Game Diagrams

 Posted by (Visited 14129 times)  Game talk
Mar 302006

Stéphane Bura has picked up the ball and run with it! Check out his Game Diagrams based on the grammar I proposed.

  8 Responses to “Game Diagrams”

  1. The first to comment on a thread, unreal.

    I thought I had some good ideas about game design grammars, I was pretty proud of a recent post I made on my blog, but that was only an intersting schema. I think Mr. Bura has a viable start to a stardardized grammar, and the real obstacle is encapsulation. If each of these diagrams constitutes an atomic nucleus, then what of the electrons that enable these ludemes to interface? If we can figure that out, then we’ll have an idea of how “molecules” or play modes, form, and how these modes further compose complete “compounds” or complex games.

  2. […] First, some quick reference: The whole thing stems from this post on Raph’s site. He links to what appears to be a GDC presentation from last year, entitled A Grammar of Gameplay. Someone took a stab at creating game grammar. Now that we have the background covered, on to my confusion. […]

  3. I started writing my comments here but decided just to post it on my own site because it got long. If anyone can help me to understand the reasons behind attempting to create a game grammar, please respond to my post. Honestly, I love solving problems and I would enjoy tackling this one if I knew why exactly it is a problem that needs solving.

  4. To sum up my reply to you, Grouchy Gnome,

    Games can be regarded as an artform. Artforms can, and should be, codified. This is not to say that Bura’s diagrams are good; they’re an extraordinarily impressive first step, but I don’t really have enough comprehension of them to decide if it will actually be a good system that can be built upon. A quick glance at the vocabulary gives me a negative vibe, but *shrugs*; if I ever get around to actually reading every word and studying what he(?) says…

    Further, there are a lot of extremely different, but equally valid reasons for creating a game grammar. Some of those reasons are as valid as musical notation, upon which musical theory is based. Most artforms are taught, remember, and you have to have something to teach.

    To summarize my summary: It can be art, too.

  5. […] Comments […]

  6. Hi all and thanks for your interest.

    Patrick, to stick to your analogy, I see the resources boxes as the potential covalent bonds. In some of the examples, they’re already shared between several sub-graphs.

    I answered to Grouchy Gnome on his site.

    And yes, Michael, I’m a male.

  7. Okay, so the transitions are the “atoms” then? Here is the post of mine I alluded to:

    My take is that factors are components of ludemes, and that these factors can be either material (tokens) or formal (forms of skill). The valances are, in my estimate, verbs that the player can pursue (which coincides with the probalistic nature of electron clouds, if you wanted to be slavish to the analogy). Certain verbs are more likely to be followed than others, determined by how different ludemes tend to interlink with other ludemes to form play loops, or modes, or molecules by analogy. The player is the one who makes the “choice” to follow in a particular flow amoung interrelated ludemes, but there is an inborn pressure in the ontological number (atomic weight) of the ludeme which typically causes these flow experiences to self-organize in the player.

    My take on your diagrams is that the token boxes and transitions coagulate to form the protons and nuetrons of the ludeme, respectively, and that the links, perhaps, are the valances.

  8. Interesting work on this game grammar!

    I see a lot of similarities to Petri Nets in this formalism. See for details.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.