An Ontology of Video Games

I have been asked by many people why I would bother to write an ontology of video games since it seems to be such a non-academic or ontology worthy subject. The simple answer to this question is that I think it needs to be done. "We need to know what we’re doing here, people."

There are three roles involved in any game, the designer, the player and the opponent. The designer is the person who creates the game by deciding the mechanics, implementation, representation and justification. The player is the person who the game is designed for. Games are designed to be played by players. The opponent is the person who opposes the player in the game. In a game the player must pit his skill against an opponent who must in turn, try to defeat the player.

The roles of a game do not necessarily have to be taken by different people. Any combination of roles is possible and can create a game. For instance, the player can also be the designer, or the player can also be the opponent (people challenging themselves). In this way many things that may normally not be called games may be used for games. A person may challenge themselves to stack boxes faster than a certain time at a job or try to beat themselves on a treadmill at the gym. It should be noted that just because something can be used for a game that does not alter the nature of the thing being used. The action being committed on the non-game is one of translating a non-game into being part of a game rather than transforming the non-game itself.

The purpose of a game is to assess the skill of a player relative to the skill of his opponent at playing that game.

The way a player expresses his skill is in his ability to control the presented situation to the ends of defeating his opponent while avoiding being defeated by his opponent.

The assessment is a judging. In a game it is a judging of the players skill to be higher or lower than that of the opponents.

The relativity of games means that the assessment will be made on both the player’s skill and the opponent’s skill.

Not all interactive media titles are games since some fail in respect to one or more parts of this definition.

Some interactive media does not use skill as the basis of the outcome and there is no assessment relative to an opponent. Since the “player” is not playing, nor is there any way to be judged, media of this type are not games. These are instead “observations” since the player is simply observing what happens when he interacts with the media. A “choose your own adventure” story is an example of this.

Some interactive media does not use skill as the basis of the outcome but does include an assessment relative to an opponent. Since the player cannot influence the outcome of the assessment media of this type are not games. These are instead “gambles” since the outcome in these situations can be completely random and not under the players control. Video slot machines are an example of media of this type.

Some interactive media does use skill as the basis of the outcome but does not include an assessment relative to an opponent. Although the outcome is based on the players skill, since there is no assessment media of this type are not games. These are instead “tests” since the players skill can be metered but no judgment is passed on it. “Games” that are impossible to defeat by reasons of design are an example of media of this type. There is no assessment in “impossible games” since the final outcome is pre-determined.

It should be noted that some interactive media that are impossible to defeat are not tests, but merely a type of unfair games. A game is designed in such a way as to have an unbalanced playing field is unfair as are games that have been broken. An action game that requires the player to perform at inhuman speeds is unfair though it still is a game rather than a test since if the player could react as fast as is required the game could be defeated. In addition, if a players opponents breaks the game in his favor it may be impossible for the player to defeat him, but it is still a game since the actions or objects that make the game impossible are not intended to be part of the games. Deciding that a game has an unbalanced playing field is not precise in application since what constitutes a balanced playing field and the exploits and cheats in any game will vary with each title as will the level of knowledge and ability the human players possess. Very skilled or knowledgeable players may have no trouble with some games that are impossible to the average player.

The end of a game occurs when one or more pre-defined conditions are met. These conditions are generally related to a timer or a pre-determined number of “points” but do not need to be so.

The end of a game can result in one of two decisions. Either the game decides the relative levels of the players aptitude or the game decides that it is itself insufficient to make the first decision. If the game can decide the relative aptitudes of the players it explicitly states them. In the case of the game deciding that it is insufficient a tie is declared. It is impossible for two player’s skills to be exactly the same therefore when a tie happens it can only be because the game cannot differentiate the players properly.

The possibility of a tie result does not mean that the game is not a game. The possibility of a tie only shows the precision with which the game can determine a player’s skill, not that it is or is not an assessment of skill.

