# A Gameplay Definition through Videogame Classification

Authors: Damien Djaouti; Julian Alvarez; Jean-Pierre Jessel; Gilles Methel; Pierre Molinier
Journal: International Journal of Computer Games Technology
 (2008)

---

## Abstract

This paper is part of an experimental approach aimed to
raise a videogames classification. Being inspired by the methodology that Propp used
for the classification of Russian fairy tales, we have identified recurrent diagrams within rules
of videogames, that we called “Gameplay Bricks”. The combinations of
these different bricks should allow us to represent a classification of all videogames in
accordance with their rules. In this article, we will study the nature of these bricks, especially the link they seem to have with two types of game rules: the rules that allow the player to “manipulate” the elements of the game, and the rules defining the “goal” of the game. This study will lead to an hypothesis about the nature of gameplay.


---

## Body

## 1. Introduction

This
paper is part of a global experimental approach aimed at studying the nature of
videogames, in order to try to define what “gameplay” is. The first step of our
methodology is to elaborate a classification suited to videogames.In
a simple way, we could consider videogames as an interactive application,
entering into interaction with a player.According
to Crawford [1], interactions between a player and a videogame can be perceived
as a dialogue: “A cyclic process in which
two active agents alternately (and metaphorically) listen, think, and speak.”Through this paper, we aim to focus on the “computer”
side of the cycle, in order to analyze the constitutive elements of videogames
as pieces of software.The first target of this approach is to identify
formal data, ignoring for now the knowledge and psychological aspects of the
player.The next idea is to study this data in order to deduce
a classification of videogames. It should also contribute to the definition of
a common language suited to videogame analysis.We have been inspired by the work of Propp [2]
in his study of the Russian fairy tales during the beginning of the twentieth
century.Facing
similar problems, such as the impossibility for the researchers of his time to conduct
an objective study of the inherent Russian fairy tales mechanisms, Propp used a
formal deconstruction.Starting
from a hundred of fairy tales, that he has been analyzed in this way, he has
been able to identify recurrent narrative structures which lead him to build a
classification of Russian fairy tales.We have also been influenced by the joint
work of  Salen and  Zimmerman [3], who led us to focus our study on
videogames rules : “Looking at games as
rules means looking at games as formal systems, both in the sense that the
rules are inner structures that constitute the games and also in the sense that
the rules schemas are analytic tools that mathematically dissects games.”By isolating the “computer” part of
the videogame interaction cycle, we obtain a simple structural diagram (Figure2) composed of three parts:
the “Input,” peripheral
devices allowing the user to enter choices. These choices are then evaluated by
the rules of the “Compute” part, in order to produce a “result.” This result is finally communicated to
the player through the “Output” device.Figure 1
Player and videogame
interaction cycle.Figure 2
Structural parts of a
videogame.In order to stick to our paradigm, we will focus on
the “rules,” featured in the “Compute” part, made of software.According
to this approach, we have studied the rules of 588 various videogames. All this
data has been indexed in a database called V.E.Ga.S. (video & electronic games
studies).Our previous
researches [4, 5] have shown strong recurrences, on the whole, of videogames rules.
These recurrences are exposed in the first part of this article.In the second
part, we will analyze these recurrences and try to identify the eventual
structures that could be related to the gameplay of these videogames.


