WikipathS, a game from the NYU location of the Global Game Jam, is an interesting attempt to create a game not as an application, but as a mash-up, grabbing data from an online data source -- in this case from Wikipedia. Consequently, it doesn't rely on a conventional programming language, but on AJAX; it requires a Firefox browser and Firefox's Greasemonkey add-on, as well as installing the developer's own Firefox extention.
Once you've installed it, you go to any page on Wikipedia; a "start" button appears on the page. You click it, and it sends you to a random Wikipedia page, and then displays your "target" page in a box at the bottom of the browser window (as shown in the illo above). Your goal is to navigate from the start page to the target page, using only links in the main body of each article; the game is timed, so presumably you're attempting to do it in the minimum amount of time. The target page also seems to be chosen at random -- they aren't spidering intervening links -- for of course, everything in Wikipedia links to everything else, eventually.
For example: I began at a page for a school in China's Hennan province, and was required to end up at the page for the Sierra Nevada batholith. The school apparently receives some funding from Nova Scotia, so I clicked there; from there, I was able to go to a page on the geography of Nova Scotia; from there to the main geology page; from there to a page on batholiths; and from there to the page for the Sierra Nevada batholith.
It's a cute concept, and an interesting approach to developing a game quickly -- and the use of external data sources is something I don't think I've seen before (except for same games that use Google maps). My basic feeling while playing, though, was similar to that when playing PMOG: Why am I doing this?
That is, yes, the application is timed, but each time I play, there will be a different challenge, so there's no way to beat my own score; nor is there a shared leaderboard of some kind. Thus, while there's a "quantifiable outcome" (a requirement of Salen & Zimmerman's [flawed] definition of the game), it feels like a meaningless one. "The Great Web Race," in other words, is no race at all.
There's a little bit of enjoyment to be gained by figuring out what links are likely to take you closer to your goal -- the satisfaction of puzzle-solving -- but I would much have preferred to be able to choose my starting page, at least. The first time I played, I went to Sid Sackson's page, since I thought it might be interesting to see what the game made of it -- but no luck, as soon as you click "Start" it sends you to a different random starting point. Or maybe choosing the ending page would be fun -- how do you get to my own page, say, from a random start?
Thus, WikipathS is imaginative both in its approach and its use of technology not often used for games; but in the final analysis, seems to lack enough support for the sorts of things that make games appealing to hold your interest for long.
'Flawed' definition of a game?
“A game is a system in which players engage in artificial conflict, defined by rules, that results in a quantifiable outcome.”
-Eric Zimmerman and Katie Salen
How would you say this definition is flawed? I've found it very useful in identifying and explaining games.
I'm interested in your thoughts.
Don
Because conflict is only one
Because conflict is only one form of interaction possible in games.
"Quantifiable Outcome"
Junko:
What is the "quantifiable outcome" of Dungeons & Dragons? Of World of Warcraft? Of Tetris?
The definition excludes any game that has no definitive end, such as (most) MMOs and tabletop RPGs, as well as games, such as Tetris, that result in inevitable loss and have no intermediate scoring mechanism. That is, some games have no "outcome," and some defy quantification.
Yet these are also games.
I posed this to Zimmerman, and his response was that these games are "boundary cases," which is a nice attempt to dodge the question. The definition fails to include at least two categories of games; threfore, it is a flawed definition. QED.
I'm not saying it isn't useful in some regards, mind you.
Conflict
the99th: I prefer the term "struggle" to conflict, as I agree that while games require players to face challenges, those challenges don't have to be couched in terms of "conflict." But I think Salen & Zimmerman would argue that "conflict" doesn't have to be among players, or between a player and some antagonist, and instead might be "conflict" with an algorithmic system. Thus, I don't think they're wrong on that score, exactly; more that "conflict" maybe isn't the best choice of words.
Definition of a game
As S&Z point out, *all* definitions of "game" are going to either be too narrow, or too broad, or both. I'm a bit more charitable to their definition because they analyze eight other classic definitions to come to the conclusion that none of them is entirely satisfactory.
If you're going to call one definition flawed, what's a better one? I could argue the definition from "I Have No Words" is equally flawed for leaving out both RPGs and Sims (both of which are widely regarded by the game-playing public as "games") while including choose-your-own-adventure books as games (even though we still say we are "reading" and not "playing").
I'm guilty of this, too. My own definition (a play activity with rules and conflict) is quite flawed, but is the closest I've come up with after a couple years of throwing my students at the problem :)
Well, okay, the best definition I can come up with is "something is a game if most people agree that it is a game". Once you get the academics out of the picture and just ask your average person on the street if something is or isn't a game, you'll reach a pretty solid consensus. Even if we have trouble with a rigorous definition, people seem to instinctively know what "game" means. And one has to ask, of those activities that we do not call "games" by one definition or another, what are they exactly if not games?