At the end of the game (baring the possibility of a tie) the skill of the player is assessed in relation to his opponent or opponents. The winner/loser dichotomy does not necessarily need to apply (though it frequently does in two-player games) since the player can have more than one opponent. It is possible to simply rank the players according to their skill by saying that “X player was the second most skillful” or “X player came in second place”. It is also possible to view all the other players in a multiplayer game as a single opponent for the player and declare only the most skillful player the winner. This would make all the other players losers.

The designer of a game decided the mechanics, the implementation, the representation and the justification. The designer decides what will be in a game, how it will be played, how it will look and why it will look that way. Like the player and the opponent the designer does not need to be only one person and can instead be a collection of people. These people all work toward the same goal of creating a game and thus can be collectively seen as being the designer of the game.

Neither the “player” of a game or his opponent are limited to a single individual. The player does not need to be on and only one person; the player can be a team of individuals who cooperate to form a collective team-player made up of individual players. The opponent is similar in nature. A players opponent can be a single individual opponents or a group of opponents who collectively oppose the player. However, in the case of the opponent they do not need to form a cooperative team or a single unit to be collectively called the opponent. A group of opponents that oppose each other simply need to have the common goal of defeating the player to be collectively called the opponent.

Because individual-players can be composed to form a single team-player, groups of players may play games against each other. From their respective perspectives one team takes the role of player and the other as opponent. At the end of the game each team is assessed in relation to the opponent team.

Games are always played between human players though in some cases the human player uses proxies controlled directly by a computer. A “proxy” is any game object or action the designer – who is also serving as an opponent – uses in his role as the opponent to attempt to defeat the player. Proxies are most prevalently used as the “opponents” in single player games. Designers acting as opponents often try to create proxies that mimic the behavior of a human player to give the best simulation they can of playing against another human. Proxies often take human-like form, especially in action games. However, proxies are not limited to human like game elements; puzzles are proxies since they are a game element used by the designer when acting as the opponent to defeat the player as are traps and hazardous environments.

The fact that when acting as the opponent designers can use proxies means that a game designer can have conflicting roles depending on whether play is between humans or not. In games between humans it is the designer’s goal to create a level playing field so that the players skill may determine which player defeats the other. This goal can be rather easily attained by simply not allowing players to use actions or objects that the other players cannot also use. In this case the designer is not the opponent but merely a facilitator of competition. However, when a human player is competing against a proxy the designer/opponent also has the goal of defeating the player in addition to allowing the player a fair chance at defeating the designer/opponent.

The opponent can challenge the player either directly or indirectly. A direct challenge is one where the player and the opponent can interact with each other while they are playing the game. An indirect challenge is one where the player and the opponent cannot interact with each other despite competing.

Some games feature a ranking system that places players above each other based on the collective outcomes of all the games they have played against other players – commonly known as “ladders”. Since these rankings are based on the players skill at a game they can be considered part of the game as a whole.

An unfair game is a game that has been broken or a game that has an unbalanced playing field. A game has been broken when the player or the game does something to avoid being defeated that game designer did not intend for them to do. Breaking the game is not simply the act of unbalancing the playing field. A game breaks when some unintended action or object is used while a game that is unfair due to an unbalanced playing field can be intended to be like that.

An unbalanced playing field is when one player has an intended or unintended advantage over his competitor that is nonetheless consistent with the overall intent of the designer. A game where one player has easy access to powerful weapons while the other has no means to counter that is unbalanced. A player’s skill cannot cause an unbalanced playing field since skill is what is supposed to be measured in a game. A game where one player has an advantage to counterbalance the skill of his opponent is still unfair, though it may be more “sporting”.

A game that has been rendered unfair through breaking is broken either through exploits or through cheating

Unintended objects or actions that are nevertheless already part of the game which give a player an advantage are called “exploits”. Exploits give a player an unintended advantage that is not consistent with the overall intent of the designer (though the computer may use exploits too). Exploits may break a game through they are not always seen as unfair at least in competitions between humans. In games where the player is competing against proxies the proxies often have a limited ability to adapt to situations not accounted for by the designer. Proxies are almost never able to adapt to exploits and thus they give the player an unfair advantage. However, when both players are human the other player at least has the option of adapting to the exploit if not using the exploit as well. In either case exploits still break the game since the designer never intended for them to be in the game; they should not be part of it.

It is important to note that games can be broken before the player plays it. This can be through sloppy design or an oversight on the part of the designer among other reasons. A version of the game “Impossible Mission” was missing some information needed to finish the game making the game truly impossible. This is an example of a designer unintentionally introducing an exploit the proxy then uses to break the game and create an unfair game in favor of itself.

When the player breaks the game intentionally through means other than an exploit or unbalanced playing field then the player is said to be cheating.

The game can also be made unfair through an unbalanced playing field either through the actions of the designer or the player.

A designer creates and unfair game when he requires of the player more than can reasonably be expected. Requiring specialized knowledge or skills will unbalance the playing field unless the designer compensates for the unbalance. An action game that requires an intimate knowledge of JS Bach’s favorite third cousin is an unfair game unless the designer can find some way to even the playing field. Extraordinary challenges may also create an unbalanced playing field without requiring specialized knowledge or skills. If the designer equips the proxies or the players opponents with a potent advantage it is only fair for the player to be given and equally potent advantage. For example an action game that pits a naked man against a tank in an empty shopping mall parking-lot is not a fair game, however, a similar game that provides cover and concealment for the man and means to defeat the tank could be a fair game.

Players also have a role in a fair play besides refraining from using exploits and cheats. When the designer creates a game he must do so under a set of assumptions about the player and how they will at least initially approach the game. If the player deliberately does not obey these assumptions with the intent to gain an advantage then the player is tipping the playing field in his favor. The designer cannot possibly react to what the player is doing. If a player were to use aids such as a walkthrough the player would be tipping the playing field in their favor; the player would know everything that the designer will try to do before the designer intends for them to know.

There are four factors that are combined to produce what we normally view as a videogame: the “mechanics” of a game, the implementation of that game the representation of the implementation and the justification.

These four factors are themselves divided into two classes based on whether they describe a process or a state. The mechanics and implementation describe a process: a transition between related states. The mechanics describe what the player does in the game and what the players opponent does. The implementation describes how the player does it and how the game presents the mechanics to the player. The Justification and representations describe states: a set of characteristics that are stable throughout the game. The justification describes why the game appears as it does and the representation describes what that appearance is.

The “mechanics” is the set of game objects and action the designer intends for the opponents to use as well as the statistics used to relate the objects and actions to themselves and each other.

For any action or object to be part of the game the designer of the game must intend for those actions and objects to be available to the player or the opponent. Those actions and objects must be used in and only in ways the designer intends. If actions or objects are used by either the player or the opponent in a way the designer does not intend then the game has been broken.

It is also possible for the designer to intend for an object or action to be present in a game without knowing that that specific object or action would be present in the game beforehand. Some games have systems that allow the player to create objects and actions after the designer is no longer involved. In cases such as these it is the designers intent for players to be able to commit the action of creating new objects or actions and thus the products of these actions are intended to be part of the game.

The game objects are the actors in the game; they are capable of initiating actions and can be acted upon.

The statistics of a game are made of the arbitrary and derived values and probabilities that relate the objects and actions. These values and probabilities combine to describe what objects and actions can and cannot do. A player avatar has the value of being able to carry two weapons, the value of being able to attack targets and has a probability of 50% of scoring a hit each time. Statistics can be seen as properties as well as in the mathematical sense.

Statistics in videogames are different from statistics in real life games in that in real games they are descriptive while in videogames they are prescriptive. In a live soccer match a particular player may have a 25% chance of scoring a goal when given a penalty kick. This statistic is created by looking in the past and taking the fraction in percentage form of the times he scores given a penalty kick over the number of chances. In a soccer simulation a designer may therefore reasonably give the avatar representing that player a 25% chance of scoring on a penalty kick. The subtle difference is that while the game-avatar will probably score 25 out of 100 goals, the real life player could have his percentage drop to 20% over the next 100 kicks. Similarly the number of items a person can carry is limited by their ability to physically contain and support the load; it is described by their ability. In video games it is usually prescribed in some way before the game starts.

