LUDIC VISUALS The Visualizations of Game Mechanics

Laura Laakso

Master’s Thesis

Master of Arts in New Media New Media: Game Design and Production Department of Media School of Arts, Design and Architecture Aalto University 2019

P.O. BOX 31000, 00076 AALTO www.aalto.fi Master of Arts thesis abstract

Author Laura Laakso Title of thesis Ludic Visuals: The Visualizations of Game Mechanics Advisor Laura Valojärvi Supervisor Miikka Junnila Department Department of Media Degree program New Media: Game Design and Production Year 2019 Number of pages 167 Language English

ABSTRACT

There is a lot of systemic information in games, but its visual expression has been a relatively under-researched phenomenon. Earlier research tends to pair the visual presentation of games together with the game narrative. However, game mechanics can also be expressed visually. In this thesis, game mechanics are the parts that form the game system such as the rules, the events, and the pieces of a game. This thesis studies how game mechanics are visualized. My research hypothesis suggests that there are components that consist of both game- mechanical and visual aspects. I have named them ludic visuals. This research identifies and explores the presence of ludic visuals in games from the perspective of what is available for a player. This thesis is largely based on previous game research and various theories of perception and experiencing. The experience of being inside a gameworld is deemed similar to the experience of being inside the real world, which made it possible to approach ludic visuals as functional parts of gameworlds. With the means of thematic analysis, this research examines ludic visuals in various games based on both theory and my own experience with games. The research suggests that ludic visuals consist of three aspects that also were the main themes of the thematic analysis: ludological elements are the features that are related to game mechanics, visual attributes define the visible appearance, and experiential dimensions address the impact that ludic visuals have on game experiences. The analysis showed that exactly the same ludological elements can be visualized in various ways, and the same visual attributes can be used to express different game mechanics. However, the research also discovered that ludic visuals are intrinsically subjective because their definition is ultimately based on subjective views about how they are experienced. Based on the results of the analysis, ludovisual principles were defined as guidelines for considering ludovisuality. Elegance was proposed as a quality for the excellence of ludovisual solutions. This thesis presents a new approach and vocabulary to discuss the visualization of game mechanics. Ludic visuals are present in practically all visual games even though they have not been identified in this manner before. Being able to recognize ludovisual components can help with making more informed decisions while designing them. Therefore, better ludovisual understanding can lead to a more comprehensive academic discourse in the field of game design, and also to more efficient game development as a whole.

Keywords ludic visual, ludovisuality, visualizing game mechanics, artificial ecological reality, visual game design, gameworld interface, interaction visualization, visualization, game design, visual design

PL 11000, 00076 AALTO www.aalto.fi Taiteen maisterin opinnäytteen tiivistelmä

Tekijä Laura Laakso Työn nimi Ludovisuaalit: Pelimekaniikkojen visualisoinnit Ohjaaja Laura Valojärvi Valvoja Miikka Junnila Laitos Median laitos Koulutusohjelma New Media: Game Design and Production Vuosi 2019 Sivumäärä 167 Kieli Englanti

ABSTRAKTI

Systeemistä informaatiota on peleissä paljon, mutta sen visuaaliselle ilmaisulle ei juurikaan ole esitetty yhtenäisiä lähestymistapoja. Aiemmat tutkimukset yhdistävät pelien visuaalisen ilmaisun usein pelien tarinankerrontaan, mutta tarinoiden lisäksi myös pelimekaniikkoja voidaan ilmaista visuaalisin keinoin. Pelimekaniikoilla tarkoitetaan tässä tutkimuksessa niitä osia, joista pelisysteemit koostuvat kuten pelin säännöt, pelin tapahtumat ja pelinappulat. Tutkielmani tarkastelee, kuinka pelimekaniikkoja visualisoidaan. Tutkimuksen alussa hypoteesini ehdotti, että on olemassa pelimekaniikoista ja visuaalisista ominaisuuksista koostuvia komponentteja. Olen nimennyt ne ludovisuaaleiksi (engl. ludic visuals). Tutkimuksessa tarkastellaan ludovisuaalien ilmentymistä pelaajan näkökulmasta. Tutkimus pohjautui suurilta osin aiempaan pelitutkimukseen sekä eri teorioihin havaitsemisesta ja kokemisesta. Pelimaailmojen kokeminen rinnastettiin todellisen maailman kokemiseen, minkä kautta myös ludovisuaaleja voitiin tarkastella pelimaailmojen toiminnallisina osasina. Eri pelien ludovisuaaleja tutkittiin sekä näiden teorioiden että tekijän pelikokemusten pohjalta temaattisessa analyysissa.

Tutkimus havaitsi ludovisuaalien koostuvan kolmesta aspektista, jotka nousivat myös temaattisen analyysin pääteemoiksi: ludologiset elementit ovat pelimekaniikkoihin liittyviä seikkoja, visuaaliset ominaisuudet määrittelevät näkyvän ilmiasun ja kokemukselliset ulottuvuudet käsittelevät ludovisuaalien vaikutusta pelikokemukseen kokonaisuudessaan. Analyysi nosti esille, että samoja pelimekaniikkoja voidaan ilmaista monilla eri visuaalisilla keinoilla ja että samoja visuaalisia keinoja voidaan myös käyttää eri mekaniikkojen ilmaisuun. Tutkimus kuitenkin myös havaitsi, että ludovisuaalit ovat itsessään subjektiivisia, sillä niiden määritys perustuu ennen kaikkea näkemyksiin niiden kokemisesta. Lopuksi tutkimustulosten perusteella ludovisuaalisuuden huomioimiseen esitettiin ludovisuaalisuuden periaatteet. Ludovisuaalisten ratkaisujen taidokkuudelle ehdotettiin käsitettä ludovisuaalinen eleganssi. Tämä tutkielma esittää uuden lähestymistavan ja sanaston pelimekaniikkojen visualisoinnille. Ludovisuaalien todettiin olevan läsnä lähes kaikissa visuaalisissa peleissä, vaikka niitä ei ole aiemmin tunnistettu tällä tavoin. Ludovisuaalisten piirteiden tunnistaminen voi kuitenkin auttaa tekemään tietoisempia valintoja niiden suunnittelussa. Parempi ymmärrys ludovisuaaleista voi siis johtaa paitsi kattavampaan akateemiseen keskusteluun pelisuunnittelusta, myös kokonaisuudessaan tehokkaampaan pelinkehitykseen.

Avainsanat ludovisuaali, ludovisuaalisuus, pelimekaniikkojen visualisointi, keinotekoinen ekologinen todellisuus, visuaalinen pelisuunnittelu, pelimaailmakäyttöliittymä, vuorovaikutuksen visualisointi, visualisointi, pelisuunnittelu, visuaalinen suunnittelu

TABLE OF CONTENTS vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract ...... iii Abstrakti ...... v Table of Contents ...... vii List of Figures ...... ix

1. Introduction...... 1 1.1. Topic and Context ...... 2 1.2. Focus ...... 8 1.3. Relevance ...... 10 1.4. Thesis Statement ...... 11 1.5. Overview ...... 12 2. Methodology ...... 13 2.1. Starting to Research Ludic Visuals ...... 14 2.2. Gathering Ludovisual Data ...... 16 2.3. Thematic Analysis...... 18 2.4. Ludovisual Status ...... 20 3. Theoretical Foundation ...... 23 3.1. Ludic Visuals and Ludology ...... 24 3.2. Ludic Visuals and Visual Research ...... 26 3.3. Ludic Visuals and Game Experience ...... 28

4. Theme I: Ludological Elements ...... 31 4.1. About Ludological Elements of Ludic Visuals ...... 33 4.2. Visualizing the Feel of Holistic Elements ...... 36 4.3. Displaying the States of Structural Elements...... 42 4.4. Presenting the Directives of Boundary Elements...... 51 4.5. Showing Visual Feedback for Temporal Elements ...... 57 5. Theme II: Visual Attributes ...... 63 5.1. About Visual Attributes of Ludic Visuals ...... 65 5.2. Ludic Visuals as Depictions ...... 71 5.3. Placement of Ludic Visuals ...... 78 5.4. Ludic Visuals in Time ...... 83 viii TABLE OF CONTENTS

6. Theme III: Experiential Dimensions ...... 89 6.1. About Experiential Dimensions of Ludic Visuals...... 91 6.2. Perceiving Ludic Visuals ...... 94 6.3. Absorbing Ludic Visuals ...... 100 6.4. Immersing in Ludic Visuals...... 105 6.5. Interacting with Ludic Visuals ...... 110

7. Discussion ...... 121 7.1. Answering the Research Question ...... 123 7.2. Ludovisual Principles ...... 125 7.3. Measurability of Ludovisuality ...... 130 7.4. Research Limitations ...... 133 7.5. Applying Ludovisual Knowledge ...... 135 8. Conclusion ...... 143

Glossary...... 147 References ...... 151

LIST OF FIGURES ix

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1. Venn diagram of the rule-based, the mediated, and the fictional spaces of games...... 5 Figure 2.1. The initial idea of the Ludovisual Sphere that demonstrates three layers of ludovisuality...... 15 Figure 2.2. The matrix of ludovisual statuses...... 20 Figure 4.1. Ludological elements form the core of the Ludovisual Sphere...... 32 Figure 4.2. Screenshots of Ori and the Blind Forest (Moon Studios, 2015a) from the trailer of the game (Xbox, 2014)...... 38 Figure 4.3. Screenshots of the Death Stranding trailer by Kojima Productions (2016)...... 39 Figure 4.4. Heroes of the Storm (Blizzard Entertainment, 2015) creates the mood before the player enters a battle...... 41 Figure 4.5. Screenshot of The Swapper (Facepalm Games, 2014) from its press kit (Facepalm Games, 2014)...... 45 Figure 4.6. The components of Monument Valley (Ustwo Games, 2014) are carefully placed to illustrate a geometric puzzle...... 45 Figure 4.7. Screenshots of equipment in World of Warcraft (Blizzard Entertainment, 2004)...... 50 Figure 4.8. Indications of different states in World of Warcraft (Blizzard Entertainment, 2004)...... 50 Figure 4.9. Screenshots of Transistor (Supergiant Games, 2014)...... 54 Figure 4.10. Screenshot of Journey (thatgamecompany, 2012a)...... 56 Figure 4.11. Screenshots of power sliding in Crash Team Racing (Naughty Dog, 1999) from a video recording by OniLink24 (2012)...... 59 Figure 4.12. Thumper (Drool, 2016) has such explosive audio-visual feedback that it is described as "rhythm violence" in the game description...... 61 Figure 5.1. Visual attributes form the middle layer of the Ludovisual Sphere...... 64 Figure 5.2. Screenshot of Stardew Valley (ConcernedApe, 2016)...... 72 Figure 5.3. Screenshot of Rocket League (Psyonix, 2015)...... 73

x LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 5.4. League of Legends (Riot Games, 2009) champions often have multiple different skins that alter their appearance...... 75 Figure 5.5. Screenshots of ABZÛ (Giant Squid Studios, 2016)...... 76 Figure 5.6. Screenshot of Dr. Langeskov, The Tiger, and The Terribly Cursed Emerald: A Whirlwind Heist (Crows Crows Crows, 2015)...... 77 Figure 5.7. Screenshots of raiding in World of Warcraft (Blizzard Entertainment, 2004)...... 79 Figure 5.8. Screenshots of Gorogoa (Roberts, 2017)...... 80 Figure 5.9. Screenshots of The Witness (Thekla, Inc., 2016)...... 82 Figure 5.10. Screenshots of The Beginner’s Guide (Everything Unlimited Ltd., 2015)...... 82 Figure 5.11. AFK Arena (Lilith Games, 2019) highlights the heroes that are performing actions by showing an alternate depiction of the active hero and magnifying them on the lower part of the screen...... 84 Figure 5.12. Screenshot of SUPERHOT (SUPERHOT Team, 2016a) that is a game where “the time only moves when you move” (SUPERHOT Team, 2016b)...... 86 Figure 6.1. Experiential dimensions form the outermost layer of the Ludovisual Sphere...... 90 Figure 6.2. The Beginner’s Guide (Everything Unlimited Ltd., 2015) depicts a world that is mostly empty...... 97 Figure 6.3. Screenshots of Beat Saber (Beat Games, 2018) from a video recording by LeBandit915 (2018)...... 103 Figure 6.4. Screenshots of Ori and the Blind Forest (Moon Studios, 2015a) from its press kit (Moon Studios, 2015b)...... 109 Figure 6.5. The phases of interaction are delicately illustrated in the game Gris (Nomada Studio, 2018)...... 113 Figure 7.1. The complete Ludovisual Sphere consists of three aspects of ludovisuality: ludological, visual, and experiential...... 122 Figure 7.2. Ludovisual elegance can be thought to be two-dimensional...... 132 Figure 7.3. In The Witness (Thekla, Inc., 2016), one laser appears each time the player completes a set of puzzles...... 136

All graphs are drawn by the author and all screenshots are taken by the author unless otherwise specified.

1. INTRODUCTION

2 INTRODUCTION

1.1. Topic and Context

This thesis explores the connections between game mechanics and visual presentation and presents the term ludic visuals to address the compounds of these two aspects. They are the visual messengers of the game system, and as such, they impact game experience in various ways.

Traditionally, ludology tends to focus on games as systems while the visual arts of games are often researched together with the narrative. While these approaches have proven useful, important information can be missed if we always lean on the same assumptions. Between these two fields, there are important connections that have not been researched before from the perspective that I present in this thesis.

When discussing this research topic for the first times, I was repeatedly asked two questions: “In what way would it make sense to study visuals in games without also talking about the narrative?” and “How would that even be possible?” Later on, I realized that these very questions were an indication of the need for this research. These questions showed that the role of game graphics as the messengers of system information is not yet recognized – or at least not yet in common knowledge. They confirmed that this direction was at least worth investigating, and I wanted to see where this path would lead.

To explicate these connections and to establish ludic visuals as a concept, this research explores the ways in which systemic information is visually presented in games. With this approach, I also aim to find patterns to indicate what makes for a good ludic visual, and guidelines for deliberately creating elegant ludic visuals.

In this thesis, I conduct a thematic analysis to observe and analyze three different aspects of ludic visuals. At the end, I gather these results together, and connect the obtained information to introduce principles for ludovisuality. I also discuss the potential practical uses for ludovisual knowledge.

INTRODUCTION 3

1.1.1. Background Michael Nitsche (2008) has done research on digital spaces, and has presented a model of five analytical planes. In this model, five different spaces in games are identified. The nature of each space is easily identifiable, and so it is natural to think about games and their research through this framework. Game mechanics and gamevisuals can also be placed into this framework. Thus, inspecting them in the context of analytical planes provides a way to see how ludic visuals relate to earlier research.

The first space of Nitsche’s (2008) framework is the rule-based space. The rule- based space contains the abstract logic of a game – the game system – that consists of game mechanics. Game mechanics are features that form the abstract structure of a game “at the level of data representation and algorithms” (Hunicke, LeBlanc, & Zubek, 2004, p. 2). In this thesis, the term game mechanic is used to refer to any feature of the rule-based space that plays a part in the game on a systemic level. In chess, for example, the board, chess pieces, the allowed moves, performed actions, game time, starting to play, and winning are game mechanics.

The second space – the mediated space – entails everything that a player can observe in the game (Nitsche, 2008).1 In this thesis, the visually perceptible entities of the mediated space are addressed as gamevisuals.2 Therefore, as the rule-based space consists of game mechanics and the visual presentation of mediated space consists of gamevisuals, ludic visuals are located at the intersection of these two spaces.

The three remaining spaces of the five analytical planes are the fictional space that is the imagined game and the narrative in the minds of the players, the play space where the actions of playing happen in the physical reality, and the social

1 Although the mediated space also includes all the other mediated content, including audio, this thesis focuses only on the visual presentation. 2 Using the existing terms game graphics or game art would have had connotations that did not fit the purpose of this research. I chose to call the visuals of games gamevisuals because the term is relatively self-explanatory, and it objectively addresses all the visual things in games. Writing gamevisuals as a single word highlights the fact that this is a specific concept instead of just “a visual thing in a game.”

4 INTRODUCTION

space that includes other players (Nitsche, 2008). But even though the five planes model separates games into five different spaces, Nitsche (2008) notes that finding connections between the spaces is more important than determining their differences.

Several studies have been made about the intersections of the five analytical planes.3 However, depending on the viewpoint, the idea of the mediated space tends to get either paired with or compared to the fictional space. For example, Chris Solarski (2013, 2017) applies visual storytelling techniques to games while the connections between the rule-based and the fictional layers have been a popular research topic over several years (Juul, 2005; Toh, 2015).

Kristine Jørgensen has researched the intersections of the five analytical planes by looking at games from the perspective of the players (“Kristine Jørgensen,” n.d.). For example, Jørgensen (2013) studied and connected the rule-based space, the mediated space, and fictional space when seeing the entirety of a game as a gameworld interface. According to Jørgensen, gameworld represents the rules and the fiction of the game system, being the visual depiction of the game in full. 4 Interface enables the interactions between the players and the game, and so it is located between the mediated and the play space. Seeing gameworld interfaces as a single entity helps in understanding game experiences: everything that the player sees and interacts with is a part of gameworld interfaces.

As such, there has been no research on the intersection of the rule-based space and the mediated space specifically. In Figure 1.1 the names of the aforementioned researchers are placed in the intersections of the spaces that they have studied. The absence of the studies between the rule-based and the mediated space seems to be an unfortunate oversight in the field of game research. This thesis explores these connections.

3 The authors might not refer to the spaces with the same terms that Nitsche (2008) has used, but the connections between the different aspects of games have been researched in various instances. 4 In this thesis, I use the word gameworld as a term that describes the full setting of any game. World of Warcraft (Blizzard Entertainment, 2004), Tetris (Pajitnov, 1984), chess, and hopscotch all can be considered to have their own gameworlds. The gameworld does not necessarily have to resemble the real world, and it does not need to have a fictional aspect.

INTRODUCTION 5

Figure 1.1. Venn diagram of the rule-based, the mediated, and the fictional spaces of games. The researchers whose research addresses each intersection are placed accordingly.

1.1.2. Personal motivation When playing games, I have always loved observing how gamevisuals interact with game mechanics: I enjoy seeing visual presentation intertwined with game design. I could not express what it exactly was when I first started playing games, but no matter the game, it has always been one of the main components of enjoyment for me. Despite the differences between these games and despite the differences in my

6 INTRODUCTION

level of commitment in the games, the importance of visualizing game mechanics has always felt like an integral part of the games for me.

For example, I sometimes enjoy the competitive nature of games. From competing with my brother in Crash Team Racing (Naughty Dog, 1999) to raiding in one of the world’s top ten guilds in World of Warcraft (Blizzard Entertainment, 2004), I sometimes get the urge to try my best and see how far I can get in a game.5 In competitive situations, reacting to the smallest visual indications of game mechanics can mean the difference between winning or losing.

Nonetheless, I also find joy in other types of game experiences. For example, admiring the ingeniousness of The Beginner’s Guide (Everything Unlimited Ltd., 2015), discovering the story of Florence (Mountains, 2018), or playing boardgames as a pastime have all been important game experiences for me. In these games, I have found that the visual expression of the game mechanics defines the feel of the game experience for me.

Similarly, as I started making games, it was always important for me to visually express game mechanics. Visualizing a game mechanic made it complete; visualization made the actions in a game feel more real. Taking various roles in various projects led me realize the extent of transdisciplinary thinking that is needed in order to come up with the most visually elegant game design solutions.

But while I could act as the bridge between graphic artists and programmers, it was sometimes difficult to come up with the explanation for why I thought that it would be worth it to implement something in a certain way. Furthermore, I could not express why I found specific designs so compelling in other games either. There were not enough words to describe this type of visual game design.

5 Raiding in the world’s best guilds in World of Warcraft (Blizzard Entertainment, 2004) is practically a professional level of playing the game, although there is no prize money involved. In order to beat the most challenging raids, a lot of time, effort, and skill is required from twenty players simultaneously. Traditionally, as a new raid is opened, the top guilds race to be the first to clear it just for the fame that comes with the success. There has been some development in the raiding-monetization front recently as the guild Method recently streamed their progress raids (Marshall, 2019). I raided from 2013 to 2015 in a guild called Rapid Eye Movement that later merged into the guild Method.

INTRODUCTION 7

While games are often predominantly visual, there are no simple guidelines for when it comes to combining visuals with game design. While I wanted to learn to illustrate game mechanics better, I realized it was hard to find comprehensive information about the topic. Hence, eventually I had to start my own research.

8 INTRODUCTION

1.2. Focus

When looking for connections between game mechanics and gamevisuals, I came to realize that there are components that manifest these connections. These components could be considered to be compounds of game mechanics and gamevisuals. I have named these compounds ludic visuals to be able to better address them throughout this research. Ludic visual stands for something in a game that is both ludic and visual. This thesis in its entirety is an exploration of identifying and explaining ludic visuals, but I present the preliminary definition of the term here.

The fact that ludic visuals are visual means that they can be seen in a game, which also makes them gamevisuals: they have a recognizable visual essence that is situated in the mediated space. Because the definition of gamevisual is based on them being perceptible visual entities, the visual sides of ludic visuals also inevitably overlap with each other. For example, the chess board can be seen as one gamevisual, but so can the sides of the board, a singular tile on the board, or even the corners of the board.

By focusing on the presentation of the visuals, this research does not rely on the traditional categorizations that visual assets of games are often sorted into. While gamevisuals are often talked about in terms such as user interface, menu, 2D, 3D, and visual effects, in this research that is not the starting point nor the way to categorize ludic visuals. Ludovisuality is based on what is presented to the players – not on how different parts of the game were made or how they are handled in the game code.

I chose the word ludic over the word ludological. While ludological would directly refer to the rule-based space, the word ludic is related to play (“Ludic,” 2019). This indicates that ludic visuals can be understood and researched via their relations to gameplay: they are gamevisuals that have connections to game mechanics, but they are defined by their roles during gameplay.

INTRODUCTION 9

Ludic visuals, therefore, are visual presentations of game mechanics, and as such, they are connected to both the rule-based space and the mediated space. Their true power, however, can be perceived by understanding the impact that they have in game experiences. Ludovisuality, then, means connectedness to game mechanics, gamevisuals, and game experience.

But while I want to emphasize that ludic visuals research should look at games from the perspective of the player, the focus is still in the presented object itself. In this research, I mostly address things that are in the games themselves rather than the larger scale of things. This means that I focus on the compositional modality of games – the parts of games that are available to players (Rose, 2001).

However, we often think about gamevisuals through the fiction that they represent. While I want to highlight that ludic meaning is a different concept from fictional meaning, it often makes sense to address the ludic meaning by discussing it through its fictional frame.6 Still, though, it is important to keep the focus on the properties of the rule-based space, even while discussing them via their fiction.

Ultimately, though, this research is not about categorizing ludic visuals, but about trying to understand them better. Because they are the components of a multifaceted phenomenon, it makes sense to research them from different perspectives. To provide as comprehensive analysis of ludic visuals as possible, I look for overlapping definitions and points of connection between all sides of ludic visuals. I examine relations between game mechanics, gamevisuals, and how these connections affect game experience.

6 For instance, it makes more sense to state that “a player took damage when standing in the fire” compared to trying to explain that “an attribute of a player decreased because their position in the game space was inside an area that reduces that attribute.”

10 INTRODUCTION

1.3. Relevance

The gaps in both literature and industry knowledge could suggest that this topic has not been previously recognized as something worth researching. But although there is a disconnection between the fields of ludology and visual design, a lot of effort has been put into researching topics within these fields. By connecting these scattered fragments of information, this research builds on the existing knowledge to discover something new.

Ludovisual understanding could be applied in many situations. When performing this research, the game experience is taken into account while having a practical touch for game design and visual design in games. This approach can yield information that is both general enough so that it works well in any situation, and practical enough to help with making meaningful observations and decisions. This applicability can yield immense benefits. Ludovisual awareness can lead to faster development of game experiences, and ultimately to unequivocally better game experiences, as better understanding tends to lead to better results over time. This benefits game players, game developers, and game researchers alike.

Moreover, ludic visuals are something that should be recognized in game research because of how important their role is in games. As game research also expands to new territories and searches for new connections outside, there is still a lot to discover about games themselves (Stenros & Kultima, 2018). Introducing ludic visuals as a concept offers a new perspective on games that could be applied in game research, which has the potential to lead to new types of discoveries.

Therefore, ludic visuals are an important matter to research. Even if this thesis was merely pointing the way towards ludic visuals, sharing these ideas in this form allows the concept of ludic visuals to develop. I believe that eventually, ludovisual knowledge can bring games forward as an academic field, as an industry, and as an art.

INTRODUCTION 11

1.4. Thesis Statement

The ludic impact that visuals have in games should be recognized. Understanding the bigger picture of how game mechanics are visual, and how visual attributes can be a part of game mechanics, leads to a better understanding of the details and concepts of games as a whole.

1.4.1. Research question How are game mechanics visualized in games? This question was what originally set me on the path towards ludic visuals, and it led me to realize the extent of the information that was missing and what I would have to define. Because ludic visuals are visualizations of game mechanics, researching them should give answers to the research question as well.

1.4.2. Objectives To sufficiently answer the research question and meet the aims of this research, ludic visuals need to be explored from various points of view. To guide my research, I have formulated five objectives that lead towards a deeper understanding of ludic visuals. The objectives are as follows, and they are addressed in chapters 3-7, respectively.

• Examine how previous research relates to ludic visuals • Explore what makes game mechanics visual • Identify the characteristics of visual attributes in ludological settings • Observe how ludic visuals work in game experiences • Formulate principles of ludovisuality

12 INTRODUCTION

1.5. Overview

Chapter 1 introduces the setting of this research, and chapter 2 explains the used research methods. Chapter 3 identifies ludovisual implications in previous research and forms the theoretical foundation for the research. These chapters present the standpoint of this thesis and demonstrate how this research relates to previous research.

