Problem statement:
Lack of understanding a game’s semiotics can muddy the intended gameplay experience (making the game less challenging, stripping it of its emotional resonance, etc.). While game semiotics have been discussed before, they’re discussed in terms of the holistic semiotics of an entire game, or even an entire game genre. Instead, we intend to dissect semiotics of individual game elements, then resynthesize into holistic semiotics, in the interest of achieving an “applied semiotics” analysis that is of practical use to working game designers.

Expanded problem statement:
Game designers are used to thinking holistically, considering the effects of one feature on the larger goals of the design and the ripple effect that one change can create. But game features and content have effects beyond the direct gameplay effects. These subtle and pervasive influences can change how players perceive the game, influencing their attitudes towards the story and gameplay in ways that can subvert the intended meaning of a game. By taking ownership over these influences, game designers can turn dangerous, unintended consequences into wonderful intended benefits.

This is a first look at the idea of examining semiotics to find standard issues of unintended meaning across major game elements. The scope of this paper is not nearly wide enough to address all possible semiotic effects, so this paper focuses on a few key examples, as well as general guidelines to identify and address semiotic issues.

Caveats: Some game element semiotics are likely regionally normative, and no one interpretation can address all possible audiences.

Solution statement:
The primary solution to semiotic problems is increased awareness and understanding the subtextual messages you're giving players. Identifying potential areas of semiotic conflict early in the design process allows the designer to resolve issues through various design changes. To this end, this paper includes illustrations of how meaning arises through specific game elements, although it is by no means exhaustive. Also included is a small selection of worksheets intended to aid development teams in the identification of possible areas of semiotic conflict.

Expanded solution statement:
Really, just pay attention to the implications of what you're doing. It's that easy. You know how to trace implications of features, including those subtle, little things that bite you in the end. Apply that thinking to emotions and story and player meaning as well, and these problems will be avoided.

Section 0: The Semiotics of Semiotics
We debated thoroughly the use of the word “semiotics.” It turns out that “semiotics” has semiotics, and illuminates a big part of the problem of semiotics: cultural variance.

To some audiences, “semiotics” has positive connotations: it’s interesting and useful, intriguing and unavoidable.

To other audiences, the term “semiotics” is opaque and overwrought, needlessly complex, and suggests academic semiotics departments that discuss too much and accomplish too little.

What we hope to do with our use of “semiotics” is show that there is a “semiotics light” approach that simply boils down to considering the implications of your game elements -- the things your audience will bring to your game, the things you can’t avoid. Semiotics can be all of these things: complex and unapproachable, circular and precise. It’s all in how you use them.

Section 1: Defining Semiotics of Game Elements

All elements of a gameplay experience (systems, mechanics, narrative, UI, art, etc.) work together to create their own semiotics, which make meaning based upon the way they are implemented into the game. Put simply, semiotics make implications through explicit and implicit meaning. They subtextually communicate concepts and ideas to players, and players do not have to be consciously aware of these communications to pick up on them or be influenced by them.

Every game will have its own semiotics. Developers can use these semiotics to enhance the gameplay experience. Lack of intentionality and awareness of gameplay elements creates new kinds of dissonance (beyond ludonarrative dissonance). These dissonances are not yet named. However, conscious understanding of game actions’ semiotic subtexts achieves greater harmony between theme, mechanics, narrative, and the overall holistic game experience.

While it never explicitly states what happens when players eat power pills, Pac-Man uses its semiotics to highlight the importance of the state change through several high-level gameplay elements:

• ghosts turn blue
• ghosts’ behavior changes as they now run away from Pac-Man
• a sound cue suggests something has changed

Ghosts spend much of the time pursuing Pac-Man. Their running away from Pac-Man after he eats a power pill suggests that the player can now pursue them. This concept is further reinforced by the appearance of the ghosts changing color and a sound to signal that these changes are important. Explicitly, players can see and hear these changes. The game doesn't say, "You can eat ghosts now," but -- implicitly -- the semiotics of its art (blue ghosts), AI (change in ghost behavior), and sound design (cue when pill eaten) strongly hint that Pac-Man can pursue the ghosts. (For a list of more high-level gameplay elements, please see Appendix 1.) Players discover experientially that they can eat ghosts.

Pac-Man uses art, sound, and AI harmoniously to inform the player about an important mechanic.

Semiotics can also carry an emotional component, which designers can use to elicit desired emotional responses. When players eat power pills, Pac-Man becomes empowered, and the player can sense this empowerment. When Pac-Man is vulnerable, players can feel anxiety over getting caught.         