## 2. A Videogame Classification

### 2.1. Game Bricks

In
accordance to Propp’s methodology, we have developed a tool suited to the indexation
and analysis of a large videogames corpus. This quantitative approach should
raise eventual recurrent aspects likely to become criteria for a
classification.We based
our corpus on as large a period of time as possible, in order to limit the
impact of technical evolution on the results we may observe. However, we had to
define several limitations to the videogames likely to join our corpus:(i)
single player games only;
(ii)
computer games only;
(iii)
games  based on both audio and graphical output.
The
588 games in our corpus were chosen after an online alphabetical list of
videogames titles; however, the great majority of them are “arcade games” or “casual
games.”Thanks to our
tool, we have proposed a first step for the development of a classification
criterion: we have emphasized the“Game
Bricks” (Figure 3), the
“fundamental elements” whose different combinations seem to match the
different rules and goals of videogames.Figure 3
Game
bricks discovered as of now. (A side note about the different bricks we have identified: since the paper presenting the first version of “V.E.Ga.S.,” some bricks have been modified. You will notice that the bricks TIME and SCORE were removed. The COLLECT brick was merged with DESTROY. The POSITION brick was extended in the form of MATCH. Last but not least, the ANSWER brick was split in two bricks: SELECT and WRITE. More detail on the bricks modifications is presented in [7].)Pac-man (1980) and need for speed carbon (2006).
(a)
(b)Figure 5
Two identified metabricks.Figure 6
Elements, rules, and goal for
soccer.(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)Figure 8
“Play” or
“Game” related bricks.Figure 9
Bricks interaction with input
and output.Figure 10
Play brick + Game Brick =
Metabrick.After
analysis [7], we noticed that every
“Game brick” corresponds to a “recurrent template” in the rules of videogames.For
example, two games such as “Pac-man” and “space invaders” features the
following rules:(i)
“If Pac-man collides with
Ghost, then destroy Pacman.”
(ii)
“If Spaceship collides with
Enemy's shot, then destroy Spaceship.”
We
notice a very strong similarity between these rules and we can consider, therefore, that they are built on the
following template: “If player element
collides with a hostile element, then there is a negative feedback towards the
player element.”This template is then the definition of a “Game
brick,” namely, the AVOID brick. So far, we have identified ten
“Game bricks,” all built upon this same principle.For example,
the Game bricks featured in“Pac-man” are “MOVE,” meaning the player can move an avatar; “AVOID” for the ghosts you have to
avoid; “DESTROY” for the
dots you have to eat; and “MATCH” because you have to match each dot’s spatial position to destroy it.But you can
also find these bricks in a racing game like“Need for Speed”: MOVE a car, AVOID opponents, and MATCH on checkpoints
you have to DESTROY. When reached a checkpoint becomes “out of the game” and is
not reachable anymore, so it can be considered “destroyed,” just like any dot
eaten by Pac-man.Nevertheless, even within their
rules, these two games are different: the movement and thus the “MOVE” brick features
two dimensions in “Pac-man,” but three in “Need for Speed Carbon”; the number
of checkpoints to reach in Need for Speed is much smaller than the number of
dots that Pac-man has to swallow; the movement of the elements to avoid is
different in each game.Differences
between these two example games are the issue of different implementations of  “rule
templates” from the bricks they are sharing, but are also due to the use of
rules which are not covered by the bricks: in order to obtain an efficient
classification we could not make a brick for every existing rule template.We then had to limit the number
of Game bricks, trying to identify the most recurrent rules templates, after a
close study of the games in our corpus.However, the Game bricks are
aimed to allow the representation of the diversity of challenges one can find
among videogames.Besides the recurrent factor,
we also took in account the nature of the rule: we have concentrated our
efforts on representing the rules related to the actions of the player with the
“Game Bricks,” meaning we focused on rules related to the game goal and to the
means of reaching it.Being inspired
by the works of  Koster [8] and  Bura [9] who both try to elaborate
a grammar of videogames in the shape of diagrams, we have formalized diagrams
as definitions for our bricks (these
diagrams are presented in Section4.1).The structure
of these templates is based on the “structure of a rule”: one or several“triggering
conditions” (If) associated with one or several effects (Then).The
“If...Then” structure of a rule obviously reminds one of the algorithmic scheme
used in computer science, as studied in a previous article [7].


### 2.2. Metabricks

Nevertheless, the number of “total
combinations” obtainable with these different bricks is still rather large, but
we have noticed thatsome couples of
bricks were found very often in
a great number of games.We named those couples of bricks“Metabricks” and after the study
of games that have one or two of these metabricks, we have given them names
that are rather meaningful: MOVE and AVOID became the “DRIVER” metabrick, and the
association of SHOOT and DESTROY became “KILLER.”These “metabricks” seem to
us empirically related to the challenges proposed by these games.Families that have identical
metabricks, but also some different bricks seem to present a variation on the
same challenge.
For example, the families of “Pac-man” and “Frogger” have a difference
concerning the DESTROY brick: Pac-man has to swallow dots and thus to destroy
them, while the frog has only a busy road to cross.To summarize, we have
identified “Game Bricks” that represent “recurrent rule templates” within
videogames. Based on these bricks, we have elaborated a classification that gathers
videogames into “families” having identical combinations of “Game bricks.”These families can then be classified
through the use of some pairs of bricks, named “MetaBricks.”


