José P. Zagal, Michael Mateas, Clara Fernández-Vara, Brian Hochhalter and Nolan Lichti, "Towards an Ontological Language for Game Analysis"

(In Worlds in Play)

- Game Ontology Project, "framework for describing, analysing and studying games"
- Unified vocabulary
- Heirarchical organization of structural elements, relationships between them
- Not a taxonomy or a classification of types, not design imperatives
- Define, classify "essential" elements of "gameness" in games and gameplay
- Category membership is dependent on context, culture
- "Blackbox analyses" based on what is percieved or experienced by players
- Specific/general/middle or obvious elements, "central" (strong) and marginal/blurry/borderline (weak) examples of each element
- Iterative, adaptive, organic method, grown from the middle starting with the obvious and extending to abstract and specific elements
- Representational elements, fiction, game setting, relationships to other media are bracketed in order to focus on formal/strucutral gameplay elements (Zagal et al acknowledge that more in-depth analyses must account for both and the relationship between them, however)
- Top level abstract categories: interface, rules, goals, entities, entity manipulation
- Each element is described, weak and strong examples are given, "parent" and "child" elements are listed and "part" (compound) elements are identified
- Example: "to own/ownership" (child of entity manipulation) -> saving mushrooms in Super Mario World
- Interface: presentation, input device, input method (hardware and software)
- Rules: framework/model in which game takes place, regulate development and basic interactions
- Two types of rules: gameplay (lives) and gameworld (gravity) - Both determine the possibility space of the game... is this is a meaningful distinction?
- Rules synergies (combinations of rules)
- Goals: objectives, success conditions, whether explicit or not (includes evaluation, feedback, scores, etc.)
- Player imposed goals are not included in the ontology (why? Not concrete?)
- Agent goals, game goals, goal metrics
- Entities: objects, agents, walls, power-ups, etc. (an undeveloped part of the ontology at the time of writing, possibly removed entirely later in lieu of entity manipulation, because actions make entities significant?)
- Entity manipulation: alter the attributes (adjectives)/abilities (verbs) of objects in the game
- To collide, to create, to own, compound actions
- Gameplay space vs gameworld space vs representational space (again, I'm not too sure about the distinction between the first two)
- Levels, waves, checkpoints as sub-elements of the Segmentation of Gameplay element

Janet Murray, "Games as Joint Attentive Scenes"

(In Worlds in Play)

- Problem of rapid development of human cognition and culture
- Understand others as intentional agents (basis of culture)
- "Joint attentional scenes," participants both understand the other as an intentional agent, framework for understanding intentionality and cultural transmission
- Why are games pleasurable if they limit the explorative freedom of play? Perhaps they are joint attentional scenes
- Shared focus, intentionality, symbolic communication
- Understand self as agent, shift perspective, teach/learn
- Games as foundational element of culture, first representational media
- Play as communication (pre-linguistic)
- Games organize behaviour, serve as practice
- Similarity to and separateness from others
- Intrinsically social (spectatorship and performance)
- Unseen intentions -> sense of cause and effect -> narrative sequences
- Link between games and stories at the earliest moment of human consciousness (symbolic communication leading to language, media)
- Episodic culture -> mimetic culture -> mythic culture -> theoretical culture (all endure in one form or another)
- Dance Dance Revolution as mimetic joint attentional scene between human and machine
- Mythic culture: heroic narratives of many games
- Joint attention -> language -> writing
- Ritual -> myth -> theory
- Games (and stories, presumably) as driving force of cognitive/cultural evolution? (Or are they simply a product/side effect?)
- Digital game as mediated consciousness of an implied human programmer
- Both embodied opponent and created (art) object
- Digital games socialize pople into cyborg order, new "symbolic language of interaction"

Julian Kücklich, "From Interactivity to Playability: Why Digital Games are not Interactive"

(In Digital Gameplay)

- "Interactive" has been drained of meaning
- Lowest common denominator definition: "interactivity as a medium's ability to facilitate response" -> tautological, all media are interactive by this definition, old and new
- Digital games are less interactive than non-digital games (fixed rules)
- Games as emblematic of media generally
- Alternative concept: play/playability (also very broad)
- Play as both a mode of interaction and an attitude
- Play as a system that distinguishes between play and non-play (as well as players and non-players)
- Play emerges from tension or friction between different systems (interesting notion!)
- Playing with the rules of a game is outside of the game, but within the realm of play more generally
- Play actions denote/stand in for non-play actions
- Permeable boundaries, crossover between play and "seriousness"
- Tensions in play: constrained freedom; secure creativity; active passivity; voluntary dependence (Silverstone)
- Playability is as much about the player as about the game
- Playability helps understand, identify, model games based on different modalities, pleasures, formal characteristics including openness/closure, freedom/rules, in control/out of control
- Importance of the ambiguity of play

