Surface and Depth: Tony Hawk as Tetris
by Joshua Dallman · 12/06/2006 (6:25 pm) · 27 comments
Surface and Depth: Tony Hawk as Tetris
I love to analyze game design and discuss it. Few things can get me as fired up. Dialogue both internally and with others is one way we can get better at game design. I haven't written a pure game design blog since last summer's locus of control in game design blog, and a recent discussion about how two games can have the same genes yet appear totally different provoked this one.
I've blogged about this topic before by comparing Gish on PC with Jelly Boy on SNES, and the irony is that although those two games look the same and share some similar genes, deeper down they are actually totally different games!
I hope this provokes some thought and discussion, as to me that is what is most fun about the GarageGames community (besides the games themselves, of course).
On the surface of analyzing a game, it is easy to see what a game offers in the way of theme, visuals, story. On that surface, it seems like there's a lot of different unique games out there. But if you go below that surface, you see the same games being made over and over, with the same "game atoms" or "game genes" or groupings thereof.
There are only a limited number of game mechanisms we enjoy. These are consistent over and over, the "proven" ones. They are wired into our brains to some degree (spatial awareness, etc) and learned through game genre evolution (interculturally) to some degree. We are open to learning to enjoy new games, some of us more than others and to varying degrees. Both brain differences (dyslexia, memory disorders, etc) and cultural differences (what generation you grew up in, what your values are, etc) further create differences in what games are enjoyed, but these are fewer than the definite center of gravity with only a limited number of game devices that are enjoyed by a majority.
The old saying that there's only three stories and the rest are all variations applies equally to games. There's a handfull of games and the remaining are variations, if evolved. As example, Tony Hawk is merely an evolved variation of Tetris. So it's no surprise that like Tetris, Tony Hawk has enjoyed critical acclaim and best-seller sales.
On the surface, Tony Hawk is about hand/eye coordination and 3D space navigation. And if played only for those things, that is fine, but that's not what the game is really about. Those are merely the prerequisites, the entry fee into the real game underneath. And the real game -- the genes -- are exactly like Tetris. It's an ever-changing puzzle where you have to figure out the best place to fit your puzzle piece (your skater) in order to get the maximum score. It takes planning and strategy and a little luck.
To expand on this comparison:
Why is this comparison relevant. Well, a few things. First, a lot of us look at these older games, these 2D best-sellers and gold-example classics, and try to clone or update them, either in 2D or 3D or such. When we do that, we need to understand what makes the original tick on a very deep level, beyond just the surface.
On the surface Tetris is falling blocks, but on a deeper level it's a puzzle that invites you to dynamically adapt using both logical and creative solutions to find the optimal highest scoring path. So if you love Tetris, try making a game that offers the same invitation and reward that Tetris does on that deeper level, instead of just cloning the surface of "a falling blocks game." If you love Contra, figure out why you love it on a deep level instead of just cloning a run'n'gunner.
This is why both in games and film, when a successful original title comes out and the clones follow, those clones seem to lack something that the original had and it's always tough to put your finger on it because the surface details all match. Well that something missing is a deeper understanding of the game. They clone the surface of the game (they see something making money, they copy it) and in doing so only get some of those deeper elements that made the original tick so well, and you're left with a hollow feeling.
Tony Hawk is of course no clone of Tetris, but the developers took cues from it if unconciously or through culture, the same way we take cues from the collective pool of games marked in our brains for every time we play something and say "that's cool!"
Tetris is one of the 3 stories out there. In games there's maybe a dozen, maybe a few dozen, but certainly not even a hundred. This is good though, because there's plenty of them and easy to find and study. And if we can find those classics, understand them deeply, and look at which successful modern titles took the lessons from those classics well, we will be well on our way to creating our own unique takes on them and maybe even creating a new modern classic to be studied as a textbook example by generations future.
I love to analyze game design and discuss it. Few things can get me as fired up. Dialogue both internally and with others is one way we can get better at game design. I haven't written a pure game design blog since last summer's locus of control in game design blog, and a recent discussion about how two games can have the same genes yet appear totally different provoked this one.
I've blogged about this topic before by comparing Gish on PC with Jelly Boy on SNES, and the irony is that although those two games look the same and share some similar genes, deeper down they are actually totally different games!
I hope this provokes some thought and discussion, as to me that is what is most fun about the GarageGames community (besides the games themselves, of course).
On the surface of analyzing a game, it is easy to see what a game offers in the way of theme, visuals, story. On that surface, it seems like there's a lot of different unique games out there. But if you go below that surface, you see the same games being made over and over, with the same "game atoms" or "game genes" or groupings thereof.
There are only a limited number of game mechanisms we enjoy. These are consistent over and over, the "proven" ones. They are wired into our brains to some degree (spatial awareness, etc) and learned through game genre evolution (interculturally) to some degree. We are open to learning to enjoy new games, some of us more than others and to varying degrees. Both brain differences (dyslexia, memory disorders, etc) and cultural differences (what generation you grew up in, what your values are, etc) further create differences in what games are enjoyed, but these are fewer than the definite center of gravity with only a limited number of game devices that are enjoyed by a majority.