The three themes of the thematic analysis (ludological elements, visual attributes, and experiential dimensions) are presented in chapters 4, 5, and 6. In each theme, different features of ludic visuals are recognized, their impact is analyzed, and their relations to the other aspects of ludovisuality are discussed.

The discoveries of the research are discussed in chapter 7, and ludovisual principles are formulated based on the results of the research. Possible applications for ludovisual knowledge are considered, and the future prospects of ludic visuals are discussed. Finally, chapter 8 concludes the research and summarizes the findings of this thesis.

2. METHODOLOGY

14 METHODOLOGY

2.1. Starting to Research Ludic Visuals

To investigate how game mechanics are visualized, I needed to connect many things together. The information was scattered in small fragments; there was no previous research that would have a complete view on ludic visuals. To get in-depth information about the nature of ludic visuals, and to better understand them as a phenomenon in games, I opted for a transdisciplinary approach.

Different types of methods were needed to bring everything together: although ludic visuals are present in almost every game, it takes special attention to start seeing them as ludic visuals. Figure 2.1 illustrates the initial vague idea that I had about ludic visuals. I saw three layers, but their specifics were unknown. The main idea was that the game system acts underneath the visuals, but it is experienced via the visual layer.

My research of game experience is mostly theoretical while I also refer to practical observations. While there are more and more available tools for measuring player experiences, it is only useful if there is base knowledge for what to do with the results (e.g. Nacke et al., 2009). Looking for a better understanding of the nature of the game experience does not necessarily come from researching the players – not by measuring them nor by conducting questionnaires with them. The theoretical ground needs to be established first.

My approach was also practice-led because the starting goal was to gain more knowledge about visualization of game mechanics for practical uses (Muratovski, 2016, p. 192). The research focused on the actual use of ludic visuals in games, which meant investigating the end solutions that have been made in games. This kept the research in touch with the industry practices, which balanced and enhanced the more theoretical aspects of the research.

The research methods also included elements of grounded theory methodology in how the ludovisual data was gathered and grouped for analysis (Muratovski, pp. 98- 101). This method was a great fit because of how it does not only rely on previous

METHODOLOGY 15

theory but allows for creating something completely new. Although grounded theory can be rather reliant on personal interpretations, it was also necessary to trust personal intuition during some points of the research because there was so little previous research.

The presentational aspects of ludic visuals were analyzed by means of visual research. This meant that ludic visuals were observed and evaluated based on how they looked, and their visual properties were assessed based on this visual understanding (Muratovski, 2016, pp. 157-187). Analyzing the visual attributes this way not only made it possible to focus on the visual properties on their own but also allowed them to be addressed in relation to the other aspects.

Figure 2.1. The initial idea of the Ludovisual Sphere that demonstrates three layers of ludovisuality.

16 METHODOLOGY

2.2. Gathering Ludovisual Data

The research materials for this research were not exactly games in their entirety, but the ludic visuals within them. Although ludic visuals have not been an established concept before, they are present in almost all games. Due to the way ludic visuals are everywhere, but they are not commonly noticed, it felt fitting that I would not focus on one single game but collect examples from many different games. This was possible because explaining many ludovisual solutions does not require understanding the whole game, and it was useful because this way there was a larger number of examples that the theory would need to take into account. Moreover, with the introduction of alternative examples, the research became more generally applicable.

I chose not to approach the subject via any surveys because this is such an uncharted area of research. Before properly defining ludic visuals for the first time, it would not make sense to conduct interviews about the topic in these terms. I wanted to avoid the biases that any presumptions might have imposed, and so I did not want to base the research on the ways that individuals think about their game experiences.

What did affect this research, though, was the general discussion both in the games industry and in the academic field. The observations that have been made when developing games, and the insights that have been shared in game events have undoubtedly played a part in shaping this research. But while I absorbed the information that was being shared, I also noticed that some connecting factors were missing. Hence, I needed to obtain knowledge from other fields of research and apply that to my research.

Gathering ludovisual data has been a gradual process, and multiple things have influenced the outcome of this research. However, this research was not dictated by the selection of data, but it is a result of a thinking process where I cross-referenced experiences from multiple past game experiences and ways of thinking about games. Whereas the presented examples should proficiently introduce how ludic visuals can

METHODOLOGY 17

be identified and analyzed, the ideas of ludic visuals are based on a specific way of thinking about games.

This research is, of course, affected by my own subjective perspectives, which is the tendency in qualitative research. Because I have chosen, interpreted, and analyzed the data, the approach is undeniably subjective. But despite that, or maybe because of that, it has been possible to come up with a concept like ludic visuals.

18 METHODOLOGY

2.3. Thematic Analysis

After making lists of ludic visuals that I wanted to analyze, I had many available examples but not an obvious way to process them. I had an instinct that something here would be meaningful, but I had no way of describing what made the difference between the visuals that were communicating game mechanics and those that were not. As I started looking for ways to make sense of this, my methodology resembled grounded theory as I was looking for connections between different ludic visuals so that I could sort them into categories (Muratovski, pp. 98-101).

As it turned out, ludic visuals just did not fall into simple categories. They could be very different from each other and yet there was no sensible way of classifying them without pushing something else outside the definition. I started to realize that it made more sense to examine their features individually instead of trying to classify them by force.

Understanding ludic visuals from different points of views would not only give more insight into these aspects specifically, but also made it possible to identify connections between the aspects. Thus, I conducted a thematic analysis. I have identified three themes, each of which addresses a specific aspect of ludic visuals. In this analysis, I have observed how each aspect appears in practice and discuss their connections to the other two aspects. The three themes are: ludological elements, visual attributes, and experiential dimensions.

Ludological elements are features that are related to the systemic information of games, somehow connected to game mechanics, or game mechanics themselves. They are the game-mechanical aspect of ludic visuals. Within the theme of ludological elements, the thematic analysis discussed the game-mechanical information that ludic visuals aim to visualize. This pointed out what it means for game mechanics to be visible in a game and what kind of ludological information could be conveyed visually. Identifying the game information that was communicated visually was an important mission in this part of the thematic

METHODOLOGY 19

analysis. To investigate ludic visuals within the theme of ludological elements, I applied the action-based framework by Björk and Holopainen (2003).

Visual attributes are visual features that are visually perceptible in a game. They are the visual aspect of ludic visuals. Within the theme of visual attributes, the thematic analysis aimed to identify different kinds of visual ways for communicating game mechanics. The main point of this part was to identify the types of visual solutions that had ludological implications. To sufficiently cover the most important visual attributes in games, I adapted and combined various visual resources in this part of the analysis.

Experiential dimensions represent different modes of experiencing (Pine & Gilmore, 1998). They are the experiential aspect of ludic visuals. Initially, experiencing ludic visuals was a completely separate part of this thesis where the purpose was to briefly introduce the way that ludic visuals might appear during game experiences. As the research progressed, however, it became clear that the experiencing ludic visuals was perhaps their most definitive aspect. This meant that considering the impact of ludic visuals on game experiences turned out to be essential for truly understanding ludovisuality. For analyzing the role of ludic visuals in four experiential dimensions, I adapted the experiential framework by Pine and Gilmore (1998).

The thematic analysis was conducted with the practical implications in mind. The results were also backed up with previous research where applicable. It was important to consider as many points of view as possible because my research relied on my own interpretations of things. As stated by Nick Sousanis, “A fixed viewpoint – a single line of thought – can be a trap – where we see only what we’re looking for” (2015, p. 36). To avoid these traps, I always challenged my beliefs throughout this research, and that often led me to discover something new.

20 METHODOLOGY

2.4. Ludovisual Status

In practice, I started investigating ludic visuals through the matrix in Figure 2.2. The ludovisual status indicates the linked simultaneous presence of game mechanics and gamevisuals. When exploring various game mechanics and gamevisuals, I aimed to determine their ludovisual status.

The first ludovisual status (I) includes all ludic visuals. Here, a gamevisual represents a game mechanic, or in other words, a game mechanic has a visual presentation.

When a gamevisual does not have game-mechanical implications, it has the second status (II). In this status, although a gamevisual is visible in the game, it does not have a connection to a game mechanic. In this category, it is interesting to think about how far a gamevisual needs to be from game mechanics so that it would not be ludic anymore.

Figure 2.2. The matrix of ludovisual statuses. I: a ludic visual; II: a gamevisual that is not related to game mechanics; III: a game mechanic without any visualization; IV: something without a visualization or game-mechanical implications.

METHODOLOGY 21

If a game mechanic is not visualized, it has the third ludovisual status (III). This is often the case for extremely complex systems that are practically impossible to visualize and unnecessary for the players to fully understand. The way that online games pick opponents through matchmaking algorithms could be an example of this kind of game mechanic. Even though the players can observe the outcome of the selection when they see their opponents, the selection process itself is usually completely hidden. The third ludovisual status poses important questions on what it means for something to be visible and whether its non-visibility is, in fact, also a meaningful attribute.

The fourth status (IV), when there is nothing visual nor game-mechanical present, is here mostly just for the theoretical interest. This is not specifically discussed within the scope of this research, although it should be noted that there are many important things in games and around them that hold the fourth status. Certain fictional, social, or cultural features of games can be considered to have the fourth ludovisual status when they are not directly connected to game mechanics or gamevisuals.

Simply stating the ludovisual status of game elements would be a relatively simplistic approach for the complex topic of ludic visuals because the lines between these statuses are blurry and somewhat dependent on the viewer. However, the matrix of ludovisual statuses provides a setting for the discussion of these blurry lines. After identifying the ludovisual status of something, it is possible to start specifying the reason why it should be considered to have that specific status, which can often be more enlightening than picking the status itself.

3. THEORETICAL FOUNDATION

24 THEORETICAL FOUNDATION

3.1. Ludic Visuals and Ludology

Game-mechanical meaning is at the core of ludic visuals. This meaning is within the rule-based space that ludology studies, and it entails the game system on an abstract level: game mechanics. In other words, game mechanics are the system that enforces the rules and defines the possibilities of a gameworld (Hunicke et al., 2004).

Game studies are interested not only in the games themselves but also the players and the contexts around the games (Mäyrä, 2008). To some, ludology means the same thing as game studies. Here, I am using the word ludology to highlight game studies that specifically examine games as systems.

Even within the discipline of ludology, there are many ways to define games. Some are focused on the presence of rules, some emphasize the game system, and some see the make-believe as the most important feature that makes games what they are (e.g. Huizinga, 1967; Salen & Zimmerman, 2004; Schell, 2008). These definitions are mostly built around the ideas that games are abstract systems that direct what the players can do, cannot do, or should do within a game space.

But while ludology is still searching for a definitive answer for what games are, ludology rarely comments on how these abstract systems are communicated. Many game design frameworks expect or even recommend their components to be discernible but do not specifically address the way that they could be visualized (e.g. Björk & Holopainen, 2003; Hunicke et al., 2004; Järvinen, 2008; Salen & Zimmerman, 2004; Walk, Görlich, & Barrett, 2017). Yet, very specific parts of information are expected to be transferred from the game system to the player.

Nevertheless, the practical frameworks for game design sometimes verge on the presentational aspects of games. In these cases, the reference to the visual presentation is often implicit, and does not touch on the possibilities of visualization on a practical level (e.g. Björk & Holopainen, 2005; Salen & Zimmerman, 2004; Schell, 2008). On the other hand, practical knowledge about visualization of separate specific game features is being shared in the industry (e.g. Riotphoenix, 2015;

THEORETICAL FOUNDATION 25

Rosewater, 2019). Despite the amount of knowledge in both research and practice of ludology, there is little research to bridge the gap between these aspects.

26 THEORETICAL FOUNDATION

3.2. Ludic Visuals and Visual Research

There is a lot of practical knowledge of creating visuals for games. This information is often presented in compilations of tips and tricks rather than formed into a complete framework (e.g. Griffith, 2019; Rinard, Lim, & Dunn, 2016). Nevertheless, these practical learnings helped with forming the concept of ludic visuals.

Various previous research has focused on studying gamevisuals specifically. For example, Arsenault, Côté, and Larochelle (2015) have created a vocabulary for game graphics. Visual styles of videogames have also been a popular research topic (e.g. Cho, Donovan, & Lee, 2018; Keo, 2017).

Additionally, methods from other fields of visual research have been applied to the research of gamevisuals. Asaf Friedman (2015), for example, has analyzed gamevisuals through three different theories from the field of visual arts. As already mentioned, the means of visual storytelling have also been used for researching visual expression in games (Lilly, 2015; Solarski, 2013).

The previous approaches for analyzing gamevisuals offered tools also for researching ludic visuals. However, because the function of ludic visuals in games is to convey information, the visual prerequisites for conveying systemic meaning are specifically important. Applicable knowledge for analyzing these prerequisites can be found from the fields of illustration, infographics, and even semiotics.

Illustrations can be seen as visual messages that convey meaning (Male, 2007). Meanwhile, infographics aim to visualize abstract data sets (e.g. Koponen, Hildén, & Vapaasalo, 2016; Krum, 2013). Like ludic visuals express game systems, these visualizations allow the observers to effortlessly see the overall structure of the data that they represent. The relations between gamevisuals and game systems can also be researched with the means of semiotics, which focuses on the relationships between signs and meanings (e.g. Dormans, 2011; Thorne, Fischer, & Lu, 2012).

THEORETICAL FOUNDATION 27

Furthermore, because games are interactive experiences that are, more or less, made for players, it is also necessary to consider how these illustrated game mechanics are perceived. This eventually leads to researching gamevisuals as contributors to the game experience.

28 THEORETICAL FOUNDATION

3.3. Ludic Visuals and Game Experience

The third aspect of ludic visuals is the experience that they help create. Although games might present a specific kind of a setting, players experience the game in their own terms and create their own versions of the game in their minds. The player’s version does not necessarily match the actual setting of the game, but ultimately, what matters in games is how they are experienced.

Researchers and industry professionals alike have aspired to understand the user experience (UX) better during recent years (e.g. Bayliss, 2007; Cowley et al., 2014; Ermi & Mäyrä, 2005; Hodent, 2017; Kultima & Stenros, 2010; Nacke et al., 2009). The importance of this is apparent as games are essentially designed so that the players would have a certain type of an experience (Schell, 2008). UX knowledge has also been increasingly applied in the practice of making games (e.g. Ekman, 2019; Hagen, 2011; Hunicke et al., 2004; Walk et al., 2017; Wiechers, 2017).

In order to keep the focus on the rule-based and the mediated spaces while researching a subjective thing like experience, my approach deliberately leaves out a lot of influences that would come from outside the game setting. I use the term game experience to refer to the general idea of what kind of experience a game can offer, which is a type of an approximation that is based on the setting that the game provides. While the prerequisites for game experiences are the same for all players, the user experience of different players might still vary.

Because players access games through the mediated space, they are somewhat reliant on how the game is presented to them. They do not necessarily differentiate between what is a part of a simulation and what is purely an aesthetic decision (Swink, 2009). Thus, every visual detail can be understood as a part of the game that players can interpret.

By approaching games as worlds (e.g. Järvinen, 2008; Jørgensen, 2013), it is possible to consider how a player’s understanding of a game relies on its visual

THEORETICAL FOUNDATION 29

presentation. Here, it makes sense to take a closer look at how Jørgensen (2013) has researched gameworlds as interfaces:

The gameworld has many properties. It is the interface to the game system, and for this reason it is representational of it. At the same time, gameworlds are world constructs suggesting ecological environments. Gameworlds are also games and for this reason are built around the logics of games. (p. 55)

Following this line of thought, the experience of being within a gameworld can be considered similar to the experience of being within the real world. Researching games as worlds provides a great setting for researching game experience. This is also applicable to games that do not depict an environment that would resemble the real world: even abstract games have their own gameworlds that work according to the rules of the games (Linderoth & Bennerstedt, 2007). This approach is the ecological approach for studying game experience (Gibson, 1986; Linderoth & Bennerstedt, 2007; Meldgaard, 2012).

The ecological approach does not expect an environment to follow specific rules of the real world, which is one of the reasons for why it is applicable for researching gameworlds. James J. Gibson (1986), one of the most influential researchers of ecological psychology, stated the following:

The world of physical reality does not consist of meaningful things. The world of ecological reality, as I have been trying to describe it, does. If what we perceived were the entities of physics and mathematics, meanings would have to be imposed on them. But if what we perceive are the entities of environmental science, their meanings can be ‘discovered’. (p. 33)

Thus, an ecological reality consists of human-defined meanings. Gameworlds can be considered ecological realities in the sense that they are also entities that are based on various overlapping processes, but players find meanings within them to be able to navigate there. In terms of ecological reality, humans give meanings to things to make sense of the world. Even when these observed meanings are something that

30 THEORETICAL FOUNDATION

are governed by the rules of physics or determined by programmed algorithms, the meanings of ecological reality are be used to describe them.

Nevertheless, it is important to recognize that games are artificial, which means that everything in games is designed by people. Applying the knowledge of ecological realities into games is useful, but it is important to note how their status as artificial constructs sets them apart from the ecological reality of the real world. Hence, games are artificial ecological realities, and ludic visuals can be understood as parts of these artificial ecological realities.

Thus, it can also be said that ludic visuals are components that allow players to understand the human-defined meanings of the game system and act within the reality of the gameworld.7 Only through experience, it is possible to interpret the gameplay meaning that the visual representation conveys. Obtaining and maintaining the perspective of games as artificial ecological realities is a central feature of understanding not only the experiential but also the ludological and the visual aspects of ludic visuals.

7 There are, of course, also other ways for the players to make sense of the game system, but this thesis focuses on the visual ways of conveying game mechanics.

4. THEME I: LUDOLOGICAL ELEMENTS

32 THEME I: LUDOLOGICAL ELEMENTS

Figure 4.1. Ludological elements form the core of the Ludovisual Sphere.

THEME I: LUDOLOGICAL ELEMENTS 33

4.1. About Ludological Elements of Ludic Visuals

Ludological elements form the core of ludic visuals, as illustrated in Figure 4.1. It can be thought that both the visual expression and the experience are directed by them, hence they are at the nucleus of ludic visuals. In this chapter, I observe the possibilities and implications of visualizing these different types of game mechanics, thus identifying different types of ludological elements that ludic visuals can have.

The rule-based space is abstract in the sense that it cannot be explicitly pictured. It is possible to take pictures of a game situation, to explain the rules of the game, or to draw a flowchart of how the player navigates through the game, but the entity of the game system is always something more than what can be visualized. However, this abstract nature is what also allows for a great creative freedom when creating ludic visuals. When game mechanics are made visible in games, something actual is made out of an abstract concept (Friedman, 2015; Griffith, 2019).

The possibilities for visualizing game mechanics are endless. While there is a never-ending amount of game mechanics, even exactly the same game mechanic can be visualized in countless ways. However, it is possible to divide game mechanics into groups, which makes it possible to also analyze the needs for their visualization based on the specific needs of the group. This way, observations can be made about the practices of visualizing certain types of game mechanics, and patterns for ludovisual solutions can be discovered.

Originally, I wanted to develop my own framework that would support a purposeful analysis of the necessities of visualizing game mechanics. The framework needed to be based on interactions because of how games, regardless of the exact definition, are structured around possible actions and their consequences (e.g. Crawford, 1982; Salen & Zimmerman, 2004; Schell, 2008). While the exact definition of games is still debated on, the framework would be more generally applicable if it did not rely on any specific definition. This approach would also be in line with the view of games as artificial ecological realities because of how focusing

34 THEME I: LUDOLOGICAL ELEMENTS

on game actions means that players are considered actors within an ecological reality.

When I found Björk and Holopainen’s (2003, 2005) interaction-centric framework, I noticed that it matched the needs of my research. This meant that I could adapt it for my analysis instead of having to develop one from scratch. The framework places game mechanics into four categories that are based on their relation to game actions. When applied to analyzing ludic visuals, four types of ludological elements can be identified based the categories that Björk and Holopainen identified.

Each type of a ludological element relates to game actions in a specific way. Simply put, the holistic elements address the actions of playing as a whole, the structural elements are the parts that the actions are done with, boundary elements define the limits and possibilities of the actions, and temporal elements are the actual actions that happen within the game.8 While the general idea of the four main categories was directly applicable to my research, I did adjust some of the finer details for the purposes of this analysis.9

The interaction-centric framework fits the analysis of all kinds of games and their ludic visuals (Björk & Holopainen, 2003, 2005). The main categories effectively address different kinds of game mechanics. Additionally, all games are not expected to have all the introduced features. Thus, analyzing the visuality of game mechanics with this framework ensures that a diverse selection of game mechanics is addressed. It therefore also allows for examining the specific needs that each category has for visualization, which creates a good setting for starting to identify the effects of ludological visuality. This means considering the effects that the visual

8 Björk and Holopainen (2003) originally call these groups holistic, objective, boundary, and temporal components. Objective components are later referred to as structural components (Björk & Holopainen, 2005). 9 For example, Björk and Holopainen (2003, 2005) consider interface a structural element, but because this thesis considers gameworlds as interfaces in their entirety, interface was emitted from ludological elements in this analysis. Aside from this, I have adjusted some terms to better fit the purposes of this research and left out some smaller concepts that would not have provided much additional insight.

THEME I: LUDOLOGICAL ELEMENTS 35

representation of an element can have for the players who perform actions within a gameworld. I have been especially interested in game mechanics that might be easy to sort into the third ludovisual status, but upon further inspection, are actually ludic visuals.10

At the start of each subchapter, I use chess as an example to show what things are related to the ludological elements in question. Because chess is a well-known and relatively minimalistic boardgame, it provides a great setting for the first examples of each element.

10 The matrix of ludovisual statuses was introduced in Figure 2.2 of chapter 2.

36 THEME I: LUDOLOGICAL ELEMENTS

4.2. Visualizing the Feel of Holistic Elements

Holistic elements are related to the full ludological entirety of the game (Björk & Holopainen, 2003). To discuss them, it is necessary to think about games at the level of the magic circle that players step into when they step into the game and think according its rules (Huizinga, 1967) or the artificial ecological reality in its entirety. Viewing the game in terms of the holistic elements can happen from outside the magic circle as well as from the inside of it. Likewise, entering and exiting the magic circle are also holistic ludological elements.

When mentioning chess, for example, it is difficult not to think of at least some kind of holistic idea of chess. Most commonly this idea probably includes the checkerboard and the chess pieces, which is, essentially, a visualized image of chess. This is an example of thinking about chess as a whole from the outside of the game, but nevertheless, it is clear that the visual ideas of chess originate from the game itself and are not completely imaginary. Similarly, it is possible to evoke thoughts about a chess game through pictures of chess pieces, which indicates that visual images can be used to evoke thoughts about the magic circle of chess.

Moreover, entering and exiting a chess game are also visual events in the way that the board is visibly set up or cleaned up when crossing the magic circle of a chess game. Chess can also be played in tournaments, which is also a possible holistic element: one game is situated within a larger entity. There are also various tutorials and other references in other media, and common chess problems provide a picture of the state of the game and the goal is to solve the situation in as few turns as possible. These are all indications of how the ludological elements are strongly associated with visual imagery.

As discovered, holistic elements tend to reach outside of the rule-based and the mediated spaces, which could seem to cause problems when trying to relate them to the ludovisual status that indicates what the game itself offers. Nevertheless, the ludovisual status of holistic elements can, in fact, be analyzed by focusing on what is present in the game itself. This is possible by focusing on how ludovisuality can

THEME I: LUDOLOGICAL ELEMENTS 37

impact the holistic element in question. Even if the holistic element seemed to be situated completely outside the game, there are still ways for the game itself to have an impact on it. Thus, ludic visuals can appear outside of a game, although it should be noted that their origin is always the game itself. Outside of the game, they are images of ludic visuals.

The full significance of the visual presentation of holistic elements can be noticed by thinking of any game and observing how many thoughts about the game mechanics are strongly associated with their visual presentation. It is rare to think about a game without imagining the related visuals alongside the game mechanics.

Here, I highlight two examples of holistic elements: extra-game, and session. These holistic elements play an important role in the holistic view of games, and their visuality is important when thinking about the magic circle of a game.

4.2.1. Extra-game Extra-game takes place outside the game itself. While it could seem like this should have nothing to do with ludic visuals, the identity of a game is built around the idea of the game and its visual style, which is based on ludic visuals. As stated by Friedman (2015), “Images are the first thing one perceives in a game and they convey the concept of the game” (p. 293). In other words, imagery can arouse ideas of a game. This also means that many games can be identified based on their visual style alone (Keo, 2017).

Ori and the Blind Forest (Moon Studios, 2015a) is an illustrative example of a game with a strong visual identity. The painterly style of the game is easy to recognize. The cutscenes – the short video clips within the game – have the same style as the gameplay, which allows for nearly seamless transitions between them. This can also be observed from the screenshots of Figure 4.2.

38 THEME I: LUDOLOGICAL ELEMENTS

Figure 4.2. Screenshots of Ori and the Blind Forest (Moon Studios, 2015a) from the trailer of the game (Xbox, 2014). The game has a consistent style throughout the cutscenes and the gameplay.

THEME I: LUDOLOGICAL ELEMENTS 39

The game Death Stranding (Kojima Productions, 2019) by Hideo Kojima is also an interesting example of building an identity for a game. The trailers of Death Stranding were first shown to the public in 2016, and the game has been a subject for speculation since then. Kojima himself also participated in the discussion and stated that “Our game is still far from being released but the 'game' has already begun” (Grant, 2016, para. 2). Figure 4.3 displays screenshots of the Death Stranding trailer. This imagery alone is enough for the players to start “playing” the game.