## 2.1. Game Bricks

In
accordance to Propp’s methodology, we have developed a tool suited to the indexation
and analysis of a large videogames corpus. This quantitative approach should
raise eventual recurrent aspects likely to become criteria for a
classification.We based
our corpus on as large a period of time as possible, in order to limit the
impact of technical evolution on the results we may observe. However, we had to
define several limitations to the videogames likely to join our corpus:(i)
single player games only;
(ii)
computer games only;
(iii)
games  based on both audio and graphical output.
The
588 games in our corpus were chosen after an online alphabetical list of
videogames titles; however, the great majority of them are “arcade games” or “casual
games.”Thanks to our
tool, we have proposed a first step for the development of a classification
criterion: we have emphasized the“Game
Bricks” (Figure 3), the
“fundamental elements” whose different combinations seem to match the
different rules and goals of videogames.Figure 3
Game
bricks discovered as of now. (A side note about the different bricks we have identified: since the paper presenting the first version of “V.E.Ga.S.,” some bricks have been modified. You will notice that the bricks TIME and SCORE were removed. The COLLECT brick was merged with DESTROY. The POSITION brick was extended in the form of MATCH. Last but not least, the ANSWER brick was split in two bricks: SELECT and WRITE. More detail on the bricks modifications is presented in [7].)Pac-man (1980) and need for speed carbon (2006).
(a)
(b)Figure 5
Two identified metabricks.Figure 6
Elements, rules, and goal for
soccer.(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)Figure 8
“Play” or
“Game” related bricks.Figure 9
Bricks interaction with input
and output.Figure 10
Play brick + Game Brick =
Metabrick.After
analysis [7], we noticed that every
“Game brick” corresponds to a “recurrent template” in the rules of videogames.For
example, two games such as “Pac-man” and “space invaders” features the
following rules:(i)
“If Pac-man collides with
Ghost, then destroy Pacman.”
(ii)
“If Spaceship collides with
Enemy's shot, then destroy Spaceship.”
We
notice a very strong similarity between these rules and we can consider, therefore, that they are built on the
following template: “If player element
collides with a hostile element, then there is a negative feedback towards the
player element.”This template is then the definition of a “Game
brick,” namely, the AVOID brick. So far, we have identified ten
“Game bricks,” all built upon this same principle.For example,
the Game bricks featured in“Pac-man” are “MOVE,” meaning the player can move an avatar; “AVOID” for the ghosts you have to
avoid; “DESTROY” for the
dots you have to eat; and “MATCH” because you have to match each dot’s spatial position to destroy it.But you can
also find these bricks in a racing game like“Need for Speed”: MOVE a car, AVOID opponents, and MATCH on checkpoints
you have to DESTROY. When reached a checkpoint becomes “out of the game” and is
not reachable anymore, so it can be considered “destroyed,” just like any dot
eaten by Pac-man.Nevertheless, even within their
rules, these two games are different: the movement and thus the “MOVE” brick features
two dimensions in “Pac-man,” but three in “Need for Speed Carbon”; the number
of checkpoints to reach in Need for Speed is much smaller than the number of
dots that Pac-man has to swallow; the movement of the elements to avoid is
different in each game.Differences
between these two example games are the issue of different implementations of  “rule
templates” from the bricks they are sharing, but are also due to the use of
rules which are not covered by the bricks: in order to obtain an efficient
classification we could not make a brick for every existing rule template.We then had to limit the number
of Game bricks, trying to identify the most recurrent rules templates, after a
close study of the games in our corpus.However, the Game bricks are
aimed to allow the representation of the diversity of challenges one can find
among videogames.Besides the recurrent factor,
we also took in account the nature of the rule: we have concentrated our
efforts on representing the rules related to the actions of the player with the
“Game Bricks,” meaning we focused on rules related to the game goal and to the
means of reaching it.Being inspired
by the works of  Koster [8] and  Bura [9] who both try to elaborate
a grammar of videogames in the shape of diagrams, we have formalized diagrams
as definitions for our bricks (these
diagrams are presented in Section4.1).The structure
of these templates is based on the “structure of a rule”: one or several“triggering
conditions” (If) associated with one or several effects (Then).The
“If...Then” structure of a rule obviously reminds one of the algorithmic scheme
used in computer science, as studied in a previous article [7].