The old saying that there's only three stories and the rest are all variations applies equally to games. There's a handfull of games and the remaining are variations, if evolved. As example, Tony Hawk is merely an evolved variation of Tetris. So it's no surprise that like Tetris, Tony Hawk has enjoyed critical acclaim and best-seller sales.
On the surface, Tony Hawk is about hand/eye coordination and 3D space navigation. And if played only for those things, that is fine, but that's not what the game is really about. Those are merely the prerequisites, the entry fee into the real game underneath. And the real game -- the genes -- are exactly like Tetris. It's an ever-changing puzzle where you have to figure out the best place to fit your puzzle piece (your skater) in order to get the maximum score. It takes planning and strategy and a little luck.
To expand on this comparison:
Quote:Tetris: the block under your control is constantly moving. Tetris is about constant motion; the game never stops. The default action is movement via falling. This is exciting and constantly holds your attention.
Tony Hawk: the skater under your control is constantly moving. Tony Hawk is about constant motion; the game never stops. The default action is movement; skating, not standing. This is exciting and constantly holds your attention.
Quote:Tetris: the player excitement arc begins at a low point as a piece is furthest from the stack, goes up as the piece falls closer towards the stack, and reaches its climax as the piece enters the stack and that piece is resolved. The cycle of this player excitement is repeated indefinitely and rhythmically, over and over as each new piece proceeds towards then enters the stack.
Tony Hawk: the player excitement arc begins at a low point as the player is furthest from the trickable object, goes up as the player approaches the object, and reaches its climax as the player interacts with the object and the trick is resolved. The cycle of this player excitement is repeated indefinitely and rhythmically, over and over as each new trickable object is skated towards and tricked off.
Quote:Tetris: the environment (the stack of blocks) is always changing. This forces you to have to constantly adapt. There is seldom one best place to put a piece. Though tied to logic, creativity must also be used to truly excel.
Tony Hawk: the environment is always changing because you are moving around so quickly in this 3D world that you often go in a semi-random direction. This forces you to have to constantly adapt. There is seldom one best trick to perform. Though tied to logic, creativity must also be used to truly excel.
Why is this comparison relevant. Well, a few things. First, a lot of us look at these older games, these 2D best-sellers and gold-example classics, and try to clone or update them, either in 2D or 3D or such. When we do that, we need to understand what makes the original tick on a very deep level, beyond just the surface.
On the surface Tetris is falling blocks, but on a deeper level it's a puzzle that invites you to dynamically adapt using both logical and creative solutions to find the optimal highest scoring path. So if you love Tetris, try making a game that offers the same invitation and reward that Tetris does on that deeper level, instead of just cloning the surface of "a falling blocks game." If you love Contra, figure out why you love it on a deep level instead of just cloning a run'n'gunner.
This is why both in games and film, when a successful original title comes out and the clones follow, those clones seem to lack something that the original had and it's always tough to put your finger on it because the surface details all match. Well that something missing is a deeper understanding of the game. They clone the surface of the game (they see something making money, they copy it) and in doing so only get some of those deeper elements that made the original tick so well, and you're left with a hollow feeling.
Tony Hawk is of course no clone of Tetris, but the developers took cues from it if unconciously or through culture, the same way we take cues from the collective pool of games marked in our brains for every time we play something and say "that's cool!"
Tetris is one of the 3 stories out there. In games there's maybe a dozen, maybe a few dozen, but certainly not even a hundred. This is good though, because there's plenty of them and easy to find and study. And if we can find those classics, understand them deeply, and look at which successful modern titles took the lessons from those classics well, we will be well on our way to creating our own unique takes on them and maybe even creating a new modern classic to be studied as a textbook example by generations future.
About the author
#2
I suppose if you generalize them enough you can, just like you could probably argue that Doom is just a jazzed up Pong (... no, I don't believe that) but c'mon, that's really pushing it.
Also I don't agree about the comparisons to the film industry. In the movies, it's really rare that a sequel lives up to the original, but in games you expect it (doesn't *always* happen, but more often does). Doom 2 was unquestionably better than Doom 1. Madden 2 was unquestionably better than Madden 1. Balder's Gate 2 was unquestionably better than Balder's Gate 1, and so forth. In fact I would go so far as to say that generally when a sequel game is worse than the original it's because it significantly departed from the original formula. But it's just the opposite in film. I think the reason is that games are less dependent on an original and fresh narrative. You can take a game, double the number of levels, jazz up its graphics, add in new multi-player options and so forth, and you've certainly improved it over the original. You can't do that in a movie, not even close. Maybe some day when narratives become more important in games that will happen, but we're not there yet.
