How people interact with games is often conceptualized in terms of "nouns" and "verbs". Chris Crawford is the often attributed source of this meme: "games are about verbs." Indeed, in these days when game and virtual world discourse bleeds so freely into so many mainstreams, the real world, as well as our virtual ones, are beginning to look like hotbeds of verbs. Yet I wonder, if this view is too simplistic, take the case of MMOGs as illustrative...
As with games in general, "noun" and "verb" descriptions pervade discussions of MMOGs and their legacy, MUDs. Damion Schubert described the MMOG noun / verb relationship in this way:
...giving the players content is giving them nouns, whereas giving them systems is giving them verbs - new actions they can perform on the game world. Giving players more verbs gives them different tools to attack problems, and also alternate activities. When you’re talking about games that players play for thousands of hours, that variety of gameplay is crucial. Players crave different experiences - they want to be pushed in new directions, and given new tactics...
Describing MMOGs by "nouns" and "verbs" is useful for their set of handy and ancient metaphors that extend from our palpable sense of language as well as from the text heritage of MUDs and command-line user interfaces. However, does this choice in metaphor, as useful as it is, obfuscate a central detail about MMOGs by way of ignoring a dirty little secret? Namely, that while our lingustic nouns and verbs are cross-dressers, their use in describing MMOGs seem to conveniently ignore this...
...In our native tongue, we are easily promiscuous with our nouns and verbs - morphing them one way or the other to suit language needs. This is especially true when we converse about new things, things not well rooted in our collective minds. Technology, for example, always seems to catch us by surprise. When surprised, we conjure up words quickly like "bookmark" (noun->verb) and "download" (verb->noun) to fill the gaps.
Raph Koster in Theory of Fun suggests that we, as players, seek to streamline play in MMOGs by downstepping all our high energy interactive juices into lumpy things to shunt to a corner of our mind. Cognitive macros of sorts. Thus, in our attempt to regularize and optimize our treadmills - creating new articles from processes - it sounds like, in a way, we are turning verbs into nouns. Do virtual worlds contain subtle dynamics that can grind away at the very syntax of our relationship to them?
What of the other direction? Are there activities in virtual worlds which we devise to frankenstein weary nouns with new life? How many of you have doodled your virtual treasures into patterns on texturized soil to spell names, poetry, draw pictures, create illusions, express your wicked selves: "DOODZ!!!!!!" Does this count? What about all the posing and emoting spent in group idleness? Are all these actions bonfires burning nouns into verbs, I wonder.
Perhaps meta activities are better examples of how verbs can reinvigorate nouns... Joe is tired of questing (a noun), so he *ebays* (a new shiny verb) his "phat loot"! Or, Helen has a slow day and does grief!
...Relatedly, recently, I encountered a new word. It is an interesting word, but also perplexing. Jamie Fristrom writes about "Toyetic" in this way:
The thing I noticed most about Half-Life 2 is that it's incredibly toyetic. "Toyetic" was a word given to me by a friend who used to work at Mattel who doesn't like being mentioned in my blog. It means, "like a toy." An amusing sidenote is that the guys at Mattel are trying to make their toys more like computer games, while we're trying to make our computer games more like toys. Or toy chests, anyway. The collection of guns in your typical FPS are already toyetic; a set of toy guns, each with their own kind of play. Half-Life 2 gives us a bunch of new toys above and beyond the usual collection of weapons: the air raft, the gravity gun, the dune buggy, the ant lions, portable gun turrets, squads of soldiers. Each toy comes complete with a context to make it interesting, and makes Half-life 2 feel like a brand new game, not a rehash.
What I find fascinating about the "Toyetic" concept, at least as I imagine it, is that it embodies succinctly the confusion between nouns and verbs in MMOGs:
Toyeticized items bind context (nouns) with some highly contextualize activity (verbs), creating a Toyetic thing - which I guess would have to be a sort of virtual world *verbal phrase* - another noun... and so it goes.
Jamie's irony is also interesting, which I spin as while RL toys are seeking to become more verb-y, computer games are sneaking a march and becoming more noun-y. Cross-dressing by convergence.
Nouns? Verbs? I'm partial to deverbal adjectives, myself.
Posted by: Peter Ludlow | Jan 13, 2005 at 22:01
Off Topic:
I wonder if it is possible that we all agree to use the word "meme" a little bit less often? It is starting to have the ring of "paradigm shift" (for you business types) or "Pop Warner" (for you sports fans). In other words, its getting really overused. :)
On topic:
I don't see computer games (especially MMORPGs) becoming more nouny.