It is evident that visual style has a big impact on how a game is thought about: visual presentation enhances the holistic elements making it possible to think about a game as a whole. The visual identity can both create ideas of the game mechanics and be a part of thinking about the game after playing it. Without the imagery, it would be more difficult to think about abstract concepts such as game mechanics. Similarly, providing false expectations via imagery that does not correctly display the ludological nature of the game could have a negative impact on the game experience.

Figure 4.3. Screenshots of the Death Stranding trailer by Kojima Productions (2016). The imagery in the trailer allowed people to start “playing” the game before it was officially released.

40 THEME I: LUDOLOGICAL ELEMENTS

4.2.2. Session Session means the complete process of playing a game from starting it to exiting it (Björk & Holopainen, 2003; Kultima & Stenros, 2010). In traditional games, this often includes setting up the board and clearing it up after the game. To start videogames, it is required to start the program that contains the game, and often also perform actions within a main menu.

The phase of entering and exiting a game session offers opportunities to assist the player when they travel in and out of the magic circle. For example, in What Remains of Edith Finch (Giant Sparrow, 2017), the experience of entering the game for the first time is especially memorable. The game starts by showing the game title on top of a scenery. Then, the player might take a while to realize this, but it is possible to turn the camera around, which shows how the game title is actually written on the sky, and that they are already in the gameworld. The game mechanic of being allowed to turn the camera while the starting screen is shown is a result of combining the visuals of the traditional starting menu with the visuals of the first scene of the game. This way, the player is seamlessly taken from the starting screen to the gameworld to start the first game session. This setting and the actions allowed in the situation make the starting scenery as a whole a ludic visual.

It is also possible for the real world and the magic circle of the game to overlap. This is the case in augmented reality games like Pokémon Go (Niantic & The Pokémon Company, 2016) where the gameworld is projected onto reality. This essentially makes the perceptible elements of real life into elements in the game as well – their ludological properties just are only accessible through the augmentations. In this case, the visual elements of the real world can work as cues to start a game session, if the player is already thinking in terms of the parallel existence of the gameworld.

Heroes of the Storm (Blizzard Entertainment, 2015) displays a different approach in how the session is clearly framed by a visual style that is different from the actual battles in the game as displayed in Figure 4.4. In this case, the changes in visual style

THEME I: LUDOLOGICAL ELEMENTS 41

are ludic visuals because of how they communicate different phases of the game session. Because of how a big amount of the game is about managing things in the game lobby, it has made sense to emphasize the menu experience instead of trying to minimize everything. A similar approach can be observed in various games that offer extensive options for customization.

When thinking about a game session as a whole, it is apparent that the visual presentation plays a big part in how the game feels like for the player. When a session starts, the visual imagery brings the players into the game, and as the player wants to exit, it provides a transition out of the game. It could also be possible to look at a session as a sequence of visual images. If the player was to take a screenshot every minute, what would the sequence look like? This could give indications for the overall visual impression that a game session might offer for a player.

Figure 4.4. Heroes of the Storm (Blizzard Entertainment, 2015) creates the mood before the player enters a battle. The futuristic, blue style surrounds each game session of Heroes of the Storm. The screenshots display chronological moments of one game session.

42 THEME I: LUDOLOGICAL ELEMENTS

4.3. Displaying the States of Structural Elements

Structural elements are the subjects and the objects of interactions within games, including the settings where the interactions take place and the substance of the players in terms of the game (Björk & Holopainen, 2005). They are the parts that form the structural setting of a gameworld.

The visibility of structural elements is, in many ways, relatively obvious. Being able to see the structural arrangement of a game is often necessary for understanding a game situation. It also seems intuitive that to be able to manipulate a component in a game, it usually needs to be visible in some form. Still, the visualizations of structural elements are not always recognized as something visual.

In chess, for example, there are two actors: one player on both sides. When playing a traditional boardgame version of chess, the players can see each other, but in online chess the other actor is invisible. While the game-mechanical preconditions are the same in both cases, their structural visibility is different. The other structural elements are relatively similar: the board and its tiles, the chess pieces and their roles and their states, and the situation of the game as a whole are all visible structural elements of chess.

Furthermore, the overall state of a chess game can be recognized as visual patterns that the structures form on the board. These visual patterns provide a way for chess professionals to remember specific situations on chess boards: studies show that they have many possible situations of a chess board stored in their long-term memory as visual patterns, which allows them to store references to these patterns in their short-term memory. It has also been observed that random arrangements of the pieces are harder to remember than real situations, which indicates that the recognized visual patterns are strongly connected to the ludological significance of the setting (Gobet & Simon, 1996; Sheridan & Reingold, 2014).

Hence, the visualization of a structural element can hold important information on its purpose within the ecological reality of the game. Furthermore, the game state can

THEME I: LUDOLOGICAL ELEMENTS 43

be defined as the comprehensive situation of all its parts, which, in some cases, can also be visually recognizable as a whole. The information about structural elements is often crucial for gameplay itself, and therefore their representation plays an important part in providing the players with accurate information about the state of the game and its parts.

In this subchapter, I examine three structural elements in more detail: actors, components, and states. All the elements have specific features that pose distinct needs for their visualization.

4.3.1. Actor The agents that perform actions in games are named actors.11 Both players and the game system can be considered actors. The game system does not often have a visible identity in itself, although its presence can be observed as system-controlled characters and visible changes in the state of the game. Players, on the other hand, are more likely to have a visual representation of themselves inside the game. In some cases, however, there are no visible actors.

The visualization of the players can also vary. In videogames, it is common for players to be able to control a character that is then considered the player avatar (Bayliss, 2007). It could be argued that an avatar is, in fact, not the actor itself but rather a representation of the actor. Nevertheless, the avatar represents the state of the actor as a structural element within the gameworld. Because the real-world appearance of the actor is irrelevant in this context, the avatar is the visualization of the actor. In this sense, when comparing videogames to sports, it is interesting to think of the physical bodies of the players as their avatars in a game. Within the gameworld, the players are their avatars.

It is also interesting to think about how the players’ perceptions of themselves are different from how other players see them. While the players are mostly aware of

11 Järvinen (2008) uses the term agents while Björk and Holopainen (2003) talk about players. I found actor to be a more descriptive term.

44 THEME I: LUDOLOGICAL ELEMENTS

what they are doing, the state of other players is approximated based on what is visible. Even the way that players see themselves might be completely different from how the others see them in the game. For example, some games allow the player to make their character temporarily invisible to others. In this case, the actor generally has a visualization, but its visibility is a game mechanic in itself.

Players do not, however, always have an avatar in videogames. In games where players are overseeing processes, such as The Sims (Maxis, 2000), Cities Skylines (Colossal Order, 2015), StarCraft (Blizzard Entertainment, 1998), and Civilization (MicroProse, 1991) it is common that the player controls units in a similar way that the game system does – by directly manipulating the game parts without a separate visual identity within the gameworld.

The Swapper (Facepalm Games, 2013) could be mentioned as an interesting exploration of visualizing actors. In this game, the player can generate copies of their character in the gameworld, essentially being able to replicate the actor within the game. In the screenshot of Figure 4.5, three copies of the player character are displayed. The player has simultaneous, direct control over all the characters, and they can essentially exist in several locations of the gameworld at once. But are the copies of actors still just one ludic visual because they are controlled by one actor – or should they be considered separate ludic visuals because they are visually separate?

All in all, there are various opportunities for visualizing the actors of a game in a meaningful way. While a player avatar can allow the players to express themselves via their appearance within the gameworld, which is often considered somewhat of a cosmetic addition, the visualization of actors often has direct effects on gameplay in the bigger picture.

THEME I: LUDOLOGICAL ELEMENTS 45

Figure 4.5. Screenshot of The Swapper (Facepalm Games, 2013) from its press kit (Facepalm Games, 2014). In the depicted moment, the player actor controls three instances of the avatar character.

Figure 4.6. The components of Monument Valley (Ustwo Games, 2014) are carefully placed to illustrate a geometric puzzle. By turning the component in the middle, the player can create paths in a way that plays with optical illusions.

46 THEME I: LUDOLOGICAL ELEMENTS

4.3.2. Component While actors are the performers of an action, components are the objects of these actions (Björk & Holopainen, 2003). Structural components include, for example, all manipulatable objects within a gameworld, the parts that form the game environment, and the superimposed objects on top of the screen view. The visuality of these components can seem obvious. Nevertheless, the appearance of the components can vary, and sometimes they are not visible at all.

For example, in World of Warcraft (Blizzard Entertainment, 2004) it is possible to collect herbs. However, after collecting the herb from the environment, it is merely represented as an icon in the inventory menu where the amount of the herbs is also indicated with a number. While the icon may more or less resemble the herbs that appear in the environment, its visual presentation is drastically different.

A similar phenomenon can be witnessed in several games where something can be collected from the environment or placed into it. In each case, however, the visualization has been adapted to the current role of the component. While in the environment, the herb is a part of the scenery as well as a possible collectible, thus its visual presentation fits the environment while also indicating that it can be interacted with. In the inventory, the herb is an obtained resource that can be used for further purposes, and so it is displayed as a simplified icon that can be easily identified and counted.

It is also possible for structural elements to have a clear functionality that, despite its simplicity, works against the general expectations that would be based on a physical reality. Games like FEZ (Fish, 2012) and Monument Valley (Ustwo Games, 2014) play with optical illusions and changing dimensions in ways that make the visible structure into a part of the puzzles. The screenshots of Monument Valley in Figure 4.6 show how the components of the game create functional structures based on the perspective.

Thus, while components are mostly visual, the way that they are visualized can vary. The role of the component often directly affects its visualization. In addition,

THEME I: LUDOLOGICAL ELEMENTS 47

the components may have different states where their attributes vary. Like for actors, the information about the state of the component can be displayed on the structural element itself – or it can be visualized by other means.

4.3.3. State Both actors and components are structural elements that can have different variables. With different configurations of these variables, the structural element in question can have a specific state. For example, a common variable in games is health that is often measured in health points. In this case, the amount of health is a variable, and varying its amount means that the state of the element changes. If an element has no health points left, a more drastic state usually activates as the element is either momentarily or permanently removed from the game.

States are often crucial for the progress of the game. As systems, games can contain a massive amount of different states during the course of the game (Järvinen, 2008). For the players, it is important to stay aware of these states. Especially in competitive games, it is vital to know the states in the game to be able to make optimal decisions. This can be witnessed by observing the visual data that is superimposed on the screen for many competitive games. Because of their importance, states are often visualized in great precision – often to the level of displaying the exact number values of variables. When seeing the amount of health as a progress bar together with its numerical value, the player can accurately determine the state of that structural element.

However, if a state is superimposed on the screen, it is often rather disconnected from the actual beholder of that state. The component with that status is visualized elsewhere, thus the displayed status contains a mere reference to the component itself. Nevertheless, sometimes it is necessary to know certain information at all times and presenting references to various states around the game is not only justifiable but often recommended.

48 THEME I: LUDOLOGICAL ELEMENTS

Different states can also be visualized in other ways. Because of how the states reflect the ecological status of the structural elements within the gameworld, visualizing them can make many abstract variables more concrete. For example, in a game like League of Legends (Riot Games, 2009), there are countless things that constantly switch between states. But while League of Legends presents a massive amount of information on the screen during all phases of the game, certain important state changes are made visual by altering the presentation of the structural element itself. For instance, the turrets visibly crumble as their health points are lowered. Once a turret is completely destroyed, it leaves behind a stump. These details, among many others, can make the actors and components feel more like a genuine part of the gameworld because of how their states can be visually observed.

Similarly, in a much more minimalistic game Journey (thatgamecompany, 2012a), the states of the player avatar are expressed visually. While Solarski (2013) has commented on how the game excels in displaying emotions, the player avatar also visually expresses the ludological state of the avatar. The character, for example, bends down and slows down in a snowstorm, and slides gracefully on steep sand dunes. I would argue that the visual excellence of this game is also due to how the visual expression correlates with the ludological states of the avatar and the surrounding environment. The visual expression matches the things that happen, so the player can directly see the state of the game and their avatar within the gameworld. All these visual details emphasize the state of the game itself and make the gameworld more believable.

Something that might not often be considered a state is the placement of structural elements. Yet, the position within a gameworld can be thought of as a state of location, which also makes it possible for the structural elements to form the visually recognizable patterns in chess. Similarly, physical variables, for example gravity in basketball, can also be seen as states. An interesting example of this could be the game Noita (Nolla Games, 2019) where “every pixel is physically simulated,” which means that each pixel is a component of its own that can have specific states.

THEME I: LUDOLOGICAL ELEMENTS 49

Lastly, complex overlaps of states can be observed in World of Warcraft (Blizzard Entertainment, 2004) where component states are part of actor states. The equipment alters the state of the character, which means that equipping and unequipping an item are changes of states as well. In Figure 4.7 it can be observed that many pieces of equipment are depicted on the character, but the characters can also be inspected for further information about their equipment. This additional, more specific information is often explained verbally. However, it is possible to alter the looks of the equipment, so the equipped armor might be different from what is seen on the character. In those cases, the equipment state of the character is hidden. As seen in Figure 4.8, it is also possible for the equipment not to be visible on the character at all, for example if the character can shapeshift. Furthermore, some items look identical to each other, so it might not be possible to tell them apart anyway. However, some specifically strong temporary effects are sometimes depicted on top of the character as can also be observed from Figure 4.8. Thus, it can be concluded that the characters in World of Warcraft contain a massive selection of interdependent states that are visualized in various ways. Often the most important states are visualized in a more emphasized way while some of the information can be left more hidden.

Overall, it is necessary to display the states of both actors and components on a reasonable level. More detailed information can be provided through a separate inspection, but it is important for the most relevant information to be readily available, and often it means that this information should be visualized. It is also important to note that sometimes it might be purposeful to hide information – but this type of a solution should be deliberate and not accidental.

50 THEME I: LUDOLOGICAL ELEMENTS

Figure 4.7. Screenshots of equipment in World of Warcraft (Blizzard Entertainment, 2004). The equipment is mostly visible, but its appearance might be altered, and all of the detailed attributes cannot be visualized. In some situations, certain equipment is not visible at all. The screenshots on the right are retrieved from the World of Warcraft website (https://worldofwarcraft.com/en-gb/).

Figure 4.8. Indications of different states in World of Warcraft (Blizzard Entertainment, 2004). Equipment is normally not visible in cat form, but if a specific trinket activates, the blue effect is shown on top of the character.

THEME I: LUDOLOGICAL ELEMENTS 51

4.4. Presenting the Directives of Boundary Elements

Boundary elements define the possibilities and limitations of the game (Björk & Holopainen, 2003). While some of the boundaries might be obvious, some might seem more obscure. In videogames, the game code usually enforces the rules by letting players only perform actions that are allowed by the game rules. In boardgames and physical games like sports, the setting is different as the rules need to be consciously understood and followed.

Some definitions of games focus mainly on the boundary elements. According to these definitions, it is important that the game has a rule-defined structure and that the player has a goal that they are trying to reach (Costikyan, 2002; Salen & Zimmerman, 2004). Rarely though, it is acknowledged how much the visual presentation can affect the understanding of a game. For example, Juul (2005) has studied the interconnections of the rule-based and the fictional spaces, and he has also used chess as an example:

There is generally a clear-cut split between the fiction and the rules of a game: The rules of chess govern the movement of the pieces; the representation fiction of chess is the shape and color of the pieces. No matter how the pieces are shaped, the rules, gameplay, and strategies remain identical. (p. 57).

While it is true that changing the appearance of chess pieces would not necessarily change the rules, the visual representation plays a part in conveying the rules. Changing the visual appearance of the pieces might, for example, make it difficult to tell them apart. Even if players could follow the rules of a game blindfolded, and even if the rules might not directly rely on the visual presentation, the visuals affect the experience of understanding and following the rules.

If the visual presentation of chess was altered more drastically, it becomes easier to notice the ways that it can affect the perception of boundary elements. The game area itself is defined as an 8x8 grid, but if a board with a 12x12 was used for a chess

52 THEME I: LUDOLOGICAL ELEMENTS

game, the players would need to know which tiles belong to the game area. With an 8x8 grid, it is obvious that the pieces can move to any of the tiles. Similarly, playing chess on a parallelogram-shaped board would also skew the movement patterns of the pieces: all the paths of allowed movements would also become tilted.

In chess, there are also various boundary elements that do not have a clear visual indication, and they do need to be learned before the game can be understood. As the chess pieces do not exactly tell where they can move, the players simply need to know the allowed movements of each piece. In online chess, however, the movements of each piece are usually enforced so that the allowed tiles are highlighted, and the system would not even allow any other actions.

It would seem that when boundary elements are visual, they often are visual as the relations and formations of structural elements. Via these visual cues, players can figure out some of the possibilities and limitations in the game. Games might provide indications of the boundaries and trust the players to learn to read the signs by trial and error. Meanwhile, it is also clear that many do not consciously realize the impact that visuality has on these elements. I will discuss two boundary elements in more detail: rules and goals.

4.4.1. Rules Rules define the possibilities and the limitations of a game. They define the logic and the cause-and-effect relationships of a gameworld. Rules also determine what players can and cannot do within the game, therefore defining the role that they have in the gameworld and how they can affect it.

Gibson (1986) defines affordances as follows: “affordances of the environment are what it offers the animal, what it provides or furnishes, either for good or ill” (p. 127). Gibson saw affordances as something that involves two reciprocal parties: something offers something to someone. To put this to the context of games, affordance means that the rules provide players the possibility of doing something within a game. This means that, because affordances are defined by rules, visible

THEME I: LUDOLOGICAL ELEMENTS 53

affordances are visualizations of rules. In other words, visible affordances are ludic visuals of rules.

Due to its usefulness for discussing the meaningful parts of environments, affordance has been adapted as a term also in game research (e.g. Cardona-Rivera & Young, 2014; Linderoth & Bennerstedt, 2007; McBride-Charpentier, 2011; Meldgaard, 2012). Generally, there can be thought to be four types of affordances: visible affordances, hidden affordances, false affordances, and correct rejection (Gaver, 1991). The affordance types can also be related to the ludovisual status matrix of Figure 2.2.

Whereas the possibility of an action can be evaluated based on affordances, signifiers are more like guidance for following the rules (Norman, 1990; Toups, Dolgov, & Bonsignore, 2014). Thus, signifiers can further guide players to navigate within a gameworld. The difference between a signifier and an affordance is sometimes negligible in a game setting, though, as gameworlds are artificial entities, which means that their affordances can be widely different from those of the real world.

At first, some visuals in games might seem like signifiers, but on further inspection they might also be categorized as affordances because of how they can be thought to belong to the ecological reality of the game. For example, in What Remains of Edith Finch (Giant Sparrow, 2017), the interactable objects are highlighted with bright white outlines. The bright outlines could be a clear signifier to some, but to others, the outlines might be a natural part of how the gameworld works.12 Thus, I consider the outlines affordances.

Highlighting interactable objects was an example of an affordance that could easily be distinguished. However, some affordances are inseparable parts of the

12 Because I consider all visual elements to belong to the ecological reality of the game, I have also not been concerned about if a visual is considered diegetic or not. In games, diegesis would also be a relatively inaccurate term for separating what is thought to be visible within the narrative of the gameworld, which is further rationalized by Jørgensen (2011, 2013).

54 THEME I: LUDOLOGICAL ELEMENTS

visual presentation of an object. In a similar way that a component or an actor can have states, they can also have affordances that visually indicate the possible actions.

An additional case of affordances that is worth mentioning here is an unclear affordance. For an unclear affordance, a possibility of an action is implied, but the correct action is not known. This situation can be a result of oblivious design, but it can be also intentional. For example, when the intention is to induce curiosity about upcoming things, it can be beneficial to let players discover the right actions later in the game.

Transistor (Supergiant Games, 2014) demonstrates an example of unclear affordances. In the game, the player gets to combine different functions together to form new functions. These combined functions can then be used for battling, and all the combinations yield different results. The menu for selecting the functions presents an affordance for the selection, but the exact actions that the player can perform are not immediately clear, as can be observed in Figure 4.9. Without having played the game before, the situation in Figure 4.9 does not make much sense. Although this superimposed interface fits the game perfectly and contains all the necessary information, the affordances are unclear in this case.

Figure 4.9. Screenshots of Transistor (Supergiant Games, 2014). Different functions can be combined together in a superimposed menu. The equipped functions can always be seen in the action bar.

Affordances can also be based on what players already know but sometimes it is necessary to come up with new concepts. A gameworld that does not resemble the real world cannot have affordances directly based on the real world. Nonetheless,

THEME I: LUDOLOGICAL ELEMENTS 55

when creating visible affordances that are not based on the real world, it is interesting to try to come up with things that could still feel natural and intuitive in the gameworld setting.

Visible affordances allow the players to observe what is possible within the artificial ecological reality of the game. This is different from observing the possibilities of actions in the real world because the physical rules of the real world do not apply in games. The rules of the gameworld can be anything, thus it is important to visualize them with intention, because obscurity in rules is usually not something that should pose a challenge in a game. Moreover, even if some affordances were not visualized, it should be possible to discover them via trial and error.

If the rules are intuitively visualized, the game can be understood more easily. Then, it is easier for players to get into the game and to focus on the things that matter instead of trying to figure out what is allowed and what is not. Sometimes, though, the affordances can be intentionally unclear or even hidden.

4.4.2. Goals According to several definitions, games are expected to have quantifiable outcomes (Juul, 2005; Salen & Zimmerman, 2004). Even if the quantifiable outcome was not a requirement, it is common for players to have something to desire in games (Costikyan, 2002). This aspiration to achieve something can be provided from within the game, or the player can have personal motivation to do a specific thing in the game, but regardless, all these objectives can be thought of as goals. These can vary from larger scale goals that would mean finishing the game to smaller subgoals that the player can have while pursuing the end goal.

It would be easy to dismiss goals as something abstract and not visual. But when goals are considered in terms of the gameworld, they are often extremely tangible and easy to visualize. As goals are presented in games for the first time, they often need to be interesting enough for the players to want to pursue them, and concrete

56 THEME I: LUDOLOGICAL ELEMENTS

enough for the goal to be easily understandable. Likewise, even if the game did not display explicit goals, it is often possible to visualize the progression of the game in some way. For example, in Journey (thatgamecompany, 2012a), goals are not presented in an explicit way, but the player is expected to enjoy the feeling of discovery. The final goal is, however, often visible from the distance, which can be seen in Figure 4.10.

Goals can help players to have a sense of purpose in the game, and when goals are visualized, the progression towards the goals becomes more tangible. Having a sense of purpose within the gameworld can make the players more invested in the game, and visualizing the situations and the outcomes helps with this (Nikulin, 2014). This means providing perceivable changes that the players can follow, which allows them to see the goal becoming closer. The visualization of goals makes them more tangible.

Figure 4.10. Screenshot of Journey (thatgamecompany, 2012a) from its press kit (thatgamecompany, 2012b). The mountain – the final goal – can be seen in the distance from the very beginning of the game.

THEME I: LUDOLOGICAL ELEMENTS 57

4.5. Showing Visual Feedback for Temporal Elements

The events that happen in a game are temporal elements (Björk & Holopainen, 2003). While space can be thought to consist of objects, time consists of events (Gibson, 1986). In games, these events – temporal elements – can be triggered by player actions or they can be events that are onset by the game system. Temporal elements can be continuous or discrete, and they can change the game situation momentarily, permanently, or not at all. Temporal elements generally are changes of the other ludological elements.

So, if something happens in a game but there is no visual feedback to show that it happened, has it actually happened? To realize that something is happening, players need an indication of the event. This indication is often visual feedback. While it could seem obvious that visual feedback stands for visual effects in videogames, it is important to notice that the concept reaches a lot further than just the effects: any visual indication of an occurring event is visual feedback.

The visualization of temporal actions does not only entail the visual effects that happen during an event, but it also includes the perceptible simulated behaviors and changes in spatial arrangements. It is also an important part of many traditional games. For example, chess is tied to visuospatial abilities as the players observe complex game situations and plan their moves (Reingold, Charness, Pomplun, & Stampe, 2001; Sheridan & Reingold, 2014; Waters, Gobet, & Leyden, 2002). In fact, all the actions in chess do have visual feedback.

In chess, when an action takes place, the chess pieces are visibly moved to a different place on the board. Additionally, when a piece gets captured, they are usually placed on a chess piece cemetery next to the board so that the players can keep track of the captured pieces. Even the final conclusion in chess is often visualized so that the losing player pushes over their king. Pushing the king over can also be used as a gesture of giving up at any point of the game.

58 THEME I: LUDOLOGICAL ELEMENTS

Recognizing the importance of visual feedback starts from realizing how they affect player experience. When an abstract event happens in a game, the player cannot know that it has happened if there is no feedback to tell about it.

Furthermore, players do not consciously separate between which visuals are directly related to the temporal elements and which are not (Swink, 2009). This leads to an opportunity to create all kinds of causal connections within the artificial ecological realities of games – even if they acted against the physical reality that humans are used to. Providing a causal relation to the events within a game can be important for understanding the game system.

I have differentiated temporal elements based on the performer of the action: first I will discuss the things that affect the visualization of the player’s own actions, and then I will analyze what is visually relevant for the events that are controlled by others. This partition is again based on the fact that both categories have different priorities concerning their visualization.

4.5.1. Actions of player Without visual feedback, the player might not realize what their action has caused – or even that the game has accepted their input as an action. If the game does not respond to the action of the player in any way, the player might even think that the rules of the game do not allow that action. When the player performs an action, they need a confirmation that the action is accepted. Often this confirmation happens via a visual response.13

Because actions directly affect the system, their importance is evident, recognized, and even emphasized. Getting appropriate feedback about both successful and unsuccessful actions is important (Swink, 2009).

13 There are often also other types of feedback for players’ actions, for example sounds or haptic feedback. The presence of these other kinds of feedback might affect the need for showing visual feedback. However, this discussion is out of the scope of this thesis, and perhaps a topic for later research instead.