12/06/2006 (7:00 pm)
Eh, I dunno Joshua. I agree about your point about evaluating your favorite games and trying to understand the essence of them to take that in a different direction. That's an interesting thing to ponder. But you gotta try really hard to find similarities between Tony Hawk and Tetris. They both start with "T", yay me! I suppose if you generalize them enough you can, just like you could probably argue that Doom is just a jazzed up Pong (... no, I don't believe that) but c'mon, that's really pushing it.
Also I don't agree about the comparisons to the film industry. In the movies, it's really rare that a sequel lives up to the original, but in games you expect it (doesn't *always* happen, but more often does). Doom 2 was unquestionably better than Doom 1. Madden 2 was unquestionably better than Madden 1. Balder's Gate 2 was unquestionably better than Balder's Gate 1, and so forth. In fact I would go so far as to say that generally when a sequel game is worse than the original it's because it significantly departed from the original formula. But it's just the opposite in film. I think the reason is that games are less dependent on an original and fresh narrative. You can take a game, double the number of levels, jazz up its graphics, add in new multi-player options and so forth, and you've certainly improved it over the original. You can't do that in a movie, not even close. Maybe some day when narratives become more important in games that will happen, but we're not there yet.
#3
I think Steven Spielberg is a great example of what happens when you really understand your art medium.
12/06/2006 (9:00 pm)
@JoshuaI think Steven Spielberg is a great example of what happens when you really understand your art medium.
#4
12/06/2006 (9:20 pm)
Nice insight! Understanding games at a fundamental and deeper level, about what the player is experiencing is one of those chewy chunks of enlightenment that can separate a great game designer from a so-so designer. 
#5
But anyway. I agree with most of the lessons you present, but not the core of your argument, that:
If you're going to say that, then I only have to provide one compelling counter-example to send all the blocks tumbling down ;)
If you believe that the "genes" that you presented are in fact basic elements of gameplay, then I submit that there is one of similar nature that Tony Hawk has that Tetris doesn't : a Risk/Reward System. In THPS, the combo system encourages longer, more complicated tricks by making them worth more points, but you also lose them all if you fall.
Oh...wait. Tetris has a "similar" mechanic - the more rows you eliminate at once, the more points you get. So perhaps they really are the same...
Not so. By distilling entire gameplay mechanics into a few words, you can easily distort two things until they look like each other. I can make a fork and a spoon look the same - all I've got to do is put them in a really dark box. If you look too closely at something, you'll miss some factors that are truly important.
gameplay/rule complexity
The complexity of a game's rules cannot be ignored. A player must take them into account to succeed. Tetris has very, very few things for the player to take into consideration while pondering a move. On the other hand, THPS has at least an order of magnitude more. Making the decision whether you have enough time for a 180 kickflip (or one of at least 100 other options) or only enough to return to the rail with a BS 50-50 is non-trivial in a force-based physics system, especially compared to the left/right/down options in Tetris, which brings me to my next point.
input/control
There are few things as fundamental to a game as the manner in which the player interacts with the game. A single frame of animation can be the difference between a game feeling "right" or not. The length of time between a key press and response in-game can have the same effect. Therefore, you cannot discount the fact that controlling Tetris is completely and utterly different from controlling THPS. Being a great Tetris player in no way necessitates being a great THPS player.
I could probably go on for a while, but those two points alone should show my point. Simplification is a powerful tool, but not at the cost of the differences that end up differentiating a good game from a great game. That's why we polish games instead of leaving them as raw compositions of genes.
In the end, the comparison you did could probably be done for any two games, which only means that games share elements as games themselves.
Anyway, I should be sleeping ;) Thanks for the interesting post.
12/06/2006 (11:43 pm)
Dylan's right - you said that you would argue that Tetris and THPS are the exact same game.But anyway. I agree with most of the lessons you present, but not the core of your argument, that:
Quote:And the real game -- the genes -- are exactly like Tetris.
If you're going to say that, then I only have to provide one compelling counter-example to send all the blocks tumbling down ;)
If you believe that the "genes" that you presented are in fact basic elements of gameplay, then I submit that there is one of similar nature that Tony Hawk has that Tetris doesn't : a Risk/Reward System. In THPS, the combo system encourages longer, more complicated tricks by making them worth more points, but you also lose them all if you fall.
Oh...wait. Tetris has a "similar" mechanic - the more rows you eliminate at once, the more points you get. So perhaps they really are the same...
Not so. By distilling entire gameplay mechanics into a few words, you can easily distort two things until they look like each other. I can make a fork and a spoon look the same - all I've got to do is put them in a really dark box. If you look too closely at something, you'll miss some factors that are truly important.
gameplay/rule complexity
The complexity of a game's rules cannot be ignored. A player must take them into account to succeed. Tetris has very, very few things for the player to take into consideration while pondering a move. On the other hand, THPS has at least an order of magnitude more. Making the decision whether you have enough time for a 180 kickflip (or one of at least 100 other options) or only enough to return to the rail with a BS 50-50 is non-trivial in a force-based physics system, especially compared to the left/right/down options in Tetris, which brings me to my next point.
input/control
There are few things as fundamental to a game as the manner in which the player interacts with the game. A single frame of animation can be the difference between a game feeling "right" or not. The length of time between a key press and response in-game can have the same effect. Therefore, you cannot discount the fact that controlling Tetris is completely and utterly different from controlling THPS. Being a great Tetris player in no way necessitates being a great THPS player.