The amount of content varies significantly from game to game, but as a trend it does not seem like there is more nouny type content (areas to explore, monsters to kill, etc).
On the flip side, everyone seems to want to create new systems. New crafting systems. New types of combat. New types of PvP.
Computer games might be trying to be more like toys, but they seem to also be still focusing on verbiness.
Posted by: Michael Hartman | Jan 14, 2005 at 01:39
The way I see it, using verbs in the process of co-creation results in nouns - crafting systems, for instance, are verbs that yield lots of nouns. You could even say that a verb like grouping results in the nouns of relationships and community. As such, nouns are the effect of a lot of effort and ongoing participation... so, really, they demonstrate the fulfillment of potential outlined by verbs. They signify maturity, establishment... institutions?
Personally, though, I think one of the beauties of videogame play is the willingness to do a bunch of stuff without expecting tangible benefits... RL is so focused on nouns that verbs are often only a means to an end...
Posted by: Lisa Galarneau | Jan 14, 2005 at 04:32
Am I the only one that don't really "get" the noun/verb thing?
Lis Galarneau> Personally, though, I think one of the beauties of videogame play is the willingness to do a bunch of stuff without expecting tangible benefits...
Hmm. I think a lot of what people strive for outside games aren't particularly tangible either (money/signs-of-status/popularity/sex). I also think that MMOs ruin the beauties of virtual worlds by trying to get the players to perceive the benefits they can aquire as tangibles. There IS something "tangible" about strutting around in uber-gear... Social worlds like Active Worlds and the web do better IMO, you can build things for the benefit of your own amusement and to entertain others.
Posted by: Ola Fosheim Grøstad | Jan 14, 2005 at 06:30
Ola Fosheim Grøstad>Am I the only one that don't really "get" the noun/verb thing?
It's not that I don't get it, it's that I don't want it. That way leads to object-oriented programming.
Richard
Posted by: Richard Bartle | Jan 14, 2005 at 08:25
Ahh, classes and methods as imperatives. Now I get it too! :-D Nothing wrong with OOP per se, but I guess the noun/verb metaphor invites designers to design the interface as an OO-browser. Bye bye depth. What-you-see-is-all-you-get. WYSIAYG.
Posted by: Ola Fosheim Grøstad | Jan 14, 2005 at 09:36
Interesting discussion and observations. Let me torture Nathan's analogy a bit.
When you look at Raph's first major effort, UO, it is packed with nouns and verbs; players can do a lot and acquire a lot. In fact, I'm not sure there will ever again be launched an MMO as broad and deep as was UO at launch in 1997. SWG has some of it, but even WoW, for all that it does right, doesn't match up to the breadth and depth seen in UO, and the developers keep adding to it. That is a major part of the reason it still has a bunch o' players.
I think the thrust of Raph's book, however, is that once players learn how to use those nouns and verbs, they optimize their 'speech' and naturally start looking around to expand their vocabulary. If they can't, they start looking around for a world with a larger or different lexicon. What becomes fun is some sort of mastery of the game's 'speech.' When that mastery is achieved, there must be something new or different to master or optimize for enjoyment.
In other words, nouns and verbs are a means to an end, either meeting am existing player motivation or creating a new type of motivation for them to get excited about.
That may sound simple, but just looking at the MMO wreckage from the last couple years, it sounds like we could all use a Berlitz course or two, :D.
Posted by: Jessica Mulligan | Jan 14, 2005 at 10:27
I guess I still don't get it. :-) How does nouns/verbs relate to goals and character improvement? I haven't read Raph's book yet, so any examples? Concrete ones. (Verbs as systems make no sense to me.)
Posted by: Ola Fosheim Grøstad | Jan 14, 2005 at 10:52
Well, to quote the Department of Health and Human Services and Center for Disease Control:
"VERB(tm). It's what you do."
Note carefully from the bottom of that page:
Should we expect that government lawyers will start sending Vivendi-like C&D letters because we're infringing their Intellectual Property? =P
Posted by: Barry Kearns | Jan 14, 2005 at 11:36
Ooh, they even have a game generator. I still don't get the noun/verb thing, so let me make some claims:
1. What audio-visual games do well are adverbs/adjectives, not noun/verbs.
2. Players ignore ineffective verbs, and stick to a few effective ones. (go,kill,gank,loot,chat) There is little point in providing more verbs than players have fingers.