Section 2: Game Elements Addressed Here (and Not)

Game elements are many and exist both inside and outside the physical/digital game itself. Some the designer can control, others she cannot; at most, elements such as the cultural context brought by the player and the larger genre group of games against which her game will be played -- at best these elements can be taken into consideration for a particular moment in time (which her game will likely outlive).

The point here is that the elements of a game -- its narrative, its sound design, its interface, its actions -- each have their own semiotics, and yet they are enmeshed and deeply interrelated. (This kind of diagram being completely accurate expressed in two dimensions is certainly impossible.)

For the purposes of this paper we will be addressing only a small selection of game elements. Further work on semiotics of other game elements is for the future.

Section 3: Semiotics of Game Controls
Controls have a “neutral” meaning, and that meaning changes based upon the game and the context. For example, “shooting” is a neutral action without context. It’s just the act of shooting. A game will communicate different ideas about shooting based upon the genre, mission, story, etc. Shooting can be offensive or defensive. It can be a way to provide cover for someone else. It can be a means of protection, or it can be an act of killing or assassination.

Other gameplay elements will influence the controls’ implicit meaning, whether it's intentional or unintentional. At the same time, the controls may influence the implicit meaning of other elements.

Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor

Shadow of Mordor changes the meaning of one of its controls, causing cognitive and emotional dissonance. During the tutorial, players sneak up behind the player-character’s wife to give her a kiss. While the tutorial teaches how to use this stealth control, the animation is a playful, intimate display between a husband and wife. After players learn the skill here, it becomes a control for stealth killing. What was a playful, intimate act has become a violent, deadly one.

This is a confusing message -- whether it’s intended to be or not. While the game may not be equating a loving act with a violent one, it can be taken that way. It can also be viewed as trivializing a display of love. Some players may not be aware of the dissonance, but others will be. Any kind of dissonance can take away some enjoyment from the game. 

Bastion

In Bastion, player-character the Kid uses melee and ranged attacks. Attacking is a means of protecting himself and also killing hostile enemies. Towards the end of the game, the attack controls take on a new meaning. The Kid kills the Ura, which his people killed in genocide. Since the Kid (and the player by extension) is now slaying many Ura, attacking in the game is now an act of genocide.

This is intentional; the game wants players to reflect on the difficult histories between these two peoples and how the Kid and Zulf (a main Ura character) are a part of the cycle. The controls take on a genocidal meaning from the game’s narrative elements: themes (history repeating, the effect genocide has on all involved and future generations), story (the Kid and Zulf in conflict), and worldbuilding (the history between the two groups).  

Alan Wake

Alan Wake cannot use melee weapons, only firearms. During the tutorial, Wake is given a gun. However, he (nor the player) is never told that he can't use the various tools and blunt objects scattered throughout the world. If players try to pick up melee weapons, they can't. Only hostile NPCs (the Taken) can use them.

Here, the game uses player and genre expectations along with the controls to teach players something about the mechanics. Looting is conventional and found in many games. Players can usually decide what kinds of weapons they want to use in games with role-playing elements. Players expect to be able to pick up melee weapons because they can do so in many other games of the same genre; they think they can choose between firearms and melee weapons when they encounter melee weapons in the environment. However, in subverting these expectations, Alan Wake’s controls communicate that players will never be able to use anything but guns.

The semiotics are well harmonized. Players receive instruction about the mechanics, and they also get information about the world (there is an explanation as to how the Taken are finding their weapons).

Section 4: Semiotics of Game Narration & Tutorials
First impressions matter. Players decide many things in the first few moments of your game. How you structure those first moments (and any tutorial information that comes after) sets the tone for the entire experience.

What is the first thing the player sees? Starting off with a cinematic tells the player that story and narrative and world matter here. Extended cinema experiences such as those in most Japanese role-playing games put a clear focus on story and set players up to make decisions based on story guidance throughout the game. Smaller cinematic events, like the quick intro of Angry Birds, can set basic narrative goals for the player, even in games where narrative is not key. Games that start with elaborate cinemas but then have little to no payoff for story later on, such as older fighting games, are setting dangerous expectations.

Who provides the first words the player hears or sees? Many games start with narrated voice content or written tutorial text, and there are three main options for the voice of this communication. Games like Skyrim start with an in-world character giving narrative information. This works similar to the cinematic focus above by emphasizing the importance of story. Gameplay instruction is provided via separate UI prompts that are clearly subordinate to story, only appearing when the narrative allows it. Portal is an interesting blend here, providing plenty of story information early on, but mixing it with a healthy balance of gameplay information. The game and story are tightly interwoven from the start, and this seamless blend carries through to the end of the game.