There are four types of game mechanics and each game uses one of these types or a combination of one or more of these types. These types correspond to the activity the designer intends the player to engage in: action, thinking, management, or development.

The activity of an action game is to perform actions; the simple act of doing is the point of an action game. First person shooters are a very common implementation of an action game. Action games are very simple with very few other things the player must keep in mind other than that he should do.

Action games are also the base of all other game types. Without some sort of action the player could not play the game. What differentiates action games from all other game types is that in action games doing the action of doing nothing will not yield results while the conscious decision to do nothing may be a part of the other three game types.

The activity of a thinking game it to think; the player must mentally work through a problem and arrive at a solution to the situation presented. Puzzle games are a common type of thinking game though they are not the only type to rely heavily on thinking. Thinking games are where the most direct competition between the designer and the player takes place. Puzzle games with pre-determined puzzles are a direct challenge between the designer and the player. Thinking games are most often incorporated into other game types.

The activity of a strategy game is to implement a particular plan in order to defeat the players opponent. Strategy games are different from thinking games by the fact that thinking games do not require the player to implement a plan in order to succeed while strategy games do.

The activity of a development game is to develop the capabilities of the avatar or avatars they control in order to defeat more capable opponents. Development games are often called “role playing games” since the avatar is often a character in the narrative sense that the player takes the role of.

The implementation is the method by which the communicable aspects of the mechanics are communicated to the player as well as the relationship of the control devices to the game. The implementation concerns everything that can be perceived from the game by the player as well as how the game perceives inputs from the player.

The implementation includes the methods by which the player discerns game objects and actions form each other. For instance, an implementation of a vertical scrolling shooter may say that the enemies will be differentiated by shape and color, but nothing more. The exact shape and color they take on in unimportant; what matters is that the designer intends for the player to be able to differentiate the enemies and has implemented a method of doing that.

By definition the primary mode of communicating with the player in videogames is through a video display and in almost all cases, sound since these two are almost universally coupled together. This mode necessitates that the method by which the game is displayed must be done so from a two dimensional surface as well as with a limited amount of display “real estate”, that is, the amount of information the display can communicated at one time is limited due to the resolution of the display as well as it being effectively flat. Resolution is more important than physical display size since information is communicated through the state of each pixel not the physical dimensions. Similarly, the amount of information that can be transmitted by sound is limited to the range of the speakers not the volume at which they can be driven. The flat surface of the display means that it will not in and of itself display depth information and if the designer wishes to use an implementation that requires three dimensional information he will have to rely on overly stating it or using depth cues that do not rely on binocular vision.

Since it is a video display the point of view of the player is always from that of a “camera” which the designer uses to show the player all the information about the game he intends for the player to see. Therefore the primary use of the camera is to communicate those visual aspects of the implementation that it is necessary for the player to know about in order to play the game. Similarly, the primary use of sound as heard to “ears” (similar to the camera being an eye) is to communicate all those audio aspects of the implementation that it is necessary for the player to know about in order to play the game.

The way the game received inputs from the player is divided into two factors, the hardware used for inputs and how that hardware is used for the inputs. The relationship between the control devices and the game vary in more ways than can be described, though usually fall into loosely clustered lines for a given piece of hardware.

Games using identical mechanics may play differently if different hardware is used to implement the interface with the player. A very notable example of this is the use of a game controller versus a keyboard/mouse setup for playing first person games; many people have noted that the latter input hardware seems to be a more natural way to play such games.

Both game controllers and keyboard/mouse contain a multitude of binary buttons as well as analogue inputs. What function is assigned to each of these inputs is how hardware is used for inputs. Changing the assignment of inputs changes the implementation of how the player sends information to the game and can change how the game plays.

The representation is the specific stimuli called “avatars” used in the game to represent the game objects and actions. Both objects and actions can have avatars though it is more necessary for objects to have them since without representation of objects the player cannot actually perceive the game.