3. Lots of nouns/verbs make the game difficult to handle for a newbie.
4. A good game provides compelling long-term goals that the player himself breaks down into a wide variety of subgoals that suits his own playstyle.
Chess is a good game. Few nouns, few verbs, but some adverbs (a long move, short move etc). Chess has a compelling longterm goal. A great variety of subgoals depending on your personal preferences. Not too many adjectives after the game has started, but the gameboard/pieces are available in a great variety of styles (adjectives) that you can choose from to match your personal identity and you can also adjust the game style (using a clock or not, handicaps etc).
Or did I completely miss the point? Maybe you guys are discussing the world and not the game?
Posted by: Ola Fosheim Grøstad | Jan 14, 2005 at 12:01
Eep.
I am unsure I actually use the noun/verb thing IN my book! I have certainly used it in forum andblog postings, though.
In those, the analogy was simply to explain to players why the designer definition of "content" was different from the player definition of "content."
Players define content experientially. Designers define it as data which is used by systems. So the analogy is that systems are like verbs, and content is like the nouns acted on by those verbs.
Many players will consider systems to be content. They'll also lump bad boring systems as "no content" and they'll consider repetitive data as "no content." This makes perfect sense when considered in light of information theory.
But it's not really utilitarian for a designer, who has to live in somewhat less theoretical realms. That's why the whole debate about whether you start designing first with the world or first with the game, or whether you design from the experience backwards, or whatever, is a bit of a red herring--it is NEVER that clearcut. The shape of the data informs the system, and the limitations of the system shape the data.
(In fact, this concept is intrinsic to information theory--without this, players would not be able to dismiss content as repetitive. Repetition is only recognizable because a system shapes the problem domain).
Verbing nouns and nouning verbs is something that we do constantly in language, as you note. Neologisms like that are generally shorthand ways of describing a concept that can be explained in a lengthier way. They then become building blocks for us to use in reaching for more concepts. Reducing the relatively complex concept to one word allows us to chunk it away and use it as a single element in a new chain of logic, which is necessary to how our brains function.
I think it is important to realize that your examples of virtual world "nouns" becoming "verbs" are actually examples of existing verbs being appropriated for new uses. The fact that the neologism mixes nouns and verbs is kind of irrelevant.
As far as games becoming more nouny--verbs are a lot harder to make, and make well.
Posted by: Raph | Jan 14, 2005 at 14:30
Quote:
Well, to quote the Department of Health and Human Services and Center for Disease Control:
"VERB(tm). It's what you do."
Note carefully from the bottom of that page:
VERB is a trademark of the DHHS, CDC. © 2005 CDC. All rights reserved.
=========================================
Dude, that's insane! I hope they sue somebody with this!
Posted by: MM | Jan 14, 2005 at 15:17
Raph Koster> Players define content experientially. Designers define it as data which is used by systems. So the analogy is that systems are like verbs, and content is like the nouns acted on by those verbs.
Ok, I guess that the distinction between data (nouns) and mechanics (verbs) makes sense as you have to divide up tasks for a development team where some people don't know how to program a computer and most employees would be best at just providing content in form of passive data. Although, from a theoretical point of view the distinction isn't so clear. I.e. a computer science simulationist purist geek hacker would have trouble distinguishing content from code. :-)
While I see the connection between information theory a la Shannon and boring repetition... I am not sure if it is a very good explanation. Repetetitive and boring activities can involve lots of information.
Posted by: Ola Fosheim Grøstad | Jan 14, 2005 at 16:04
Raph said, Players define content experientially. Designers define it as data which is used by systems. So the analogy is that systems are like verbs, and content is like the nouns acted on by those verbs.
Sounds like Le Blanc and Hunicke's "MDA" framework (see pdf http://algorithmancy.8kindsoffun.com/MDA.pdf>here), of which I'm a fan. Nouns = Mechanics (what pieces you have); verbs = Dynamics (how the pieces act); experience = Aesthetics (how it makes you feel).
To create a strong gameplay experience you have to have meaningful aesthetics; otherwise you've merely created a clockwork system that might be abstractly interesting to systems geeks (i.e., many designers :) ), but won't interest players. That said, I've seen good designers start from any of these perspectives -- mechanics first, aesthetics first, or dynamics first. All seem to work, though each of us seems to harbor the secret view that our own variation is the "right" way to design.