## 2.2. Metabricks

Nevertheless, the number of “total
combinations” obtainable with these different bricks is still rather large, but
we have noticed thatsome couples of
bricks were found very often in
a great number of games.We named those couples of bricks“Metabricks” and after the study
of games that have one or two of these metabricks, we have given them names
that are rather meaningful: MOVE and AVOID became the “DRIVER” metabrick, and the
association of SHOOT and DESTROY became “KILLER.”These “metabricks” seem to
us empirically related to the challenges proposed by these games.Families that have identical
metabricks, but also some different bricks seem to present a variation on the
same challenge.
For example, the families of “Pac-man” and “Frogger” have a difference
concerning the DESTROY brick: Pac-man has to swallow dots and thus to destroy
them, while the frog has only a busy road to cross.To summarize, we have
identified “Game Bricks” that represent “recurrent rule templates” within
videogames. Based on these bricks, we have elaborated a classification that gathers
videogames into “families” having identical combinations of “Game bricks.”These families can then be classified
through the use of some pairs of bricks, named “MetaBricks.”


## 3. Topology of a Game

In order to fully analyze the
results of our quantitative study, we also have studied the morphology of a videogame
in a qualitative way.We started from the definition
of a game according to Salen and Zimmerman [3]: “An activity with some rules
engaged in for an outcome.”The authors of “The Rules of
Play” consider a game as an activity defined by two elements: therules and the result, the latter one coming from a previous goal.


### 3.1. “Some Rules”

If
we consider that a videogame takes place in a virtual universe, we can also
consider that this universe is composed of several “elements,” in the broadest
sense.For
example, in soccer, a game that is playable both as a videogame and as a sport,
the universe would be composed of elements featured in a match:players, pitch, goals, and ball.All
these elements are driven by the “rules” of the game, in a similar way that
elements from our own universe are driven by physical or behavioral laws.From
a soccer point of view, these rules are the physical rules handling the
movement of several elements, like the gravity applied on the ball and the
players, but also the game rules specifying that only the goalkeeper is allowed
to touch the ball with his hands.These
rules seem to determine a “field of possible actions” that may happen when a soccer
match is played. This is what Salen and Zimmerman call the “space of
possibility” [3].


### 3.2. “An Outcome”

According to the definition presented
previously, a game proposes an outcome. Talking about an outcome implies a judgement
of the player performance. But in order to judge, one needs a reference. In a
game, the reference is tied to the goal the players have to reach.For soccer, the goal of the
game, identical for each team, is to bring the ball into the goals of the
opposing team. The “goals” and “goalkeeper” words are by the way very explicit.As shown in a previous article
[7], we could also consider the goal of the game as a rule, indeed a special
one: this rule has to state the end of the game, in others words its outcome, when
some conditions are fulfilled.Back to the soccer example, the
game is “reset” when the ball enters into one of the goals, and the score of
the team featuring the player who shot the ball is increased by one point.Even though a match ends after
90 minutes, the outcome does not depend only on time: the team with the highest
score after 90 minutes of play wins the game.Hence the judgement allowing
the outcome of the game is here tied to the goal of the game, which is to throw
the ball into the opposing goal.


### 3.3. Different Kinds of Rules

If
the target of the game is also a part of the game rules, does it means that
different “kinds” of rules exists?The
work of Gonzalo Frasca seems to indicate so, in particular his typology of the
different kinds of game rules [10].(i)
“Manipulation rules,” defining
what the player can do in the game.
(ii)
“Goal Rules,” defining the
goal of the game.
(iii)
“Metarules,” defining how
a game can be tuned or modified.
For
now, we will put aside “Metarules,” which mean that on the whole of videogame
rules, we will find some rules related to the definition of a goal, and other
rules defining means to reach it.As
different kinds of rules exist, and as “Game bricks” are based upon “rule templates,”
we can ask the following question:On what kind of rules are the bricks based on?