THEME I: LUDOLOGICAL ELEMENTS 59

And while it is important to know that an action has happened, the visualization also plays a big part in what it feels like to perform the action. Consequently, the visual feedback of actions is often amplified to maximize the impression that the player is powerful and in control. Simply amplifying the visual feedback can lead to the game feeling a lot more responsive and alive (Purho & Jonasson, 2012; Willem, 2013). For example, in the digital card game Hearthstone (Blizzard Entertainment, 2014), the card attacks have been made to feel extremely impactful. In the game, the cards move to their enemy to deal damage. The amount of damage determines the strength of the punching animation.

Another example of satisfying visual feedback can be found in Crash Team Racing (Naughty Dog, 1999) as displayed in Figure 4.11. The game provides a lot of visual feedback during the power sliding mechanic: the car turns, the tires leave marks on the ground, the character figure pivots to the turning direction, and the exhaust pipes light up according to the player actions. Additionally, if the player successfully boosts three times during a power slide, the car even pops a wheelie. Observing the feedback here is such a central part of the gameplay that it would be difficult to imagine this game mechanic without all these visuals together.

Figure 4.11. Screenshots of power sliding in Crash Team Racing (Naughty Dog, 1999) from a video recording by OniLink24 (2012). The richness of visual feedback during power sliding is apparent even in the screenshots, although the responsiveness of the game is something that would need to be experienced in person. On the left, the character is in the middle of a power slide and on the right, the third and final boost of the power slide has just been activated.

60 THEME I: LUDOLOGICAL ELEMENTS

4.5.2. Other events Players usually anticipate visual feedback when they perform an action, but the situation is completely different for events that are performed by others. Players have control of what they do, which means that they are aware of the temporal elements at play that they are causing. To know about other events, they must rely on receiving information by observing the game.

Whereas it was noted necessary to provide information about different states in the game system, it is possibly even more important to notify the player about changes in the states. Similarly, changes in the structural or boundary elements might affect decision-making in the game, in which case it is usually important to show visual feedback about them.

In Thumper (Drool, 2016) there is a lot of visual feedback. This is, however, partly done at the expense of other visual clarity, which can be observed from Figure 4.12. While Thumper excels in providing visual feedback to the player, some events are overshadowed by the excessive visual feedback of the actions. In Thumper, the player needs to press the correct buttons in correct timing, which is determined based on the tiles on the track. Because of the excessive visual feedback, the fast pace of the game, and the similarity of the tiles, it is sometimes easy to confuse the tiles with each other. This is an unfortunate shortcoming in a game that is otherwise visually excellent.

Players should usually be kept aware of the events that happen in a game because of how the game states or even rules can change as a result of them, and players make decisions based on this information. Furthermore, it might help if the change can be anticipated so that the player can plan their own actions accordingly. Sometimes, though, it can be a conscious design decision to hide this information initially or completely. Visual feedback allows players to follow the events of a game.

THEME I: LUDOLOGICAL ELEMENTS 61

Figure 4.12. Thumper (Drool, 2016) has such explosive audio-visual feedback that it is described as “rhythm violence” in the game description. Both actions and events violently burst on the screen.

5. THEME II: VISUAL ATTRIBUTES

64 THEME II: VISUAL ATTRIBUTES

Figure 5.1. Visual attributes form the middle layer of the Ludovisual Sphere.

THEME II: VISUAL ATTRIBUTES 65

5.1. About Visual Attributes of Ludic Visuals

Between the abstract ludological and experiential layers, there are visual attributes of ludic visuals, as depicted in Figure 5.1. Unlike the other two aspects, visuals can be considered to be objectively present because they can be concretely seen within a game. However, the visual aspect of ludic visuals is immensely complex in the way that it is intertwined with the other two aspects. Because of how the other aspects are more abstract, visual attributes also have various abstract implications.

There is a lot of knowledge about visual perception, various different visual theories have been developed, and various best practices have been formed for making the best possible visualizations. There is an abundance of visual knowledge, but it might have been difficult to apply this knowledge in games. However, I argue that all visual knowledge could be used when making games. For ludic visuals, there are a few specific fields of visual research that are especially relevant.

Infographics and interface design hold a lot of useful knowledge related to ludic visuals because of how they are focused on conveying information and facilitating interaction. Similarly, the practices of illustration are also applicable because of how ludic visuals are illustrations of game mechanics. The teachings of semiotics and gestalt psychology can also be used to direct the perception of players purely by visual means, which also is a feature of ludic visuals. Furthermore, visual elements (Dondis, 1973) and the syntax, semantic, and the pragmatic levels of images (Hatva, 1993) could provide ways to systematically address different features of gamevisuals.

Nevertheless, none of these visual theories directly address all the intricacies that visuals are subject to in games. While there have been attempts to categorize visuals of games specifically (Arsenault et al., 2015), and visual theories have been used to analyze gamevisuals (Friedman, 2015), I chose to approach the topic from a different perspective. In this thesis, games are considered artificial ecological realities, which provides the possibility to study visual attributes from that perspective as well.

66 THEME II: VISUAL ATTRIBUTES

Consequently, instead of picking one approach and showing how that is applicable for games, I chose to focus on forming a way to see visual attributes as an integral part of games and understanding their role as part of ludic visuals. The factor that combines a visualization to its ludological and experiential layers – the factor that forms a ludic visual from three different layers – is meaning.

Without experiencing the visual as a ludological element and interpreting some level of meaning, it would not have a relation to either of the other layers. Thus, a gamevisual needs to be considered in relation to the ludological experience in order to be understood as a ludic visual. In other words, although the previous chapter mentioned various ways of visualizing ludological elements, none of them would be ludic visuals without the players who experience them as parts of gameworlds.14

Ludic visuals essentially act together with game design. Game mechanics are the parts of game systems, and they can be expressed with visual attributes that, in turn, are interpreted by the players. The excellence of the visualization of a ludic visual, then, depends on how its interpretation matches the intended meaning. And while the ludological elements can be thought to direct all other features of a game, it is important to recognize how ludic visuals are, in fact, a part of game design, and can impact game design decisions in significant ways. Hence, it makes sense to take a closer look to what kind of visual attributes convey the ludological messages to the players and what kind of visual things affect experiencing them.

As games are complex systems, they hold an immense amount of meanings that could be conveyed to the players, and indeed, games have been noted to be full of signs (Salen & Zimmerman, 2004). Ludic visuals can even be thought to be illustrations because of how they are messages that hold meaning (Male, 2007). Therefore, all ludic visuals are types of messages that illustrate game mechanics for the players.

14 The ways that players experience ludic visuals are further discussed in the following chapter. Acknowledging the experiential significance is, however, already important in the context of this chapter.

THEME II: VISUAL ATTRIBUTES 67

Experiencing visuals in games has many unique features when compared to experiencing visuals in other media. As we have already established games as artificial ecological realities, it is essential to take that view into consideration here as well. Within a gameworld, the player understands the game system based on its visualization and interacts with it based on its visual presentation. The gameworld both provides the means for the player’s actions and also visualizes the game system (Jørgensen, 2013).

It is also possible to separate ecological information from emphatic information (Jørgensen, 2013), but in the light of how players understand gameworlds, this separation is not always necessary when we consider all the visual parts of the gameworld to belong to the ecological reality of the game. Making something in a game resemble the real world would not make it belong to the ecological reality of the game any more or less than visualizing it in another way. For example, even if we know that the exclamation marks for quests are designed to grab player attention, it can also be thought of as an integral function of the gameworld: whenever someone has a mission that a player can help with, a question mark appears. We can assimilate this to how yawning indicates tiredness in the real world. The definition of what is ecological within an artificial reality is not the same as the physical reality that we live in, and therefore I consider them to be representations of themselves instead of something else, regardless of them seeming emphatic or integrated.

Similarly, it has been common to separate superimposed information from the information that is integrated into the gameworld (Jørgensen, 2013).15 On one hand, Llanos and Jørgensen (2011) conclude that integrating system information into the gameworld is not valuable in itself if it obscures important information. On the other hand, imaginative solutions for displaying relevant information within gameworlds are appreciated by the audience (Scheurle, 2018), which has also been empirically researched (e.g. Iacovides, Cox, Kennedy, Cairns, & Jennett, 2015). Consequently,

15 Integrated information is sometimes referred to as diegetic information while superimposed visuals are commonly called user interface. But as was earlier discussed, I consider gameworlds to be interfaces in their entirety, which means that it makes sense just to call the superimposed parts of the interface superimposed. This helps with understanding the concept of ludic visuals as well.

68 THEME II: VISUAL ATTRIBUTES

integrating the information into the gameworld can be considered valuable as long as clarity is retained. Nevertheless, I will not specifically address this debate in this thesis. Instead, I acknowledge that ludic visuals can have different positionings in relation to the player and the gameworld, and I observe them regardless of where they are presented.

It is also meaningful to consider the way that gamevisuals exist within the gameworld. Within the gameworld, they are a part of a bigger whole, thus, they are always seen in relation to other visuals. Like how “everything in this world presents itself in context and is modulated by that context” (Arnheim, 1969, p. 37), in games, ludic visuals are surrounded by the other visuals of the game.

In art galleries, the absence of context lets us focus on the art pieces and their meaning (O’Doherty, 1999). In gameworlds, however, every part of the game is designed and created for that game specifically, hence it is possible to even create contexts for the players to experience. Games entail both the context and the content.

Because games make it possible to create complete contexts around content, and because they allow players to act within them, it is not sufficient to only analyze them based on the traditional means of analyzing images. Via applying visual knowledge to making and researching games, I have formed a practical way of thinking about visuals in games that allows analyzing visual attributes while considering the ludological elements as well as the experiential dimensions. This approach is practical because of how concise it is but also because how it can lead to a direction that provides further knowledge on specific topics. This approach can lead to noticing problems and help with finding solutions for these problems in ways that are not based on what “everyone else does” but on applying knowledge and deliberately designing something to answer a problem.

The three subthemes that I have found more useful are: depiction, location, and timing. These might seem simple at first, and in some sense, they are. However, they are remarkably applicable for analyzing ludic visuals as parts of artificial ecological realities, and they open the way for increasingly complex ludovisual attributes that

THEME II: VISUAL ATTRIBUTES 69

are present in games. Besides, the attributes that are covered by these topics conveniently answer three main questions: what, where, and when.

When considering these three subthemes, there are three specific perspectives that can help in identifying visual attributes of ludic visuals. These perspectives provide a way to study the visual side of ludic visuals with respect to both of their other aspects: ludological elements and experiential dimensions.

First, it is important to consider that any view of the game is a perceivable entity. It is possible to take a screenshot of a videogame or a photo of a chessboard and analyze the attributes of that captured moment. Any moment of a game has a specific view, which includes all the visual things that are perceptible in that moment. This perspective takes into account the fact that game experiences consist of moments in time, and only a certain amount of ludological information can be available at once.

Secondly, the gameworld itself can be considered a visual entity. Although the whole gameworld might not be visible during the whole game, it is a visual space that the player can learn to understand, and they learn to think of ludic visuals based on how they are presented within that world. Nevertheless, players experience the gameworld through the view that is offered for them, hence their perception of the gameworld is tied to the views that they can use to explore that world. This perspective considers players as beings within the gameworld and acknowledges that they are trying to make sense of the ludological systems through the visual presentation.

Thirdly, the interactions of the player are central features in games because of how games are built around interactivity. Being able to interact in the gameworld brings agency for the players, hence it is important to visualize the impact that the players have on the gameworld. This perspective highlights the natural interactivity of games.

Again referring to the ludovisual status matrix of Figure 2.2, in this chapter I mostly focus on gamevisuals that could at first seem like they have the second ludovisual status, but which upon further investigation turned out to be ludic visuals.

70 THEME II: VISUAL ATTRIBUTES

Using the aforementioned subthemes and perspectives, it is possible to identify specific visual attributes. These visual attributes can then be connected to both ludological elements and experiential dimensions, which makes them ludic visuals.

THEME II: VISUAL ATTRIBUTES 71

5.2. Ludic Visuals as Depictions

Depiction is a broad term for the visual substance of a ludic visual. It is the visual attribute that defines the visual appearance of something in terms of content, visual style, or context within the game. While depictions are visual attributes that can be relatively objectively identified, the way that they are interpreted might still differ.

Ludic visuals have several specific needs regarding depiction. While there are a lot of resources for how to create nice and clear depictions, I will here address the peculiarities of depicting ludic visuals specifically.

There is no absolute way for choosing a perfect depiction for a game mechanic, but there are multiple things to consider when forming an idea of how something would be depicted. One core consideration would be to discernably visualize the necessary ludological elements, which was covered in the previous chapter. It is also important to aim for a depiction that enhances the game experience, which is explored further in the next chapter. The depiction should also fit the overall visual style of the game, be appropriately visible on the screen, have a purposeful existence in the gameworld, and create agency for the player.

In a way, ludic visuals could be researched with the principles of visual semiotics. To some degree, the depictions of ludic visuals are signifiers of the ludological elements that are signified. However, trying to apply the traditional three categories – icons, indices, and symbols – is problematic when examining ludic visuals in gameworlds.

Because gameworlds are artificial, things that could be considered symbols in real life might sometimes be only depictions of something within the gameworld. In those cases, the symbol becomes the representation, and it should not be considered a symbol in the semiotic sense. For example, in games like World of Warcraft (Blizzard Entertainment, 2004), there are countless things that alter the statuses of characters, but often the only visible indication of a status is a small rectangular picture of that status. On one hand, that picture is a semiotic symbol because it

72 THEME II: VISUAL ATTRIBUTES

symbolizes something that happens to a character. On the other hand, though, the picture could be considered the depiction of the status and not a mere symbol of something else. Because no other visual representation of the status exists, the picture is a semiotic icon, a depiction.

A related phenomenon can be observed in Stardew Valley (ConcernedApe, 2016). The game is completely depicted with pixel art. In this game, the items are displayed in exactly the same way both when they are growing in the farm and after they have been picked up as can be seen in Figure 5.2. Thus, in Stardew Valley, there is no visual difference between the items that are in the environment and the items that are in the inventory, although their functional difference would make it so that one is a semiotic icon and the other is a symbol. Especially in abstract games like Tetris (Pajitnov, 1984), although it might be possible to analyze ludic visuals as signs, another kind of approach seems more appropriate: it makes sense to look at ludic visuals as things within an ecological reality and relate the visuality of gameworlds to the visuality of real life.

Similar to how humans find patterns in nature, it is also possible to start finding patterns in games (Schell, 2018). As humans recognize visual patterns, they also

Figure 5.2. Screenshot of Stardew Valley (ConcernedApe, 2016). The fruits growing in the trees look identical to those in the inventory.

THEME II: VISUAL ATTRIBUTES 73

easily start grouping similar visual elements together (Koponen et al., 2016). In many games, the players often form an understanding of the game based on the visual similarities that help them form groups of things. As they learn a specific thing in a game at some point, they can then later assume similar things – the members of that visual group – to work in a similar way.

Color coding is an extremely common way to group things in games. If not carefully taken into account for the whole game, though, this could accidentally result in confusion in some cases. For example, in Rocket League (Psyonix, 2015) there are two teams that play against each other: the orange team and the blue team. The cars are always colored with colors that fit the color scheme of the team, and even sides of the sports field are marked with the team colors as can be observed from Figure 5.3. Something that is inconsistent in this game, however, are the speed boosts: regardless of the team, the color of the boost pads is always orange. This can be confusing because both teams use the boosts with identical effects, but the orange color might make it seem like the boosts belong to the orange team.

Figure 5.3. Screenshot of Rocket League (Psyonix, 2015). Both sides of the field are clearly color-coded based on the team whose side it is, but the boost meter and the boost pads are orange for everyone.

74 THEME II: VISUAL ATTRIBUTES

Because of how humans see everything in relation (Arnheim, 1969), the context of the gameworld can also direct the attention to specific things within it. There are various ways in which a visual attribute can make something stand out, and these can be used in gameworlds to emphasize things that the players should notice (Healey & Enns, 2012; Koponen et al., 2016; Wolfe, 2005). More generally, if something is different from its context in any way, it stands out, and it draws attention. As an example of overall direction of attention, the battle environment in League of Legends (Riot Games, 2009) uses a smaller color and value range than the characters and the superimposed interface, which allows the players to more easily focus on things that matter (Riototown, 2014). To emphasize a depiction, it needs to be somehow different from its surroundings.

The depiction can also influence player decisions (Linderoth, 2004; Nikulin, 2014; Schell, 2018). This can, for instance, be observed with skins that allow players to change the look of a character without changing its functionality. These are sold in various games for the players to express themselves, and they are an impressive source of revenue for those games, even though the skins do not generally change the actions that the characters are able to perform. As can be observed in Figure 5.4, despite the completely different themes of the skins, the original character is still recognizable, and its actions are depicted in a similar way also during gameplay. Reskinning – remaking a game with same game mechanics but different visuals as a new game – is also an example of how the visuals can completely change the game experience.16

In addition, players can find it fun to collect things that only differ visually like in Magic: The Gathering (Garfield, 1993) the island cards have exactly the same functionality while they might have completely different pictures of islands (Rosewater, 2019). As such, it is possible for the depiction to be different while the direct ludological implications stay the same. However, the depiction and the game

16 Because game mechanics cannot be copyrighted, it is even possible – and common – for people to try and copy successful games with just slightly different visuals.

THEME II: VISUAL ATTRIBUTES 75

Figure 5.4. League of Legends (Riot Games, 2009) champions often have multiple different skins that alter their appearance. The champion is still recognizable.

experience are different in these cases, and the players can prefer specific depictions over others, which can have consequences in gameplay.

The pure aesthetics of a game can also be considered a ludic visual when it is an integral part of the game experience. Often, for example, discovering new areas in a game can reward the player with the aesthetic pleasure that comes with seeing new beautiful sceneries. Similar to how skins make it possible for the players to visually express their characters, the aesthetics of the game environments also express the nature of the game.

The experience of exploration would not be the same without the visual world to explore. In games that strive on visual storytelling, the scenery is ludovisual in the way that the player is allowed to exist within the gameworld. For example, games like Journey (thatgamecompany, 2012a), ABZÛ (Giant Squid Studios, 2016), No Man’s Sky (Hello Games, 2016), and AER (Forgotten Key, 2017) let the player explore and experience the world of the game in a way that is ludovisual: players get to see the gameworld little by little, and while discovering, they learn their role in the gameworld. In ABZÛ, the player gets to indirectly alter the gameworld as it heals when they progress forward, as can be seen in Figure 5.5.

76 THEME II: VISUAL ATTRIBUTES

Figure 5.5. Screenshots of ABZÛ (Giant Squid Studios, 2016). The player discovers an underwater world that is dead at first but can later be brought back to life.

To balance the emphasis on the actual visualization, though, it is also important to notice when something does not need to be depicted in detail. Minimal depictions might sometimes allow for more player imagination as humans have the tendency of apophenia also in games: they might find meaning in meaningless things (Sylvester, 2013).

In Dwarf Fortress (Adams & Adams, 2006), while the game simulates the behavior of various interconnected systems, the visual presentation of the game consists of only ASCII characters. Because of the detail to which the game simulates different systems, it is possible to play through unique events during each game session. This detailed simulation of overlapping systems can sometimes result in surprising situations that the developers did not plan for (Eurogamer, 2017). But while the simulation of these systems is detailed, the depiction of the events is relatively abstract. This leaves room for the imagination of the players.

Another example of a purposeful lack of depiction can be found from Dr. Langeskov, The Tiger, and The Terribly Cursed Emerald: A Whirlwind Heist (Crows Crows Crows, 2015). Like in any other game, the players probably expect the game experience to match the title. However, in this game, they find themselves in a setting that looks like the backstage of a theater, and it turns out that they need to manage the events of “the actual game” from behind the scenes. This setting leads the player to imagine things that are beyond what is visualized in the game itself. For

THEME II: VISUAL ATTRIBUTES 77

example, the box that is pictured in Figure 5.6 contains a tiger that the player needs to release to the other side.

To summarize, the exact choice of what is depicted does not often matter for ludic visuals. Instead, it is important to realize that the depiction is often the only representation of a concept within a game, and that it should provide a sufficient expression of its ludological functions. Furthermore, it is important to consider how the depiction relates to other things within the game, and how its presence is meaningful for the game experience.

Figure 5.6. Screenshot of Dr. Langeskov, The Tiger, and The Terribly Cursed Emerald: A Whirlwind Heist (Crows Crows Crows, 2015). The player is told that the tiger is inside the box, but they never see the tiger itself.

78 THEME II: VISUAL ATTRIBUTES

5.3. Placement of Ludic Visuals

The placement of a ludic visual again can be examined from all three perspectives: where it is located on the screen, where it is in relation to the gameworld, and whether the player can interact with it. Like all visual attributes, placement is also seen in relation.

The visual attention of players focuses on specific points during gameplay (El- Nasr & Yan, 2006). Naturally, the focal points can be different depending on the player and the game, but it is generally considered good practice to show important visual information in places where it is easily available even during intense moments of a game.

Two screenshots from World of Warcraft (Blizzard Entertainment, 2004) that I have taken approximately six years apart are pictured in Figure 5.7. The arrangements might seem similar at first, but some of the adjustments that I made over the years made some crucial information significantly more accessible. For example, although the player and the target panels are in the top left corner by default, it is a common practice to move them to the lower center of the screen for easier access. That way, it is easier to monitor the health points and other status changes of the player and the target while also observing what happens in the game environment. For the same reason, all the important timers are in the center area of the screen while the less important things are placed on the edges of the screen. In any game, it makes sense for the visuals to be arranged in a way that allows the player to follow all the necessary ludological information.

THEME II: VISUAL ATTRIBUTES 79

Figure 5.7. Screenshots of raiding in World of Warcraft (Blizzard Entertainment, 2004). The first screenshot shows how I had arranged the information on a 13” screen in 2009. The second screenshot shows a layout for a 27” screen in 2015. In both of the screenshots, I have used various third-party addons to customize the game view.

80 THEME II: VISUAL ATTRIBUTES

It is also important to note that controlling the visuospatial arrangement is often directly a game mechanic. In any games that allow moving anything within a game space, the players have control over the arrangement of the game. The arrangement of the chess board directly illustrates the state of the game, and likewise, the placement of the green fire in the second screenshot of Figure 5.7 shows where the green fire is in the game space. Furthermore, arranging things is also a common game mechanic. Gorogoa (Roberts, 2017) is an illustrative example of connecting things together visually also in other ways, as is shown in Figure 5.8.

Figure 5.8. Screenshots of Gorogoa (Roberts, 2017). This is one of the first scenes of the game, and it moves forward only after the player arranges the pieces correctly.

The view of a game can be thought to have three reads that are similar to what can be found in graphic design (Gage, 2018). The first read is scanning the overall view, the second means having a little closer look, and the third read is about observing the details. More generally, though, the three reads that Gage (2018) mentions are also about directing the attention of the player to the things that matter: ludic visuals are supposed to be organized in such a way that a quick glance provides some information by itself, and further investigation might provide more. In a way, positioning any visuals in a game is creating a composition that all the visual things in the game take part in. Therefore, many compositional learnings can also be used to position ludic visuals (Solarski, 2013).

THEME II: VISUAL ATTRIBUTES 81

Friedman (2015) argues that composition is somewhat two-dimensional:

Composition has always a two-dimensional feature; it is always a captured image frozen in time in order to be analyzed. Examining the compositional elements in a game is easy enough when one looks at a static object, but for dynamic movement, the view shifts and the composition shifts with it. In fact, dynamic movement compositional vocabulary does not exist, since this type of view is obliterated when one has only a single point of view in a three- dimensional environment. (p. 293)

Composition is, of course, a challenging concept in the context of games where the players can control the view, and consequently, the composition as well. Furthermore, while it is possible to compare the filmic framing of games to that of films, the interactivity is again the factor that sets games apart from other media, and it makes the direct comparison rather complicated (Chang & Hsieh, 2018). Particularly beautiful examples of playing with composition can be found in The Witness (Thekla, Inc., 2016). One example is displayed in Figure 5.9 where finding the exactly right viewing angle helps the players solve the puzzle.

The arrangement of objects can also be used to direct the player as it is possible to lead via environmental design (Solarski, 2013). Similarly, forcing the game view towards something regardless of player actions can also be a way to direct the player. The Beginner’s Guide (Everything Unlimited Ltd., 2015) plays with limiting the view of the player, and then revealing what they were not allowed to see at first. One of the especially nice examples of this is shown in Figure 5.10 where the player is not allowed to turn around until the very end of that scene.

All in all, the positions of ludic visuals are relative to the arrangement of the game as a whole. Composition and spatial arrangement are visual attributes although they can also be directly used as game mechanics. The most important ludic visuals usually occupy a central area of the screen while less important information can be placed somewhere else. The importance of the positioning can also be noticed from how often it is referred to also in other parts of this thesis.

82 THEME II: VISUAL ATTRIBUTES

Figure 5.9. Screenshots of The Witness (Thekla, Inc., 2016). At this point, the player has learned to solve the puzzles by positioning so that the panel matches the rocks behind it, but for this panel the rocks do not quite match. However, by looking at the panel from the other side, it is possible to align the panel with the palm trees.

Figure 5.10. Screenshots of The Beginner’s Guide (Everything Unlimited Ltd., 2015). The player is not allowed to look behind the lecture hall at first, so when they can finally turn around, the sight at the back of the lecture can feel astounding.

THEME II: VISUAL ATTRIBUTES 83

5.4. Ludic Visuals in Time

For ludic visuals, time means comparing the duration of their visual presence to other things in a game. At first, time might seem like an attribute that would be mostly tied to the temporal elements and the experiential dimension of interaction. When observed from a broader perspective, however, time is related to all aspects of ludic visuals.

