The Gameplay Loop: a Player Activity Model for Game

Design and Analysis

Emmanuel Guardiola
Cologne, Germany
eg@[Link]

ABSTRACT game system and game rules. The formalization of game

To describe the task of the game designer, the literature on design models is still rare, and even more so when it comes
the subject often refers to rules and systems. But the main to gameplay. The role of gameplay in the game design
objective of the game designer’s work is to create a specific process has yet to be clarified.
kind of experience: gameplay. Based in both literature and
diverse modes of practical experience, this article offers a Our2 current research strives to delineate the experience of
formal delineation and methodology of the gameplay loop gameplay. Furthermore, our research offers a useful
that is applicable for both design and analysis. This gameplay model for game design and game analysis.
approach considers this loop as the potentials states of the Definition of Gameplay
player in the game system. This article will report use of The word Gameplay is commonly used in the industry to
this model in the development of recent industry games as describe the process of the player playing the game or
well as in the analysis of existing titles for academic encountering a challenge. Literature defines gameplay as
purposes. an interaction between the player and the game world,
Author Keywords
systems or rules [7, 14, 6]. This interaction is also described
Gameplay; gameplay loop; game system; game design; as the actions of the player [15, 13]. For Holopainen [5] the
player; video game definition includes the notion of Intentional behavior,
described as doing goal directed actions requiring a set of
ACM Classification Keywords cognitive and sensory-motoric capabilities. The
Design culmination of the three above mentioned definitions
INTRODUCTION constitutes the meaning of the word action as we use it
With the rise of video game degrees and game studies in here.
the early 2000s, game design has become an ever growing In [3] the authors explored literature and proposed a
object of research. Definitions and methodologies have definition of gameplay. We are basically using the same
been proposed in numerous design manuals as well as definition here: All actions performed by the player,
scholarly research. As production teams continue to grow, influencing negatively or positively the outcome of the
so too does the game industry’s demand for formalized uncertain game situation in which he is engaged in. The
game design methodologies. only difference appears at the end: we replaced immersed
In this multiplication of literature and industrial in with engaged in to contribute to the ongoing work on
documentations1, the main focus often remains on the engagement [11].

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for The gameplay loop as a tool
personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are The gameplay loop provides a compelling model for the
not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies creation of a tool that is useful for both design and analysis.
bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for To avoid confusion: when we use the term gameplay loop,
components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be
honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or we are not referring to the industry model of Objective
republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific Challenge Reward (OCR). OCR is often described as a
permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from Permissions@[Link]. gameplay loop, but it represents the game from a very
ACE2016, November 09 - 12, 2016, Osaka, Japan macro point of view. It can be useful for discussing games
Copyright is held by the owner/author(s). Publication rights licensed
to ACM. on a conceptual level, but not for concrete gameplay
ACM 978-1-4503-4773-0/16/11…$15.00 design. We are also not referring to the input/feedback
DOI: [Link] interaction loop as formalized, for instance, by Swink [16].

