games as systems of challenge, competition and conflict goal states and obstacles to reaching them

Games as Systems ofChallenge, Competition and Conflict

goal statesand

obstacles to reaching them

COSC 4126 cybernetics

The rational player

Rational player has a comprehensive strategy – knows what to do in every possible state. not influenced by context (emotions, ethics)

(interesting) games are too complex for players to have perfect strategies Is there a strategy that assures a chess

player a win? No one knows.


Fun from rationality

No player is completely rational. Trying to develop a comprehensive

strategy is a learning challenge. Complexity, random factors and other

players assure uncertainty in planning.


Models of interaction

turn-taking games game is a path from root to leaf in a tree

of possible games

start statefirst player moves

state after first movesecond player moves

state after second move


Models of interaction concurrent play

games payoff matrix of

possible outcomes

e.g.,paper/scissors/rock

first player moves

second player moves

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

a

b

c X\Y

d

e

f X is outcome for 1st player Y is outcome for 2nd player

if X plays c, Y plays 4


Models of interaction iterated concurrent

play games


Concepts from concurrent play (game theory)

Utility outcomes are immediate results of player

actions (powerups, rewards, progress toward ultimate goals

zero-sum outcomes – outcome gain for one player equals outcome loss for opponent

positive sum encounters – both players receive positive outcomes; implies some degree of cooperation


Examples – 3 x 3 games

1 2 3

A 2\-2 2\4 -2\3

B 3\-2 4\1 1\-2

C -1\2 -2\3 -1\1

examples

zero sum

positive sum

dominant strategies

boring game (equilibrium)

uncertainty (no equilibrium)

1 2 3

A 0\0 -1\1 1\-1

B 1\-1 0\0 -1\1

C -1\1 1\-1 0\0


Games that have a game theory model

Paper/scissors/rock Matching pennies Cake sharing

problem Prisoner’s dilemma

self-interest vs trust/cooperation Talk Don’t

Talk -3\-3 0\-5

Don’t -5\0 -1\-1


Conflict

Crawford,1984: “Conflict arises naturally from the interaction in a game. The player is actively pursuing some goal. Obstacles prevent him from easily achieving this goal. Conflict is an intrinsic element of all games. It can be direct or indirect, violent or nonviolent, but it is always present in every game.”


Shapes of conflict single player vs single player - boxing group vs group - basketball single player against many - tag many single players competing against

eachother - race single player against a game system -tetris players competing side by side against a

game system - blackjack group of players cooperating against a

game system -


Direct or indirect conflict

zero-sum (arm-wrestling)or

parallel (ice-skating competition)


Games can incorporate many shapes, forms

Survivor – group vs group single player vs single player

Board games – indirect and direct racing on circuit and bumping from

common square Choice of formats: single player

against game or player vs player


Case study – space-invader type

forms of struggle1. single player against game – cumulative score

flexible for player goals – personal best, score plateauOR alternating play – score zero-sum!OR high score list – many single players - score ranking

2. informal goal – survival time, attain level


A variation - joust

two players can play concurrently all above formats .. plus direct fighting cooperating against invaders territorial interference

arcade game with capacity to pay for health, even revival


Analysis of conflict for game design

what explicit shapes and forms of conflict are designed in?

what opportunities are there for players to create goals and competition themselves?


Anatomy of a goal

goals essential to conflict, competition goal associated with end of play?

yes – checkmate no – tetris – no victorious endpoint,

inevitable death subgoals informal goals as described in the forms

of struggle - player defined


Conflict and fairness inside the magic circle, we expect fairness

and equality almost impossible to achieve – going first,

wind, home field digital games – more fair but more opaque,

creating mistrust not necessarily symmetry compensation as negative feedback to

increase fairness eg. passing the deal baseball innings – alternate, nine chances


Games for learning

Competition is inherent in games... Is competition a bad thing in

educational setting? pure cooperative nature of education is a

myth competition is motivating

What game models fit best?


Educational shapes of conflict – university as games players competing side by side

against a game system many single players competing

against eachother single player against many group of players cooperating against

a game system single player vs single player group vs group single player against a game system


Cooperative games andNew Games Movement

competition is inherent to play but there is a dependent relationship with cooperation

New Games Movement tried to blur the lines between the two

example games: Catch the Dragon’s Tail


Catch the Dragon’s Tail

cooperation – holding on to form dragon

competition - front is chasing rear – what about the middle? roles change

clear goal with zero-sum payoff blurs boundaries between game

shapes

games as systems of challenge, competition and conflict goal states and obstacles to reaching them

Documents

player movessecond player

player y

rationalityno player

chess player

player vs playercosc

movesecond player movesstate

eachother racesingle

player equals outcome