Many games, such as FarmVille or LEGO Star Wars, have minimal story information at the start, instead focusing on gameplay guidance. This de-emphasizes story, and can give the player information about what sort of experience to expect. A linear set of strict goals suggests to the player that the game is about waiting for well-defined tasks and earning rewards for completing those tasks. If the game later asks the player to freely explore or to create things without this guidance, the player may become lost.

Some games such as Minecraft provide little or no guidance at the start. This is a clear signal that the player is on their own. The player is provided no direct goal information, only the subtly implied goal of an open horizon, which fits the lack of explicit goals throughout the game. The player needs to experiment with the controls, built on the traditions of first-person shooters, to find out anything about the game. But the game subverts these controls almost immediately, replacing the central action of shooters (i.e., shooting) with a new action (i.e., digging and cutting) that guides the player to the core game loop.

This same model can be seen with other control systems as well -- casual iPhone games like Cut the Rope or Where’s My Water start the player with a screen full of things that respond to touch in one simple way, which guides the player to that core mechanic. This encourages the player to explore the controls themselves, which aids in later levels when the player is expected to use these mechanics in creative ways. These games have more didactic goal structures which are communicated separately at the end of that first level.

Section 5: Semiotics of Success Feedback
One of the best ways to communicate with the player is to directly communicate (explicitly) with the player. Games have many forms of direct communication, but usually the most striking is success communication. Digital media allow for absurd amounts of confetti and cheering and fireworks and positive messaging. And players enjoy this feedback. A lot. Games like Peggle and many others are built on a solid framework of resounding positive feedback.

But even direct communication has indirect effects. Any success communication tends to create positive feedback in the player, which tends to inflate the emotional response to that moment. These moments need to be carefully aligned with the desired emotional and gameplay responses to the game or else the message will be lost. For example, some games overuse simple positive feedback to the point where that feedback loses its effect. Tutorials in casual games often lay on enough “great job!”s to destroy the player’s faith in the omniscient narrator. And some achievement systems try to pull the player in with very simple early achievements that cause the player to question the point of achievements at all.

A key to avoiding this pitfall is to provide clearly layered feedback. The game can respond with a small positive for “you walked in a straight line,” as long as there are bigger guns to bear for the big moments that the player is really supposed to care about. If the player has any trouble differentiating between these two, it’s going to be difficult to provide any sort of consistent feedback. This is the problem with using formal achievement systems for this sort of effect -- the consistency of communication that is normally a benefit here conflates two very different moments for an awkward effect.

These indirect effects can have positive effects as well. Educational games tend to provide strong explicit feedback as a means to building confidence in potentially struggling learners. Educators and child experts have discovered strong guidelines for what phrasings and styles of feedback create the correct sense of self-worth in kids, so careful application of the correct feedback can help keep your implicit communication in line with your explicit communication goals. But this can only be done if the deeper meaning of game communication is considered with some depth.

Section 6: Semiotics of Failure
Failure feedback is one of the most crucial game elements. Much of what makes it important is related to cognition and usability -- providing the player with enough information to make a second attempt at success -- but the form the failure takes, its frequency, and its feedback all have semiotics as well.

The Incredible Machine

Jeff Tunnell’s Incredible Machine is a great example of formative failure in a game. The setting and theme of the game -- the machine itself -- set up player expectations around physics, mechanism, and what “failure” will look like. When the player experiences failure, they’re able to observe the effects of that failure on the machine, a feedback system that provides multiple data points, any of which might lead to a future hypothesis.

Here we can see that the parts of the game involved in reflecting a failure state back to the player are all in alignment in terms of the ideas and emotions that they evoke.

It’s worth noting that more detail and feedback would likely have made The Incredible Machine less successful. The simple, experimental setting of the game -- the graph paper, the colorful pieces -- felt toy-like and encouraged easy construction and destruction. The quick feedback on failure that was highly contextual and full of implicit hypotheses encouraged fast, iterative experimentation, which is one of the core successful feelings of the game.

Section 7: Semiotics of Game Verbs
Game verbs -- the “what you do” of a game -- are so rife with unique and intrinsic semiotics that there are entire portions of game study devoted to them (the “proceduralists”; some might argue even “ludologists” themselves are primarily concerned with the semiotic study of game mechanics).

As above, it’s helpful to look at examples:

World of Warcraft

World of Warcraft is a huge game. (It’s a world, so the verbs are many.) If we take a distilled version of the core loop machine -- the web of game actions -- from it, we might get something like this:

The net semiotics of a verb web like this can be broken down into an implication analysis of each of its core verbs:

These verbs have in common that they are extremely clear and unified; it’s a strong core loop because one central game action feeds naturally into another (generates resources that feed the next game action and are consumed by the total loop), but its semiotics are unified because of the affective implications of each action.