To me this says that whether you start with nouns, verbs, or the desired experience, or whether you noun-ify a verby experience, verb-ify a nouny experience, or experience-ify a nouny-verby system doesn't really matter, so long as you end up with an engaging experience. Beyond that this question seems like asking whether it's better to put on both socks first or one sock and shoe and then the other sock and shoe. Either way you still get out the door. :)
Posted by: Mike Sellers | Jan 14, 2005 at 17:00
I hadn't made the connection to MDA, of which I am also a fan, but of course, you are absolutely right. :)
Ola, I am trying to remember the exact terminology, but there's a term for the difference between information (as in raw volume of data) and real information (as in semantic content of said information). It's escaping me. The noun thing tends to look at the former (which makes sense, designers have to make all that data) and the experiential point of view of players tends to look at the latter (which makes sense, it is what is actually conveyed).
Posted by: Raph | Jan 14, 2005 at 22:11
Raph: "Neologisms ... are generally shorthand ways of describing a concept that can be explained in a lengthier way. They then become building blocks for us to use in reaching for more concepts. Reducing the relatively complex concept to one word allows us to chunk it away and use it as a single element in a new chain of logic ..."
As an example of this, I give you "zerg." What was once a proper noun (the name of one of the races in Blizzard's RTS "Starcraft") is now used as a verb to mean "to engage in a massed attack using lots of low-cost units" because that's how the Zerg units behaved. The word "zerg" has been agreed to have a more abstract meaning beyond its original context.
I've heard more than one person say things like "He zerged me" or "I was zerging him but he kept bringing up reserves." Obviously they're no longer just thinking of the specific unit in Starcraft (if indeed they've even played Starcraft); they've abstracted the concept embodied in the Zerg units of Starcraft to the act of multi-unit conflict. In short, they verbed a noun in order to have a linguistic handle for a useful concept.
For more examples of this kind of playfulness, I can't think of a better resource than _The New Hacker's Dictionary_ edited by Eric S. Raymond. Anyone who thinks English is stagnant should scan this book -- every page contains multiple examples of new words and phrases that are not only useful but also clever... and often very, very funny (though perhaps more so to those of us of a geekish cast).
--Flatfingers
Posted by: Flatfingers | Jan 15, 2005 at 03:03
Neologisms like that are generally shorthand ways of describing a concept that can be explained in a lengthier way. They then become building blocks for us to use in reaching for more concepts. Reducing the relatively complex concept to one word allows us to chunk it away and use it as a single element in a new chain of logic, which is necessary to how our brains function.
Perhaps the shorthand shouldn't be quite so short?
One day designers and developers might think of the MMOG "interaction space" less ambiguously and evolve more sophisticated languages... From these languages people like us could then worry their underlying grammars, and form these insights, develop a deeper understanding of the mechanics of the medium. But we are a ways from that:
Simplifying abstractions, when they reflect deep shared understanding of an underlying complex expression, are very useful. The problem is when they don't and become so overloaded with individual meaning... this is why it seems to me simple languages and simple vocabularies are easier to distort - less valuable.
Just some thoughts.
Posted by: Nathan Combs | Jan 15, 2005 at 10:18
I think Ola had a really important point earlier on...
"1. What audio-visual games do well are adverbs/adjectives, not noun/verbs."
This explains Nathan's example "Joe is tired of questing (a noun), so he *ebays* (a new shiny verb) his "phat loot"!" really well, I think.
It's not that "questing" is a noun, and thus dull, it's that questing (a verb) has become DULL/MONOTONOUS/REPETITIVE. All of these are adverbs.
And in the second example, griefer Helen can be seen modifying her own adjective from "heroic" to "wicked," thus substantially redefining her game experience.
I understand the desire to get a productive set of programming metaphors, but if the metaphors force (or persuade) you to ignore the experience of the gamer (who will or will not buy the game, and who will or will not continue to pay the monthly fee to play the game online), the metaphor is using you.
All games can be reduced to simple verb-sets -- get, kill, take, build, trade... It's the adverbs and adjectives that individuate the games and give rise to enjoyable game play.
Besides, who'd want a lexicon made up only of nouns verbs? Real language is much richer than that, and our game design and play experiences should be, too.
Posted by: Richard Parent | Jan 15, 2005 at 11:52
Crawford's point in coming up with the "verb" formulation is that too many people from outside the industry (and inside) begin by thinking about story or some other aspect that is basically not germane to the core of game design. The first question should always be "What does the player do?" He's absolutely right in that regard.