Robin Woods, "Call and Response: Storytelling in the Neverwinter Vault"

(In Digital Gameplay)

- New forms allow us to reconfigure old theories, vice versa (rather than the imperialism argument)
- Narrative emerges between player and designer (not gamer and game)
- All choices made by the player are circumscribed by the designer
- Online forum discussions, fan communities are a channel of communication between players and designers - this is where interactivity is really located, and nowhere else, Woods claims
- "Patching" games as analogous to oral texts, emergent from dialogue, interaction
- Importance of audience to both games and oral performaces
- Neverwinter Nights modding community, feedback between players and designers
- No fixed/final text, always under revision
- Designers cede some authority to players through different versions of the game
- Woods makes an interesting point, but the Neverwinter Vault is hardly emblematic of player/designer interaction more generally

Richard J. Hand, "Theatres of Interactivity: Video Games in the Drama Studio"

(In Digital Gameplay)

- Games have replaced film as the main reference point for students
- Games help challenge hegemony of narrative
- Eperiment: play games, bring experiences into the drama studio
- "Theoretical parallels" between digital games and theatre
- In addition to superficial motifs, a "shared state of being" as hermetically sealed worlds
- Player/avatar ~ actor/character (both cross the threshold)
- Force feedback, gaming implements -> props
- Unpredictability within constraints (free will/preordination)
- Avatar/character as both "I" and "he/she" (shifting)
- Hand has developed theatre games based on survival horror

Katie Whitlock, "Beyond Linear Storytelling: Augusto Boal Enters Norrath"

(In Digital Gameplay)

- Player as performer in virtual world
- Game narratives are still simplistic, formulaic
- Crawford: "designers" vs storytellers
- Ignoring interactivity in lieu of linearity
- MMORPGs as the most narratively successful -> link to Augusto Boal's theatre theory
- Common features of Forum theatre/MMOs: player's time commitment determines length of experience; change and innovation within the game; continual changes; fluid experience; existing guidelines for characters and experiences
- Spectators assume a character, intervening as spect-actors
- Open forum of debate and dialogue
- Begin with a familiar conflict scenario, open up to improvisation
- Avatar as costume for spect-actor
- Everquest as a social, economic, political world
- Clearly defined world, existing social parameters (community)
- Racial tensions in EQ
- Character class (ie: rogue, warrior) does not in any way equal socioeconomic class! (Whitlock is not the first to conflate these two, and it makes no sense to do so.)
- "Ideal place" for Forum-style debate and dialogue (is it?)
- Character creation within parameters, step into any existing role
- Characters "reflect" creators task and psyche (this seems to contradict the previous statement about stepping into any role...)
- Spect-actor directly intervenes in the story
- Quests as "narrative frames" that can succeed or fail based on player action
- Instancing as different versions/performances of a scenario
- Player-driven economy
- "Rehearse revolution" or "rehearse life" through an active relationship to(simulated) models/systems
- The Sims Online as even closer to Boal (real-world, modern setting)
- Do MMOs really try to solve community problems or address political conflicts? Whitlock is unconvincing on this point.
- Importance of physical presence to Boal (Whitlock links this to EyeToy and Dance Dance Revolution... but these are offline games, so where does this leave MMOs?)
- Is a virtual, customized avatar enough to stand in for physical presence?
- Ubiquitous games that bleed into real life
- Whitlock's conclusions seem to leave MMOs behind. All of her arguments and links to Boal, it seems, would be much stronger if applied to offline games or even non-digital games such as tabletop role-playing games. She spends the whole chapter trying to explain that MMOs are similar to Boal's Forum theatre (or is she saying that they would be a good venue for Forum theatre? It's really not very clear), but I'm just not buying it, and it seems like she isn't either.

Aleksandra K. Krotoski, "Socializing, Subversion and the Self: Why Women Flock to Massively Multiplayer Online Games"

(In Digital Gameplay)

- Pre-NES games less male-oriented ("family" games)
- Post-NES "did not appeal to potential female gamers" (that's a pretty bold statement)
- Removes girls and women from computer play
- Failed "girl game" movement (coopted by the industry)
- Renewed interest due to success of MMOs with women
- Community, feedback and play with self appeal to women in MMOs (apparently)
- Expand communication networks into MMOs
- Personalization of characters
- MMOs as less objective-oriented than other games (some, maybe)
- "Relevant setting" (to women) of The Sims Online (as in, the domestic space? Women should stay in the kitchen?)
- Allegiance to online friends/groups
- Feedback from the game/other players = self-confidence
- Choice of (feared/desired) fantasy selves
- Empowerment of women playing male avatars
- Krotoski demonstrates an incredibly shallow conception of gender as a more-or-less fixed concept in this chapter, assuming that there are specific features in games that appeal to women and can thus be used to target games at women... problematic to say the least