Object avatars define what the objects of a game look like and inform the player how the playing field was, is or will be.

An action avatar is any communicated stimulus that informs the player that an action has, is or will take place. Sound effects are a common action avatar but they are not limited to that. An exclamation point above the head of an opponent when they notice the player is an action avatar since the opponent has just committed the action of “noticing”. Although actions may have avatars many of them are not as critical to perceiving the game. In many cases the player is the one who initiated the action and already knows it is talking place.

Object avatars may double as action avatars. The behavior of an object and not just its presence or absence can indicate that an action is, has or will take place.

The justification is the reasons given for the representation, the implementation and the mechanics. The justification is the reason why things in the game have the avatars that they do and why they interact they way they do. A justification is always present though not necessarily explicitly stated. Sometimes the justification is self evident or unrelated to the game play. In these cases an explicit justification may not be given. Justifications can be totally arbitrary and do not need to reference any known fact or notion.

Justification is often given in the form of a story though a narrative story is not necessary for any game (the story of the players actions is always implicit). Story is simply a very common means to relay the justification to the player. Story is usually in game to justify the representation and artistic style, but no game inherently requires a narrative story since the justification can be communicated in other ways.

The game mechanics themselves should be playable without the need for an explicitly stated justification. Justification helps the mental acceptance of the game play but does not create the game play. Certain justifications are often paired with a certain type of games across a large number of titles. This is not because those mechanics are implementations are justified only by that one justification but because the designer may simply associate those concepts too greatly to question pairing that justification with those game concepts. For instance, ghouls, vampires and magic are often associated with a medieval setting but don’t necessarily need to be as the cyberpunk tabletop and videogame world of “Shadowrun” demonstrated.

A game world is often talked about as where a game takes place. Characters, buildings, items and events are all said to exist inside a virtual realm constructed for the game. This view is however a bit shallow and similar to viewing fishing by considering the lake instead of its parts and contents. Similarly to how a lake that is suitable for fishing is made up of water, logs, trees, dirt, some boats (with fishermen aboard) and fish, a game world is a mixture of mechanics, implementation, justification and representation. The game world is not the place the game is played in, it is the game itself.

The fact that the game world is the game is why the game world must arises from the game parts, not the other way around. If the game parts are derived from the game world then the designer has already agreed to an arbitrary set of limitation which are not related to the game as a whole. These limitations are the assumptions that make the world work but they are not necessarily conductive to making a good game. This is why many movie based games do not work well; the game has to arise from a world whose rules and assumptions do not necessarily facilitate an entertaining game. It is also why movies based on games do not generally work well; a game world that arises from the game parts may be internally consistent but doesn’t necessarily make any sense whatsoever when considered in the context of the real world. The game designer must derive the game world from the game parts, then will the game world be conductive to a good game (because it is the game).

A game where the game world engages the player will provide the player with an experience that goes beyond any single aspect of the game. This is very similar to the way in which books and movies can engage their audience providing them with an experience greater than their contents. Video games go beyond this though and allow the audience – the player – to participate.

The “experience” a player gets from a game is highly related to the consistency of the game world. A game world that is not derived from the game parts will not fully engage the player since it will feel inconsistent and arbitrary. When an inconsistency in a movie is discovered it can easily be explained away because the amount of information the viewer has is controlled by the movie makers. If they only provide enough information to make the single solution possible it is the only solution the viewers may fully accept. However, when a player discovers a possible solution that for purely arbitrary reasons cannot be used, it becomes very difficult to explain it away. A game where the player must navigate a maze of knee-high blocks of stone will not engage the player simply because the obvious answer to the problem is to climb over the rocks.

The impetus of a game is the compelling force that causes the player to do the things he does in a game. The impetus is whatever factor causes the player to commit the types of actions he thinks he should engage in.