I'd argue, however, that the "noun/verb" formulation works better for digital than non-digital games. In a digital game, verbs map very directly onto the controls. In a boardgame, however, actions oftenn involve the physical manipulation of objects whose shape, location, orientation, etc. impact what's permitted. Conseqeuntly, the distinction between "action" and "content" is far muddier. And when you get to RPGs, all verbs are permitted, at least if the gamemaster can get his head around them...
Posted by: Greg C | Jan 15, 2005 at 15:59
Raph, maybe you mean "entropy"? It is quite common to use that term in a metaphorical way, and that can be useful. Although, for those theoretical guys pure noise is information too (it can't be compressed). So I think it is usually a good idea to not take what they say too literally, and see it more as a source for inspiration. Not sure why they call it information in the first place considering that they don't appear to care about the content...
Posted by: Ola Fosheim Grøstad | Jan 15, 2005 at 19:17
I think entropy would be an adequate word.
For example, pure noise can be trivially compressed. Say I have 10 megabytes of pure noise to compress. Rather than storing 10 megabytes of data, I store a note that says: "This is 10 megabytes of pure noise". When I wish to uncompress it later, I contact www.random.org and fetch the noise.
What you say? It is not the same noise, so doesn't count? How can you tell it is different noise? You can only tell it is different if you have assigned some meaning to it.
Ie, if I use the noise to seed a dynamic simulation, I could then tell if the uncompressed noise was the same as the original by comparing the two dynamic simulations. In this case, however, insofar as the dynamic simulations are equivalent, so must the uncompressed data.
The problem is that when you deal with a user whose comparator function for mobs discards all textures, models, and animations, the user has an "lossless" compression of mobs that discards this data. (It is lossless in the sense that a comparison of the original & uncompressed is considered equal)
Given a compression function c(x), uncompressor u(x), we have a lossless compression if:
u(c(x)) == x for all x
My point is that "==" is not necessarily a bit-by-bit equality operator. By defining it in terms of being semantically equal, we then allow:
10 megabytes of pure noise == 10 megabytes of pure noise
- Brask Mumei
Posted by: Brask Mumei | Jan 15, 2005 at 22:40
I'd like to point out something that a lot of people (including the author of this article) seem to be missing.
In terms of lexicon, in a given language a single word can act as both a noun and a verb at times--but this is not the division between nouns and verbs that's being described. It's not that a given word is a noun or a verb, it's how you use it.
In specific, a word is a noun when you use it to represent some sort of "thing"--whether that's a physical object or an abstract does not really matter. A word is a verb when you use it to describe an action or a relationship between two things. When you "noun a verb" or "verb a noun", you're using it in a different context. It's about how you use it, not what the word "is".
Anyway, moving back a bit, I think the original analysis is correct: more nouns means more content in terms of places to go, things that can be manipulated. More verbs means more content in terms of ways things can be related and manipulated. The key point is that a typical game system has many more nouns than verbs, and there's a sort of multiplicative thing that goes on--adding a noun means adding a thing that can be manipulated by some subset of the available verbs. Adding a verb means adding a way to manipulate some subset of the available nouns.
Of the two, verbs are both more difficult and potentially more fulfilling to add to a game. The designer has to think a lot about how that verb should apply to the game world: which nouns should it act on, how should it behave with those nouns, is its behavior consistent? Usually, adding a noun is simply a matter of choosing some class of nouns to fit it into--but adding a verb may require altering the entire ontology of nouns.
For example, say we have a simple system with weapons and armor. We've divided things up and said that you can either "strike" or "thrust" with any weapon. Further, we've described each weapon in terms of how good it is at striking or thrusting, and each type of armor in terms of how good it is at resisting striking or thrusting.
If we want to add a new weapon or new type of armor, it fits into this system easily. We just have to define how good it is at striking and thrusting (or resisting those.)
But say that instead, we want to introduce a completely new way to attack--entangling. This requires us to go back and look at every existing kind of weapon and declare whether it's better or worse at entangling. And we have to think about whether entangling is effected by armor: perhaps it's resisted by skills, with armor applying a penalty. In this case, we've added a new attribute of weapons and armor, and have to go over everything to be sure it works consistently.
Likewise, if we want to introduce a new kind of magical attack, lightning, we may decide that we need to add an attribute to existing armor to describe how metallic it is, in order to resist the electricity.
