This page contains other theories which I have not quite yet finished working on or are in an incomplete state right now. of course these are also theories related to games. GameTheory

The interactigve input and output choices in a given game are the “dimentional complexity” of a game, this represents the game’s level of interactivity. For example, the Dimensions of interactivity of chess include every move that every piece can do at any given time and this is allso the output of the game system. In chess the position of the pieces on the board, is the output complexity and the reason I said feedback dosnt come from the game itself.

In videogames, things become a bit more complicated. This is because in videogames, Input/Output and Dimensional complexity are not the same. while you might press left to move mario left, the action of pressing the button is NOT part of the complexity, it’s part of the man/machine interface. (much like a chess piece can be moved with a stick just as easily as with a hand, or spoken positions) the complexity applies to the moving of the mario Figure in the game, and not the controller. same thing happens to the Output, it is not random images, but the Figure of mario moving to the left, which is the output element. As for the rules, the player has no interaction directly with the rules, neither does he precieve them in any way except for his own concept of them. However the player has a concept of the complexity of the game through the Dimensional complexity

This is a term taken from painting and graphic design, where studying the relationships between figures (elements seprate from the plane of the picture) and their field (the setting of those elements) can lead you to understanding the emotional content of images. I am just starting on this perticular topic, and it is only thanks to the inspiration of Matthew Kaplan, a good friend of mine, which came up with the original idea (sorry matt, dont remember what you called it) either way, this is meant as a frame of refrence for emotional and interpreted content in games. Analyzing games through the Field/Figure relationship, can lead you to understand such things as camera angles, amounts of charecters on screen, interfaces, and so on, however it is not yet something which I have contemplated as much as the elements of gameplay presented above.

This is a perticular pet peeve of mine, initially something which I began looking into after reading some of Chris Crawford’s articles. I think that between the cries of shananigans, and “death to videogames” he has a point. Games should try to explore the subject of people, as well as the physical world. (I have the greatest respect for his oppinions, incase my writing seems contrary) However this is not the future of the medium as much as it is an opening which has been left unexplored by it. I think that emotional subjects in games should be explored through more responsive charecters. specifically charecters which are more dynamic and independent in their “thinking” One perticular method, is through a system, where charecters have their own stances on various values and agendas and affiliate themselves with various groups, this combined with a memory of your own actions in the game world, can lead to charecters which react to you based on what you do, not based on pre-scripted ideas. The player’s own values and agendas can be derived from their actions, and reactions by the other charecters in the game used to reflect the fact that the game knows what the player is doing, thereby bestowing the responsibility of paying closer attention to the interaction with other charecters.

Games of course allso suffer the same way comics have from a very narrow content range lately (lately being the prolifiration of popular media)

The medium games deal in is not connected to any of the senses, they can exist without either.

they arent visual or auditory or specifically anything, they rely only on communication of ANY kind between two active agents in a closed set of rules to measure some sort of goal.

Games basically create a closed world with rules diffrent from reality (much like the act of play which every mammal goes through to learn) the same concepts of abstraction and realism can apply to those rules such as the diffrence between an abstract work, and a realistic work in painting, (the act of dating somone can be said to be a very “realistic” game with specific rules and specific goals, seprate completely from real life, at the same time rock-paper-scissors is one of the most abstract games you can get)

Why Do People Play Games

• Self expression
• Immersion and escape (perfect aesthetic high)
• simple and predictable results
• Controll over uncontrolable situations
• Compatition
• Accomplishment, completion

—-

• any more ideas?