Defining abstract concepts in video games

[Senbei]

I don't know about you, but I've found that whenever I try to write about video games, I have to constantly struggle to explain how the gameplay in a game plays. Sometimes, this can lead to a serious digression from the point of the write-up. The problem is that "gameplay" is still a vague and abstract notion and there isn't a common lexicon of gameplay to draw terms from.

Maybe you're familiar with Tim Rogers, more than likely if you follow Kotaku. His articles can be hit-or-miss, especially since they're more akin to rants than essays. This latest article is, I think, brilliant because, in it, he has made the aforementioned lexicon. (You can skip the first half of the article and scroll to the part titles "The Frictionary".)

I don't know if this has ever been attempted before since I don't browse the gaming blogosphere or whatever it's called. Anyway, I found the concept of a gameplay dictionary, or as he terms it, the Frictionary, novel, maybe even necessary. I'm going to try to use it in my future gaming-related literature. Maybe you guys will find it useful too.

[gr4yJ4Y]

I have a lot of trouble with describing gameplay too. Often it's just a lot easier to show a person in video form. Even then it's not always easy to tell what playing the game is like. Games are really diverse and it's usually best to just compare gameplay of one game to that of another.

When reading reviews, I often find myself lost as to what the reviewer is trying to say, especially if they're focusing in on a specific detail. After playing the game I'll re-read the review and wonder how I didn't understand what they were saying before. Gameplay is really complicated and words take a long time to give its description justice. You really have to break down all of the parts of the gameplay to start to give the reader a decent picture. Accurately describing the gameplay in Sonic 1 to someone who has never played a Sonic game before without comparing it to other games would have to be broken down into describing momentum with running on different surfaces, jumping, the effects of water, rings and health, score, objectives, bosses, special stages, controls, etc. It usually wouldn't be worth the trouble of the reader to grasp all these complex ideas as it would take too long. It's easier to just say, "It's kinda like Mario."

The editorials on Kotaku have always come off as long rants that aren't really well thought out and don't go anywhere. Even after starting at the part labeled "Frictionary" in the middle of the essay, I couldn't get through his description of "crunchy". It sounds like he's trying too hard to set up new videogame vocab on his own and only accounting for these different forms of friction. Are learning the forms of friction that important to describing gameplay quickly or do they just make it more complicated than it already is?

[Segaholic2]

Tim Rogers is a blathering idiot with the worst case of logorrhea on the entire Internet.

[Delphine]

Yeah, that's not how language works. You can't just up and invent a lexicon. There's a reason Esperanto never took off.

Though I gotta say, if half of that stuff about Tomonobu Itagaki is true, he sounds like my kinda guy.

[j-man]

Bad swishing is what we call Soupy friction. That's bad swishing. Games shouldn't be soupy — they should be Chunky. We can talk about chunky in a minute.

Let me just stop you there for a minute, Tim.

[MiraiTails]

One of my thoughts while reading part of it was, "Is friction really the central element of gameplay?"

Somebody got paid to write that monolith of text? He's like a crazy person ranting on the sidewalk...

[gr4yJ4Y]

Bad swishing is what we call Soupy friction. That's bad swishing. Games shouldn't be soupy — they should be Chunky. We can talk about chunky in a minute.

Let me just stop you there for a minute, Tim.

[Senbei]

Wait, wait. Put aside that the article is by a ranting dude with wacky hair, just for a second. What I got from it was the idea of a gaming vocabulary that gamers can turn to when they don’t want to spend paragraphs trying to vaguely explain how a game plays.

Like, how do you explain how Sonic’s spin dash feels to someone who’s never played a Sonic game? (Let’s specify another gamer since explaining anything to a non-gamer is whole other story.) You can’t really. You can make vague analogies to, I dunno, revving the engine of a racecar, or powering up Samus’ arm cannon. But neither of those examples is perfect, and instead of explaining the spin dash, you’ve just convinced your audience that Sonic is like a racecar with lasers.

But what if there was a gaming-specific word for that kind of feeling, like charging up something and letting it go? The Rogers example is “electricity.” So, instead of wasting time using clunky metaphors, you can just say, “The spin dash is like electric friction,” and the other guy gets it, or at least the idea.

Not that a common gamer-vocab is going to suddenly crop up. But I can’t help thinking things would be easier if it did.

[FlashTHD]

Tim is not even proper Kotaku as he only does these for them once a month. I think this sounds like one of his troll articles that you're not meant to take very seriously anyway.

If you want entertaining reading from Rogers, browse around Action Button. For all the insanity his articles contain he tends to make some very good points.

[MiraiTails]

spin dash = rubber band, no?

