skip to main content
10.1145/2159365.2159371acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesfdgConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Towards minimalist game design

Published:29 June 2011Publication History

ABSTRACT

In this paper, we describe a design methodology that we have termed Minimalist Game Design. Minimalist games have small rulesets, narrow decision spaces, and abstract audiovisual representations, yet they do not compromise on depth of play or possibility space. We begin with a motivation for and definition of minimalist games, including terms such as "rules," "mechanics," "control," and "interface," and illustrate the importance of artificial design constraints. Using a number of examples, we show the strengths of minimalist game elements in systems, controls, visuals, and audio. Adhering to these constraints, these games feature a small set of mechanics and one core mechanic, while still being sufficiently deep and allowing for player exploration and performance. This depth comes from procedural methods, combinatorial complexity, probability, obfuscation, challenge, or any combination thereof. Our methodology embraces principles of holistic design, where there is no "filler," and where every element of the game contributes to the play experience in some meaningful, deliberate way.

References

  1. R. Arnheim. Visual Thinking. University of California Press, 1969.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. J. Bertin. Semiology of Graphics. University of Wisconsin Press, 1983. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. J. Blow. Fundamental conflicts in contemporary game design. http://braid-game.com/news/?p=385, 2008. Keynote at MIGS 2008 (accessed: 2/13/2011).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. I. Bogost. Persuasive Games: The Expressive Power of Videogames. The MIT Press, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. I. Bogost. The Ecology of Games: Connecting Youth, Games, and Learning, chapter The Rhetoric of Video Games. The MIT Press, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. I. Bogost. Puzzling the sublime. Gamasutra, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. J. P. Gee. What Video Games have to Teach us about Learning and Literacy. Palgrave Macmillan, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. F. Heider and M. Simmel. An experimental study of apparent behavior. The American Journal of Psychology, 57(2), 1944.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. I. Holm. Ideas and Beliefs in Architecture and Industrial Design. PhD thesis, Oslo School of Architecture and Design, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. R. Hunicke, M. LeBlanc, and R. Zubek. MDA: A formal approach to game design and game research. http://www.cs.northwestern.edu/~hunicke/MDA.pdf, 2004. (accessed: 2/7/2011).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. J. Juul. A Casual Revolution. The MIT Press, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. J. Juul and R. Kelsdorff. In Davidson, Drew (ed).: Well Played 2.0: Video Games, Value and Meaning, chapter Depth in one Minute: A Conversation about Bejeweled Blitz. ETC Press, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. J. Juul and M. Norton. Easy to use and incredibly difficult: on the mythical border between interface and gameplay. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Foundations of Digital Games, FDG '09, pages 107--112, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. F. Lantz. In Davidson, Drew (ed).: Well Played 2.0: Video Games, Value and Meaning, chapter Galcon. ETC Press, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. K. F. MacDorman, R. D. Green, C.-C. Ho, and C. Koch. Too real for comfort: Uncanny responses to computer generated faces. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. C. Macklin, M. Edwards, J. Wargaski, and K. Y. Li. Dataplay: Mapping game mechanics to traditional data visualization. In Proceedings of DiGRA, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. L. Manovic. Generation flash. http://manovich.net/DOCS/generation_flash.doc, 2002. (accessed: 2/11/2011).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. D. McCandless. The Visual Miscellaneum. Harper Design, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. S. McCloud. Understanding Comics. Kitchen Sink Press, 1993.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. S. McConnell. Code Complete. Microsoft Press, 1993.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. minimalism. http://www.merriam-webster.com, 2011. Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary (accessed: 2/16/2011).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. N. Montfort and I. Bogost. Racing the Beam: The Atari Video Computer System. The MIT Press, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. M. Mori. Bukimi no tani, the uncanny valley. Energy, 7(4), 1970.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. D. Myers. In search of a minimalist game. In Proceedings of DiGRA, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. D. Norman. The Design of Everyday Things. Basic Books, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. D. OReilly. Basic animation aesthetics. http://www.davidoreilly.com/2009/08/basic-animation-aesthetics, 2009. (accessed: 2/9/2011).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. S. Rusinkiewicz, D. DeCarlo, and A. Finkelstein. Line drawings from 3d models. In SIGGRAPH 2005 Course, http://www.cs.princeton.edu/gfx/proj/sg05lines/, 2005. (accessed: 2/14/2011). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. K. Salen and E. Zimmerman. Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals. The MIT Press, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. A. Sarris. Notes on the auteur theory. http://tinyurl.com/sarris-auteur-theory, 1962. (accessed: 2/16/2011).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. J. Schell. The Art of Game Design. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. M. Sicart. Defining game mechanics. Game Studies, 8(2), December 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. D. Sirlin. The interconnected systems of puzzle strike. http://www.sirlin.net/articles/the-interconnected-systems-of-puzzle-strike.html, 2010. (accessed: 2/10/2011).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. D. Sirlin. On subsystems and selves. http://www.sirlin.net/blog/2010/6/2/on-subsystems-and-selves.html, 2010. (accessed: 2/10/2011).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. S. Swink. Game Feel. Morgan Kaufmann, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. E. R. Tufte. The Visual Display of Quantitative Information. Graphics Press, 2nd Edition, 2001.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. H. van der Kooij, B. Koopman, and F. C. van der Helm. Human motion control. http://stiff-project.eu/fileadmin/biomechanics/HMC_Reader.pdf, 2008. (accessed: 2/11/2011).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Towards minimalist game design

          Recommendations

          Comments

          Login options

          Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

          Sign in
          • Published in

            cover image ACM Other conferences
            FDG '11: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Foundations of Digital Games
            June 2011
            356 pages
            ISBN:9781450308045
            DOI:10.1145/2159365

            Copyright © 2011 ACM

            Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

            Publisher

            Association for Computing Machinery

            New York, NY, United States

            Publication History

            • Published: 29 June 2011

            Permissions

            Request permissions about this article.

            Request Permissions

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • research-article

            Acceptance Rates

            FDG '11 Paper Acceptance Rate31of107submissions,29%Overall Acceptance Rate152of415submissions,37%

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader