothing nonessential like the fact that many games are a form of art. Keep this definition in mind, as it shall be the one that this blog shall use henceforth, barring any possible corrections.

That is all for now….

I intend to use this blog to discuss the theory of games.  That is the theory that explains how to make games, how to judge games and how to better play games.

This is of course hardly an undiscussed topic, many other blogs exist that discuss such things.  However I beleive that the vast majority of these blogs in failing to discuss the essentials of gaming often fall short of covering the theory of games properly.  Also many of the authors of these blogs have rather incomplete theories which often miss quite critical points.

I plan to discuss many of the more important of the theories of games from the roots up, eventually covering every important issue in the most logical order I can think of.

As much of this is stuff that will be appearing in an upcoming book, it might not be entirely complete for now.  Indeed another reason I have this blog is to serve as a sort of public draft / preview of that upcoming book, while at the same time helping to get those interested in games thinking about important issues while they are waiting for the book.

I will attempt to provide ample examples where fitting, and also case studies which I think are interesting when I consider such to warranted.

But the main purpose of this blog is discuss the theory of games as I have said.  Hopefully you find this useful for that reason and I hope you stay tuned…