I could probably go on for a while, but those two points alone should show my point. Simplification is a powerful tool, but not at the cost of the differences that end up differentiating a good game from a great game. That's why we polish games instead of leaving them as raw compositions of genes.
In the end, the comparison you did could probably be done for any two games, which only means that games share elements as games themselves.
Anyway, I should be sleeping ;) Thanks for the interesting post.
#6
Although he mentions the mechanics behind the gameplay, he has extracted the gameplay and is making a comparison on that basis. He mentions 'constant motion' inducing 'excitement' and 'attention', the action is 'cyclic' and 'rhythmic' which enhances 'excitement', and the logic requires 'creative' thinking so the player is 'engaged'.
One of my favourite books ist 'Patterns in Game Design'
Patterns in Game Design Excerpt
I do not have the book to hand but I am sure that the patterns Joshua has mentioned are in that book.
12/07/2006 (1:56 am)
I agree with Joshua.Although he mentions the mechanics behind the gameplay, he has extracted the gameplay and is making a comparison on that basis. He mentions 'constant motion' inducing 'excitement' and 'attention', the action is 'cyclic' and 'rhythmic' which enhances 'excitement', and the logic requires 'creative' thinking so the player is 'engaged'.
One of my favourite books ist 'Patterns in Game Design'
Patterns in Game Design Excerpt
I do not have the book to hand but I am sure that the patterns Joshua has mentioned are in that book.
#7
But eh... I like Tetris, it appeals to my spacial mind and it's desire to arrange/align things and put them in order. Odd that, seeing how as an artist, that is one of the main things I do for a living.
Tony Hawk doesn't have that, nor do I enjoy playing the game. So on a deep level, these games do not resonate with me in the same way. And for me, on a fundamental level, these are not the same game.
Speaking of Tetris, I love this game: Triptych by Chronic Logic
12/07/2006 (1:44 pm)
I will agree with this point: "figure out why you love it on a deep level instead of just cloning..." But eh... I like Tetris, it appeals to my spacial mind and it's desire to arrange/align things and put them in order. Odd that, seeing how as an artist, that is one of the main things I do for a living.
Tony Hawk doesn't have that, nor do I enjoy playing the game. So on a deep level, these games do not resonate with me in the same way. And for me, on a fundamental level, these are not the same game.
Speaking of Tetris, I love this game: Triptych by Chronic Logic
#8
Sorry, Josh. No sale.
12/07/2006 (5:29 pm)
Sorry, I gotta call bunk on this. I was looking forward to reading it since you first told me about it, but I just don't buy it. As Tom said, if it just takes a few similarities to allow you to decide to label two things identical, you're really just discarding what makes them unique. I'm similar to Mark in that I'm hopelessly bored by Tetris, but I really enjoyed THPS. A lot of the fun of THPS for me was the feeling of moving around and exploring. Saying that Tetris has the same quality would be ignoring their obvious diferences for the sake of making an argument.Sorry, Josh. No sale.
#10
@Thomas - Josh never wrote anything about quality...
12/07/2006 (5:48 pm)
All points are good and valid to argue against. But if you look at the main argument Surface and Depth: Tony Hawk as Tetris and what Josh is saying is true. On the surface they are entirely different games as they are intended to be including controls, graphics, motions, interface, etc... But the parallels that Josh gives about the core mechanics whether they are simple or advanced games is insignificant IMHO. Some people are more stimulated by advanced graphics, sounds, reactions, which is the surface of THPS while others are stimulated by simple and intriguing gameplay - Tetris. This is a pretty abstract concept but I can understand what Josh is saying. You have to separate the look of each game from what the game's logic is doing and you will see the similarities in the basic game logic.@Thomas - Josh never wrote anything about quality...
#11
Exploration is a core mechanic of THPS and not of Tetris - regardless of how it looks. Exploration is not a quality that's exclusive to 3D environments, if that's what you were trying to imply. Speaking on a strictly 'gameplay experience' basis, Tetris and THPS are completely different.
12/07/2006 (6:39 pm)
@ Tom Bentz - I didn't say anything about quality either. Am I missing something?Exploration is a core mechanic of THPS and not of Tetris - regardless of how it looks. Exploration is not a quality that's exclusive to 3D environments, if that's what you were trying to imply. Speaking on a strictly 'gameplay experience' basis, Tetris and THPS are completely different.
#12
I think to clarify things it would be better to say that the games are not exactly alike in look and feel, but in plain text if you were to break it down as Josh did those are valid comparisons.