## 3.1. “Some Rules”

If
we consider that a videogame takes place in a virtual universe, we can also
consider that this universe is composed of several “elements,” in the broadest
sense.For
example, in soccer, a game that is playable both as a videogame and as a sport,
the universe would be composed of elements featured in a match:players, pitch, goals, and ball.All
these elements are driven by the “rules” of the game, in a similar way that
elements from our own universe are driven by physical or behavioral laws.From
a soccer point of view, these rules are the physical rules handling the
movement of several elements, like the gravity applied on the ball and the
players, but also the game rules specifying that only the goalkeeper is allowed
to touch the ball with his hands.These
rules seem to determine a “field of possible actions” that may happen when a soccer
match is played. This is what Salen and Zimmerman call the “space of
possibility” [3].


## 3.2. “An Outcome”

According to the definition presented
previously, a game proposes an outcome. Talking about an outcome implies a judgement
of the player performance. But in order to judge, one needs a reference. In a
game, the reference is tied to the goal the players have to reach.For soccer, the goal of the
game, identical for each team, is to bring the ball into the goals of the
opposing team. The “goals” and “goalkeeper” words are by the way very explicit.As shown in a previous article
[7], we could also consider the goal of the game as a rule, indeed a special
one: this rule has to state the end of the game, in others words its outcome, when
some conditions are fulfilled.Back to the soccer example, the
game is “reset” when the ball enters into one of the goals, and the score of
the team featuring the player who shot the ball is increased by one point.Even though a match ends after
90 minutes, the outcome does not depend only on time: the team with the highest
score after 90 minutes of play wins the game.Hence the judgement allowing
the outcome of the game is here tied to the goal of the game, which is to throw
the ball into the opposing goal.


## 3.3. Different Kinds of Rules

If
the target of the game is also a part of the game rules, does it means that
different “kinds” of rules exists?The
work of Gonzalo Frasca seems to indicate so, in particular his typology of the
different kinds of game rules [10].(i)
“Manipulation rules,” defining
what the player can do in the game.
(ii)
“Goal Rules,” defining the
goal of the game.
(iii)
“Metarules,” defining how
a game can be tuned or modified.
For
now, we will put aside “Metarules,” which mean that on the whole of videogame
rules, we will find some rules related to the definition of a goal, and other
rules defining means to reach it.As
different kinds of rules exist, and as “Game bricks” are based upon “rule templates,”
we can ask the following question:On what kind of rules are the bricks based on?


## 4. Bricks and Gameplay

### 4.1. Game + Play = Gameplay?

In order to
find which kind of rules the bricks are based on, let us analyze the definition
diagrams of each brick.We notice that the bricks
CREATE, DESTROY, RANDOM, MANAGE, MOVE, SHOOT, SELECT, and WRITE all feature areference to the videogame’s Input within its
triggers.Please note that these bricks
assume that the received inputs are “valid.” Hence these “player’s inputs” are
previously checked by additional mechanisms that are out of the scope of this
article.On the other hand, the AVOID,
BLOCK, DESTROY, and MATCH bricks all featurea feedback within its effects [6]. (An important note about the use of the word “feedback” in this article: we are aware that within computer science, the terms “negative feedback” and “positive feedback” refer to systems with the ability to automatically correct their actual state.
However in the field of game design, “positive feedback” and “negative feedback” refer to the different kinds of “rewards” a game can address to the player.
We chose to use the latter definition of these terms in this paper.)
This feedback is displayed by the videogame’s Output.We could then divide bricks
into two categories, according to whether they feature one or another of these
characteristics.The first category of bricks
seems to be based on a principle that one could formulate in the following way:“to listen to Input and to consequently
carry out modifications on game elements.”The second category would
rather correspond to:“to observe the
game elements and to return an evaluation of the quality of modifications made
by the first rule category.”We retrieve here principles
close to two types of rules evoked by Frasca: the first category approaches the
definition of“Manipulation rules,”
while the second one seems to be related to “Goal Rules.”But, from our point of view,
the difference between these two categories of bricks is also tied to the
difference between the two words“Play” and “Game.”Indeed, as the bricks of the
first category are related to Input, they can be connected to the word“Play”; whereas the bricks of the second
category, which are related to the goal and so to the Output, would approach a
concept related to the word “Game.”Following these observations,
we can try to sort the bricks.The difference between the two bricks
categories appears all the more clear by the fact thatthey are not in direct relation between each
other.Indeed, the two categories ofbricks
“interact” through the “game elements”: the “Play” bricks modify them, and the “Game” bricks observe the modifications
made by the first ones.We could finally extend the
“videogame structural diagram” (Figure2) by detailing the “Compute”
part, where the rules are located.Unfortunately, the expression
“Game brick” does not seem adequate anymore to refer to our full set of bricks,
but only to the subset of bricks from the second category. We must then choose
another term, which seems obvious here: we will now refer to the set of 10 identified
bricks as“GamePlay bricks.”More than a simple name change,
this word leads to an important question still looking for a precise answer.“What Is Gameplay?”
Gameplay is empirically seen as
a central element within a videogame, and seems closely related to the game quality
in the mind of many players.
If the question of its nature appears
of capital importance, it is unfortunately a concept which remains to be precisely
defined.
Looking for a definition of
gameplay, let us synthesize the points studied until now.We identified a set of
recurrences within the rules of videogames, that we named “Gameplay bricks.”
After analysis, we observe two types of bricks, related to two “kinds of videogame
rules.”(i)
Ruleslistening to Input and acting on the game elements consequently, named “Play bricks.”
(ii)
Rules observing the state of the game elements and returning to the player anevaluation of his performance, named “Game bricks.”
May the association of “Play bricks” with “Game bricks” be the spirit of
gameplay?A draft answer to this question
may come from the two Metabricks presented in Section2.2, namely, DRIVER and
KILLER.If we analyze them, we notice
thatthey are composed of a “Play
brick” associated to a “Game brick.”We would say that if the “Game
Brick” refers to agoal to reach,
the “Play Brick” seems to represent
a means (or a constraint) in order to reach this goal.For example, DRIVER asks the
player toavoid colliding with some elements, and allows the player to move its avatar in order to do so. In the same way, KILLER asks to destroy elements, through the use of projectiles that the
player can shoot or throw.As these “Metabricks” represent
pairs of “GamePlay bricks,” that is, rules templates, which are identified in a
large group of games,our hypothesis about the nature of gameplay
seems very promising.