Unification -- we might call it a “major chord” -- isn’t always the desired result, however. For an effective “minor chord,” a quirkier game is useful.

Plants Vs. Zombies

The core loop of Plants Vs. Zombies is simple:

And yet the semiotic analysis of this core loop provides insight into how Plants Vs. Zombies achieves such a unique, memorable, and quirky character through deliberate disharmony of its core actions:

Plants Vs. Zombies’ synthesized semiotics are not unified; instead, they’re deliberately disharmonious -- we might call them a “minor chord” -- in a way that draws attention to the dissonance between the notes and creates insight. It’s necessary to note that this probably would not work without the game’s high level of polish and otherwise harmonious execution: if the plants took themselves too seriously (were too organic and not funny), they would undermine the implied seriousness of the zombies; if the mechanics of the game were too chaotic, they would undermine the “simple order” feeling created by the plant theme. In general, “minor chord” games will demand a higher level of semiotic harmony in outer game elements (narrative, art, sound) in order to draw attention to the deliberateness of the disharmony in the verb loop.

Section 8: A Semiotic Analysis Process
We aim to provide three tools with which to analyze your semiotics process. Any or all of them may better suit your purposes depending on where you are with the game you’re intending to address:

1. A Semiotic Analysis Worksheet:
1. for games that are at least 50% complete, or other people’s games
2. Semiotics Discussion Questions
1. for early stage projects, a series of questions intended to evoke brainstorming about the desired semiotics of your game
3. Semiotics Prompts
1. a “mad libs”-style worksheet

Start with your core evoked experience. What is the feeling you’re trying to create? The theme? After this emotion is recorded, review the list of elements to analyze. For each, produce a reflection on the semiotics. Once you have your list, view the whole and evaluate it for harmony vs. dissonance.

Semiotic Analysis Worksheet

Worksheet 2: Semiotics Prompts
The dominant emotion the player should feel in my game is:
A) scared
B) challenged
C) awesome
D) surprised
E) other:______________

What is the average time between (emotion) moments?

Three key moments in my game in which the player should feel (emotion) are:
1)___________________
2)___________________
3)____________________

When these moments occur, the game says (you can pick more than one):
A) nothing
B) sound and/or visual effect designed to enhance (emotion)
C) a variety of numbers that game designers enjoy
D) sound and/or visual effect contrary to (emotion)
E) story
F) the same thing it says for a variety of other less important moments
G) something unrelated to the emotion
H) all of the above

Name up to three features or player actions that prevent or discourage (emotion):
1)___________________
2)___________________
3)___________________

Now imagine you cut those features. Is your game better?

How could you resolve the problem?

Name a character or group that the player should feel a positive emotional connection to: __________________________

How many player actions are there to help person/group reach its goal? To hinder? That do not affect (person/group) in any way?

When something bad happens to (person/group), it is:
A) sad
B) a result of the player’s choice
C) rewarding to the player
D) nothing bad ever happens to (person/group)
E) all of the above

Here endeth the paper.

Appendix 1: List of High-Level Game Elements

• Narrative
  • Setting
  • Genre
  • Player Perspective
    • Character Background
    • Viewpoint (God Game, 1st Person, Team, etc.)
  • Narrator
    • Tutorial
  • Presentation
    • Art
    • Sound
    • Music
• Goals
  • Competitive Structure (PvP, PvE)
• System
  • Verbs
  • State Machine
• Interface
  • Platform
  • Controls
• Metagame
  • Cultural Context
  • Multiplayer Environment

Appendix 2: Worksheet Case Study: Gods Will Be Watching

In one of Gods Will Be Watching’s chapters (levels), Sgt. Burden (the player-character) is responsible for leading a team of desperate soldiers across a desert planet and getting them to their extraction point and safety. Along the way, the group may run into enemy soldiers and abandoned camps. The player must keep an eye on the physical conditions of the soldiers, use the soldiers’ scouting and attacking abilities wisely, manage the soldiers’ water supply, and find new sources of water.

The level aims to do the following:

• Elicit emotional responses in the player. Burden is responsible for the soldiers’ lives. Failure will lead to the soldiers’ deaths.
• Elicit an emotional attachment to the soldiers. Since they are 1) important to the success of the mission, and 2) humans to care about, the level wants players to care about the soldiers.
• Challenge the player to keep as many soldiers alive as possible. Burden takes on the responsibility to lead the soldiers to safety.