Games can be considered to have multiple parallel times: real-world time that happens in the physical reality, gameworld time that takes place inside the game, progress time that depends on the taken actions, and fictive time that is constructed based on the narrative context of the game (Tychsen & Hitchens, 2009; Zagal & Mateas, 2010). Games happen simultaneously in all of these times. The three perspectives for investigating the visuality of ludic visuals – the view, gameworld, and player – directly match the first three timelines whereas the fictive timeline is not relevant in the context of ludic visuals.

The view time of a ludic visual is the time when it is visible in real-world time. While some ludic visuals can always be seen during a game, some appear on the screen only for short moments. The view time could be considered a snapshot of the other times because it is the frame through which players see the events. It is perhaps intuitive to see view time as something that is visible on the screen in videogames, but it is also a valid property for traditional boardgames: when playing a boardgame, the view time is based on what is visible from the perspective of the player for a certain duration, and sometimes some boardgame pieces might cover others from a specific viewing direction. Some might also be able to see visuals that others cannot, for example in card games it is common that the players see their own cards but not the cards of others until they are played.

Different durations of view time can happen for various reasons. Short but emphasized view times are often related to occurring events because change and movement draw attention, which allows players to notice that an event is happening. For instance, in AFK Arena (Lilith Games, 2019), the hero that is performing a

84 THEME II: VISUAL ATTRIBUTES

special attack is always highlighted by flipping the card and making it bigger for a short time as shown in Figure 5.11. In addition, the movement of other things is momentarily slowed, and the background is dimmed, both of which amplify the movement of the hero cards even further.

Figure 5.11. AFK Arena (Lilith Games, 2019) highlights the heroes that are performing actions by showing an alternate depiction of the active hero and magnifying them on the lower part of the screen.

Similarly, noticing that something is missing at a given moment can also be a feature of what is currently happening (Arnheim, 1969). When a player observes something in a game but notices that it is gone, it can be as impactful as noticing something appear.

Longer view times are often achieved by placing superimposing ludic visuals on the screen. Then, the view time does not depend on player actions on other things, but it is always visible in the view. This is especially crucial for many ludic visuals that describe game states, as was already discussed in the previous chapter. Player characters also often have determined longer view times, which makes sense because this allows players to see their situation within the gameworld and perform actions

THEME II: VISUAL ATTRIBUTES 85

within it. The player characters are often kept as the center point of the view so that regardless of where the camera is rotated, they are always in the center of the screen.

In the gameworld, various things can be thought to exist even outside of their view time. The gameworld time moves forward as long as the game is in a state that can be considered active, and not all things might be visible in the view time at once. The gameworld existence of ludic visuals is the time that they could be thought to exist within the game. The gameworld existence can be different from the view time, but these two are inherently connected: only the things that exist in the gameworld can have a view time, but it is common that only a small portion of the things that exist in the gameworld is visible in the view at once. For example, in What Remains of Edith Finch (Giant Sparrow, 2017), the player gets to explore an old house. While all of the rooms cannot be in the view at once, they are thought to exist in the gameworld even while they are not visible in the game view.

The third perspective on time – progress time – is non-linear and moves forward based on game events (Tychsen & Hitchens, 2009; Zagal & Mateas, 2010). While gameplay takes place both in real-world time and gameworld time, progress time conducts the limits of what is possible in the context of both other times. The advancement of progress time can often be observed as progress-related visual changes. This can be witnessed in many games when leaving the game on without taking any actions: the real-world time moves forward, the gameworld time moves forward, but the progression time remains still, which also means that the view and the gameworld appear still as well.

SUPERHOT (SUPERHOT Team, 2016a) is an extremely interesting example in the context of progression time. This game is a tactical shooter game where the time only moves when the player moves. This allows the players to essentially perform actions in bullet time: they need to carefully plan their movements to dodge the bullets in time while shooting the enemies as well. The scene depicted in Figure 5.12 could as well depict a real-time game scenario where the player has just decided not to move. While in many other games, there is a sense of independent gameworld time, in SUPERHOT the progression time is directly linked to gameworld time:

86 THEME II: VISUAL ATTRIBUTES

gameworld time seems to progress gradually together with the movements of the player. But related to what was mentioned earlier, if the player was to remain inactive, does the gameworld time still move forward even if it seems inanimate?

Figure 5.12. Screenshot of SUPERHOT (SUPERHOT Team, 2016a) that is a game where “the time only moves when you move” (SUPERHOT Team, 2016b). In practice, the movements of the player allow the gameworld to move as well.

It can seem difficult to perceive the passing of time without apparent changes, but I would argue that gameworld time can move forward even if the view would not reflect it. Still, it is clearer that time has passed when something is different now when compared to how it was before a change occurred. Thus, progression-related visual changes can directly enrich a game experience by showing the player what they have accomplished in the game. Incremental games such as Cookie Clicker (Orteil, 2013) strive on this idea: the mission of the game is to obtain more and more cookies so that they can purchase things that make even more cookies. The game generates cookies also by itself if the game is left open, although the player needs to manually purchase all the cookie-producing items. Over time, the screen becomes

THEME II: VISUAL ATTRIBUTES 87

filled with an orchestra of cookie-producing things: the progression is clearly reflected by the amount of stuff on the screen.

To describe another example from What Remains of Edith Finch (Giant Sparrow, 2017), over the course of the game, the player gets to control different characters and to experience the story from their points of view. The player avatar transforms for the duration of the game sequence: the depiction of the character changes in both the view and in the gameworld. While in another form, the player also has a distinctly different set of possible actions, which adds to the experience of transformation. From the perspective of progress time, though, these temporary changes of depiction are always related to a predetermined moment of progress time.

However, dividing the game time into three sections is not the only possible approach for considering ludic visuals in time. Philosopher Gilles Deleuze (1986, 1989) has theorized that cinema directly presents movement images or time images instead of consecutive frames. To put his philosophy very simply, he presents an idea that the viewers directly perceive things instead of observing pictures in a linear sequence. Similarly, games could be thought to consist of visualized ideas of play: ludic images.17 Ludic images hold the visualized moments of play as imagined by the players. This means that the possibility of interaction, the visuals during the interaction, and the resulting observable visuals can be considered a single ludic image that is the image of play. This also means that to design ludic images, the experience should be considered as a whole: the possible interactions form a visualization that is beyond what is ever concretely pictured in the game at once.

Ludic image considers the control that the player has over the play situation and is the visual idea of it. For example, in chess, a ludic image could be the idea of moving the queen two squares to the right. There, the ludic image is formed from where the queen currently is, includes all the other possibilities for moving the queen, and then finally how it looks to move the queen to the chosen new place. In a way, this could also be visualized by considering what it would look like to perform all the possible

17 The idea of ludic images is still unrefined, but it could be an interesting topic for further research.

88 THEME II: VISUAL ATTRIBUTES

moves of the queen at once and highlighting the chosen action. The locations of the possible movements also form a visualization, as does the current and the new gameplay situation as a whole. The subjective ludic images that the players have of identical game situations might vary, but their prerequisites are the same.

Ludic images can be construed in a similar way also in videogames. In Stardew Valley (ConcernedApe, 2016), the player takes care of a farm, which could seem like an arduous task in a game. In Figure 5.2, it was already shown that the fruit are depicted the same way both in the inventory and in the environment. What is also notable in this game, though, is how it is possible to not only plant and harvest the crops but also to see them grow: the life cycle of the crops is visualized in detail, which makes the game feel more alive. Stardew Valley also features all the four seasons, which influences many things in the gameplay and creates a strong sense of gameworld time. The ludic image of farming in Stardew Valley is notably rich, and it accurately reflects the heart of the game.

All in all, the time of ludic visuals can be measured both in view time and gameworld existence. Still, regardless of the design, players are able to affect the progress time, which can cause changes both in the view and in the gameworld. These changes are reflected as progress-related visual changes. As a whole, the visual ideas of play can be considered as ludic images. Ludic images are powerful in the way that they can contain the full visuality of play: in a sense, they can encase the full visual identity of a gameplay situation.

6. THEME III: EXPERIENTIAL DIMENSIONS

90 THEME III: EXPERIENTIAL DIMENSIONS

Figure 6.1. Experiential dimensions form the outermost layer of the Ludovisual Sphere. No matter how the ludological elements are visualized, they are interpreted as a part of the game experience.

THEME III: EXPERIENTIAL DIMENSIONS 91

6.1. About Experiential Dimensions of Ludic Visuals

In the previous chapters, I have researched ludic visuals within the themes of ludological elements and visual attributes. As it has become clear that their connections are interpretational and are based on game experience, it makes sense to investigate ludic visuals from the point of view of the experience and to look into how these visual messages of gameplay are interpreted. The meaning of ludic visuals stems from how they are experienced; hence it is the outermost layer of ludic visuals as is illustrated in Figure 6.1. The other two layers are surrounded by the experiential layer; thus, they are only accessible through the experiential layer.

Experiencing is subjective. Countless personal features influence the perception of the surrounding world – and gameworlds (Hodent, 2017). But while it is impossible to design the experiences themselves, we can design for them (Dewey, 2005). Games are designed this way: to yield a certain kind of experience (Schell, 2008).

And when designing these experiences, it is possible to account for general cognitive biases that people have – or even take advantage of them – to create a specific experience. Each player might, then, experience the game in their own way, but it can be designed so that it is likely for it to yield a certain type of experience, and even take into account some of the cognitive biases that people have (Hodent, 2017; Hunicke et al., 2004). While it is not possible to ever be certain that all players would experience a game in the same way, it is possible to provide prerequisites for making that happen – to consider possible things that affect the experience and take them into account when making things.

Game experience could be divided into three categories: sensory, challenge- based, and imaginative (Ermi & Mäyrä, 2005). What concerns ludic visuals is how the challenge-based experience is facilitated by the visual sensory experience. The challenge-based experience could be thought to include concepts such as game feel

92 THEME III: EXPERIENTIAL DIMENSIONS

(Swink, 2009), game aesthetics (Hunicke et al., 2004), and flow (Csíkszentmihályi, 1990; Michailidis, Balaguer-Ballester, & He, 2018) because of how they are the end result – the experience – of playing games as systems. Ludic visuals are a visual way of both mediating and enhancing this type of experiencing.

Some players are prone to interpreting games based on their fictional properties whereas some see games more as a systemic presentation (Jørgensen, 2013). Regardless of how the player perceives their experiences, though, what concerns ludic visuals is how visuals provide means for the players to understand the game system. This also means that while some players might see games primarily through fiction, they still interpret the ludological meaning based on what ludic visuals offer.

Pine and Gilmore (1998) analyzed experiences in dimensions, and stated that it is possible for an experience to include all of the characteristics of their framework. Games are a beautiful example of this. The intensity and the prevalence of each characteristic may be different, depending on the game and the player, but nevertheless game experiences are notably strong in all of them. Thus, the framework by Pine and Gilmore works well for analyzing how ludic visuals contribute to the different ways of challenge-based experiencing.

Pine and Gilmore (1998) situated experiences into two dimensions and considered them both to be spectrums between two types of experiencing. While I have adapted many parts of their definitions, I consider both ends of both spectrums to be a dimension of their own because of how they can all simultaneously manifest in a game experience. This results in a total of four experiential dimensions: perception, absorption, immersion, and interaction.

Games generally aspire to be immersive experiences where the players lose their sense of time and space (Ermi & Mäyrä, 2005; Stuart, 2010). Absorption, however, means situating oneself outside of something that is experienced, which is especially common in educational experiences (Pine & Gilmore, 1998). The passive participation could be equated with the lack of interaction with the game, hence naming it perception in this discussion. Similarly, I address active participation as interaction.

THEME III: EXPERIENTIAL DIMENSIONS 93

In this chapter, I explore how visuals affect the player’s challenge-based experience when playing a game. In other words, I look into the role of ludic visuals during game experience. First, I examine the role of perception as a part of experiencing games as systems. Then, I study how visual presentation contributes to absorption, immersion, and interaction.

94 THEME III: EXPERIENTIAL DIMENSIONS

6.2. Perceiving Ludic Visuals

Ludic visuals can transfer a massive amount of ludological information, but for the players to understand that meaning, it needs to be perceived. Games often rely on the visual presentation to deliver information to the players. As it is not possible to have direct access to a game system, it is essential that this information is somehow delivered to the players, and the visual presentation is often a vital component in the expression of the system as visual communication transcends language barriers. Even without any specific training for reading visual information, people naturally search for visual patterns. While I have likened perception to passive participation, looking at something and thinking about it is still a way of participation. Perception is how passive participation takes place (Pine & Gilmore, 1998).

Thinking is an important part of perception, even though people might sometimes be oblivious to that fact (Arnheim, 1969). Even when something seems clear to us, interpreting what is seen still involves thought even if we did not notice ourselves thinking (Arnheim, 1969). For example, when seeing a picture of a cat, the way of knowing that it is a cat is based on the previous knowledge of what a cat is. While we might not consciously think about things when we see them, we constantly give meaning to things in order to make sense of the world (Arnheim, 1969; Gibson, 1986; Sousanis, 2015).

Similarly, our thinking affects how we see the world around us and how we think about new things that we encounter. Perceiving something does not only mean the consumption of information but it is also about forming an understanding of the bigger picture of what is happening around us (Arnheim, 1969).

While images have not always been held as an accountable source of information, they can also be considered more complex than any verbal language: “While image is, text is always about” (Sousanis, 2015, p. 58). Thus, images are something that are not fully explainable with words. As Berger (2008) describes the relation of images and words: “We explain that world with words, but words can never undo the fact

THEME III: EXPERIENTIAL DIMENSIONS 95

that we are surrounded by it. The relation between what we see and what we know is never settled” (p. 1).

While in the real world, we relate things to one another and base things on our previous knowledge (Arnheim, 1969; Berger, 2008; Sousanis, 2015). Players can be thought to perceive gameworlds in a similar way; trying to make sense of them by relating things to what they know from before and to what they can observe within the gameworld. While the perceptions of the games might differ, the provided game setting is the same for all players. The visual presentation of the gameworld allows players to perceive it and provides a way to think about the game.

Again, it is important to note that everything that is visible in a game should be recognized as a visualization. While it could seem reasonable to think about the default environment of a game engine as something that is not yet visual, even those default scenes are a visualization – regardless of the amount of time and effort that has been used for creating the visualization. The screenshots from The Beginner’s Guide (Everything Unlimited Ltd., 2015) in Figure 6.2 illustrate how a gray default environment is still a visualization. Although the game excels specifically in delivering its story in a ludonarratively outstanding way, it is also excellent in a ludovisual sense: the player is directed forward in the game by visual means.

Because perceiving something and thinking about that something are so intertwined, it can also be difficult to separate thinking about game mechanics and their visualizations from each other. In the example of Figure 6.2 it could be tempting to simply describe the situation in a narrative sense: the player enters an empty world and then wants to go to the room that seems to have content in it. But when the ludovisual way of thinking is applied, it is possible to recognize the impact that the visualization has for the ludological experience of the player. In ludological terms, reaching the room is the subgoal, and the steps that the player needs to take to reach that goal are the stairs in front of them. The visual simplicity of the outer world directs the attention to the abundance of what they could discover in the tall building as the composition of the gameworld leads the player towards this goal.

96 THEME III: EXPERIENTIAL DIMENSIONS

Nevertheless, it is probably not usual for players to analyze their own visual perception in the aforementioned way during gameplay. As Arnheim (1969) notes about perception in the real world: “[Selective attention] makes it difficult to become aware of the constant factors operative in life” (p.21). This idea is also applicable to gameworlds: players think about games based on how they are presented. Especially children seem to consider games as something of their own without considering additional meanings behind them (Linderoth, 2004). But although I recall being especially enthralled about becoming a dragon in Spyro (Insomniac Games, 1999) when I first got to play the game, it would seem that adults perceive games in a similar way – granted that they might not comprehend games as naïvely as an enthusiastic child would. In terms of the ecological reality, the players think of the meanings of the gameworld based on the visuals. To again refer to the setting presented in Figure 6.2, it is definitely more likely for the players to say that they “went to the room” than to talk about “reaching the subgoal.” This reaffirms the hypothesis that players think about ludological situations in terms of the representation.

Furthermore, people generally interpret visuals so readily that they could even be thought to have their own consciousness (Mitchell, 2005). In a similar sense, with ludic visuals this idea of self-conscious visuals can even be amplified because of how they are situated in a gameworld where they often represent their own agency. As players perceive the visuals within the game, they end up analyzing and thinking about the game mechanic in terms of how it was visualized – they equate the meaning of the game mechanic with its visualization. In Empires and Puzzles: RPG Quest (Small Giant Games, 2017) for example, there are various energy resources – states of the players – that are only referred to as “energies” in the game itself. Players, however, often call them “flags” based on how they are visualized as banners.

THEME III: EXPERIENTIAL DIMENSIONS 97

Figure 6.2. The Beginner’s Guide (Everything Unlimited Ltd., 2015) depicts a world that is mostly empty and leads the player to enter the one room in it that is full of things. Both the general emptiness of the gameworld and the volume of things within the room are visualizations that are amplified when contrasted with each other. The general gray materials with the blue sky seem similar to the default scene and materials of the Unity game engine, which further enhances the feeling of emptiness.

98 THEME III: EXPERIENTIAL DIMENSIONS

The artificiality of games also poses its own challenges for perception. Whereas people are used to the limitations of the real world, gameworlds might not be based on reality. As there might be no reference points from anything that the players have experienced before, the games often provide a setting where it is possible to understand the meanings within the game. In videogames, tutorials are a common way to demonstrate the basic functions of the gameworld.

Perceiving gameworlds also has important differences when compared to perceiving real worlds. In the real world, there are technically no limits to where you can go and what you can do whereas game systems are formed around a set of rules. Whereas traditional games are perceived directly, the worlds of videogames can only be experienced via screens. Yet, regardless of the physical interface that is used for playing the game, the players can move around in the gameworld only according to the constraints of that world.

Games also differ from the real world in the way that the players can decide to step in and out of them whereas we live in the real world whether we want to or not. Virtual reality headsets can make players feel like they really are inside the gameworld whereas augmented reality devices can make it seem like the real world is a gameworld. Regardless of the device, though, the ludological meanings of games often rely on the visualizations.

Pokémon GO (Niantic & The Pokémon Company, 2016) provides a great example of how game rules can be projected on the structures of the real world. While playing Pokémon GO, exercising becomes a game mechanic, and specific real-life monuments gain a ludological status. As the game uses the real world as the environment of the game, playing Pokémon GO can essentially make the players see the real world as the gameworld, which has even led into real-life accidents (Raj, Karlin, & Backstrom, 2016). Although it can be dangerous to walk around the real world while thinking that you are inside a game, it is also understandable because of how players tend to think of games in terms of visualization. When playing Pokémon GO, many real-life buildings can be considered ludic visuals because of how they

THEME III: EXPERIENTIAL DIMENSIONS 99

can be perceived as objects of the gameworld: they visually represent structural elements of the game.

Thus, ludic visuals allow players to perceive game mechanics. They also make it possible for the players to think about game mechanics in terms of those ludic visuals. Within a gameworld that is an artificial ecological reality, this means that ludic visuals have the power to define meanings.

100 THEME III: EXPERIENTIAL DIMENSIONS

6.3. Absorbing Ludic Visuals

Absorption means directing attention towards something. Pine and Gilmore (1998) consider absorption as a type of connectivity: whereas immersion refers to the feeling of being a part of something, absorption means focusing on something while maintaining a sense of self outside the target of the attention.

Pine and Gilmore (1998) introduce watching movies and learning as examples of experiences that involve absorption. Games can be considered similar to both of these even when focusing on the challenge-based experience by itself. While immersion is a more recognized topic of discussion in games, absorption is also an important part of the game experience as a whole. To form an understanding of the game system that affects the gameworld, players need to absorb various game- mechanical information that often comes in the form of ludic visuals. During gameplay, there are moments when players direct their attention towards the game setting instead of thinking of themselves as beings inside the gameworld.

Games can have moments where the player is pulled outside of the immersion, which could be considered disruptive for the game experience as a whole (Tavinor, 2009). Regardless, it is sometimes imperative that players are notified of a change in the game system. Forcing the players into the mode of a mere observer has been a popular approach for this design problem in many games. During cutscenes, the player agency is taken away, and they can only act as a perceiver similar to the viewer of a movie.

It is important to note that cutscenes do not cause discomfort because absorption would somehow be an inferior form of connection but because of how player experience is often disrupted for their sake. However, cutscenes are often a convenient way to make sure that the player sees the necessary information. For example, it is a common approach to show an overview of a new environment when entering a new area in a gameworld. In a similar way, each time a goal is scored in Rocket League (Psyonix, 2015), the game shows a replay of the goal, which gives the player the opportunity to observe the moments that caused the goal. During cutscenes

THEME III: EXPERIENTIAL DIMENSIONS 101

where their actions are restricted, the players have to assess the ludological elements based on their visual presentation alone.

However, cutscenes are not the only moments in games for ludovisual absorption. Especially when players are still learning the game, it is more likely that their feel of connection to the game system is more absorption-based than immersion-like as they are focused on trying to understand how it works. As the players get to know the game better, they can start thinking in terms of the game directly, which, in turn, allows them to have a more immersive experience. Before this happens, they must learn to read its ludic visuals, which means understanding game situations based on their visual presentation.

As was noticed in the previous chapters, various ludological elements are presented visually, and visual attributes can have direct ludological implications. Gameworlds are filled with ludic visuals. To cope in this abundance of visual information, the players learn to identify the necessary visual cues and separate them from the unimportant ones, after which they can understand the game in ludological terms. In other words, they learn to selectively perceive ludic visuals.

Moreover, learning the ludovisual language of a game is not only relevant for learning its rules but also for learning to read situations within the game. This was earlier noticed when observing that chess players remember game states as visual patterns (Gobet & Simon, 1996; Sheridan & Reingold, 2014). What further indicates that players train their visual skills in games is that they have also been found to improve the visual selective attention of players (Green & Bavelier, 2003).

Beat Saber (Beat Games, 2018) is a great example of how ludovisual absorption eventually leads to ludovisual immersion. In this virtual reality game, the players use two lightsabers to slash approaching blocks in the rhythm of music as can be observed in Figure 6.3. The first ludic visuals that the players learn are that blue color indicates that the block should be slashed with the right saber while red indicates that the left hand should be used. The directions of the arrows indicate the intended direction of the slash. When playing Beat Saber for the first time, even a moment like the one depicted in the first screenshot of Figure 6.3 can be challenging

102 THEME III: EXPERIENTIAL DIMENSIONS

to construe. When a player is not yet familiar with the game, it takes longer to identify the approaching blocks and to figure out the appropriate movements that they would need to tackle all the blocks in time.

The experienced players of Beat Saber (Beat Games, 2018) can not only recognize the approaching blocks as patterns but also instinctively move their sabers so that they hit all the blocks in the correct order. They have gained the ability to perceive the smallest details as ludic visuals. For example, the direction of the arrows can become secondary after realizing that the arrows are placed closer to the edge that they are supposed to be slashed from, which means that instead of having to read the direction of the arrow, it is possible just to hit the marked side of the block.

Furthermore, experienced players can see the overall arrangement of the blocks as complete patterns instead of having to stop and think about each block individually. Even during moments like what is depicted in the second screenshot of Figure 6.3, an experienced player does not need to stop and think about what they should do, but instead they can just instinctively take action. If one is not familiar with Beat Saber (Beat Games, 2018), the obtained skills in reading ludic visuals can also be noticed reversely by observing an experienced player and trying to follow their movements – it is near-impossible to perceive the exact actions that are required in the challenging moments without first practicing the ludovisual reading.

Thus, players first learn to recognize the ludovisual signals of the game, and thereafter they can start seeing ludic visuals as bigger patterns. This also means that players can directly interpret the ludic visuals as the meaning that they have within the artificial ecological reality of the game: they can become immersed in the game. “To become a skilled player is therefore a process where the gamer develops a more and more fine-tuned perception and in one sense is more and more distanced from seeing the screen as a depiction of something else” (Linderoth & Bennerstedt, 2007, p. 608)

THEME III: EXPERIENTIAL DIMENSIONS 103

Figure 6.3. Screenshots of Beat Saber (Beat Games, 2018) from a video recording by LeBandit915 (2018). While the visuals of the game are relatively minimalistic, they can form visual patterns that direct the player into complex movements. The arrows indicate the direction in which they should be slashed, and the colors mark which saber the player should use for it.

104 THEME III: EXPERIENTIAL DIMENSIONS

Nevertheless, absorption is largely dependent on how the game presents its ludic visuals. As Nitsche (2008) states: “The player depends on a legible presentation and meaningful functionality” (p. 8). By default, game systems are hidden from the player: every piece of information that is shown to the player has been specifically chosen to be presented. Everything within the artificial ecological reality is placed there by someone. Hence, behind all ludic visuals, decisions have been made not only for displaying the information in the first place but also for how it appears visually. All the visual messages that the players read are artificial.

While the player is learning, it is especially important to consider how to guide them visually. Clarity in creating visual messages is useful in any case. Chapter 5 discussed the implications that visual attributes have for ludological elements, which are impactful for learning and reading their ludological meanings. With a clear visual language, it is possible to learn to effortlessly read even complex game situations. In a similar way to displaying complex data in infographics, it is possible to create intuitive visualizations of abstract game mechanics. And like in infographics, displaying the most relevant information in games is of great importance (Krum, 2013).

And while there is not always a perceptible visualization for some concepts, this is often a justified decision. Ambiguous imagery could be a source of confusion and unnecessarily complicate learning (Arnheim, 1969). The lack of visual messages in one place can sometimes even be a cue for the player to go and find information from another direction.

All in all, when absorbing ludic visuals, players learn the ludic meanings of the gameworld and try and form a comprehensive understanding of how it works. Ludic visuals, then, act as the messages that offer game-mechanical information in a visual form. Absorption makes it possible for the players to make sense of the gameworld and it also allows for the immersion and interaction to take place within the gameworld. Even while immersed into the game as their sense of self is projected into the gameworld, the players can experience ludovisual things in an absorptive way as they direct their attention towards other things that happen within the game.