## 4.1. Game + Play = Gameplay?

In order to
find which kind of rules the bricks are based on, let us analyze the definition
diagrams of each brick.We notice that the bricks
CREATE, DESTROY, RANDOM, MANAGE, MOVE, SHOOT, SELECT, and WRITE all feature areference to the videogame’s Input within its
triggers.Please note that these bricks
assume that the received inputs are “valid.” Hence these “player’s inputs” are
previously checked by additional mechanisms that are out of the scope of this
article.On the other hand, the AVOID,
BLOCK, DESTROY, and MATCH bricks all featurea feedback within its effects [6]. (An important note about the use of the word “feedback” in this article: we are aware that within computer science, the terms “negative feedback” and “positive feedback” refer to systems with the ability to automatically correct their actual state.
However in the field of game design, “positive feedback” and “negative feedback” refer to the different kinds of “rewards” a game can address to the player.
We chose to use the latter definition of these terms in this paper.)
This feedback is displayed by the videogame’s Output.We could then divide bricks
into two categories, according to whether they feature one or another of these
characteristics.The first category of bricks
seems to be based on a principle that one could formulate in the following way:“to listen to Input and to consequently
carry out modifications on game elements.”The second category would
rather correspond to:“to observe the
game elements and to return an evaluation of the quality of modifications made
by the first rule category.”We retrieve here principles
close to two types of rules evoked by Frasca: the first category approaches the
definition of“Manipulation rules,”
while the second one seems to be related to “Goal Rules.”But, from our point of view,
the difference between these two categories of bricks is also tied to the
difference between the two words“Play” and “Game.”Indeed, as the bricks of the
first category are related to Input, they can be connected to the word“Play”; whereas the bricks of the second
category, which are related to the goal and so to the Output, would approach a
concept related to the word “Game.”Following these observations,
we can try to sort the bricks.The difference between the two bricks
categories appears all the more clear by the fact thatthey are not in direct relation between each
other.Indeed, the two categories ofbricks
“interact” through the “game elements”: the “Play” bricks modify them, and the “Game” bricks observe the modifications
made by the first ones.We could finally extend the
“videogame structural diagram” (Figure2) by detailing the “Compute”
part, where the rules are located.Unfortunately, the expression
“Game brick” does not seem adequate anymore to refer to our full set of bricks,
but only to the subset of bricks from the second category. We must then choose
another term, which seems obvious here: we will now refer to the set of 10 identified
bricks as“GamePlay bricks.”More than a simple name change,
this word leads to an important question still looking for a precise answer.“What Is Gameplay?”
Gameplay is empirically seen as
a central element within a videogame, and seems closely related to the game quality
in the mind of many players.
If the question of its nature appears
of capital importance, it is unfortunately a concept which remains to be precisely
defined.
Looking for a definition of
gameplay, let us synthesize the points studied until now.We identified a set of
recurrences within the rules of videogames, that we named “Gameplay bricks.”
After analysis, we observe two types of bricks, related to two “kinds of videogame
rules.”(i)
Ruleslistening to Input and acting on the game elements consequently, named “Play bricks.”
(ii)
Rules observing the state of the game elements and returning to the player anevaluation of his performance, named “Game bricks.”
May the association of “Play bricks” with “Game bricks” be the spirit of
gameplay?A draft answer to this question
may come from the two Metabricks presented in Section2.2, namely, DRIVER and
KILLER.If we analyze them, we notice
thatthey are composed of a “Play
brick” associated to a “Game brick.”We would say that if the “Game
Brick” refers to agoal to reach,
the “Play Brick” seems to represent
a means (or a constraint) in order to reach this goal.For example, DRIVER asks the
player toavoid colliding with some elements, and allows the player to move its avatar in order to do so. In the same way, KILLER asks to destroy elements, through the use of projectiles that the
player can shoot or throw.As these “Metabricks” represent
pairs of “GamePlay bricks,” that is, rules templates, which are identified in a
large group of games,our hypothesis about the nature of gameplay
seems very promising.