If the impetus of the game is not congruent with the game type then the game has an impetus conflict. If a designer wishes to create a particular type of game the impetus present in the game must agree with that game type; a game that is supposed to be a thinking game where there is an impetus to commit wild, random actions is obviously not a thinking game. Similarly, an action game where the impetus is to avoid committing actions is not an action game. This type of impetus conflict is present in many action games where the creator has decided to spawn enemies behind the player. The player wants to go forward and play the game but since the designer will spawn enemies behind him (unfairly, some say, reducing his ability to deal with them) he doesn’t want to. Similarly, if performing other necessary actions such as activating machinery will spawn or otherwise give enemies access to the player he will not want to do that even though it may be necessary to progress in the game.

The impetus is not entirely controlled by the designer since the player brings his own impetuses as well. Games that do not agree with the players impetuses will not satisfy the player. A player who has an impetus for development will not be satisfied by a game in which none is present.

More than one game type may be present in a single game but a single player can only engage in one of them at a time. For instance, in an RPG a player may seek out enemies in order to gain expierence and develop his avatar which is an activity consistent with a development game. However, when he finds enemies they must be defeated. The usual way of achieving this in an RPG is either through an action game (real time combat) or a strategy game (turn based combat). These sub-games may use factors derived from the development aspect of the video-game, but they are not in and of themselves development games.

Games can be subjective, objective or a mixture of both depending the degree to which the player must use his moral or philosophical judgment to play the game.

Objective games have no moral or philosophical judgment involved. The player is not required to think about himself in relation to the situation presented as any actions he can commit would be no more or less moral or acceptable than any others. The game of “Pong” is totally and completely objective; there is no greater good or harm in moving the players line from one edge of the screen to the other.

Subjective games require the player to use his philosophical or moral judgment to play the game. Subjective games can literally be “mind games” where the consequence of a players judgments are as important to the progression of the game as any other actions.

A loss of control situation is one of many situations where the player has no control over the outcome of the perceived goals. Any actions the player engaged in will not produce anything other than predefined success or failure. For example the game “Deus Ex” has a battle where a particular character is unbeatable and losing to the character is necessary to necessary to advance the plot. This is a loss of control situation since the perceived goal of the fight is for the player to win, however, the outcome of this situation was predefined since the player has to lose.

Loss of control situations insert tests into what are otherwise games and makes that portion of the game a test. Since the player cannot determine the outcome he is therefore not playing against an opponent in a game but completing a test. This we find is in agreement with the definition of test and thus we can think of tests as the ultimate loss of control situations: the player never has control in the first place.

There are two types of loss of control situations depending on whether the player completes or fails to complete the perceived goal.

A negative loss of control situation occurs when the direct actions of the player toward the perceived goal can have no other result than the failure of the player to complete that goal. These situations are often called “forced failures”.

A positive loss of control situation occurs when the direct actions of the player toward the perceived goal can have no other result than the success of the player to complete that goal. A situation like this might occur were the players perceived goal is to defeat the boss and can succeed or if defeated by the boss another character will appear and defeat the boss for him.

Similar to a loss of control situation is a loss of gaming situation which is different from a positive or negative loss of control in that it does not involve the achievement or failure of a goal, but the simple loss of control by the player. A loss of game would happen in a portion of the game where the player is “along for the ride” and does not control what is happening. While the outcomes of these situations are predefined, they are not loss of control since the player never perceived himself to be in control at all. They are therefore not a part of the game and are thus a loss of gaming.

Video cut-scenes are an example of a loss of gaming situation. The player perceives himself to be watching the action instead of committing it.

A loss of gaming can have a positive effect on the game as a whole. During the game tension may build causing the player mental fatigue which may lead to the player becoming exhausted. A loss of game situation may allow the player to relax and rest while still being entertained by the game. Loss of game situations can be used in a role somewhat analogous to comic relief.

Gain of control happens when the player gains the ability to control the situation using his skill. Gain of control can either be obvious or non-obvious.

Obvious gain of control happens when the player is informed that he has control over the situation. An action racing game where the race begins when the light turns green is an obvious sign that the player has control.