12/08/2006 (12:38 am)
@Thomas - Ummm... yea "Saying that Tetris has the same quality would be ignoring their obvious diferences for the sake of making an argument." I think to clarify things it would be better to say that the games are not exactly alike in look and feel, but in plain text if you were to break it down as Josh did those are valid comparisons.
#13
I hope this doesnt get off topic and confusing but a comparison of character archetypes comes to mind and here's my humble attempt to convey why this is relevent...
In mythology and psychology (thanks to Jung) there are four main forms of character archetypes (and more, extended archetypes) that every single person on this planet can unconsciously relate to. It doesnt mean that everyone is the same obviously. What it does mean though is that everyone shares a certain sameness because they can relate to certain core type(s). All people are human but its their presentation, details, and complexities that are different.
Note in the link the second sentence under 'Archetypes in fiction': "A model for Neo, the nearly godlike hero of The Matrix, can be found in the Ancient Sumerian character, Gilgamesh." Yea, they look different, but fundamentally at their core they work the same in their respective stories. They are in fact the same character type but yet the presentation, details, and specifics are completely different. Just as the presentation of THPS and Tetris, or any game for that matter, are different. Do you think that the Terminator movies and the Matrix movies are different? I think most people would say yes. I argue that they are the same. At the core both movies are about the human struggle to survive machines' ability to exterminate the human race.
How a writer presents an archetyped character in their respective story is the same idea that a developer presents his/her spin on a type of core game. The presentation and details are what the developer changes to make the core game look different. Sure you can argue that a spoon and fork are different. But fundamentally they are eating utensils plain and simple. Think about prototyping. You have to start somewhere. What are the basics? You can't throw in a hodgepodge of game ideas at once unless you want to have a schitzophrenic game (or unless youre either lucky or really good at visualizing it). Prototype certain aspects of a games flow on paper. Nothing more than describing the basic actions of what happens to objects and player interaction in the game. No descriptions of visuals, sounds, or anything that specifically is part of the presentation of the game. You will be able to find parallels in many different games by doing this.
How many core game types are there? No idea. I dont know of anyone who is studying game types the way Joseph Campbell studied mythology. It might take decades before significant research is done on something at this level especially since interactive games are a fairly new art medium compared to literature and film. This may be irrelevant but I look for inspiration wherever I can. I have a philosophy book called Finite and Infinite Games that is a pretty deep read and it presents the angle that 'There are at least two kinds of games: finite and infinite.' Heres a summary of it. Once you start stripping the presentation and superficial details of a game you can start to see the basics of it and apply it to yours or other games.
If this doesnt make sense then please disregard but I agree that games do share core ideas. You just have to look past the visuals and how its presented to see the basic functionality and interaction of the objects.
Wow I feel like I just wrote a paper for school or something.
Edit from apostraphes jacking up the submission
12/08/2006 (3:06 am)
This topic inspired me to write some more.I hope this doesnt get off topic and confusing but a comparison of character archetypes comes to mind and here's my humble attempt to convey why this is relevent...
In mythology and psychology (thanks to Jung) there are four main forms of character archetypes (and more, extended archetypes) that every single person on this planet can unconsciously relate to. It doesnt mean that everyone is the same obviously. What it does mean though is that everyone shares a certain sameness because they can relate to certain core type(s). All people are human but its their presentation, details, and complexities that are different.
Note in the link the second sentence under 'Archetypes in fiction': "A model for Neo, the nearly godlike hero of The Matrix, can be found in the Ancient Sumerian character, Gilgamesh." Yea, they look different, but fundamentally at their core they work the same in their respective stories. They are in fact the same character type but yet the presentation, details, and specifics are completely different. Just as the presentation of THPS and Tetris, or any game for that matter, are different. Do you think that the Terminator movies and the Matrix movies are different? I think most people would say yes. I argue that they are the same. At the core both movies are about the human struggle to survive machines' ability to exterminate the human race.
How a writer presents an archetyped character in their respective story is the same idea that a developer presents his/her spin on a type of core game. The presentation and details are what the developer changes to make the core game look different. Sure you can argue that a spoon and fork are different. But fundamentally they are eating utensils plain and simple. Think about prototyping. You have to start somewhere. What are the basics? You can't throw in a hodgepodge of game ideas at once unless you want to have a schitzophrenic game (or unless youre either lucky or really good at visualizing it). Prototype certain aspects of a games flow on paper. Nothing more than describing the basic actions of what happens to objects and player interaction in the game. No descriptions of visuals, sounds, or anything that specifically is part of the presentation of the game. You will be able to find parallels in many different games by doing this.