## 5. Conclusion

Being inspired by the
methodology that Propp used for his fairy tales classification, we have started
aquantitative analysis of videogames.Propp’s methodology leads us tobuild a classification based on “recurrent
templates of games rules,” as we identified a set of recurrent rules
templates formalized into ten “GamePlay bricks.”According to the work of Frasca,
these bricks can be of two kinds.(i)
“Game”: if the rule template is directly related to the goal of the game, mainly
as a feedback within the rule effects.
In this case, the rule is characterized by a trigger based on the state of the
game elements, and an effect linked to thevideogame’s Output.
(ii)
“Play”: if the rule template is independent from the goal. The
rule is then characterized by a trigger based on the videogame’s Input, and an effect targeting only the game
elements.
We would then
state as hypothesis that “Gameplay” is, at least within the videogame rules, composed of both “Game bricks” and “Play
bricks.”We have then been able to
identify pairs of “Gameplay bricks” that have been found recurrently in our games
corpus.We have named these recurrent
pairs “Metabricks,” as they are composed of “Play brick(s)” associated to “Game
brick(s).”The discovery of “Metabricks,”
which are the result of pure statistical analysis over a 588 videogames corpus,
seems to lean towards a validation of our hypothesis about the nature of
gameplay.However, our corpus of
videogames needs to be extended to more games and to more “kinds” of games to
fulfill this validation.Moreover, the expansion of our
videogames corpus should lead to the discovery of additional Metabricks: with 4
“Game bricks” and 6 “Play Bricks,” numerous new potential metabricks await.More precisely, the next steps
of our study will be based on two complementary approaches.(i)
A “bottom-up”(qualitative) approach, which will lead
us to pursue the development of an experimental videogame, named “GamB.A.S”
(a first prototype was exposed
in a previous article [7]).
The aim of this game is to
allow one to observe the interaction between the different kinds of videogame
rules, through the ability of enabling/disabling any videogame rule at runtime.
For now, this game only
implements rules from the “Gameplay bricks” templates, limiting its videogame
generation abilities to quite simplified versions of actual videogames.
(ii)
A “top-down”(quantitative) approach, which will lead
us to pursue the classification of videogames.We are modifying our
classification tool in order to propose a collaborative version of our videogame
classification, freely accessible on the Internet.This improved version adds the
possibility to collect and compare a large number of evaluations for each game,
in order to minimize the subjectivity introduced during the analysis of videogames.You might then freely propose,
evaluate, or even consult information about any videogame on the following website:http://www.gameclassification.com.



---

*Source: 470350-2008-04-22.xml*