Non-obvious gain of control is a situation where the player – not previously having had control – gains control without any obvious sign that he has done so. Non-obvious gain of control can happen at the start of a game or after a loss of game situation. Additionally, in many racing games if players press the “gas button” at the right time just before the light turns green they may gain an extra boost when the race starts. Since this is control over the situation and nothing tells them when to press the button this is non-obvious gain of control.

Telegraphing is when the opponent intentionally or unintentionally informs the player of what is going to happen later on in the game.

Positive telegraphing happens when the opponent intentionally informs the player of what will happen in the games future. Positive telegraphing is often used to heighten tension in single player games with stories or by opponents when they wish to manipulate the player into doing something.

Negative telegraphing happens when the opponent unintentionally informs the player of what will happen in the games future. Negative telegraphing often happens in games where a clichéd situation happens, such as a seemingly empty hallway that fills with enemies after the player enters it. In addition, in games with live human opponents a player may use telegraphing to anticipate his opponents actions.

A resource is any action, object or statistic the player can use to defeat his opponent. There are three types of resources, constant, semi-constant and non-constant.

A constant resource is a resource that is inexhaustible and cannot ever be fully consumed during game play. The arbitrary attributes given to a player avatar are an example of an inexhaustible resource as is a player avatar and any actions (such as punches or kicks) the player avatar can initiate during game play.

Some constant resources may have temporary limits on how much the player can use them such as a timer or a usage bar that will refill after it is depleted. These are still constant resources since these methods are only methods of delaying repeated use not of denying the player use of the resource after they the resource has been used.

Semi-constant resources are resources whose availability is dependant on some factor other than usage but are inexhaustible while they can be used. As long as that factor allows use of the resource the player can use it however, once that factor is changed the player loses access and cannot access the resource at all until the factor is changed again.

A non-constant resource is one that can be exhausted or fully consumed during game play. “Hit points”, “magic points” or bullets can all be non-constant resources when they can be fully depleted in the course of the game.

Resources can also be active or passive depending on whether the player has control over them or not.

It is also possible for false resources to exist. A false resource seems as if it would be useful in defeating the players opponent but in reality is of extremely limited or inconsequential use even verging on being a liability.

The story of a game is the story of the story forces the player has control of as well as all the other relevant story forces needed to convey that story. The player always has control of some “story force”. A story force is a participant in a story that affects how or if the story continues. Everything that affects the story is a story force. A story force does not need to be a character, though characters are one type of story force that is often used.

The player must always control a story force for the story to be part of the game. If the story is unaffected by anything that happens during the game then the story and game are paired but the story is not part of the game.

The narrative story for those games that have it follows a modified version of the basic plot progression in short story writing. In the modified version a “false climax” is added where the protagonists directly confront the antagonists and nearly achieve their goal but are foiled and the outcome is universally disastrous. After the events of the false climax there is a “recovery” or series of recoveries where the protagonists realize that they have not been defeated (usually having to do with events set in motion before the false climax but unrelated to the main goal at that time) and that it is still possible to achieve their goal. After this there is another period of rising action culminating in the true climax where the protagonists confront the antagonists once more and the goal is achieved.

The false climax usually occurs two thirds of the way through a game, though like any plot point, it is up to the designer as to when it happens.

This story structure is often utilized to modify the game in all of its aspects[1] part-way through. This helps to maintain interest in the game by providing new experiences to the game not otherwise explored.

An example of this kind of plot progression is present in “Final Fantasy VI”. The characters have the initial goal of defeating an evil empire and their actions eventually lead to a confrontation with the emperor and his main henchman. In doing battle with the pair the heroes unwittingly allow the henchman (who is far more insane and evil than the emperor) to surpass the emperor in power. After dispatching the emperor the henchman attempts to kill the heroes by catastrophically altering the surface of the planet. The heroes are not killed however and because of their journey before the catastrophe they are able to regroup and defeat the henchman for good.

In this example we have rising action to a false climax that ends disastrously, but the defeat is temporary and the heroes regroup to defeat the villain in the true climax.