Re: "Quantifiable Outcome"
Costik:
Within their book, 'Rules of Play,' Zimmerman and Salen discuss how players often make their own goals. Within open-ended games, such as GTA or MMOs, players may say 'I'm going to get this armor by doing this.'
Such an action may not end the game, but it is still has a result, which is in accord with their definition. I agree that their are much more social aspects related to MMOs, but this doesn't mean that quantifiable goals don't exist or can't be invented within them.
Although there are certainly inexplicable narrative moments and feelings in Dungeons and Dragons, essentially your characters live or they die, they collect items or they don't. These are quantifiable.
In Tetris, you will eventually die, but you will also rack up a score which indicates how well you did and what level you reached. This is quantifiable.
I understand your reservations and I agree that MMOs are less tangible in their outcomes, but I believe they fit within Zimmerman's definition. What do you think?
Definitions
Junko and Ian:
Well, on the one hand, I think that attempting to nail things down to the last petty detail is essentially a Stalinist enterprise -- that is, only a social realist will ultimately feel that a formal definition, in a sense defensible to philosophers, is ultimately necessary for what is ultimately a term of art. So I'm comfortable with Ian's idea that "a game is what I say it is."
"Quantifiable outcome" seems to me to imply a finale, ending, outcome. That is, the game ends, we tally the victory points, somebody wins or loses. Yes, MMOs have quantifications, but they don't end; they don't have ultimate outcomes, although I suppose at any given point you have a measurable status. Similarly with RPGs. No, I don't think they fall under S&Z's definition.
And Ian, what the hell do you mean my definition doesn't include RPGs and Sim-style games? The Sims didn't exist when I wrote it, but I surely meant to include RPGs, being, you know, an RPG designer. Not that I think it's perfect, and to be sure, I modified it in 2002. And you know, Sims is a very conventional resource-management game, when you come down to it.
I'm starting to feel like a 5 year-old now, though. "My definition is better than their definition, nyah nyah." Foolish.
Definitions
OK, so the dispute is (a) with the definition of the term "conflict" - in games, it clearly means "direct or indirection interaction (either with other players or with the game system) through choices" rather that "fighting someone" (which is the general default meaning) - and (b) with the definition of the term "quantifiable outcome" - where in an open-ended structure there can be no such thing, even though at any point in the proceeding there is a measurement of some kind to allow you as a player to assess your position relative to (i) the other players and (ii) the game world.
I don't see the problem with the phrase at all myself. :))
But I also don't disagree with your assessment of the flaws of this particular "game". However, it wouldn't take much restructuring for it to be a potentially powerful tool, in a similar sort of way to the Google Image Labeler project. (For various reasons I was unable to go to the GameJam :( But I am glad that someone did the Wikipedia game, as it was on my short-list of potential ideas.)
In one of the many tangents
In one of the many tangents in my Metaphysics course, we discussed the ontology of "games." The professor asked if anybody could give an all-encompassing definition, and of course we couldn't. There are just so many exceptions and variances within this broad term that you can't exactly nail it down. I think that most definitions, for example, would agree that GTA or any Mario title would constitute a "video game." It's typically in more obscure games that questions arise. To this, I'll paraphrase Vonnegut and his rules for a good short story. He said that Faulkner broke all of them at one point, except for making them an interesting read.
Really?
Once again a discussion on PTT dissolves into the beating of a dead (and decomposing) horse - the infamous "What is a game?" debate... Cmon, really? This little GGJ gem is a really fun little idea, and the review above is insightful and well articulated. Why did it turn into the same old discourse that's been going on FOREVER???
Hey, at least we've moved past the other debate.
Better to debate what a game is, rather than whether or not a game is art, anymore. If the first debate is decomposing, the second must be turning over in its grave.
Facebook App
I don't have much to add about the definition of a game, but I do know this reeks of potential as a facebook app.
I already play this game when I'm especially bored. Click on one person's profile and follow the immediate links and wall postings until I get to another person's. If there was a program to calculate the shortest number of clicks and then challenge people to reach that number...you'd generate page hits like a beast.
"There's a little bit of enjoyment to be gained[...]"
... there you have your "purpose".
Seriously, I think you can over-discuss simple matters to a point where you're actually missing the point.
This game, and there is no secret to it, was never made to be good and thorough, competitive to polished gaming experiences crafted over months and years. It's a proof of concept, an idea. An inspiration.
I fully respect it as such and feel no need to further discuss quality or long-time appeal of this exact game. It's a great out-of-the-box attempt at creating a non-lineary experience and making you think in ways you would not normally do. That's it. And the prospect of someone ever turning this into a full-blown game (about Wikipedia or a totally different set of data), is pretty exciting.