1
The author is a game director, and an industrial expert in 2
In this paper we use “We” and “Our” to highlight the
game design methodologies. He worked for independent contributions from the game development team in the game
studios and publishers. He contributed to more than 30 design case of study, and from the students during the use
major titles since 2000 of the gameplay loop as an analyzing tool.
In our definition of gameplay, action is central. We find “take cover”. All these actions require player input and
examples of action as one of the basic components for have a perceptible effect on screen. We can also include in
gameplay analysis [10]. Action verbs can also be at the this category an action like “stay covered”, as it is a
center of the design process [1]. For the development of the represented situation on screen even if the player doesn’t
research game JEU SERAI, we described gameplay with press any button at this moment.
action verbs as a part of the design process. With this last
example, the method of naming was not efficiently framed.
But even with some issues concerning the subjective
interpretation of actions, trying to formalize these actions
helps us to understand the origin of design errors that took
place during production [2].
Actions, formalized as verbs, are already used to represent
gameplay. But in all these cases, we overlook the dynamic
aspect of the process. The player is constantly moving from
one activity to another. In game design, we sometimes try
to invoke a web of actions as a temporary and approximate
way to explain the game experience.
This article offers a tool called the gameplay loop, which
strives to represent gameplay in action. We want to convey
the state of the player in the game system as accurately as
possible, and to visualize the circulation between actions.
We will focus on the formal representation of gameplay in Figure 1: Screenshot for the hidden object game Pure Hidden.
order to assist in the early stages of game design and the The player plays just by looking at the screen
production process as well as game analysis.
The other category, Out Game Action, mobilizes
METHODOLOGY FOR A GAMEPLAY LOOP perceptive and cognitive capacities. They do not have an
First we will focus on rules from the empirical game design immediate representation on screen but should provoke
practice of the gameplay loop, which we will then frame further In Game Actions. Figure 1 illustrates this type of
within the rules of representation. Then we will apply the gameplay activity. In the hidden objects game Pure Hidden
gameplay loop model to an actual game design process and [12] the player spends most of his time looking at the
game analysis. screen and trying to find visual representations of a list of
The gameplay loop as formal tool objects. For instance, he can try to find a basketball in the
The first version of this approach comes from the practice figure. The activity “search the object” doesn’t require the
of game design, in particular the creative brainstorming use of a gamepad button nor is it represented on screen. But
that occurs during the concept phase of production. We it is clearly an activity in the gameplay loop.
frequently try to represent the gameplay experience and The second type of classification we use is duration of
communicate it to the team and executives. The overall action. We have at least two types of duration: Event
goal is to list a certain number of player actions, Action and Continuous Action. In Pure Hidden, “Spot the
represented by verbs and minimal context. These sparse object” is an instant event, “Search the object” can have a
depictions of action are then connected in the form of a certain duration.
flow chart.
Each of these actions are formalized as boxes in a flowchart
What the player does can be categorized with different graphic. Representing player behavior can easily be done
criteria. A good starting point for sorting out action is to with a flowchart from a macro level, as in the OCR loop.
determine whether it has an immediate, measurable effect In our case we try to go as micro as possible. It means that
in the virtual world or not. We refer to these two kinds of if we zoom into one of these boxes, we enter in a specific
actions as (1) In Game Action and (2) Out Game Action. component of gameplay: the challenge, where player’s
An In Game Action describes an activity which is abilities are confronted by a game situation that you can
concretely represented within the game. Most of these express in variables and parameters.
actions require input from the player via the controller. For Figure 2 shows a brief example of format with the few
instance, the player presses the A button on a gamepad and actions we take in Pure Hidden. We already can establish
the character jumps. To classify such action, we try to give an initial representation of a gameplay loop.
the minimum elements of context or goal. For example in
Space Invader [17] we can say that the player/spaceship
performs actions like “avoid enemies projectiles”,
“position the ship to fire”, “shoot at enemies’ spaceships”,
 Gameplay loop as a tool for game analysis
Currently, the gameplay loop is being used to analyze
existing games as a pedagogic method in various academic
settings:
 The Master degree in video-game of the CNAM-
ENJMIN (French national school of digital media in
Angoulème), for an average promotion of 50 students in
first year of Master between 2006 and 2013. Here we
prepare and teach examples of gameplay loop analysis of
Figure 2: Example of gameplay loop formalization using a few existing games. The primary titled used is Metal Gear
actions from the Pure Hidden. Solid 2 [9].
The goal in game design as well as game analysis is to  The Bachelor degree in game design of the Bellecour
apply such formalization to identify the core gameplay of Ecole (private School in Lyon), for the 36 students of
the game. This means, the set of actions the player will first year, between 2014 and 2015. Students observe
iterate the most, and in which the wining/losing condition gameplay loop analysis and then have to put it into
are real outcomes. practice themselves.
Game Design Case Study: Blue Estate  The Bachelor degree in digital games of the Cologne
Even if we used this kind of approach to design previous Game Lab (institute of the TH-Koln, university of
titles, during the development of Blue Estate The Game [4] applied science), for the 42 students of the first year,
we managed to document the proposed gameplay loop from 2015. Students observe gameplay loop analysis and
methodology from the very beginning of the concept phase then have to put it into practice themselves.
to the final stages of playtest. The preparation and analysis example ask mainly to
Blue Estate is an arcade rail shooter which takes place in identify the core gameplay of the title. In this paper, we will
the context of a present day mafia war in Los Angeles. focus on the example of Metal Gear Solid 2. Its main form
Though Blue Estate’s gameplay might classify it as an of gameplay is infiltration. We only used the game as a
Action Shooter, this title also features a fully-developed source of information, by playing it and taking notes. We
narrative and subversive humor. This is quite fitting, as didn’t use any publication or previous analysis.
Blue Estate is a ludic adaptation of Viktor Kavalchev’s CASE STUDY IN GAME DESIGN
comic of the same name [8]. The player takes the role of The initial rough concept of Blue Estate was: a motion
protagonists who have to fight their way through gaming rail shooter augmented by interaction with the
environments heavily populated with mobsters. The game environment. A rail shooter is a first person shooter, where
was originally produced to be used with motion gaming the camera is not controlled by the player. The camera
controllers like the Leap Motion, the DualShock 4, and the ‘moves’ on a rail and the player engages in arcade
Kinect 2. Figure 3 shows an in game screenshot of the gameplay, such as aiming at enemies or at other
game. interactives elements. On this basis, in the first week of
work on Blue Estate, we had to define what the core
gameplay was.
First core gameplay loop
The first creative workshop took place in March 2012. We
formalized the core gameplay action – shoot – as a
gameplay loop. Figure 4 is a picture of an original sheet
used during the workshop.
Post-its represent actions. The green color highlights the In
Game Actions such as “Move (the crosshair) to the target”,
“On Target” and “Fire”. The Out Game Actions, “Identify
target”, “Choose target”, are connected with pink arrows to
the In Game Actions. These 5 actions were chosen by the
Figure 3: Screenshot of the rail shooter Blue Estate.
participants of the brainstorm. It’s on this basis that the
The concept phase started in March 2012, the pre- main game challenges should be developed. We tried
production and production lasted until April 2014 for the several configurations and discussed the richness of each
first complete version on PS4. The Leap Motion version action before agreeing on this apparently simple flow chart.
was first shown on October 2013 for the launch of this new The iterative gameplay loop the player faces throughout
device. The author was co-creative director of the game, most of Blue Estate is: Identify targets, Choose target,
particularly in charge of gameplay aspects. Move (crosshair) to the target, (Remain) on target, Fire,
 and then restart the loop (Identify targets…). The following figure, the blue crosshair is controlled by the player via
statistic conveys how important the design and the either a Kinect or a PS move. The circles represent targets
description of these little post-its are to understanding the of different sizes. They can be still or in motion at various
gameplay of Blue Estate: the player will repeat this loop speeds and appear randomly on the screen. The number in
nearly 2000 times in order to finish the game. From the the middle of each target represents the amount of damage
very beginning, the team should be sure it can provide needed to destroy it. The black squares, randomly
variety and changes in difficulty through the whole game. generated, represent ‘cover’ the circles can hide behind,
thus making them difficult to hit.