THEME III: EXPERIENTIAL DIMENSIONS 105

6.4. Immersing in Ludic Visuals

Immersion means the sense of being a part of something; placing oneself into what is being experienced (Pine & Gilmore, 1998). While there are varying definitions and theories of immersion, the general idea is the same: it is often thought of as something that has inherent value in games – it is considered valuable to make the players immersed into them (Ermi & Mäyrä, 2005; Stuart, 2010). Flow is a similar term that can be used interchangeably in games because both of them refer to a mental state where players are so invested in an activity that they lose their sense of place and time (Csíkszentmihályi, 1990; Michailidis et al., 2018).

When discussing immersion, visuals are often simply categorized as the source for sensory immersion. Ermi and Mäyrä (2005) even state: “It is of course likely that the audiovisual implementation of the game has something to do with immersive experiences, but it is by no means the only or the most significant factor.” (p. 4) While it is true that there is much more in game experiences than sensory gratification, it seems like the role of visuals as the mediators for the challenge-based immersion has not been explicitly acknowledged. This, however, is how ludic visuals contribute to immersion: they are the messengers that allow the challenge-based immersion to take place.

Nitsche (2008) considers the presentation of space to be essential for the players to be able to think of themselves as beings inside the gameworld. For challenge- based immersion this relates to how the visual representation allows for thinking about the game as was noticed earlier when analyzing player perception. Through the visualization, it is possible for the player to think in terms of the game system and be an actor inside the magic circle. When this sense of purpose inside the gameworld is maintained, the player can be considered immersed. Nitsche (2008) also says:

Players engage with video games not like scientists that operate a simulation program. They often suspend disbelief when activating a game and they usually lack an analytical distance to the data. Neither behavior is allowed in a scientific

106 THEME III: EXPERIENTIAL DIMENSIONS

community. But what games provide is a reposition of the player into the ‘active’ spot. (p. 10)

This indicates that players are willing to drop their usual beliefs and be actors within the gameworld: the players step into the magic circle and adapt the offered possibilities and limitations that the game provides. In other words, they become beings in the gameworld. For ludic visuals, this means that they facilitate challenge- based immersion by allowing the players to place themselves into the game space. Without having visual references, it would not be possible to have a sense of agency within the space.

Furthermore, it is vital that they are consistent: if there are parts of the gameworld that feel out-of-place, it can disrupt their immersion (Zoss, 2009). Similarly, inconsistent visualizations of important ludological elements might cause confusion. Similar to how visual patterns help understand game situations, it can be considered helpful for ludic visuals to form entities that make sense as a whole, because it allows players to form sensible connections as beings of the gameworld. Therefore, it is important that the systems of the gameworld create an ecosystem that fits together. These meanings often go together with the fictional meaning of the gameworld – but they can also be separate from the fiction.

Ludic visuals have the power to illustrate ludological elements in a way that can make the whole gameworld feel more alive. For example, while it was earlier observed that health points are often displayed as superimposed elements, the Dead Space series (EA Redwood Shores, 2008) also displays the health status on the suit of the character, which has gotten positive attention from journalists and players alike (Scheurle, 2018; Tach, 2013). It should be noted, however, that this should not be done at the expense of overall ludovisual clarity (Iacovides et al., 2015; Ogier & Buchan, 2017).

To have an immersive experience – or to experience flow – it is also considered that players need an appropriate amount of challenge (Chen, 2007; Csíkszentmihályi, 1990). Ludic visuals have a major role in forming this experience. This can be

THEME III: EXPERIENTIAL DIMENSIONS 107

noticed especially when immersion completely breaks because of them. While consistency is an important factor in keeping the player in the state of flow, so is providing adequate guidance in general. The lack of clear ludic visuals can seriously obfuscate the player’s purpose in the gameworld.

In horror games, one indication of immersion could be the feeling of fear, which makes it easy to notice if the immersion has been broken. I and a few classmates of mine observed this when playing horror games at our game design classroom on a certain cold and dark Halloween night.18 We played Amnesia: The Dark Descent (Frictional Games, 2010), and it was appropriately scary – until we got stuck. Some of our group had played the game before so they remembered that it was probably a rock that we needed to find. The problem was that there were many rocks on the ground, but they could not be interacted with, so we concluded that there was something else that we were supposed to do than find a rock. Eventually, it turned out that one of the rocks – amongst many visually similar non-responsive rocks – was a specific rock that we were supposed to find. Before we figured it out, though, we got frustrated and the game no longer felt scary. The lack of ludovisual guidance had shattered the immersion.

The overall ludovisual setting can also cause interferences in terms of immersion. In Figure 6.4, the screenshots of Ori and the Blind Forest (Moon Studios, 2015a) illustrate of how everything a game looks visually consistent. As was already discovered in chapter 4, the game has a painterly and an easily recognizable style. It has even been nominated and awarded multiple times for its visual excellence (“Ori the Game,” n.d.). What does not show in the screenshots, though, is the brutality that its game mechanics present for the players. While the game might seem vibrant and playful based on the visuals, the players are strictly prevented from proceeding until they learn to perform the necessary series of actions in each area. This forms an interesting ludovisual juxtaposition where game critics also noted the difficulty of the game and could not recommend the game for everyone (Andrews, 2016; Gies, 2015).

18 Personally, I do not often play horror games because of how I get easily immersed in doing things, but I do not enjoy feeling scared. I am not sure if that makes me a better or a worse test subject, but as we discussed the occurrence together afterwards, it seemed like our experiences were similar.

108 THEME III: EXPERIENTIAL DIMENSIONS

This kind of conflict between the ludological elements and the visual attributes could be called ludovisual dissonance – similar to how the contradictions between the ludological elements and the game narrative are called ludonarrative dissonance (e.g. Toh, 2015).

Therefore, being within a gameworld is, again, like being in the real world, but the artificiality sets them apart: every detail in any game is placed there by someone. Because of the artificiality, it is possible to create any kinds of worlds and situations in games. Because of the same artificiality, though, the players can never know beforehand what the gameworld allows them to do, and in that sense, they are reliant on ludic visuals. Games, like art in general, are “produced and enjoyed by individuals” (Dewey, 2005, p. 339).

Overall, ludic visuals are what allows the players to exist as a being within the gameworld and as an actor within the game system – as an agent in an artificial ecological reality. In games, players choose to accept even seemingly abstract rules without questioning them: they merely accept that the gameworld just happens to work in a certain way. Ludic visuals allow players to make sense of those worlds.

THEME III: EXPERIENTIAL DIMENSIONS 109

Figure 6.4. Screenshots of Ori and the Blind Forest (Moon Studios, 2015a) from its press kit (Moon Studios, 2015b). The visual style of the game contradicts the brutality of its central game mechanics.

110 THEME III: EXPERIENTIAL DIMENSIONS

6.5. Interacting with Ludic Visuals

Pine and Gilmore (1998) state that in active participation, “the customers play key roles in creating the performance or event that yields the experience” (p. 101). In this analysis, I equate active participation with interaction because that is the key role that players take in games: the interactions with the game system create a performance that is the game experience itself. An interaction requires two parties, but the actions of the players within a game can always be considered as interactions when the game system is seen as the other party of the interaction.

Interactivity is an inherent part of gameplay, as was already determined when choosing the interaction-centric framework for the analysis of ludological elements in ludic visuals. In a way, the very purpose of ludic visuals is to facilitate interactivity. Consequently, this subchapter brings together many of the previously addressed topics.

Interaction design can sometimes mean interface design, although it could be more accurate to call it visual interaction design (Gonzalez, 1995). However, if we consider gameworlds as interfaces, both of these terms mean the same thing. It has even been proposed that instead of talking about interface design, an even better term could be visual system design (Rengifo, 2017). Including the word system in the term would indicate that creating great visual interfaces requires understanding of the systems that they depict. While the exact term for this is perhaps not the most relevant concern here, it is important to note that interaction design extends far beyond arranging some buttons on the screen. To create an intuitive and immersive gameworld interface, it is necessary to understand and to consider the interactions between the game system and the player.

Whereas some parts of games can benefit from the knowledge of movies and other visual media, the possibility for interaction is what separates games from these other media. While the phrase “show, don’t tell” is familiar to many storytellers, the words “do, don’t show,” have been proposed as a maxim for game design (Falstein, 2007; Redding, 2008). Allowing the players to perform in the game as much as

THEME III: EXPERIENTIAL DIMENSIONS 111

possible – allowing for as much interactivity as possible – can be considered valuable.

Taking actions is such an inherent part of being within a world that it is mostly taken for granted in the real world. We can touch and move everything we want, and we are only bound by the physical boundaries of the world that surrounds us. Creating exactly the same kind of reality within a game is, currently, an impossibility. Some games might have photorealistic visuals, but they do not come even close to the responsiveness of what we have in the real world. Players experience the artificial ecological reality of the game through the artificial ways that are created for that purpose.

In games, being allowed to do something is special. Being able to perform and see an action in a game also means that it has been specifically designed and visualized. Ludic visuals allow the players to interact with the game system, and they allow the players to have agency within the gameworld. This agency is defined by the game system, and unlike the real world, the possible actions are limited.

While Costikyan (2002) argues that game interactions should be purposeful, it is not a concern in this case because of how interactivity is considered valuable in itself. However, different types of interactions of course hold a different kind of meaning in the game, which is important to notice. In fact, the importance of interactions is often also reflected in the varied visual emphasis of different ludic visuals.

Simply allowing players to perform certain interactions can bring them joy. For example, many players enjoy constantly jumping in games. There usually is no actual reason for doing such a thing, but it is an action that has a satisfying visual response. The players also recognize it as a usually completely pointless thing to do, yet they still find joy in constant jumping (ForgottenPotato, 2017). It seems that purely interacting with the game is fun even when it serves no purpose gameplaywise. Sometimes small interactions in games can make the gameworld feel more alive just because of how more interactability also brings more agency for the players.

112 THEME III: EXPERIENTIAL DIMENSIONS

If we think about games as information systems, we can apply the actability criteria by Goldkuhl (2013) to examine interactions within games. These criteria support many of the principles that have already been observed earlier in this thesis: relevant information, clarity, and visual feedback are repeated from different perspectives. As the role of ludic visuals is to facilitate interactions within gameworlds, it is evident that these criteria are especially important for discussing interactions with ludic visuals.

Next, I further address the details of ludic visuals in interactions by analyzing them in phases of interaction. According to Goldkuhl (2008, 2013), interactions have three phases: pre-assessment, intervention, and post-assessment. These phases entail what happens before, during, and after an interaction. I have rephrased the phases of interaction as evaluating the situation, seeing the action, and observing the consequences for the purpose of analyzing ludic visuals in these them. First, the gameworld must imply the possibility of an action so that the situation can be evaluated. Secondly, during the action, the visual feedback displays the action itself so that the action can be seen. Finally, the results of the action are observed as consequences.

Singing to the flowers in Gris (Nomada Studio, 2018) is a great example of how all the phases of interaction can be illustrated, as shown in the screenshots of Figure 6.5. I will discuss the specifics of this example as I examine each phase.

THEME III: EXPERIENTIAL DIMENSIONS 113

Figure 6.5. The phases of interaction are delicately illustrated in the game Gris (Nomada Studio, 2018). These three screenshots show the interaction of singing to a flower.

114 THEME III: EXPERIENTIAL DIMENSIONS

6.5.1. Evaluating the situation Before performing an action, players pre-assess the situation. For ludic visuals, this entails observing the game states and possible affordances. Often the players also have an estimate of what the possible actions would result in, which can affect their decision-making. An accurate perception of the game situation is central for being able to plan interactions. While players might not necessarily differentiate ludic visuals exactly in the same way as researchers and designers, players do aim to identify things that they can interact with. What allows this, is ludic visuals that are shown at a correct time and place, and that also accurately depict the necessary structural and boundary elements.

The first screenshot of Figure 6.5 depicts a situation in Gris (Nomada Studio, 2018) where perceptible affordances are present. However, the affordance is only noticeable after it has first been learned. Earlier in the game the player is taught that if they sing to this type of a flower, they change the environment around them. In this view, the only available meaningful action is to sing to this particular flower, although it would be possible for the player to also run away and go somewhere else. In this game, however, the interactable things often let the players proceed forward in the game, so it seems like a reasonable course of action to sing to the flower. Once the player has evaluated the situation and estimated their options, they can decide to take action.

6.5.2. Seeing the action The second phase of interaction – intervention – is the phase of performing an action. As discovered when discussing temporal elements of ludic visuals, players need some kind of visual feedback to perceive that an action is occurring. As was also found earlier when considering the timing of ludic visuals: visual changes attract attention.

It has also been stated that without visual feedback, the players have no way of knowing what happens in the game system – including their own actions. What also

THEME III: EXPERIENTIAL DIMENSIONS 115

needs to be recognized, though, is that the visualized action is not necessarily exactly what happens in the system. The difference between what actually happens in terms of the game system and what is seen happening can differ in games. The way of explaining things visually does not always equal the systemic function, which is something that has been explored throughout this thesis already. The differences between what happens within the game system and what the players can perceive can be observed remarkably clearly when examining how players see action.

When the player performs an action, the game responds. For important actions in videogames, this usually means that emphatic visual feedback is shown on the screen. In a ball game that happens in the physical reality, it is possible to see that the ball is moving after a player kicks it. While these examples are very different, ludic visuals are present in both actions.

The visualizations of actions explain what happens in the action. Ludic visuals that depict actions, then, illustrate meaning that happens within the game. For example, in the second screenshot of Figure 6.5, the action of singing to a flower in Gris (Nomada Studio, 2018) is depicted in three ways. First, the character is animated as singing. Secondly, the white circle around the character shows the area where the singing reaches. Thirdly, the surrounding environment almost instantly responds to the singing. Although the player input for the singing action is extremely simple – singing only requires holding down one button – that action feels powerful in this game, and it is also depicted clearly.

Although the visualizations of actions can be categorized as simulation and polish in videogames, the players rarely differentiate between what is simulation and what is not – as long as there is a response (Swink, 2009).19 In Crash Team Racing (Naughty Dog, 1999), for example, the movement of the cars on the track is simulation. However, according to this definition, the sliding animations of the car, the turning tires, and the characters that sit in the cars are all polish.

19 During game development, polish can also be used as a more general term for the changes that do not change the mechanics of the game but make the game look more “finished” (Zoss, 2009).

116 THEME III: EXPERIENTIAL DIMENSIONS

The differences between simulation and polish are perhaps more relevant when making games because of how they stem from the technical flow of development. Simulation is often something that is specifically programmed to happen while polish is a gamevisual that does not directly relate to programmatical changes. For the players, however, they are often inseparable. Consequently, ludic visuals do not differentiate between simulation and polish.

Nevertheless, exploring the traditional divide of simulation and polish is useful, because it points out two types of important things relating to ludic visuals. First, usually things that are considered as simulation are not only simulations but instead their visualization is something that was specifically chosen to match a specific game mechanic. Secondly, while it is common to disregard polish as something that merely provides “sensory gratification” (Crawford, 1982), the visual details have great impact on the way that players experience actions. Examining what this means in the context of player actions can help with clarifying the role of ludic visuals.

Things that imitate reality are often seen as simulation, and therefore they are considered to be closer to what “actually happens” in a game. If something happens in a specific way in real life, it is easier to justify making it so in a game as well. Coming up with a new kind of systemic visual and making it work in a game setting can be immensely more difficult and time-consuming than simply following how things are in the real world. Designs that are based on the real world are often also easy for the players to understand just because they have seen them before. Although games would not have to be based on reality, it is often more convenient, and has multiple upsides.

Guns are a terrific example of how a real-life design can make for a good visualization. In games, guns are powerful weapons that have rewarding feedback for whenever you do anything: the sound of shooting, the instant visual feedback of where the shot landed, and even the recoil of the gun from the force of firing. Because guns exist in the real world, their behavior can be imitated in detail. There is no systemic reason for the player to hold a gun or see it recoil. But when a systemic function has a direct visual counterpart, it is easy for both the developers and the

THEME III: EXPERIENTIAL DIMENSIONS 117

players to relate to it. Having a real-life reference facilitates this process, and it also makes it easier to justify adding the visualization in the game.

Another example of real-life based visualizations are things that relate to the visuospatial arrangement of things. In games that are played in the real world, there are countless rules that are based on real-life physics. Meanwhile, all the physics of videogames need to be specifically programmed, which also means that they would not have to imitate the physics of reality. This also means that all movement in space, for example running, is a visualization. Especially walking animations are not necessary in terms of the functionality of the game, but they are still one of the most common things to have in games. But a walking animation on the character explains how the action happens, and instead of floating around, the character is seen as taking action within the gameworld. While a walking animation is a simple example of ludic visuals, it is a great example because of prevalent it is in games – even though it could be categorized as polish.

Nevertheless, although real-life based visualizations are common in games, there are also various examples of imaginary visuals. In both League of Legends (Riot Games, 2009) and Hearthstone (Blizzard Entertainment, 2014), magical effects are used to explain and amplify the actions of the players (Chamberlain & Keyser, 2017). Because the effects are not directly based on reality, their expression is directed mainly by the aim of what the player is supposed to experience when performing the action and less about how things work in reality. While basing certain things in reality can make them more believable, sometimes games can benefit from exaggerating visuals only for the sake of achieving a specific kind of experience (Griffith, 2019).

Thus, sometimes systemically trivial things can really hold great meaning for the players if they are visualized well. On the other hand, unless something is visualized, the players do not have information about it at all – even if it was important for the game system. Limited information can cause the events of the game to be unclear for the players whereas proper visuals allow them to follow the actions that are performed (Chamberlain & Keyser, 2017). “Any effect that enhances the impression

118 THEME III: EXPERIENTIAL DIMENSIONS

that the game world has its own self consistent physics is fair game.” (Swink, 2007, p. 4)

All in all, action needs to be illustrated in games. Whereas it is common to think that an action in games is something abstract, it is important to note that they have to be visualized in the game. While any visual change can communicate an action, if nothing is changing, there is no way for the players to perceive that an action has happened.

6.5.3. Observing the consequences After an action has taken place, it can be possible to observe visible change as a result of the action. Other actions can also start as a consequence of a previous action. During post-assessment (Goldkuhl, 2008), the effects of an action are evaluated. To specify the effects of an action, it is possible to compare the situation after the action to that before the action.

Sometimes actions do not have observable consequences. This is common when a specific set of actions is always available and can be freely performed. The earlier example of jumping just for the sake of jumping is also an example of this type of an action: there is no observable change in the environment just because of the jumping. While players can repeatedly perform actions, they might not have any effect on the game state. A similar comparison in chess could be that the players can, for example, clap their hands without affecting the game state.

Changes in the most prevalent game states are often correctly reflected in the visuals: if the player takes damage from something, their health points are reduced as a consequence, and this change can usually be observed from a health bar. Observable consequences are extremely apparent in games where the spatial arrangement of the structural elements reflects the game state. For example, in chess, the arrangement of the chess pieces is different after every turn, which is a clearly observable consequence of moving a chess piece.

THEME III: EXPERIENTIAL DIMENSIONS 119

However, the lack of an observable consequence can also provide meaningful information to the players. If a player tries to do something but nothing visibly changes, they can interpret the missing visible change as an indication that the action had no effect, and that they probably need to try something else.

The consequences of actions can be lasting or temporary. In videogames, it is especially typical for actions to have temporary consequences that are revoked afterwards. For example, the players might be able to collect things or kill enemies that will always spawn in the same location later. More lasting changes are often programmed to happen over the course of the game and might not allow players to have a lot of freedom of choice in what exactly will happen. These changes are not a form of direct interaction but more like a view on character progression, as was noticed when examining ludic visuals in time. However, being able to visualize goals and progression can be important for motivation (Cheema & Bagchi, 2011).

Certain changes can also be irreversible, and this is especially common in linear games where the player progresses through various environments. Although a game might allow for interactions that are dynamic and lead the player forward, playing the game again would direct the player to make exactly the same choices that they made the first time. For example, as can be seen in the third screenshot of Figure 6.5, singing to flowers in Gris (Nomada Studio, 2018) makes nearby things grow, which is a permanent change in the gameworld. However, this change happens in the same way every time. These types of interactions are interesting because of how they can create an illusion of making a difference in the gameworld, although the player does not have any other choice.

Allowing players to perform actions that have lasting and visible consequences can be observed in building games where the players have the creative freedom to build whatever they can imagine. Character customization is also a form of performing actions that has lasting consequences. Despite these changes being mostly superficial, it allows the players to express themselves.

120 THEME III: EXPERIENTIAL DIMENSIONS

The range of possible consequences in gameworlds is vast but being able to change the gameworld brings a sense of agency for the player. Making consequences observable can ultimately make goals of the game seem more tangible.

7. DISCUSSION

122 DISCUSSION

Figure 7.1. The complete Ludovisual Sphere consists of three aspects of ludovisuality: ludological, visual, and experiential. These aspects – themes – can be further divided into subthemes, but they are all interconnected. Understanding the ludovisual implications of one aspect requires understanding the other two aspects.

DISCUSSION 123

7.1. Answering the Research Question

This research was based on the assumption that the game mechanics are visualized by compounds called ludic visuals. A thematic analysis was conducted to better understand their nature, and to find an answer to the original research question: how game mechanics are visualized in games. The findings of the thesis result in a three-part answer to this question.

First, it was verified that various game mechanics are conveyed via visuals. Multiple observations indicate that even exactly the same game mechanics can be communicated via drastically different visualizations – or be chosen not to be visualized at all. Similarly, it was also noticed that the same visual can be a part of representing multiple game mechanics at once.

Secondly, visual attributes are capable of expressing various game mechanics. Exactly the same visual attribute can even be used in different ways in different games, which means that the same attribute has different game-mechanical meanings. The meaning of the visual attribute is defined by the context that it is in, which means that the games can define the meaning of specific visuals within their gameworlds. Via these connections, visual attributes can be messages that convey game-mechanical meaning – no matter how different they can be in different games.

Thirdly, it was observed that visualized game mechanics have various roles in game experiences. Because interpreting a visualization as a game mechanic is something that is perceived during a game experience, it could even be said that the game experience is what connects the ludological and the visual sides of ludic visuals together. The analysis indicates that the players think about game mechanics based on their visualization, and they rely on the visuals so much that they might not think about them as a representation of something else. From the perspective of the players, it could even be said that game mechanics are their visualizations.

To summarize, game mechanics can be visualized in various ways, and the same visualizations can represent different things in different games depending on the

124 DISCUSSION

context that the game imposes. However, players do not necessarily separate the visualization from the game mechanics. Therefore, the way that ludic visuals express game mechanics is based on how they are experienced. The ludovisual experience, in turn, consists of the way that game mechanics and their visualizations act within the artificial ecological reality of the game. The Ludovisual Sphere in Figure 7.1 illustrates the structure of ludic visuals, which was completed based on the findings of this research.

DISCUSSION 125

7.2. Ludovisual Principles

The observations of the thematic analysis can be further interpreted to form ludovisual principles. These are a collection of things that appeared important for visualized game mechanics – for ludic visuals.

While on one hand the presence of ludic visuals is so dominant that all visuals in games could be thought to be ludic visuals, on the other hand it can be difficult to recognize what ludovisuality means. A ludic visual is not necessarily equal to its parts, but all the aspects of ludovisuality together contribute to the game experience. Ludovisuality is the sense of connectedness that arises from visualizing game mechanics in a way that support the game experience.

Ludovisual principles can be discussed within the same three themes as the thematic analysis. Table 7.1 presents a selection of key terms of ludovisual principles. This table can be used as a reference map that points towards the relevant ludovisual principles for any situation.

Table 7.1 Key Terms of the Three Themes in Ludovisual Principles

Experiential Ludological Visuality Visuals in Play Ludovisuality Attributes: Depiction: What Placement: Where Holistic: Identity Timing: When Perception: Expression Structural: Situation Absorption: Legibility Boundary: Possibility Perspectives: Immersion: Wholeness Temporal: Feedback View: Visibility Interaction: Agency Gameworld: Existence Player: Involvement

126 DISCUSSION

However, the ludovisual principles of one specific theme are always related to the necessities imposed by the other themes. For example, it was observed that the appropriate place for a ludic visual is often decided based on the game mechanic that it conveys. Therefore, the Table 7.1 should not be viewed in isolation: all aspects of ludic visuals are always interconnected.

7.2.1. Ludological visuality All ludological elements can be visualized, but their visualizations have specific ludological missions as is also shown in Table 7.1. These missions were identified already in chapter 4. Regardless of the depicted ludological element, however, all ludic visuals have the same concerns in terms of ludological visibility.

The role of the game mechanic defines the ludological need for visualization. When it is necessary for the players to know something about a game mechanic, it should be visible and clear. Depending on the game mechanic, however, hiding or obscuring information can be justifiable as well.

As it was observed that the same game mechanic can be visualized in very different ways in different games, it was also noticed that the visualization has the power to influence the game feel. Exactly the same game mechanic can feel very different in different games just because of the different visualizations.

Moreover, it is important to recognize the visuality of all game mechanics that are visual – especially if a visual game mechanic was not traditionally considered to be visual. Using chess as an example for the ludological visuality was a demonstration of how the visuality of almost any game could be effectively recognized. It has even been found that in chess, the visual patterns of the formations on the board can help with memorizing game situations.

Altering the visual design could alter the game mechanics as well. For example, adding more squares to the chess grid would change the rules of the game. Acknowledging the visuality of a game mechanic allows for the analysis of the game mechanic in terms of its visuality.