The game play after this false climax is changed somewhat to what it was before. Before it was directed toward stated goals which had to be achieved in a straightforward manner and in a specific order. Afterwards, the game play became more open-ended and allowed the player to achieve or not achieve different goals at his leisure.

With the addition of a false climax the plot progression in a game is ordered: introduction, initial incident, rising action, false climax, recovery, rising action, climax, denouement.

The main character in a game story is often given amnesia for some reason. This is different from main-character amnesia in non-games because while in other media is may be used to create mystery in games it may be necessary for willing suspension of disbelief. This is due to the fact that in many games the actions of the player are the actions of the main character. It is more difficult for a player to believe a main character whose personality differs from their own and is set at the beginning of the game. In addition, the player may no little or nothing about the world the game is set in. If the main character has amnesia the main character is in the same situation as the player and it is easier for the player to connect and sympathize with the main character. A player who is forced to play a character whose actions they do not have complete control over (even past actions) or a character who knows more about the world than they do will be less satisfied with the game than they otherwise would have been.

Full Motion Video in games

Full motion video (FMV) also knows as 'cinematics' are a common part of many games particularly those that have a story element. FMV sequences may be prerecorded video or scripted sequences rendered in the game engine as they are watched.

FMV is a tool game designers can use to provide the player with information in order to motivate the player to win, explain game elements or explain the game's story if it has one.

FMV has the ability to motivate the player to win by causing the player to sympathize with their side of the conflict and present a goal for the player to attain. For a player to be motivated he must be sympathetic to his side of the game. A player that does not care whether his side wins or loses will not have any reason to try especially hard to win. FMV can explain the consequences of failure in a much dramatized way, even for things such as falling Tetris blocks or a pong bar, thus creating the needed sympathy. At the same time, the designer can heighten tension by presenting an uncertain goal for the player. If an FMV achieves both of these things the player will not only care about losing but want achieve the presented goal.

In terms of utility FMV has the ability to quickly presenting the elements of the game without having to have the player experience them in the game itself. If the game has several types of game play the designer can present them in a cinematic sequence so the player is at least passingly familiar with them when they are encountered in-game. The designer can also show the menus to familiarize the player with them.

For a game with a story an FMV sequence can explain the character relationships, the characters motivation and put the events of the story into context with each other both geographically and in terms of plot. Just the same as motion pictures, cinematics can show the interactions of characters very quickly and give the audience a good idea of the relationship between characters. Similarly, by showing the characters actions a cinematic can explain a character's motivation. These things may be done by other means but FMV can be a very effective way of communicating relationship and character information.

Through the ability to move the camera freely from the perspective of a person or group of people FMV is capable of informing the player about the wider context in which the characters actions take place. A shot with the camera pulling back from the character to show his location in a city gives the player a good idea of the larger geography he is moving through. Also, because the camera does not need to be fixed on a single character or group it can show the simultaneous actions of multiple groups framing the characters actions with those of other characters.

Problems can arise when FMV is overused. The main problem of FMV overuse is that it changes the nature of the entertainment. The inclusion of too many FMV sequences dilutes the interactive nature of the game making it more passive and less of a true game. Many games, particularly RPGs have parts where the only interactive feature of the game is where the player must run between locations that trigger FMV sequences.

Similarly, FMV can be improperly used for trivial events. Short FMV conversations between characters needlessly interrupt the game and remove control from the player. Most people can read faster than anyone can speak so short conversations done in FMV will be far longer than short conversations simply provided as plain text.

Finally, all the things that can be done with FMV can also be done other ways. FMV is an effective tool for conveying information, but in a game it is only a small part of the entertainment. Providing the same information as an FMV sequence while allowing the player to play the game is far superior. If an RPG needs to have an army getting ripped to shreds the designer does not need a five minute FMV showing it getting ripped to shreds. A thirty second intro to the battle then allowing the player to take part in the battle while other soldiers make passing comments like "Retreat!" or even "We're getting ripped to shreds!" works just fine. It shows there is a battle and allows the player the play the game while conveying the needed information (IE. They're losing. Badly.)

[1] Mechanics, implementation, representation, justification.