Figure 4: Photo of a brainstorming sheet created during Figure 5: Screenshot of an early gameplay prototype of Blue
the early concept phase of Blue Estate, where the core Estate, to experiment the “Move (crosshair) to target” type
gameplay loop of the game is delineated. of challenge
An In Game Action During the pre-production and the production phase, a
If we zoom in on the “Move (Crosshair) to the target”, the significant volume of work in game design and level design
challenge confronts the player to a game situation. He uses was related to this specific In Game Action. There is an
the motion gaming controller with more or less accuracy to example of this task which take place during the playtest
position the crosshair of the weapon on a target. The target phase. Blue Estate is playable on different platforms and
can be summarized in a certain number of parameters to with very different controllers, including the traditional
challenge the player’s mastery of this activity: size of the gamepad. To parameter the difficulty and the scoring
target on the screen, speed of it, complexity of the path system across different platforms, we needed to compare
between two targets. Already with these few elements we player performance of moving the crosshair using the
know we can create diversity of activity and variety of various types of controllers.
difficulty.
Figure 6 is an extract of a playtest report. Here, the same
The very first prototype of the game (produced in April player played the same level once with a PAD (using sticks
2012) was a proof of concept of this In Game Action. and buttons) and once using the Leap Motion controller.
“Move to target” was a priority in our early research and The two graphics represent the same moment of the game.
development due to the critical aspect of the motion It depicts 120 seconds of crosshair movement on the
gaming for the project. screen; the PAD on the left, the Leap Motion on the right.
Figure 5 is a screenshot of this first prototype. Most core We can clearly see that there is a big difference in player
gameplay aspects of Blue Estate were tested in 2D. In the