And if we want to introduce a crafting system, we need a large amount of UI work to support all of the new actions that can be taken, and we have to think again about all of the objects in the world and decide which can be crafted and which can't, and what can be broken down for parts, and... so on.
Now, this isn't to say that these two sides aren't related: For example, when you decide to add lightning attacks to the game, it may suggest to you that you want to add new kinds of weapons and armor to support that kind of attack. And if you decide to add whips to the game, it may suggest that you want to add a new type of entangling attack. But to some degree, this is a choice that can be made. If you chose to, you can *always* create new items (and places, and creatures) that fit within the existing mechanics of the game. But if you want to add a completely new mechanic (a really new verb, because it's also possible to add something that's a specialization of an existing one) you have to think hard about how it applies to the whole world.
And this also isn't to say that nouns are always easy: even if you're introducing no new mechanics, you have to worry about game balance, for example. Sure, that new item might fit into the game mechanics already, but is it overpowered compared to other items? Is there some "level" system for items, and if so, where does the new item fit in that system? But even when it's not easy, it's a matter of figuring out how to classify the new item in an existing game world, which you can do without adding new information to everything in the world.
A really good example of this might be from the domain of interactive fiction, where there are a handful of verbs that are *known* to cause problems, and also a few nouns that cause problems because people will try to use them in unexpected ways. (This is an issue for MUDs more than it is for graphical MMORPGs, since in a graphical system you can be sure that nobody will try something that they don't have a verb for, although they might ask for new verbs at times.)
So, the first example is verbs like "burn" or "cut". The classical problem with "burn" is: okay, should we add a new game mechanic talking about what's flammable and what's not? If the game requires you to light a curtain on fire to solve a particular puzzle, you don't really want the player to always get "You don't think that would be a good idea" when you try to burn other things, if only because it makes it obvious what item you're supposed to burn. (And the other side: Because if they're always prevented from burning items, they won't think to try burning the one thing that they have to burn.) Once you start allowing more things to be burned, you have to think about questions like "Okay, so how long does something burn? Can it light other things on fire while it's burning? Can it light containers on fire when it's put into a flammable container? Can entire rooms burn?"
"Cut" is tricky in a slightly different way. Let's imagine that we've given the player a rope and a sharp knife, and they need to cut the rope. Can they only cut it in half? What if they cut half of the rope in half? How short does the rope get before it can't be cut any more? Can you cut a hole in the wall? In a box?
And on the side of nouns, liquids (and other divisible items, which ties into "cut" above) are known to be tricky because of the large set of verbs they entail. Say I fill up a glass of water from a sink, and have other empty glasses. If I pour the water into other containers, when do I run out of water? Now we have to add a new idea of "liquid capacity" to containers, and we have a new kind of item that comes in quantities that aren't whole numbers. We also have to think about some further questions to see how far we want to go: if we pour water on something, does it get wet? Do we have other kinds of liquids? If so, what happens if we mix them together. Can we use water to douse a fire? What if we pour gasoline on it instead? Or a 4/3 mixture of water to gasoline?
An MMORPG will generally not have to deal with most of these questions--the world is much more constrained. Unlike in a text environment, a user is never going to type "pour half the water in the blue glass into the red glass". But again, similar things come up. Crafting is a great example: Crafting suggests that the players can create some items themselves. This leads to questions of what it takes to make each kind of item; what items in the game can be crafted, and what can't; where do resources to make items come from; can existing items be broken down into constituent parts. Another really good example is climbing, and this factors less into the item system than into the world. Now you have to think about what buildings and other world objects are climbable, and think about the consequences.
So, that's my take on "nouns vs. verbs". Perhaps using those terms in this context causes more misunderstanding than it clears up, but I still think it's a useful division. And I do wish that more games introduced larger numbers of verbs--even though it is, admittedly, a lot more trouble.
John.
Posted by: John Prevost | Jan 16, 2005 at 00:01
Oh crap--I forgot one really important thing that I should have mentioned.
One of the big things that distinguishes verbs in a grammar is that they can take multiple "arguments". This is related to noun case in languages. For example:
I cut.
I cut the apple.
I cut the apple with the knife.
I cut the apple with the knife on St. Crispin's Day.
I walked.
I walked along the path.
I walked to Grandmother's house.
I walked along the path to Grandmother's house.