DISCUSSION 127

Furthermore, it was also observed that a single ludic visual can have connections to multiple game mechanics. I first encountered this when conducting the preliminary research: it would have been possible to use the same ludic visuals as examples for various purposes, although the focus of the analysis would have then been on a different ludological element. These connections turned out to be implications of the overall ludological importance of the ludic visual.

Thus, considering ludological visuality is about recognizing the visuality of game mechanics and the effects that visualizations can have on the ludological elements. The analysis of ludological visuality means analyzing game mechanics through their visuality.

7.2.2. Visuals in play To analyze visual attributes in games, I identified three subthemes and three perspectives that can be observed in Table 7.1. The decision to do this analysis with my own framework was due to the lack of a practical framework for analyzing gamevisuals. Based on the insight that was gained with this framework in chapter 5, I argue that this approach appropriately factors in the peculiarities that visuals are subject to in games. Despite introducing a new framework for analyzing visuals in games, possessing and applying other visual knowledge was necessary for a meaningful analysis.

The basic visual data of a ludic visual can be summarized with the help of three basic questions: what, where, and when. These specifications can be used to identify almost any ludic visual. This could also be noticed in this thesis: the depiction, placement, and timing were often used for introducing the ludic visuals in various examples. Furthermore, because of the flexibility of these questions, they allow for varied depth of analyses, and offer the possibility to analyze other properties within them.

Examining ludic visuals from three different perspectives directed the analysis towards the visual features that are especially relevant in games. When analyzing

128 DISCUSSION

ludic visuals from the perspectives of game view, gameworld, and interactability, it was noticed that each of the perspectives brings out unique insights. These perspectives are all closely related to game experience: what is visible, what exists in the gameworld, and what is interactable are all relevant matters for the players. Therefore, visual attributes of ludic visuals can be analyzed based on what kind of prerequisites they give for game experiences.

As everything that we see is seen in relation to something else, the importance of context was noted also in this analysis. Because games can depict entire worlds, they can essentially also create contexts for players to experience. Therefore, understanding how a ludic visual relates to its surroundings can often reveal more information than what would be acquired by only focusing on the ludic visual itself. These relations are interpreted by the players.

Lastly, ludic image was introduced as the visual idea of a gameplay situation as a whole. A ludic image encompasses the visualization of all the possible actions of a situation as well as the performed actions themselves. Unlike other visual attributes, ludic images are subjective as they are imagined visualizations of game experiences. Seeing the entirety of a game as a visual wholeness – as a ludic image – means having an understanding of all the visual attributes in play.

7.2.3. Experiential ludovisuality Because players do not have direct access to the game system, they form ideas of the game system based on what is visible. These imagined ideas can be drastically different from the actual processes of the game system. Experiential dimensions were analyzed in chapter 6, and the impact of ludic visuals was considered in each of them. It was noted that ludovisuality could enhance specific aspects of game experience in each of the experiential dimensions as listed in Table 7.1. In other words, game experience is defined by ludic visuals.

Although players can interpret all visuals in their own subjective ways, the imagery itself is objectively the same for everyone. This means that although it is

DISCUSSION 129

impossible to make sure that everyone experiences something in an identical way, the appearance of ludic visuals can direct the experience.

It was noted that ludic visuals are given meaning based on how they look like. Because of this, ludic visuals hold a lot of power: they essentially define how players perceive game mechanics. Conversely, then, designing the visual expression of a ludic visual means to design how it is perceived.

Sometimes accurately perceiving something requires learning to read the ludovisual language of the game. Players gain ludovisual literacy by play, and especially at the beginning, learning to read the ludovisual signs and patterns of the game happens via absorption. It seems that only after understanding their ludological effects, it is possible to perceive things as ludic visuals.

To facilitate immersive experiences, it was observed that ludic visuals play a major role in directing the player. Deficient ludovisual design can sometimes pull the players out of immersion, thus interrupting gameplay. Gameworlds that form a cohesive whole can feel more believable and seem to allow for deeper immersion.

Being able to interact with a ludic visual instantly connects it to various properties that have already been discussed. Interactability can be considered inherently valuable for a ludic visual because of how it allows players to influence the gameworld, which can strengthen their sense of belonging there.

Comprehension of experiential ludovisuality means being able to envision how ludic visuals affect game experience. While ludological elements and visual attributes form the essence of what is experienced, what matters is how their interplay contributes to the experience.

130 DISCUSSION

7.3. Measurability of Ludovisuality

Ludovisuality has several oddities that make it problematic to try to measure. As already mentioned earlier, I initially would have wanted to categorize ludic visuals, but that turned out to be impossible.

Furthermore, even though some of the features of the three themes overlap, it was important to notice that despite the overlap, there was no direct correlation between the themes. For example, connecting temporal ludological elements to the visual timing could seem natural at first. Yet, the timing of ludic visuals is a vast concept that concerns all the visual things whereas temporal elements are very specifically related to events. Trying to forcibly reduce the complexity of a complex subject would have resulted in distorted results.

Therefore, despite the fact that the ludological, visual, and experiential layers are closely intertwined, they are also independent pieces of ludic visuals. One theme does not restrict the others, although all the themes affect each other so much that it is sometimes difficult to tell them apart. Together these three themes form ludic visuals. All three themes have their own specific considerations and principles, which is why measuring ludic visuals could be based on these three themes.

Hence, the analysis of ludic visuals happens through analyzing them in the context of the three themes. The ludovisual principles that are summarized in Table 7.1 can be used as a starting point for the analysis. However, because ludic visuals should not be only seen in their parts, but as entities, it is important also to consider all these aspects together. Based on the various connections and overlaps that were observed in the ludovisual themes, it turned out that elegance would be a good term for analyzing the brilliance of a ludic visual as a whole.

Elegance means “scientific precision, neatness, and simplicity” according to Merriam-Webster’s definition (“Elegance,” 2019). The concept of ludovisual elegance follows the same idea as this definition: elegant ludic visuals illustrate game mechanics with precision, neatness, and simplicity.

DISCUSSION 131

Originally, I thought that an elegant ludic visual could be something that contains as many ludovisual properties as possible while still being a distinguishable component of its own. However, because the properties of ludovisuality are subjective, it did not make sense to try measure them with quantitative methods.

Instead, I decided to base the elegance of ludovisuality on the ideas of the most wondrous ludic visuals that originally set me to research this subject; ludic visuals that express game mechanics in influential ways. Therefore, an elegant ludic visual is a brilliant solution that is simple but effective in communicating game mechanics with visual attributes that enhance the intended game experience. An elegant ludic visual also belongs to the gameworld both functionally and visually. While these qualities have been identified in various occasions in this thesis, combining them gives the definition of ludovisual elegance.

Because ludovisual principles were formed specifically for the analysis of ludic visuals, they can also be applied to the analysis of ludovisual elegance. Still, as ludovisual elegance specifically signifies the combined expressiveness of a ludic visual as a whole, the integrality of the ludic visual is also a factor in ludovisual elegance. Thus, ludovisual elegance can be identified when observing the expression of ludic visuals in ludic images. Figure 7.2 presents a simplified way of thinking about ludovisual elegance that measures the effectiveness of the ludological elements and visual attributes. However, because these qualities are subjective, measuring them is somewhat arbitrary and based on approximations of how they would be experienced. Therefore, this scale does not display units, but it is more of an outline for thinking about ludovisual elegance.

132 DISCUSSION

Figure 7.2. Ludovisual elegance can be thought to be two-dimensional. One axis measures the importance of associated ludological elements while the other measures the excellence of visual attributes. Both of these properties are quantified through their subjective presence in experiential dimensions.

DISCUSSION 133

7.4. Research Limitations

In this thesis, I took a transdisciplinary approach to studying a topic that has not been researched in a similar way before. This research has now provided a lot of insight to the matter of visualizing game mechanics. Nevertheless, this research has also had various limitations due to the challenging nature of the research topic.

The main concern is the ambiguity of the qualitative research methods. Many of the presented observations can be considered interpretational. However, due to the fact that the research aimed for establishing a new concept and creating the groundwork for further research, this kind of approach was necessary.

Moreover, this research was also based on my experience of playing, analyzing, and making games. This background allowed me to combine previously separate aspects of games to form this kind of overarching theory. Hence, this research relied on observations that have been considered from multiple aspects of games, which allowed for an in-depth analysis of the topic. Qualitative analysis methods were useful for discussing these findings in detail.

Ludic visuals turned out to be a rather subjective, abstract compound altogether. In a way, the discovered definitions for the themes of ludovisuality form a circle: a game mechanic is conveyed via the visualization, but this only happens when they are experienced – but to experience ludic visuals, they must have a visualization that represents a game mechanic. However, this circle is, again, an indication of the unity of ludic visuals: all their parts are interdependent and considering one without the other is futile. Here, the circular dependency should not be seen as a sign of a tautology but an interdependency where all the parts affect each other.

Yet, even if this research was purely considered as a personal exploration of how I consider game mechanics to be visualized, this has been the start of an important mission that connects ludology to the visuality of games. Even if further research turned out to contradict some of the points in this thesis, this can be considered as an important opening on how game mechanics are visually presented in games.

134 DISCUSSION

Thus, the ambiguity of the terms and definitions was a challenging but a necessary part of the research. Creating a new concept would not be possible without taking some leaps of faith. Even just by attempting to establish the concept of ludic visuals, this research seeks to contribute to the field of game research. This also allows ludovisual principles to be applied and tested in practice, and also makes it possible to further develop the concept of ludic visuals.

DISCUSSION 135

7.5. Applying Ludovisual Knowledge

Having established the theory of ludic visuals, it is now possible to try to apply ludovisual knowledge in practice. Previous approaches for related questions have addressed specific problems within some topics of ludovisuality, many of which were also mentioned in this research. This research, however, focused on finding out the core reasons behind these approaches and forming a bigger picture that is based on both theoretical knowledge and practical experience.

The examples presented in this thesis have already demonstrated how ludovisuality can help verbalize the properties of visualized game mechanics. While ludovisuality is an extensive concept that includes several specific areas of expertise, having an overall idea about ludovisuality can help with forming connections between the related topics. Understanding ludovisuality also helps when learning more about any specific topics that it contains.

7.5.1. Applying ludovisual principles for analysis A detailed analysis of a ludic visual can offer valuable insight on the role that it has in a game. To demonstrate this, I explain how a specific ludic visual fulfills the ludovisual principles and how it displays ludovisual elegance. This kind of analysis could be conducted for any ludic visual. Any of the examples that have been mentioned in this thesis could be analyzed in a similar manner. Some that I would find especially interesting ones to analyze could be, for example, the power sliding mechanic in Crash Team Racing (Naughty Dog, 1999), growing crops in Stardew Valley (ConcernedApe, 2016), or the transformation into the cat form in World of Warcraft (Blizzard Entertainment, 2004). However, the chosen ludic visual for this example is the laser feature of The Witness (Thekla, Inc., 2016). Figure 7.3 displays three screenshots of the lasers from different points of view.

136 DISCUSSION

Figure 7.3. In The Witness (Thekla, Inc., 2016), one laser appears each time the player completes a set of puzzles. There is a total of eleven lasers, although seven lasers are enough to activate the mountaintop.

The Witness (Thekla, Inc., 2016) is situated on an island full of puzzles. After the player has completed all the puzzles of an area, a laser machine activates and points towards the mountain at the center of the island, as shown in the upper left screenshot of Figure 7.3. There is a total of eleven puzzle areas that activate their own laser machine. Now, it is not a completely new invention to activate something at the end of a game section. However, the brilliance of this particular implementation is unveiled when conducting a ludovisual analysis on the feature.

The ludological visuality of the lasers is phenomenal. As a holistic element, the lasers represent the meditative atmosphere of the game, and are a part of how

DISCUSSION 137

players think about the game. As a structural element, they represent the state of the game: each active laser indicates that an area has been successfully completed. As a boundary element, activating the first lasers implies that there are more of them, which encourages the player to search for them. As a temporal element, while the lasers are not directly controllable by the players, their appearance is visual feedback about the completion of an area.

The visual attributes of the lasers also shine in play. The depiction of the lasers is simple but bright, and the way that they are activated by a laser machine strangely makes sense in the context of the weird puzzle island. The way that the lasers are placed allows the players to always see them even though they are not superimposed on the screen: as the last screenshot of Figure 7.3 shows, they are always on the sky. Seeing the lasers like this also makes it possible to locate the completed area itself because the laser machines are always placed near their designated puzzle area. Additionally, due to the way that the lasers are directed at the mountaintop, they are also leading lines that guide the player towards the point of interest where the lasers meet. The focus of the lasers is shown in the upper right screenshot of Figure 7.3. The existence of the lasers displays progression as seeing more and more lasers indicates that the player is getting further in the game. Once a laser is activated, it will always stay active.

Likewise, the experiential ludovisuality of the lasers is impressive. Players clearly perceive lasers as lasers instead of thinking about them as points. The players even talk about the amount of lasers needed to access the mountain area instead of talking about the amount of completed areas (MrShaggyZ, 2017). The absorption of the lasers is not forced but the player is allowed to look at them as they please. Even if the purpose of the lasers was not immediately clear, the players can process their meaning at their own pace, which perfectly matches the feel of the puzzle island. The lasers also support immersion due to the way that they both structurally and visually belong to the gameworld. Because it is not possible for the players to directly interact with the lasers, their interactive qualities are rather frail. However, because the lasers can be observed from different directions throughout the island and because of how

138 DISCUSSION

they can be thought of as a visualization of game progress, they could also be thought of as prolonged interaction between the gameworld and the player.

The mastery that the lasers display in all themes of the ludovisual principles also works as an indication of ludovisual elegance. The lasers beautifully illustrate the state of the game while also providing guidance to the player. They are a very visually emphasized element in the game, being visible from around the island, but they are not intrusive, because the player always has the power to direct the camera. The players perceive them as an integral part of the game – even equating game progress to the number of lasers. Overall, the lasers create a ludic image of the game that is linked to various game-mechanical events, are visually beamed over the whole island, and are a part of how players perceive the game itself. Thus, it can be concluded that the lasers of The Witness (Thekla, Inc., 2016) are elegant ludic visuals.

7.5.2. Developing ludic visuals It is possible to create ludovisual designs without consciously thinking about them as ludic visuals. Creating prototypes, making concept art, white-boxing game environments, and designing the visuals effects are just a few examples for how ludic visuals are already developed in practice (e.g. Barlet, 2014; Casen, 2016; Kultima, 2018; Lilly, 2015; Rinard et al., 2016).

However, having an overall idea about ludovisual design can allow making more informed observations and design decisions about ludic visuals. This could also allow for making more innovative solutions because understanding the concept of ludic visuals makes it possible to think outside of traditional conventions.

For example, ludovisual issues often come forth during playtesting, but pointing out the specific problem might sometimes be challenging. With ludovisual knowledge, it becomes easier to identify the cause and also to come up with an appropriate solution. Ludovisual knowledge can also help recognize problematic designs even before the design is playtested. This can save a significant amount of

DISCUSSION 139

time because of how each design does not need to be corrected after playtesting. A problematic ludic visual usually clearly lacks in some of the ludovisual principles, which makes it possible to be identified. This ludic visual can then be adjusted without needing to spend time on conducting a playtesting session, analyzing problems in the game experience, or trying to figure out the root cause of the defective experience.

Aside from expanding the knowledge of individual designers, considering ludovisuality could also be considered useful from the perspective of game production. While there are processes and phases of development that could be considered similar in all game projects, there is no set pattern that all games would follow: game development is iterative and opportunistic, which makes all game projects unique (e.g. Edwards, 2006; Kultima, 2018). Game development processes between teams and games can also vary considerably (e.g. Washburn, Sathiyanarayanan, Nagappan, Zimmermann, & Bird, 2016). Despite this variety, I argue that ludovisual thinking could be useful for all kinds of projects.

In smaller teams, the development can be more dynamic, which can facilitate more inventive and expressive ludovisual solutions in itself. In these small teams, individual members of the team can influence the game a lot, and therefore their sense of ludovisuality can directly be transferred into the game.

In bigger game projects, there are more people working on the same game. While the people can be experts of their own field, sometimes it takes effort to understand people of other disciplines. There has traditionally not been a specific role for designing ludic visuals, which can sometimes leave them to be designed coincidentally. Recognizing the importance of ludovisual design could also allow bigger projects to create more inventive ludovisual solutions. Someone should be in charge of the ludovisual design that could then be worked on by the team.

Even in the most primitive game prototypes, some parts of the game mechanics are already visualized. While these parts might not be considered visual, it can be crucial to understand the extent of ludovisuality here: some of the early decisions in the first prototypes can define many later decisions of the game. As it is extremely

140 DISCUSSION

challenging to completely alter game structures later on in the development, it is beneficial to pay attention to these matters during the early development of a game. The most brilliant ludovisual designs cannot usually be achieved just by adding polish on top of boxes. Considering game mechanics as visual makes it possible to take their visuality into account during development.

Designing ludovisual concepts beforehand slightly contradicts the idea of iterative game development. Nevertheless, it could be beneficial to have some kind of plan for the ludovisual design before refining visuals that might get changed later. Despite the fact that the iterative nature of game development tends to cause some work to be thrown away during the development, designing the ludic visuals from the beginning can benefit the whole development process. Ludovisual design accompanies game design, and it could even be considered to be the visual side of game design.

Ludovisual design is a reverse process when compared to observing a game: the designers create something that the player then interprets (Hatva, 1993; Hunicke et al., 2004). However, as everything in gameworlds needs to be created, gameworlds – like any art – are a blank space first (O’Doherty, 1999). Additionally, as the visualization of the gameworld does not necessarily have to rigorously follow the game mechanics, ludic visuals can be almost anything. Nonetheless, because players try to make sense of the gameworld, the designers have the responsibility to create a world that makes sense.

However, it is important to note that great ludovisual design might not necessarily mean great game design. Some games might have excellent ludic visuals while lacking in some other areas that would make them better games. However, because of the effect that they have on game experiences, it could be argued that elegant ludic visuals bring value to the game.

Because this thesis has mostly been a theoretical exploration of ludic visuals, more research is needed to confirm the practical applications of ludovisual knowledge. Nevertheless, I have personally already found this knowledge useful in my own work: ludovisual knowledge is applicable in many situations, and it allows

DISCUSSION 141

for making knowledgeable estimates even on completely new types of ludovisual designs.

Effectual ludovisual thinking can lead to being able to combine and generate ideas that extend beyond the conventional visual designs of games. Having ludovisual knowledge can also help validate these ideas and to identify possible problems with the design. This also means that the visual designs on certain game mechanics should not always have to rely on the conventional solutions that have been proven to work, because the novel ludovisual solutions can also be validated. Deliberate ludovisual design allows for both inventing and rationalizing the use of new ludic visuals.

8. CONCLUSION

144 CONCLUSION

This thesis was onset by the need for more information about the visualization of game mechanics. To establish a starting ground for this new topic within game research, I created the concept of ludic visuals and explored it extensively from various points of view. As defined during this research, a ludic visual is a component that conveys information about the game mechanics to the player. Ludic visuals can also be thought of as the compounds of the connections between the visuals and the mechanics of games.

This thesis demonstrates how ludic visuals can be approached from three distinct directions: ludological, visual, and experiential. Ludic visuals from various games were analyzed according to these themes, which resulted in a framework-like composition of transdisciplinary knowledge on ludovisuality.

Under the ludological theme, I questioned the need for visualization of game mechanics. It became clear that not all game mechanics need to be visualized, but it should be a conscious decision whether to include or exclude them. Whereas a missing gamevisual can let the players imagine more, an expressive ludic visual can concretize game mechanics that could otherwise require more effort for the players to fully comprehend.

In the visual theme, I studied the ways of visualizing game mechanics. For visualization in games, the hierarchy of emphasis is the operative force. The depiction, the placement, and the timing were found to be useful subthemes for analyzing visual attributes. It was also found that in games, there are three especially important perspectives for examining visual attributes: the game view, the gameworld, and the player agency. With these topics, it is possible to identify the most prominent visual attributes and to find an appropriate place and timing for them. The prominence of each visual attribute should be in line with the amount of attention that the ludic visual should get from the player.

Within the experiential theme, I explored the ways in which ludic visuals have an impact on the game experience. As humans, the players have limited abilities for perceiving and remembering information. Considering the way in which the players experience ludic visuals was recognized as one of the key factors in ludovisual

CONCLUSION 145

design. While it might be challenging to imagine the game experience from the perspective of the players, successfully designing ludic visuals according to the expected experience seems undeniably beneficial.

All ludic visuals can be analyzed within all of the three themes. Although interpreting the exact properties of a ludic visual is up to the perceiver, it is beneficial to have a way of approaching the topic. Despite the subjectivity of the method, having these flexible themes was repeatedly proved to be the right choice during the research. A rigid categorization would have limited the research and forced a specific direction in the terms of the categories and not the subject itself. As a suggestive guideline, only the most prevalent properties of a ludic visual should be addressed.

In light of this research, it seems logical that ludic visuals that relate to the most properties under each theme would always be elegant. Yet, there are various examples of impressive ludovisual solutions where the observed elegance does not stem from the amount of the properties alone but the brilliant ways of combining them. Furthermore, ludovisual elegance is something more than just the sum of its parts – it is about the ways of intertwined connections that work together to create a ludovisual entity. It seems that it is not possible to measure ludic visual properties in an exact way – ludovisual analysis should always be based on a thorough understanding of the ludic visual as its own compound.

Categorizing, classifying, and measuring ludic visuals should not, however, be the end goal, and that has not been the main contribution of this thesis either. The outcome of this thesis has been to understand ludic visuals better, and to gain the ability to think in terms of ludovisuality. This means being able to notice the connections that tie ludological elements and visual attributes together into a multidimensional experience.

In this thesis, I have outlined multiple important features of ludic visuals, and defined the term. It has been stressed that their importance stems from their role in the player experience, as messengers of gameplay meaning. They are the building blocks that form the gameworld and make it possible to immerse oneself into the game. They are perceived during the experience and their meaning is absorbed by the

146 CONCLUSION

player. During all the phases of interaction, ludic visuals realize the player agency within the gameworld. The ludic visuals allow the players to interpret meaning, and to interact within the gameworld. Ludic visuals have the power to direct the game experience.

With a strong foundation in the practical ways of making and playing games as well as the academic research around the topic, this thesis provides a transdisciplinary view on ludic visuals that is useful for both the academic research and the games industry. By offering both the practical framework and the vocabulary for ludic visuals, it is possible to start perceiving this central component in games. Ludovisual knowledge can be beneficial for both understanding games better as a whole and creating ludic visuals that deliberately illustrate the desired ludological elements.

While the visual expression of games can still be dismissed as something superfluous nowadays, this thesis is a statement to recognize the value that ludic visuals hold. They visualize game mechanics for the players to experience.

GLOSSARY

GLOSSARY absorption an experiential dimension where something is experienced so that attention is directed at it – contrary to immersion affordance something that a gameworld provides for the player artificial ecological reality an ecological reality designed by people boundary element a ludological element that defines the possibilities and limitations within a game setting (e.g. rules and goals) depiction a visual attribute that defines the visual appearance of something – including its content, visual style, or context within the game ecological reality a world structure at the level of environmental constructs that humans can understand based on observing them within that environment – contrary to, for example, studying environmental phenomena based on laws of physics (Gibson, 1986) experiential dimension a concept that indicates specific type of experiencing (this thesis explores four types: perception, absorption, immersion, and interaction) game experience an approximation of a generic experience that a specific game setting can result in game mechanic features that form the rule-based space: the parts that it consists of, the rules that define the laws of the game system, the actions that happen within it, and concepts that relate to the game system as a whole game system the wholeness of the structures that facilitate gameplay, and the logic that defines the rules and the actions within the game gamevisual* a visual thing in a game

148 GLOSSARY

gameworld the setting that a game provides as a system together with the visual representation that depicts that system, the artificial ecological reality of games holistic element a ludological element that relates to the game system as a whole immersion an experiential dimension where something is experienced so that one places themselves in it, becoming a part of the experience – contrary to absorption interaction an experiential dimension where participation is active – contrary to perception; complementary actions between two things (actions in games can usually be considered interactions between the player and the game system) interface the facilitator of interaction; the medium between an actor and an action ludic image* the visual idea of a gameplay situation and its possibilities ludic visual* the visualization of a game mechanic ludological related to information about the game system or a game mechanic in itself ludological element a feature that is connected to a game system, or closely related to a game mechanic (usually as a part of something else e.g. an aspect of a ludic visual) ludology game research that is mainly focused on studying games as systems ludovisual elegance* simplicity and effectiveness in communicating game mechanics with visual attributes in a way that enhances the intended game experience; overall brilliance of a ludovisual solution ludovisual status* indicates whether something is a ludic visual or not, and if it is a game mechanic without a visualization or a gamevisual without game- mechanical connections – subject to interpretation

GLOSSARY 149

ludovisuality* the combined ludologicality and visuality of something, which is determined by how it is experienced mediated space the presentational layer of a game, the parts of the game that players can observe (Nitsche, 2008) perception an experiential dimension where the participation is considered passive; seeing, thinking, and understanding something – contrary to interaction placement a visual attribute that defines the location of something in a game – especially in relation to the game view, the gameworld, or the player rule-based space the systemic layer of a game that consists of game mechanics (Nitsche, 2008) structural element a ludological element that is a building block of the game system (e.g. actors, components, states) temporal element a ludological element that relates to the events that take place in a game system timing a visual attribute that defines the duration of visibility or visual existence – especially in relation to the view, the gameworld, or the player view the visual view that is provided to the gameworld (e.g. what is visible on the screen in videogames, or what the player sees from their seat in boardgames) visual attribute a visual feature that can be observed within a game (this thesis identifies three types: depiction, placement, timing)

Words marked with an asterisk (*) are new terms that were introduced in this thesis.

REFERENCES

REFERENCES

Ludography

Adams, T., & Adams, Z. (2006). Dwarf Fortress.

