- Identify the basic elements in a game of your choice (actions, goals, rules, objects, playspace, players).
My parents and I recently played the game Spot It! (link here). In this game, you can take the following actions:
- Players spot matching pictures between their individual card and the card in the center.
- The player calls out what the matching picture is.
- The player takes the center card and adds it to their hand on the top, face-up.
Players have the following goals:
- You want to collect as many cards in your hand from the center stack as possible (how you win the game!).
- You want to find as many matches between your card and the topmost card in the center, faster than the other players.
- You want to develop sharp reflexes and get good at recognizing different pictures on each card, particularly pictures with distinct, easily recognizable features. These distinct features can help you identify matches faster.
- For my parents and I, another goal was to have fun and spend time together!
The game follows these rules:
- One card is dealt to each player, facedown.
- The remaining cards are stacked in a pile at the center, faceup.
- Each player flips their card over at the same time and begins looking for matches between their card and the topmost card in the center stack.
- The first player to see a match calls out what the matching picture is, and takes the top card from the center. That taken card becomes the new card in their hand, which they now must use to find a match with the next card revealed in the center stack.
- If two players call out a match at the same time, they play rock-paper-scissors to determine who gets the card.
- Matching and collecting cards continues until there are no more cards left in the center.
- Players count how many cards they each have, and whoever has the most wins.
- There is always a match between 2 cards!
The game is played with the Spot It! Cards (the objects). The playspace is the table where the center stack lies and each player’s individual hand of cards grows. The game is played with 2-8 players, ages 6 and up.
- As a thought experiment, swap one element between two games: a single rule, one action, the goal, or the playspace. For example, what if you applied the playspace of chess to basketball? Imagine how the play experience would change based on this swap.
I imagined how Codenames would be played differently if we applied the rule of acting out words without talking from charades to clue-giving. In other words, cluegivers still only choose a 1-word clue to give their team, but they must now act out that clue instead of simply saying it. I think this rule change would increase the difficulty of the game for both the cluegivers and their team of guessers. Guessers, who are already trying to figure out the connection between the clue and the words laid out before them, must now also correctly interpret the clue as it is acted out before they can even guess which words belong to their team. The nuance of a clue (if, for example, it has a double meaning) might get lost because of this added layer of interpretation. For the cluegiver, their options for clues are more limited as they must think of one that is easy to act out and guess. They may need to limit how many words the clue applies to ensure that their clue is interpreted correctly. Finally, the cluegiver also has the challenge of acting out their clue in a way that’s easy to guess.
- Pick a simple game you played as a child. Try to map out its space of possibility, taking into account the goals, actions, objects, rules, and playspace as the parameters inside of which you played the game. The map might be a visual flowchart or a drawing trying to show the space of possibility on a single screen or a moment in the game.
I mapped out the space of possibility for the game I Spy (see image below).
While mapping, I reflected on the accessibility of I Spy, thinking especially about its playspace. As a child, I remember playing this game everywhere, from the car during road trips to the park to inside a building. I Spy is so accessible because you can begin playing it anywhere, as long as you have one other person to play with. The whole world becomes your playspace.
It was also interesting to reflect on the rules of this game, which I had never thought about as a kid until now when I actually had to write them all out. I was specifically thinking about how all the players have to be able to see what the cluegiver has spied (as I remembered how this game played out during road trips where the thing I spied had usually already zipped past us…) and that each clue had to be given using the phrase, “I spy with my little eye something [insert descriptor].” As people guessed, it was interesting to see how many different things could fit the clues, which made me think about how each guess influenced what clue was given next. The exchange between cluegiver and guesser(s) shaped the direction and length of the game.
- Pick a real-time game and a turn-based game. Observe people playing each. Make a log of all the game states for each game. After you have created the game state logs, review them to see how they show the game’s space of possibility and how the basic elements interact.
For the real-time game, I observed my friend playing Subnautica. In my game state log, I divided the game states into two areas: the underwater base (“the crib”) and the outside world (“exploration”). It was interesting seeing how the space of possibility fluctuated depending on which of these two areas my friend was in. In her crib, the space of possibility was defined by the limits placed by the rules. For example, my friend had to ensure that she maintained her well-being (i.e., health, food, and water levels), plants, supplies, and equipment, all of which she could do in the safety of her underwater base. This maintenance then allowed her to prepare for and explore the outside world, where the space of possibility expanded. With more movement and playspace outside, there was greater opportunity to gather more resources and information, as well as increased potential for danger.
However, overall, the space of possibility felt broad because it was up to my friend to decide what actions she would take to meet specific goals. Even though there was an overarching goal (i.e., getting off of the planet), and she needed to meet several other goals (i.e., build and maintain equipment, explore the planet to find materials and information, take care of her health) to make progress towards this overarching one, there are a number of ways she could accomplish these smaller goals. The goals were like destinations and it was up to her, with the available actions she had within the limits placed by the rules of the game, to decide the route she would take to arrive there.
In contrast, the space of possibility felt more limited in the turn-based game of tic-tac-to (which I observed my parents play for me). The playspace was limited to the 9 spaces in the grid, and each player’s actions were limited to drawing only an “x” or an “o” within the grid. These actions could build towards either the goal of having three symbols in a row or the goal of blocking the other player’s three-in-a-row. Thinking about the experience of time in this game, even though the game went by fast (up to 9 moves possible), I noticed how the turn-based nature of this game forced players to have to wait for the other player’s move before pausing to respond accordingly. The outcome was also limited to either a win/lose or a tie/draw.
The game play experience of tic-tac-toe was much more temporally, spatially, and conceptually bound compared to Subnautica, where you could take your time progressing towards a long-term, overarching goal and take any number of paths to reach that goal. However, it was interesting to think about the accessibility of both games, which was an inverse of this broad versus limited space of possibility. For tic-tac-to, you just needed two people, a paper, and a pen, in contrast to Subnautica, where you needed a computer, the game downloaded, and the controller set up to play.