[(No Imagination)]

But...why would you want to explain how spin-dash feels to anyone? Just say what it ends up making you do, you'll be deep-talking a lot less, but it will make a hell of a lot more sense.

I sometimes wish critics would describe the work in a little more plain detail instead of just writing 'gameplay' and be done with it - like, for instance, I could write that Final Fantasy 6 has good gameplay or that I find the storyline appealing, the graphics detailed and colorful and the ATB battle system engaging. Which of these two options would you consider more informative?

/probably off-topic rant follows:/

I agree with some sleepless guy on teh net that 'gameplay' is a null word and shouldn't be used in a professional review unless written in those useless single quotes. You play the game and the game plays well. It is a good game. It features Stuff that pleases you. But no gameplay. (Putting "playing the game" down as property - as in, "this game has good gameplay" - sounds somewhat stupid because no game in the world has the ability to feature intrinsical experience a human being gets out of it - it's a matter of interaction, not a matter of property. Graphics yes, sounds yes - they are a matter of property. They come packed with the game. Gameplay however, does not.)

...a more correct option, in my opinion, would be to say "this game and I share great gameplay"...as crazy as it sounds, at least it's obviously so.

[Crowbar]

While I do try to avoid using the word "gameplay" these days since it leads to lazy thought, I don't believe it to be completely redundant or nonsensical as a term.

The argument usually made is that you don't talk about the "bookread" of a book, or the "moviewatch" of a movie. However, I would argue that this is because those two forms of media have no other way in which you interact with them. There is literally no component of a book that does not involve reading (unless you count the cover). With a movie you technically hear sound as well as seeing pictures, but both of these are generally included in the action of "watching a movie" as we define it (unless you're my dad and you ask people "What are you listening to?" when they're sat in front of the television).

With a game, the actual mechanics of the game itself (the controls, the physics of the character, the practical aspects of level design, balance etc. etc.) are, I feel, sufficiently independant of the graphics (beyond the level of simple readability), sound, story (if applicable) and suchlike that I think it not completely ridiculous to have a term such as "gameplay".

I do think that reviewers tend to put too little thought into really picking apart the mechanics of games and why they do or don't work, but I'm not reading all that shit that guy wrote. For the parts I did read (the definitions) most of them didn't make sense even after I'd read them, and some didn't even seem to be concerned with actual mechanics anyway (such as that bit where he talks about how a character's arms flap about when he jumps: that's purely an aesthetic aspect, with no practical consequences within the game itself).

[MiraiTails]

Re: Tim, I just wish he could make his points using fewer words.

[(No Imagination)]

With a game, the actual mechanics of the game itself (the controls, the physics of the character, the practical aspects of level design, balance etc. etc.) are, I feel, sufficiently independant of the graphics (beyond the level of simple readability), sound, story (if applicable) and suchlike that I think it not completely ridiculous to have a term such as "gameplay".

This is where I disagree. You've made an excellent book analogy, but ...reading is not as two-dimensional as you suggest. When reading a book, you may enjoy its plot, but dislike the characterization. Or you might like the characters, the plot, the setting, but dislike the style. Or vice versa or any combination. (plug: I've seen many stuff so far, but Alain Robbe-Grillet's novel Le Voyeur is the most fucked up work of fiction ever made; the ways it leaves those brains twisted after the unimaginable plot setups are more horrible than anything that could be visualized externally...it can be read over and over again...and yet it's but a lowly book.) The point is - when you're done, it's left to you whether you like that book very much or not, or you might read it again occasionally. It's exactly the same with videogames in that regard.

...it's also been neglected that many (all?) "legendary" gaming experiences feature(d) top of the line graphics when they came out, and talking about separating character sprites and setups from certain something that makes it eternally work seems...well, odd, when a couple of popular best games of all time feature stuff like colorful hedgehogs and rendered 2D and 3D mansions and bridges and fields and creeks...stuff that looks good, basically.

[(No Imagination)]

(Sorry for the double post, but the 3.86666 minute limit on post editing had already expired.)

books = videogames

This is a lie actually. There is one feature that the book doesn't have, or is limited in: control. It's not difficult to care a great deal about this because it sounds like a powerful word, but in the end it's the inputs. Do they lag? Are they balanced? Do they have coherence in acceleration/deceleration? And stuff.

[Crowbar]

This is where I disagree. You've made an excellent book analogy, but ...reading is not as two-dimensional as you suggest. When reading a book, you may enjoy its plot, but dislike the characterization. Or you might like the characters, the plot, the setting, but dislike the style. Or vice versa or any combination.

But these are all experienced only by reading the book. Because there is no other way to interact with it (having somebody else read it to you maybe, but it boils down to the same thing).