Beat Games. (2018). Beat Saber. Beat Games.

Blizzard Entertainment. (1998). StarCraft. Blizzard Entertainment.

Blizzard Entertainment. (2004). World of Warcraft. Blizzard Entertainment.

Blizzard Entertainment. (2014). Hearthstone. Blizzard Entertainment.

Blizzard Entertainment. (2015). Heroes of the Storm. Blizzard Entertainment.

Colossal Order. (2015). Cities Skylines. Paradox Interactive.

ConcernedApe. (2016). Stardew Valley. Chucklefish.

Crows Crows Crows. (2015). Dr. Langeskov, The Tiger, and The Terribly Cursed

Emerald: A Whirlwind Heist. Crows Crows Crows.

Drool. (2016). Thumper. Drool.

EA Redwood Shores. (2008). Dead Space. Electronic Arts.

Everything Unlimited Ltd. (2015). The Beginner's Guide. Everything Unlimited Ltd.

Facepalm Games. (2013). The Swapper. Facepalm Games.

Fish, P. (2012). FEZ. Trapdoor.

Forgotten Key. (2017). AER. Daedalic Entertainment.

Frictional Games. (2010). Amnesia: The Dark Descent. Frictional Games.

Garfield, R. (1993). Magic: The Gathering. Wizards of the Coast.

Giant Sparrow. (2017). What Remains of Edith Finch. Annapurna Interactive.

Giant Squid Studios. (2016). Abzû. 505 Games.

152 REFERENCES

Hello Games. (2016). No Man's Sky. Hello Games.

Insomniac Games. (1999). Spyro: Gateway to Glimmer. Sony Computer Entertainment.

Kojima Productions. (2019). Death Stranding. Sony Interactive Entertainment.

Lilith Games. (2019). AFK Arena. Lilith Games.

Maxis. (2000). The Sims. Electronic Arts.

MicroProse. (1991). Sid Meier's Civilization. MicroProse.

Moon Studios. (2015a). Ori and the Blind Forest. Microsoft Studios.

Mountains. (2018). Florence. Annapurna Interactive.

Naughty Dog. (1999). Crash Team Racing. Sony Computer Entertainment.

Niantic & The Pokémon Company. (2016). Pokémon GO.

Nomada Studio. (2018). Gris. Devolver Digital.

Orteil. (2013). Cookie Clicker.

Pajitnov, A. (1984). Tetris. Various publishers.

Psyonix. (2015). Rocket League. Psyonix.

Riot Games. (2009). League of Legends. Riot Games.

Roberts, J. (2017). Gorogoa. Annapurna Interactive.

Small Giant Games. (2017). Empires & Puzzles: RPG Quest. Small Giant Games.

Supergiant Games. (2014). Transistor. Supergiant Games.

SUPERHOT Team. (2016a). SUPERHOT. SUPERHOT Team. thatgamecompany. (2012a). Journey. Sony Computer Entertainment.

Thekla, Inc. (2016). The Witness. Thekla, Inc.

Ustwo Games. (2014). Monument Valley. Ustwo Games.

REFERENCES 153

Bibliography

Andrews, S. (2016, September 30). Ori and the Blind Forest review [Game review].

Retrieved from https://www.trustedreviews.com/reviews/ori-and-the-blind-forest

Arnheim, R. (1969). Visual thinking. University of California Press.

Arsenault, D., Côté, P.-M., & Larochelle, A. (2015). The game FAVR: A framework for

the analysis of visual representation in video games. Loading..., 9(14).

Barlet, H. (2014, September 7). Block design in level design [Web article]. Retrieved

from https://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/HuguesBarlet/20140907/

225061/Block_design_in_level_design

Bayliss, P. (2007). Beings in the game-world: Characters, avatars, and players. In M.

Gibbs & Y. Pisan (Eds.), IE ’07 Proceedings of the 4th Australasian conference

on Interactive entertainment. Melbourne, Australia: RMIT University.

Berger, J. (2008). Ways of seeing. London, England: Penguin. (Original work published

1972).

Björk, S., & Holopainen, J. (2003). Describing games: An interaction-centric structural

framework. In M. Copier & J. Raessens (Eds.), DiGRA ’03 - Proceedings of the

2003 DiGRA International Conference: Level Up (Vol. 2). Retrieved from

http://www.digra.org/digital-library/

Björk, S., & Holopainen, J. (2005). Games and design patterns. In K. Salen & E.

Zimmerman (Eds.), The game design reader: A rules of play anthology (pp.

410–437). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Cardona-Rivera, R. E., & Young, R. M. (2014). A cognitivist theory of affordances for

games. DiGRA ’13 - Proceedings of the 2013 DiGRA International Conference:

154 REFERENCES

DeFragging Game Studies, 7. Retrieved from http://www.digra.org/digital-

library/

Casen, S. (2016, July 13). White boxing your game [Web article]. Retrieved from

https://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/SaraCasen/20160713/276970/White_Boxing_

Your_Game

Chamberlain, H., & Keyser, J. (2017). Visual effects bootcamp: Artistic principles of

VFX. Presented at the Game Developers Conference, San Francisco, CA.

Retrieved from https://gdcvault.com/play/1023943/Visual-Effects-Bootcamp-

Artistic-Principles

Chang, Y.-C., & Hsieh, C.-M. (2018). Filmic framing in video games: A comparative

analysis of screen space design. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 77(6),

6531–6554. doi:10.1007/s11042-017-4564-6

Cheema, A., & Bagchi, R. (2011). The Effect of Goal Visualization on Goal Pursuit:

Implications for Consumers and Managers. Journal of Marketing, 75(2), 109–

123. doi:10.1509/jmkg.75.2.109

Chen, J. (2007). Flow in games (and everything else). Commun. ACM, 50(4), 31–34.

doi:10.1145/1232743.1232769

Cho, H., Donovan, A., & Lee, J. H. (2018). Art in an algorithm: A taxonomy for

describing video game visual styles. Journal of the Association for Information

Science & Technology, 69(5), 633–646. doi:10.1002/asi.23988

Costikyan, G. (2002). I have no words & I must design: Toward a critical vocabulary for

games. Computer Games and Digital Cultures Conference Proceedings.

Tampere University Press.

REFERENCES 155

Cowley, B., Kosunen, I., Lankoski, P., Kivikangas, J. M., Järvelä, S., Ekman, I., …

Ravaja, N. (2014). Experience assessment and design in the analysis of

gameplay. Simulation & Gaming, 45(1), 41–69. doi:10.1177/1046878113513936

Crawford, C. (1982). The art of computer game design [Electronic book]. Retrieved from

https://www.digitpress.com/library/books/book_art_of_computer_game_design.

pdf

Csíkszentmihályi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York:

Harper & Row.

Deleuze, G. (1986). Cinema 1: The movement-image. University of Minnesota Press.

(Original work published 1983).

Deleuze, G. (1989). Cinema 2: The time-image. University of Minnesota Press. (Original

work published 1985).

Dewey, J. (2005). Art as experience (1st ed.). New York: TarcherPerigee. (Original work

published 1934).

Dondis, D. A. (1973). A primer of visual literacy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Dormans, J. (2011). Beyond iconic simulation. Simulation & Gaming, 42(5), 610–631.

doi:10.1177/1046878111426963

Edwards, R. (2006, March 15). The game production pipeline: Concept to completion

[Web article]. Retrieved from https://www.ign.com/articles/2006/03/16/the-

game-production-pipeline-concept-to-completion

Ekman, I. (2019). Check your assumptions – Making the most of UX research [Video

file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSH1jhvrn1U

Elegance. (2019). In Merriam-Webster.com. Retrieved from https://www.merriam-

webster.com/dictionary/elegance

156 REFERENCES

El-Nasr, M. S., & Yan, S. (2006). Visual attention in 3D video games. Proceedings of the

2006 ACM SIGCHI International Conference on Advances in Computer

Entertainment Technology. New York: ACM. doi:10.1145/1178823.1178849

Ermi, L., & Mäyrä, F. (2005). Fundamental components of the gameplay experience:

Analysing immersion. DiGRA ’05 - Proceedings of DiGRA 2005 Conference:

Changing Views - Worlds in Play, 14. Retrieved from

http://www.digra.org/digital-library/

Eurogamer. (2015, April 17). Why Dwarf Fortress started killing cats – Here's a thing

[Video file]. Retrieved from

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yWf6BHqiWM

Facepalm Games. (2014). The Swapper press kit [Screenshot]. Retrieved from

https://facepalmgames.com/press/sheet.php?p=the_swapper

Falstein, N. (2007). Do, don’t show. Game Developer, 14(1), 42. Retrieved from

https://search.proquest.com/docview/219103017?accountid=27468

ForgottenPotato. (2017, September 18). Why do we constantly jump in games? [Forum

post]. Retrieved June 15, 2018, from https://www.reddit.com/r/truegaming/

comments/53btiu/why_do_we_constantly_jump_in_games/

Friedman, A. (2015). The role of visual design in game design. Games and Culture,

10(3), 291–305. doi:10.1177/1555412014559977

Gage, Z. (2018). Building games that can be understood at a glance. Presented at the

Game Developers Conference, San Francisco, CA. Retrieved from

https://www.gdcvault.com/play/1024925/Building-Games-That-Can-Be

Gaver, W. W. (1991). Technology affordances. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference

on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 79–84. doi:10.1145/108844.108856

REFERENCES 157

Gibson, J. J. (1986). The ecological approach to visual perception. London, England:

Psychology Press. (Original work published 1972).

Gies, A. (2015, March 9). Ori and the Blind Forest review: The place you go. Retrieved

from https://www.polygon.com/2015/3/9/8180595/ori-and-the-blind-forest-

review-xbox-one-PC

Gobet, F., & Simon, H. A. (1996). Templates in chess memory: A mechanism for

recalling several boards. Cognitive Psychology, 31(1), 1–40.

doi:10.1006/cogp.1996.0011

Goldkuhl, G. (2008). Actability theory meets affordance theory: Clarifying HCI in IT

usage situations. ECIS 2008 Proceedings, 790–801. AIS.

Goldkuhl, G. (2013). Actability criteria for design and evaluation: Pragmatic qualities of

information systems. International Journal of Information Systems and Social

Change (IJISSC), 2(3), 1–15. doi:10.4018/jissc.2011070101

Gonzalez, C. (1995). Visual design of interaction, dialog, or interface? ACM SIGCHI

Bulletin, 27(1), 12. doi:10.1145/202642.202645

Grant, C. (2016, June 16). Kojima: The “game” has already begun [Web article].

Retrieved from https://www.polygon.com/e3/2016/6/16/11954766/kojima-

tweetstorm

Green, C. S., & Bavelier, D. (2003). Action video game modifies visual selective

attention. Nature, 423(6939), 534–537. doi:10.1038/nature01647

Griffith, J. (2019). Visual effects bootcamp: Grounding the impossible: Pushing

creativity in VFX. Presented at the Game Developers Conference, San Francisco,

CA. Retrieved from https://www.gdcvault.com/play/1025865/Visual-Effects-

Bootcamp-Grounding-the

158 REFERENCES

Hagen, U. (2011). Designing for player experience: How professional game developers

communicate design visions. Journal of Gaming & Virtual Worlds, 3(3), 259–

275. doi:10.1386/jgvw.3.3.259_1

Hatva, A. (1993). Kuvittaminen [Illustrating]. Helsinki, Finland: Rakennustieto.

Healey, C. G., & Enns, J. T. (2012). Attention and Visual Memory in Visualization and

Computer Graphics. 18(7), 1170–1188. doi:10.1109/TVCG.2011.127

Hodent, C. (2017). The gamer’s brain: How neuroscience and UX can impact video

game design. London, England: CRC Press.

Huizinga, J. (1967). Leikkivä ihminen: Yritys kulttuurin leikkiaineksen määrittelemiseksi

[Homo ludens: A study of the play-element in culture] (2nd ed.; S. Salomaa,

Trans.). Porvoo, Finland: WSOY.

Hunicke, R., LeBlanc, M., & Zubek, R. (2004). MDA: A formal approach to game

design and game research. Proceedings of the AAAI Workshop on Challenges in

Game AI, 4, 1–5. San Jose, CA: AAAI Press.

Iacovides, I., Cox, A., Kennedy, R., Cairns, P., & Jennett, C. (2015). Removing the

HUD: The impact of non-diegetic game elements and expertise on player

involvement. Proceedings of the 2015 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human

Interaction in Play, 13–22. doi:10.1145/2793107.2793120

Järvinen, A. (2008). Games without frontiers: Theories and methods for game studies

and design (Doctoral dissertation). University of Tampere, Finland.

Jørgensen, K. (2011). Time for new terminology? Diegetic and non-diegetic sounds in

computer games revisited. Game Sound Technology and Player Interaction:

Concepts and Developments, 78–97. doi:10.4018/978-1-61692-828-5.ch005

Jørgensen, K. (2013). Gameworld interfaces. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

REFERENCES 159

Juul, J. (2005). Half-real: Video games between real rules and fictional worlds.

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Keo, M. (2017). Graphical styles in video games (Bachelor’s thesis, Häme University of

Applied Sciences, Finland). Retrieved from http://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:amk-

2017082214491

Kojima Productions. (2016, June 13). Death Stranding – E3 2016 Reveal Trailer | PS

[Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcaMw4aCz4c

Koponen, J., Hildén, J., & Vapaasalo, T. (2016). Tieto näkyväksi: Informaatiomuotoilun

perusteet [Visible information: The basics of information design]. Aalto-

yliopisto.

Kristine Jørgensen. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.uib.no/en/persons/

Kristine.J%C3%B8rgensen

Krum, R. (2013). Cool infographics: Effective communication with data visualization

and design. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Kultima, A. (2018). Game design praxiology (Doctoral dissertation). University of

Tampere, Finland.

Kultima, A., & Stenros, J. (2010). Designing games for everyone: The expanded game

experience model. Proceedings of the International Academic Conference on the

Future of Game Design and Technology, 66–73. doi:10.1145/1920778.1920788

LeBandit915. (2018, May 27). Beat Saber Custom Song—Reality Check Through The

Skull (Megalovania) [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/

watch?v=YKnUfLEJC00

Lilly, E. J. (2015). The big bad world of concept art for video games: An insider’s guide

for students. Culver City, CA: Design Studio Press.

160 REFERENCES

Linderoth, J. (2004). Datorspelandets mening: Bortom idén om den interaktiva illusionen

[The meaning of gaming: Beyond the idea of the interactive illusion]. Göteborg,

Sweden: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.

Linderoth, J., & Bennerstedt, U. (2007). This is not a Door: An ecological approach to

computer games. DiGRA ’07 - Proceedings of DiGRA 2007 Conference:

Situated Play, pp. 600-609. Retrieved from http://www.digra.org/digital-library/

Llanos, S., & Jørgensen, K. (2011). Do players prefer integrated user interfaces? A

qualitative study of game UI design issues. DiGRA ’11 - Proceedings of DiGRA

2011 Conference: Think Design Play, 6, 12. Retrieved from

http://www.digra.org/digital-library/

Ludic. (2019). In Merriam-Webster.com. Retrieved from https://www.merriam-

webster.com/dictionary/ludic

Male, A. (2007). Illustration: A theoretical and contextual perspective. AVA Academia.

Marshall, C. (2019, July 9). World of Warcraft’s Race to World First raids are

undergoing an ownership controversy [Web article]. Retrieved from

https://www.polygon.com/2019/7/9/20684490/world-of-warcraft-method-sco-

statement-red-bull-world-first-eternal-palace-raid

Mäyrä, F. (2008). An introduction to game studies: Games in culture. London, England:

Sage.

McBride-Charpentier, M. (2011, January 2). Affordance design in Half-Life 2 [Web

article]. Retrieved from https://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/MichelMcBride

Charpentier/20110102/88710/Affordance_Design_in_HalfLife_2

Meldgaard, B. L. M. (2012). Playing by the visual rules: An ecological approach to

perception and video games. In J. Fromme, & A. Unger (Eds.), Computer

REFERENCES 161

Games and New Media Cultures: A Handbook of Digital Games Studies (Vol.

Handbook, pp. 265-279). Springer Science+Business Media. doi:10.1007/978-

94-007-2777-9_17

Michailidis, L., Balaguer-Ballester, E., & He, X. (2018). Flow and immersion in video

games: The aftermath of a conceptual challenge. Frontiers in Psychology, 9.

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01682

Mitchell, W. J. T. (2005). What do pictures want?: The lives and loves of images.

University of Chicago Press.

Moon Studios. (2015b, March 11). Ori and the Blind Forest Press kit [Screenshots].

Retrieved from https://www.igdb.com/games/ori-and-the-blind-forest/presskit

MrShaggyZ. (2017, January 31). How many lasers before I do mountain top? [Forum

post]. Retrieved September 17, 2019, from https://www.reddit.com/r/

TheWitness/comments/5rb8nb/how_many_lasers_before_i_do_mountain_top_sl

ight/

Muratovski, G. (2016). Research for designers: A guide to methods and practice.

London, England: Sage.

Nacke, L. E., Drachen, A., Kuikkaniemi, K., Niesenhaus, J., Korhonen, H. J., W. M.

Hoogen, V. D., … Y. A.W. Kort, D. (2009). Playability and player experience

research [Panel abstracts]. DiGRA ’11 - Proceedings of DiGRA 2011

Conference: Breaking New Ground: Innovation in Games, Play, Practice and

Theory. Retrieved from http://www.digra.org/digital-library/

Nikulin, A. E. (2014). Creating critical gameplay: Designing affective player

experiences (Master’s thesis). Aalto University, Finland.

162 REFERENCES

Nitsche, M. (2008). Video game spaces: Image, play, and structure in 3D game worlds.

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Nolla Games. (2019). Noita factsheet [Web page]. Retrieved from

https://noitagame.com/press/

Norman, D. A. (1990). The design of everyday things. New York: Doubleday Currency.

O’Doherty, B. (1999). Inside the white cube: The ideology of the gallery space.

University of California Press.

Ogier, H., & Buchan, J. (2017). Exploring the feasibility of diegetic in-game store user

interfaces. 1–10. doi:10.1145/3014812.3014881

OniLink24. (2012, December 9). Crash Team Racing—All Boss Races [Video file].

Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DI65VjAfiY8

Ori the Game. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.orithegame.com/

Pine, B. J., & Gilmore, J. H. (1998). Welcome to the experience economy. Harvard

Business Review, 76(4), 97–105. Retrieved from: http://search.ebscohost.com/

login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=780230&site=ehost-

live&authtype=sso&custid=ns192260

Purho, P., & Jonasson, M. (2012, May 24). Juice it or lose it [Video file]. Retrieved from

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fy0aCDmgnxg

Raj, M. A., Karlin, A., & Backstrom, Z. K. (2016). Pokémon GO: Imaginary Creatures,

Tangible Risks. Clinical Pediatrics, 55(13), 1195–1196.

doi:10.1177/0009922816669790

Redding, P. (2008). Do, don’t show—Narrative design in Far Cry 2. Presented at the

Game Developers Conference, San Francisco, CA. Retrieved from

https://www.gdcvault.com/play/430/-Do-Don-t-Show

REFERENCES 163

Reingold, E. M., Charness, N., Pomplun, M., & Stampe, D. M. (2001). Visual span in

expert chess players: Evidence from eye movements. Psychological Science,

12(1), 48–55. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00309

Rengifo, E. (2017, April 10). UI design is the past, welcome visual system design [Web

article]. Design Nation. Retrieved from https://design-nation.icons8.com/ui-

design-is-the-past-welcome-visual-system-design-ecf5811ff63e

Rinard, L., Lim, G., & Dunn, M. (2016, March 15). Champion insights: Aurelion Sol

[Web article]. Retrieved from https://na.leagueoflegends.com/en/news/

champions-skins/champion-preview/champion-insights-aurelion-sol

Riototown. (2014, November 8). Dev blog: Defining the Rift’s visual style [Web article].

Retrieved from https://na. leagueoflegends.com/en/news/game-updates/

features/dev-blog-defining-rifts-visual-style

Riotphoenix. (2015, June 23). Dev blog: Visual effects in League of Legends [Web

article]. Retrieved from https://na.leagueoflegends.com/en/news/game-

updates/gameplay/dev-blog-visual-effects-league-legends

Rose, G. (2001). Visual methodologies: An introduction to the interpretation of visual

materials. London, England: Sage.

Rosewater, M. (2019). Twenty Years, Twenty Lessons. Presented at the Game Developers

Conference, San Francisco, CA. Retrieved from https://www.gdcvault.com/

play/1023186/Twenty-Years-Twenty

Salen, K., & Zimmerman, E. (2004). Rules of play: Game design fundamentals.

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Schell, J. (2008). The art of game design: A book of lenses. London, England: CRC

Press.

164 REFERENCES

Schell, J. (2018). The nature of order in game narrative. Presented at the Game

Developers Conference, San Francisco, CA. Retrieved from

https://gdcvault.com/play/1025006/The-Nature-of-Order-in

Scheurle, J. (2018, June 19). Hey Twitter, can you help me think of excellent examples

for games that go above and beyond with their UI/UX to only show

relevant/contextual information on screen? Maybe beyond the strategy game

genre? [Twitter post]. Retrieved from https://twitter.com/Gaohmee/status/

1008839621000609797

Sheridan, H., & Reingold, E. (2014). Chess players eye movements reveal rapid

recognition of complex visual patterns. Journal of Vision, 14(10), 89–89.

doi:10.1167/14.10.89

Solarski, C. (2013, January 30). The aesthetics of game art and game design [Web

article]. Retrieved from https://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/185676/

the_aesthetics_of_game_art_and_

Solarski, C. (2017). Interactive stories and video game art: A storytelling framework for

game design. London, England: CRC Press.

Sousanis, N. (2015). Unflattening (Doctoral dissertation). Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University.

Stenros, J., & Kultima, A. (2018). On the expanding ludosphere. Simulation & Gaming,

49(3), 338–355. doi:10.1177/1046878118779640

Stuart, K. (2010, August 11). What do we mean when we call a game “immersive”?

[Web article]. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/technology/

gamesblog/2010/aug/10/games-science-of-immersion

REFERENCES 165

SUPERHOT Team. (2016b). SUPERHOT [Screenshot]. Retrieved from

https://www.igdb.com/games/superhot-vr/presskit

Swink, S. (2007, November 23). Game feel: The secret ingredient [Web article].

Retrieved from https://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/130734/

game_feel_the_secret_ingredient

Swink, S. (2009). Game feel: A game designer’s guide to virtual sensation. Burlington,

MA: Kaufmann.

Sylvester, T. (2013, June 2). The simulation dream [Web article]. Retrieved from https://

www.gamasutra.com/blogs/TynanSylvester/20130602/193462/The_Simulation_

Dream

Tach, D. (2013, March 31). Deliberately diegetic: Dead Space’s lead interface designer

chronicles the UI’s evolution at GDC [Web article]. Retrieved from https://

www.polygon.com/2013/3/31/4166250/dead-space-user-interface-gdc-2013

Tavinor, G. (2009). The art of videogames (D. Lopes & B. Gaut, Eds.). Wiley-Blackwell. thatgamecompany. (2012b). Journey [Screenshot]. Retrieved from

https://www.igdb.com/ games/journey/presskit

Thorne, S. L., Fischer, I., & Lu, X. (2012). The semiotic ecology and linguistic

complexity of an online game world. ReCALL: The Journal of EUROCALL;

Cambridge, 24(3), 279–301. doi:10.1017/S0958344012000158

Toh, W. (2015). A multimodal discourse analysis of video games: A ludonarrative model

(Doctoral dissertation, National University of Singapore). Retrieved from

https://search.proquest.com

Toups, Z. O., Dolgov, I., & Bonsignore, E. M. (2014). A theory of game mechanic

signaling for interface design. Proceedings of the First ACM SIGCHI Annual

166 REFERENCES

Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play - CHI PLAY ’14, 445–446.

doi:10.1145/2658537.2661318

Tychsen, A., & Hitchens, M. (2009). Game Time: Modeling and Analyzing Time in

Multiplayer and Massively Multiplayer Games. Games and Culture, 4(2), 170–

201. doi:10.1177/1555412008325479

Walk, W., Görlich, D., & Barrett, M. (2017). Design, dynamics, experience (DDE): An

advancement of the MDA framework for game design. In Game Dynamics: Best

Practices in Procedural and Dynamic Game Content Generation (pp. 27–45).

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-53088-8_3

Washburn, M., Sathiyanarayanan, P., Nagappan, M., Zimmermann, T., & Bird, C.

(2016). What went right and what went wrong: An analysis of 155 postmortems

from game development. 280–289. doi:10.1145/2889160.2889253

Waters, A. J., Gobet, F., & Leyden, G. (2002). Visuospatial abilities of chess players.

British Journal of Psychology, 93(4), 557. doi:10.1348/000712602761381402

Wiechers, H.-J. (2017, January 30). Using player experience to design games [Web

article]. Retrieved from http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/HarmJanWiechers/

20170130/290357/Using_Player_Experience_to_Design_Games

Willem, J. (2013, December 16). The art of screenshake [Video file]. Retrieved from

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJdEqssNZ-U

Wolfe, J. M. (2005). Guidance of visual search by preattentive information. In L. Itti, G.

Rees, & J. K. Tsotsos (Eds.), Neurobiology of Attention (pp. 101–104).

doi:10.1016/B978-012375731-9/50021-5

Xbox. (2014, June 9). Ori and the Blind Forest Trailer [Video file]. Retrieved from

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cklw-Yu3moE

REFERENCES 167

Zagal, J. P., & Mateas, M. (2010). Time in Video Games: A Survey and Analysis.

Simulation & Gaming, 41(6), 844–868. doi:10.1177/1046878110375594

Zoss, J. M. (2009, December 22). The art of game polish: Developers speak [Web

article]. Retrieved from https://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/132611/

the_art_of_game_polish_developers_