How many core game types are there? No idea. I dont know of anyone who is studying game types the way Joseph Campbell studied mythology. It might take decades before significant research is done on something at this level especially since interactive games are a fairly new art medium compared to literature and film. This may be irrelevant but I look for inspiration wherever I can. I have a philosophy book called Finite and Infinite Games that is a pretty deep read and it presents the angle that 'There are at least two kinds of games: finite and infinite.' Heres a summary of it. Once you start stripping the presentation and superficial details of a game you can start to see the basics of it and apply it to yours or other games.
If this doesnt make sense then please disregard but I agree that games do share core ideas. You just have to look past the visuals and how its presented to see the basic functionality and interaction of the objects.
Wow I feel like I just wrote a paper for school or something.
Edit from apostraphes jacking up the submission
#14
qual i ty
-noun
1. an essential or distinctive characteristic, property, or attribute: the chemical qualities of alcohol.
-not-
4. high grade; superiority; excellence: wood grain of quality.
So, yea this whole discussion is about the qualities (1) of games that make up the experience. I never said anyhting about the quality (4) of either game. And on the topic, Matrix and Terminator are completely different. The characters in the two stories go through much different struggles, even on the simplest level. It's another case of ignoring their obvious differences to make a point. They really only have that one thing in common. They both have robots.. so... same movie, right? No. By that logic, I, Robot is also the same movie, and so is Transformers. I'm sorry, I don't buy it.
12/08/2006 (1:44 pm)
Wow.. I thought it would've been obvious in context, but I'll go ahead and spell it out:qual i ty
-noun
1. an essential or distinctive characteristic, property, or attribute: the chemical qualities of alcohol.
-not-
4. high grade; superiority; excellence: wood grain of quality.
So, yea this whole discussion is about the qualities (1) of games that make up the experience. I never said anyhting about the quality (4) of either game. And on the topic, Matrix and Terminator are completely different. The characters in the two stories go through much different struggles, even on the simplest level. It's another case of ignoring their obvious differences to make a point. They really only have that one thing in common. They both have robots.. so... same movie, right? No. By that logic, I, Robot is also the same movie, and so is Transformers. I'm sorry, I don't buy it.
#15
But, the examples given are 1: Not turn based. 2: Pacing. 3: Dynamic playfield.
All of these seem to me to be more design choices than archetypes. Would a turn based tetris be a fundamentally different game archetype? Each of these could be changed and it would still be basically the same game. Are the attributes listed really the core that you find when you strip away the superficial? Or are they some of the attributes that should be stripped away?
To use the story telling analogy: The Lion King and Strange Brew are both retellings of Hamlet. Different packaging, different pacing, different settings, but basically the same story.
So is Hamlet the same as Romeo and Juliet? I mean they were both written by Shakespeare and have 5 Acts with a pause between the acts, and the characters are constantly talking and the periodically the main characters have monologues to let us know what they are thinking.
Are they the same story? Or are they using the same storytelling devices to tell different stories?
In a peer reviewed blog plan like this, Josh has not sufficiently proved his case with the evidence that he's using. I'm still not sold that on a deep fundamental level that Tetris and Tony Hawk share the same core appeal. I don't dismiss that these archetypes exists, but IMO, Tetris and Tony Hawk are not good evidence of this.
Beware lest we embrace conjecture just because we want it to be true: The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next
heh.
12/08/2006 (3:15 pm)
I'll buy into the fact that there are archetypes in games. Boil away the surface and you will get down to some core quality that we respond to on a fundamental level. Even games that are vastly different could very well be very similar games.But, the examples given are 1: Not turn based. 2: Pacing. 3: Dynamic playfield.
All of these seem to me to be more design choices than archetypes. Would a turn based tetris be a fundamentally different game archetype? Each of these could be changed and it would still be basically the same game. Are the attributes listed really the core that you find when you strip away the superficial? Or are they some of the attributes that should be stripped away?
To use the story telling analogy: The Lion King and Strange Brew are both retellings of Hamlet. Different packaging, different pacing, different settings, but basically the same story.
So is Hamlet the same as Romeo and Juliet? I mean they were both written by Shakespeare and have 5 Acts with a pause between the acts, and the characters are constantly talking and the periodically the main characters have monologues to let us know what they are thinking.
Are they the same story? Or are they using the same storytelling devices to tell different stories?
In a peer reviewed blog plan like this, Josh has not sufficiently proved his case with the evidence that he's using. I'm still not sold that on a deep fundamental level that Tetris and Tony Hawk share the same core appeal. I don't dismiss that these archetypes exists, but IMO, Tetris and Tony Hawk are not good evidence of this.
Beware lest we embrace conjecture just because we want it to be true: The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next
heh.
#16
12/08/2006 (3:19 pm)
Oh, and I believe all games can be boiled down into one main gameplay mechanic. And that mechanic is best demonstrated by the casual action puzzle shooter game Phantastia. Available now in the game store for $14.95.
#17
I mentioned "At the core both movies are about the human struggle to survive machines' ability to exterminate the human race." If one can argue valid points against that specific statement without bringing the details (characters) into it then I'd love to see another point of view and will understand why they are considered different movies. The 'nuh-uh' logic doesnt work. I studied screenwriting for a couple years so I'll break the movies down to the core elements.