Different verbs take different arguments. Any verb can be given temporal information (which is not generally relevant to games). A verb like "cut" can take a subject (in a game, almost always "I"), a direct object (the thing being cut), and a method for cutting (in this case, perhaps the tool being used.) A verb for going can generally take a destination, a means of going, and a path taken to get to the destination.
The key thing here is that a given verb describes a relationship between multiple other items: For cutting, between the cutter, the thing cut, and optionally the method used to cut. For giving, between the giver, the item given, and the recipient. For travel, between the traveller, the destination, and the path taken, etc.
This aspect of verbs--that they place multiple nouns into different roles--is pretty central to why they're more "powerful" than nouns. And the most powerful thing is that introducing a new verb can introduce new roles for nouns in the game. Again, looking to crafting for an example: "make sword" vs. "make sword out of steel" vs. "make sword out of steel using high quality crafting tools". As the game designer, you get to choose exactly how complicated you want things to be. In a simple game, "make X" is probably all you can do: if you have the requisite ingredients and tools available, the item is made. On the far side, in SWG, the crafting system produces different quality output depending on the quality of materials and tools used on those materials. In a really really flexible game, you might be able to mix whatever metals you want to try to form alloys that will work well, then hammer out a shape, and whatever the shape is determines how good a weapon comes out, and how it works.
So there's a lot of flexibility here.
I've rambled a lot, so as a summary: There *is* a difference between "nouns" and "verbs", and it's not as clear cut as "Games are about verbs" suggests, but it's still a big difference. Game developers are more likely to add nouns to an MMORPG than they are to add verbs because nouns are quite simply easier to add, as long as you only add nouns that can be described using your existing physics model. When you add a novel verb, on the other hand, you're *adding* to your world's physics model, which can have far-reaching effects on every object in the game. And, of course, not every verb is truly novel: it's quite possible to add only verbs that fit into the mechanics the game already has--but when you do so, you're really only introducing a variation on an old verb, not a new verb at all.
John.
Posted by: John Prevost | Jan 16, 2005 at 00:25
Found it. "Logical depth." It's a measure of complexity. Pure random noise has alot of information but very little complexity. Conversely, a string of seemingly random numbers might actually be phi, and therefore not random. A very large amount of information, but not random at all. Complexity can be thought of as "how much effort it takes to arrive at this meaning in the first place."
We of course chunk up stuff like 3.14159... into pi, because it's a way of conveying complexity with LITTLE information. That's the point of chunking and the point of language.
Posted by: Raph | Jan 16, 2005 at 02:47
Barry Kearns>VERB is a trademark of the DHHS, CDC. © 2005 CDC. All rights reserved.
A little off-topic, but go to the UPS site and click on the Trademarks link on the bottom line. Among a list that includes "Big Idea", "Apollo" and "The package delivery company more companies count on", you'll see they have trademarked the colour brown for vehicles and clothing.
Damn, I have a jacket that colour!
Richard
Posted by: Richard Bartle | Jan 16, 2005 at 09:11
In terms of lexicon, in a given language a single word can act as both a noun and a verb at times--but this is not the division between nouns and verbs that's being described. It's not that a given word is a noun or a verb, it's how you use it.
In specific, a word is a noun when you use it to represent some sort of "thing"--whether that's a physical object or an abstract does not really matter. A word is a verb when you use it to describe an action or a relationship between two things. When you "noun a verb" or "verb a noun", you're using it in a different context. It's about how you use it, not what the word "is".
I agree. The problem lies is when the transitions are not marked.
So, for example, using the metaphors from above, an activity that was a "verb" becomes contextualized, becoming, say, a "verbal phrase", now a noun with respect to its "syntactic context" (game design).
The issue would surface, hypothetically, if the original activity were still remarked in terms of its verbiness.
...So goes the thought.
Posted by: Nathan Combs | Jan 16, 2005 at 09:34
Ah, ok Raph, I see you point, kinda. Although not really, as I understand "logical depth" it has to do with how much time it takes to generate the string on average, favouring shorter programs. Of course, infinite strings tend to take more time than finite strings...
Another concept seems to be "crypticity": the time it takes to arrive at a short computer program that can generate the string.
Doesn't say anything about how humans experience the world, really. But both are interesting in the more metaphorical way.
Posted by: Ola Fosheim Grøstad | Jan 16, 2005 at 14:27
hello
Posted by: Hunter | Jan 21, 2005 at 20:56