A game can have a plot, characters, setting, style etc., all of which one can like or dislike entirely independantly of whether one finds the mechanics (the "gameplay") enjoyable. One could argue that you do have to "play" the game to experience those peripheral aspects, but they are so different that I still feel that one can divorce them in one's mind.

And, in fact, you CAN experience those things without playing the game: by watching somebody else play it. I find it hard to imagine that one's experience of the plot, characters, graphics etc. would be any less in this case, but the experience of the gameplay mechanics would obviously be heavily diminished (I won't say non-existant, since there will be some empathy with the one playing, but it will obviously be quite degraded). If somebody else reads you a book, however, I would argue that the experience of each person is similar enough (barring personal baggage) to be considered functionally identical.

I'm not saying that books or any other form of media are "two-dimensional", by any means, I just think there's a distinction in the way we interact with them.

[(No Imagination)]

But these are all experienced only by reading the book. Because there is no other way to interact with it (having somebody else read it to you maybe, but it boils down to the same thing).

You do three things in videogames: watch, listen and get to flip pages back and forth. Regardless of who's doing the playing, the game can still only be experienced by watching it and listening to it.

And, in fact, you CAN experience those things without playing the game: by watching somebody else play it. I find it hard to imagine that one's experience of the plot, characters, graphics etc. would be any less in this case, but the experience of the gameplay mechanics would obviously be heavily diminished (I won't say non-existant, since there will be some empathy with the one playing, but it will obviously be quite degraded). If somebody else reads you a book, however, I would argue that the experience of each person is similar enough (barring personal baggage) to be considered functionally identical.

About as similar as having a game played for you, I'd say. Whenever you're watching someone playing Super Mario Brothers, you WILL feel the impact of his play. Similarly, someone with a thick Russian accent will be reading Tom Sawyer to you...and later you can read the book yourself and it will not feature Zangief looking characters...it will be a different experience, just as playing a videogame yourself would be.

...it's actually called interpretation and it's rather personal. Similar enough? I don't think so.

[Dash]

I recently discovered the writings of Tim Rogers and ActionButton and got stuck reading quite a few of the articles. What can I say, babbling anecdotes amuse me. Well, funny ones anyhow. I loved all the little stories in Hitchhikers' Guide, but hated how The Lord of the Rings kept interrupting the story with D&D class information. And yes, I realize that it was like the first fantasy novel and defined a lot of these things to start with. They still bored me enough to start skipping them.

Anyway, I dig how he and the other reviewers on the website look at games in quite a different way. Certain points like, "the game doesn't lose when the player wins" and such have stuck with me. I like Tim's idea of friction, and the odd terms he employs to push the concept along. It really is an interesting way to define how games are a different experience from others. It's neat. He should keep at it. But yeah, having a lexicon could be a bit much.

Hope that his game studio and all that actually goes somewhere, and he doesn't end up sorta like John K., where you hear a lot of great concepts but you're never sure if he actually has a project going.

[Isuka]

Accurately describing the gameplay in Sonic 1 to someone who has never played a Sonic game before without comparing it to other games would have to be broken down into describing momentum with running on different surfaces, jumping, the effects of water, rings and health, score, objectives, bosses, special stages, controls, etc. It usually wouldn't be worth the trouble of the reader to grasp all these complex ideas as it would take too long. It's easier to just say, "It's kinda like Mario."

You can always go with the "instruction manual approach" and just describe what each button does, and the effect each of your actions has on the game's system. I mean, you don't really need to write each game's review as if you're targeting it to newborns, if you say "pushing the d-pad in the 'right' direction will make Sonic move to the right" it should be easy enough for most intelligent human beings (at least the ones capable of playing videogames) to comprehend.

Like, how do you explain how Sonic’s spin dash feels to someone who’s never played a Sonic game? (Let’s specify another gamer since explaining anything to a non-gamer is whole other story.) You can’t really. You can make vague analogies to, I dunno, revving the engine of a racecar, or powering up Samus’ arm cannon. But neither of those examples is perfect, and instead of explaining the spin dash, you’ve just convinced your audience that Sonic is like a racecar with lasers.

Err, well... how should I put it...

walk -- Push left or right on the D-pad to initiate Sonic's movement in either direction. As you hold the button down, Sonic gains speed.

crouch -- While standing still, press down on the D-pad to make Sonic duck. As you hold down, the camera pans downward, giving you a view of the stage beneath where Sonic stands.

spin (回転) -- While moving, press down on the D-pad to make Sonic curl into a rolling attack. He'll remain in this position until you jump or slow down. The speed of Sonic's movement while in spin form is based on how fast you're moving when you launch it, and also on the terrain Sonic rolls along.