Protagonist in the Matrix: Neo
Antagonist in the Matrix: Agent Smith
The Matrix Movie Premise in its most basic idea: Protagonist saves the human race from the antagonists goal of human extinction.
Protagonist in the Terminator: Sarah Connor
Antagonist in the Terminator: The Terminator
The Terminator movie premise in its most basic idea: Protagonist saves the human race from the antagonists goal of human extinction.
Both of those movies share the same basic idea. If one has counterpoints to those basic elements or disagree with what the core premise is then I would love to see them. The characters are the details and and are the things that allow variation on that core story premise and have nothing to do with the core story idea.
I agree that a THPS and Tetris comparison is not the best way to explain this. But the specific comparisons that Josh made between the two are true. Whether there's more (like exploring in THPS) is irrelevant. The idea was to show that two totally different games share core ideas whether they look alike or not. If you break a game down to its core elements without getting lost in the details like this you can find an endless source of game variations by just applying your own ideas in 2d/3d/text/whatever after you have the core game concept.
Oh and yes - Phantasia has the core game idea that all other games should take notice from ;)
12/08/2006 (4:51 pm)
I guess I didnt get the context since I dont look at game design decisions having a 'quality' to them until they are prototyped and played. Since we were discussing core ideas and not final gameplay I missed the connection. My bad.I mentioned "At the core both movies are about the human struggle to survive machines' ability to exterminate the human race." If one can argue valid points against that specific statement without bringing the details (characters) into it then I'd love to see another point of view and will understand why they are considered different movies. The 'nuh-uh' logic doesnt work. I studied screenwriting for a couple years so I'll break the movies down to the core elements.
Protagonist in the Matrix: Neo
Antagonist in the Matrix: Agent Smith
The Matrix Movie Premise in its most basic idea: Protagonist saves the human race from the antagonists goal of human extinction.
Protagonist in the Terminator: Sarah Connor
Antagonist in the Terminator: The Terminator
The Terminator movie premise in its most basic idea: Protagonist saves the human race from the antagonists goal of human extinction.
Both of those movies share the same basic idea. If one has counterpoints to those basic elements or disagree with what the core premise is then I would love to see them. The characters are the details and and are the things that allow variation on that core story premise and have nothing to do with the core story idea.
I agree that a THPS and Tetris comparison is not the best way to explain this. But the specific comparisons that Josh made between the two are true. Whether there's more (like exploring in THPS) is irrelevant. The idea was to show that two totally different games share core ideas whether they look alike or not. If you break a game down to its core elements without getting lost in the details like this you can find an endless source of game variations by just applying your own ideas in 2d/3d/text/whatever after you have the core game concept.
Oh and yes - Phantasia has the core game idea that all other games should take notice from ;)
#18
whilst things may be compared on ideas, it is important to think about whether or not the ideas being compared are relevant and if the 'core' being analyzed is actually 'the core'.
At it's base, I see tetris as a fast paced spatial reasoning puzzle. It is simple geometric postive and negative space matching.
In tony hawk, I see the interactive part as more or a exploration and matching our actions to the in game actions based on real world analogues of our understanding of physics and the limits of the human body (which we intuitively possess).
At a higher level, there are similarities, but at the base, they are actually different activities in the brain.
When I look to game design inspiration, I look to other forms of interactive study, such as architechture, as they are more 'base' in their study of how humans interact with 'stuff'.
When one starts comparing games to stories or film, I kind of think the dicussion heads off into the weeds, as while things like rhythm and pacing are relevant, archetypal story types are not necessarily as relevant.
I think that any two comparisons of any two things have to be taken in context. A fork is like a spoon (you use them both to eat with). A spoon is like a cup, in that they both hold liquid.. I can cup my hands and hold liquid, and I can open my fingers and make my hand look like a fork. All of these comparisons are subject to the context of the comparison.
We can compare until the cows come home, but we should endeavor to keep in context the nature of the comparison.
In this comparison, I do not think the analysis went deep enough to uncover the core elements.
again, tetris is a spatial reasoning game.. at it's core is a base human function of us drawing like geometic shapes into a 'group'.. and then manipulating the shapes to complete what our mind has already done. I get how it works, because I spent the better part of my school life understanding how and why visual 'tricks' like this work. I don't see this happening in tony hawk.. so, at the base level, I don't see the comparison holding up.
I have more thoughts, but I need to run. If anyone is interested in delving deeper, I can go into more detail.
and I love discussions like this, so keep it going.
12/08/2006 (6:01 pm)
just wanted to add my quick two cents. whilst things may be compared on ideas, it is important to think about whether or not the ideas being compared are relevant and if the 'core' being analyzed is actually 'the core'.
At it's base, I see tetris as a fast paced spatial reasoning puzzle. It is simple geometric postive and negative space matching.