The problem the level presents:

The level’s mechanics work against its challenge and emotional content. Players can abandon soldiers from the group, forcing them to leave, basically sending them to their deaths. This means that they will no longer have access to those soldiers’ abilities (attacking hostiles, finding ammunition/water, scouting the area). But abandoning soldiers can also make the level easier because players will have more water for the remaining soldiers. Additionally, one of the soldiers asks that Burden kill him at the beginning of the level -- he knows he will only drag down the group, and he will be a drain on resources. If Burden follows through with the request, a couple of soldiers will abandon the group, and the remaining soldiers’ morale will be low.

Players only need to have one soldier from the group reach the extraction point. Abandoning soldiers means there are fewer of them to manage and keep alive. The resource-management mechanics can undermine the level’s intended gameplay experience. Some players will simply abandon soldiers to potentially make completing the level easier, and they may not get emotionally engaged. Knowing what happens if Burden has one soldier killed, players may automatically choose this option when replaying the level. The player’s motivation is to get a smaller group to manage from the start, and the ethics of the choice is not a concern. 

The mechanics’ semiotics implicitly suggest that a smaller group of soldiers might make it easier to manage resources, working against the level’s goal, narrative, and challenge. Also, because the soldiers are resources themselves, it may be difficult for some players to care about them as human beings.

Semiotics Prompts
The dominant emotion the player should feel in my game is:
A) scared
x B) challenged
C) awesome
D) surprised
E) other:______________

What is the average time between (emotion) moments?

Three key moments in my game in which the player should feel (emotion) are:
1)_when deciding whether or not to kill Sgt. Abraham_
2)_when a scout returns safely/does not return_
3)_when abandoning a soldier__________________

When these moments occur, the game says (you can pick more than one):
A) nothing
B) sound and/or visual effect designed to enhance (emotion)
C) a variety of numbers that game designers enjoy
D) sound and/or visual effect contrary to (emotion)
x E) story this happens through dialogue
F) the same thing it says for a variety of other less important moments
G) something unrelated to the emotion
H) all of the above

Name up to three features or player actions that prevent or discourage (emotion):
1)_resource management_
2)_soldiers are resources_
3)___________________

Now imagine you cut those features. Is your game better?

No. Part of the challenge is keeping the soldiers alive when sending them on scouting missions or having them attack enemies.

How could you resolve the problem?

A high-risk/high-reward option can be added as an alternative to abandoning soldiers. Players will have to think carefully about weighing the two.

Players can receive some kind of bonus for the number of soldiers that make it to the extraction point at the end of the chapter. If this change is made, some kind of bonus will have to be added for other chapters (the number of the team members who survive at the end of chapters 3 and 4, if Jack survives in chapter 2).

Name a character or group that the player should feel a positive emotional connection to: _the soldiers and Jack_________________________

How many player actions are there to help person/group reach its goal? To hinder? That do not affect (person/group) in any way?

Help: Moving, Check the signal, Give water to everyone/a soldier, Explore, Conduct attack, Request information
Hinder: Kill, Abandon
Do Not Affect: Status of the mission, Check the signal 

When something bad happens to (person/group), it is:
x A) sad
x B) a result of the player's choice
x C) rewarding to the player This can be rewarding; there are fewer soldiers and resources to manage. Players can use this to their advantage.
D) nothing bad ever happens to (person/group)
E) all of the above

Appendix 3: References

1. Z. Gage, “Kissing vs. Killing: How Shadow of Mordor fails to explain the difference”: http://www.polygon.com/2014/10/1/6880061/shadow-mordor-kissing-design
2. M. Sicart, “Against Procedurality”: http://gamestudies.org/1103/articles/sicart_ap
3. I. Bogost, all the Bogost
4. Games referenced:
1. Pac-Man
2. Alan Wake
3. World of Warcraft
4. Plants Vs. Zombies
5. Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor
6. Bastion
7. Angry Birds
8. The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim
9. Portal
10. FarmVille
11. LEGO Star Wars
12. Minecraft
13. Cut the Rope
14. Where’s My Water?
15. Peggle
16. The Incredible Machine
17. Gods Will Be Watching

Appendix 4: Example Semiotic Analysis Worksheet for World of Warcraft

section 4

next section

select a section:
1. Introduction
2. Workgroup Reports Overview
3. Progression Systems
4. Harmonize Your Game Elements with Semiotics!
5. Turtles All The Way Down
6. Making Friends While Killing People
7. Altering Reality For Imaginative Play
8. Rapid Prototyping in the Now
9. Schedule & Sponsors