Super Spin Dash (スーパースピンダッシュ) -- While crouching, tap the A, B, or C buttons to have Sonic rev up with a stationary spin. Keep tapping the jump buttons to build up momentum, and let go of the D-pad to dash off with a full speed rolling attack.

That certainly works for me. Pretty logical, step-by-step approach to explaining how it works.

I don't find the "electric friction" analogy useful since I don't quite understand how that would work in a game where you run around, jumping on platforms.

spin dash = rubber band, no?

Every single instance of a rubber band that I can come up with features the to-be-flung object having to be moved back from its starting point in order for the momentum to build up and result in a high speed motion towards the opposite direction.

And Sonic doesn't move when you go into a spin dash. So I guess no.

(...) I could write that Final Fantasy 6 has good gameplay or that I find the storyline appealing, the graphics detailed and colorful and the ATB battle system engaging. Which of these two options would you consider more informative?

Actually, both are telling me you enjoyed the game and... well, not much more. Of course, this is a one-liner, a very simple, unelaborated opinion, so avoiding the use of non-terms like "gameplay" is pretty easy. It'd be more informative to describe the story's flow (if you find it dynamic and always on-the-go or stagnant and featuring just a couple set pieces here and there after a long time without meaningful development), how the graphics flesh out, breath life unto the story's characters and places by way of contrasting colors, designs and styles, and how the ATB system makes for a quick, smooth experience in battling hordes upon hordes of baddies, or if you think it's rough around the edges because, say, it takes too much time to restore your party's HP on average, or maybe the enemies deal out too many critical hits to actually develop a working battle strategy against a specific enemy formation... now, that would be better.

I mean, if guys like this Roger fellow can basically write a Bible's worth of worthless blabber (lol... and somehow this sounds to me like something of a tautology), then surely you can write a few paragraphs describing what you think that works in the game and what doesn't. And what's even better, what may not work for you may work for other people with different tastes, and the simple fact that you mentioned it in your review at all may very well make the reader go out and get the game. At least that's how I like (and value) game reviews, whether they praise a game I think is bad or condemn a game I think rocks, and viceversa.

The argument usually made is that you don't talk about the "bookread" of a book, or the "moviewatch" of a movie. However, I would argue that this is because those two forms of media have no other way in which you interact with them.

Well, videogames have more composing elements to them than books or movies, but as far as I know, barring controller discrepancies, you always interact with them in the same way: by using your body to control a/ some given composing element(s), and that's it. The fact that pushing a button may either make your character jump, slash a sword, fire a gun, set a troop's target doesn't change matters any, that's why a description of a game's mechanics is necessary in order to properly convey understandable criticism on it ("hey, when I move right and hit the jump button, my character freezes and all enemy characters on screen dissapear and the whole game locks... there's definitely something not working properly here, guys").

...[/post]

[Crisis]

There's something incredibly intuitive about the spin dash, but it's impossible to describe in a way that makes sense. All logic says that, whatever Sonic is doing in the Spin Dash, it shouldn't be possible to do it while stationary. I've heard people try to use the rubber band analogy, but I can't see it myself.

I can imagine a situation in which Sonic is spinning into the ground, in a drill-like motion, and accelerates his movements in that direction changing mid-spin and applying the momentum horizontally. But it's still not a very good explanation. I like GG!'s comparison to the revving of a vehicle, as that's probably where the intuition comes from, but it doesn't make any more sense.

[Dr. BUGMAN]

I've felt that the concept of a wind-up toy to be a sufficient analogy for the spin-dash.

Just sped up in every sense.

[(No Imagination)]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27llIZ4pgR8&NR=1

Good Grief, my Dad used to own one of these. Though the guy doing these videos is an idiot - you have to remove the key after you wind the robot up or it won't be able to walk as the key will be blocking its left arm.

On topic, I think the wind-up toy analogy is spot-on.

[Crisis]

It doesn't really make any more sense to me than the rubber band. I mean, I appreciate the idea of an input (twisting a key/tapping a button) resulting in movement. But only on the same level as any other basic interaction (e.g. press a button and Sonic jumps) that has to be learnt - and at least with a jump, it's easy to discern what Sonic's doing. But the spin dash doesn't seem to match any real world motion. Sonic doesn't seem to be getting "wound up" in any way.

This is starting to bother me.

[Dr. BUGMAN]

He is building up kinetic energy from a stationary position. No-one's really turning his crank... er, excepting Tails, of course.

[Senbei]

This is what I mean. You can toss about any number of clever analogies, but wouldn't it be nice to just have a word?