In tony hawk, I see the interactive part as more or a exploration and matching our actions to the in game actions based on real world analogues of our understanding of physics and the limits of the human body (which we intuitively possess).
At a higher level, there are similarities, but at the base, they are actually different activities in the brain.
When I look to game design inspiration, I look to other forms of interactive study, such as architechture, as they are more 'base' in their study of how humans interact with 'stuff'.
When one starts comparing games to stories or film, I kind of think the dicussion heads off into the weeds, as while things like rhythm and pacing are relevant, archetypal story types are not necessarily as relevant.
I think that any two comparisons of any two things have to be taken in context. A fork is like a spoon (you use them both to eat with). A spoon is like a cup, in that they both hold liquid.. I can cup my hands and hold liquid, and I can open my fingers and make my hand look like a fork. All of these comparisons are subject to the context of the comparison.
We can compare until the cows come home, but we should endeavor to keep in context the nature of the comparison.
In this comparison, I do not think the analysis went deep enough to uncover the core elements.
again, tetris is a spatial reasoning game.. at it's core is a base human function of us drawing like geometic shapes into a 'group'.. and then manipulating the shapes to complete what our mind has already done. I get how it works, because I spent the better part of my school life understanding how and why visual 'tricks' like this work. I don't see this happening in tony hawk.. so, at the base level, I don't see the comparison holding up.
I have more thoughts, but I need to run. If anyone is interested in delving deeper, I can go into more detail.
and I love discussions like this, so keep it going.
#19
I wasn't talking about game design descisions and I'm not interested in getting into a debate about semantics. I was talking about the qualities of the two games, which is exactly what Joshua was comparing. You're obviously not ignoring the qualities of the two games because that's exactly what your argument is based on. Are you saying that Tetris and THPS have not been prototyped and played, or that you are unwilling to analyze parts of a whole unless it specifically supports your argument?
Yes, Matrix and Terminator have things in common, but to point out that they are both hero's stories that involve robots does not make them identical. Josh made some good points, and I agree that it's important to look at what fundamental characteristics make a game fun, but they are not the same game, and that was his original claim.
12/08/2006 (6:27 pm)
"I guess I didnt get the context since I dont look at game design decisions having a 'quality' to them until they are prototyped and played."I wasn't talking about game design descisions and I'm not interested in getting into a debate about semantics. I was talking about the qualities of the two games, which is exactly what Joshua was comparing. You're obviously not ignoring the qualities of the two games because that's exactly what your argument is based on. Are you saying that Tetris and THPS have not been prototyped and played, or that you are unwilling to analyze parts of a whole unless it specifically supports your argument?
Yes, Matrix and Terminator have things in common, but to point out that they are both hero's stories that involve robots does not make them identical. Josh made some good points, and I agree that it's important to look at what fundamental characteristics make a game fun, but they are not the same game, and that was his original claim.
#20
In terms of comparing game design to movies, or stories.. I think it would be wise for game designers to dig deeper into the more interactive parts of the presentation of the stories.
In acting, there is a concept of the actor-audience contract. It deals with the concept of the interaction of the actor and the audience and the connection that they share, and how it works. This concept is more applicable to game design than story arc as it deals with the interactive part of the telling of a story. As we seek to become masters of our craft, my opinion is that we must seek to become masters of the concepts of perception and interaction. Story and archeatypes are more complex concepts that are built on top of the base levels of interaction and perception, and based on how we understand ourselves in the world in a social context. This is important stuff, but I think it functions at a higher level than the basic issues of perception and reaction to stimulus.
If we want to become masters of the craft, we need to seek to understand and gain control of the most basic level that we can.
in josh's presentation, I think he has it backwards. The 'deeper level' he refers to, is, in my opion, actually higher level than the spatial awareness part of the equation.
12/09/2006 (10:15 am)
I just wanted to add some followup comments. In terms of comparing game design to movies, or stories.. I think it would be wise for game designers to dig deeper into the more interactive parts of the presentation of the stories.
In acting, there is a concept of the actor-audience contract. It deals with the concept of the interaction of the actor and the audience and the connection that they share, and how it works. This concept is more applicable to game design than story arc as it deals with the interactive part of the telling of a story. As we seek to become masters of our craft, my opinion is that we must seek to become masters of the concepts of perception and interaction. Story and archeatypes are more complex concepts that are built on top of the base levels of interaction and perception, and based on how we understand ourselves in the world in a social context. This is important stuff, but I think it functions at a higher level than the basic issues of perception and reaction to stimulus.
If we want to become masters of the craft, we need to seek to understand and gain control of the most basic level that we can.
in josh's presentation, I think he has it backwards. The 'deeper level' he refers to, is, in my opion, actually higher level than the spatial awareness part of the equation.
Torque Owner Dylan Romero
"Tetris and Tony Hawk are the exact same game."
Joshua Dallman
I thought that was going to be your headline Josh. You're backsliding! Backslider!