"I Have No Words & i must design"
Costikyan says:-
'A game is an interactive structure of endogenous meaning that requires players to struggle towards goals'
At
the start Costikyan discusses the concept of gameplay and how it had become a
ubiquitous term when in reality it means nothing. This is because by itself the
term “gameplay” is irrelevant without context for example, if I was to say that
battlefield 3 had good gameplay without background knowledge of it being a FPS
what would you define gameplay as, only be narrowing the context does it give
the term meaning as with a FPS you would expect realistic gun control, precise
movements however you wouldn’t expect easy unit control like you would with
most RTS.
Later in
the article Costikyan discusses how a game needs to be interactive and the
differences between puzzles and games. Crawford describes puzzles as
static entities, and is just a logic structure which requires solving. He
compares this to the text-adventure "game" Zork.
While not defining simply as a puzzle, Costikyan thinks Crawford's idea is a basis to improve upon puzzles are static with a logic structure; games need interaction.
While not defining simply as a puzzle, Costikyan thinks Crawford's idea is a basis to improve upon puzzles are static with a logic structure; games need interaction.
Endogenous
is defined as substances that originate from within a body. When you apply this
to games, we discuss the idea of games creating their own meaning. This sounds
obvious when you think about it, but the point is most people often don't.
Costikyan cites monopoly money and a weapon in an online RPG, and it can really
apply to anything that would have no value to anyone outside of the game,
including goals and enjoyment. For example in simcity until you add your own
goals and meanings it is just a toy only when you give it a goal such as I want
to destroy the city with natural disasters.