Figure 6: Playtest report of Blue estate: the real “move (crosshair) to target” on screen, with a PAD and a Leap Motion
performance. The data show that with the PAD, player of the screen. If the player chooses to shoot the canister, the
needs 35% more time to reach an enemy. explosion will kill all the enemies on screen.
An Out Game Action detail We spent time and resources to make this “Choose the
The action “Choose the target” does not result in a target” an important part of the gameplay experience.
depiction of player action on the screen. It’s a perceptive
Extend the core gameplay loop
and planning activity where the player gets information
During initial conception workshops, we kept the core loop
from the screen and may decide which target he should
as a central framework and peripherally added ideas of
shoot next. It’s what we categorize as Out Game Action.
activity which could modify or increase the intensity of the
The team designed and produced a feature to challenge this
challenge. Figure 8 is another photo of the brainstorm
particular activity.
paperboard we used to summarize our first selection of
When enemies arrive on the screen, they start shooting at activities.
the camera, i.e., the player, as the game takes place in the
Some ideas were commonly found in the rail shooter genre
first person perspective. These shoots don’t hit the player,
(manage the reloading, take cover or not). Some others
they are just signs that the player is in a gameplay situation
came from the particular comedic spirit of the source
and has to act. However, some of these enemies
material, such as the activity “Clear the view”. In the first
occasionally do actual damages to the player. To create a
part of the game the player adopt the perspective of the
kind of hesitation in the choice of the next enemy to aim,
idiot son of the LA Italian mafia boss. This character,
we introduce a Warning Sign icon. This feature is common
featured in the original comic, has mid-length hair, which
in many rail shooters. The game system communicates to
the player what enemy on the screen will actually inflict
damage. In Blue Estate, in the Leap Motion first version,
this Warning Sign icon is a circle that appears on the
enemy. In this circle, a sort of timer tells the player the
remaining time before he will take a hit. Depending on the
level design, these Warning Signs can appear with a certain
frequency, duration and danger. At a very micro level,
when the player is engaged in a shootout, he receives
information that should cause him hesitate or change his
aiming priority.
Figure 7 is a screenshot from the second level of a work in
progress version the game. It shows how the Warning
Signs appear on enemies. On the enemy furthest left, the
timer is nearly ended: the player will take a hit in a second.
On the enemy furthest right, the timer of the warning sign
started later: the player has a few more seconds to shoot
him. The enemy in the middle appears without warning
sign. This level design situation includes another kind of
element for the player “Choose the target” activity: there is Figure 8; Photo of the early gameplay loop, with additional
explosive material, the red gas canister just in the middle ideas
he tries to hold back with hair gel. Early on we proposed to
use this detail to challenge the “Identify the target” core
activity. At some moments, the character’s hair falls into
his eyes, i.e. on the camera lens, which obscures the view
of his surroundings, including enemies. The player has to
“Clear the view” by executing a specific move with motion
gaming device. For instance with Kinect, the player needs
to pass his real hand over his real face.
Five of these propositions were designed, specified, tested
and included in the final version of the game.
A broad perspective of a gameplay loop defined early in
the design process (alongside it consequences in
Figure 7: A shootout with 3 enemies, Warning Signs icons production) shows the need to clarify our intention and our
and an explosive material. Elements designed for the “Choose development priorities. It’s worth noting that the core loop
the target” activity
itself did not change from the concept phase to the final CONCLUSION
released game. This paper proposes an approach for the conception and
visualization of gameplay. We formalized a tool, used it in
CASE STUDY AS GAME ANALYSIS TOOL
two different cases of study, and received some promising
We have been using the gameplay loop as pedagogic tool
feedback.
since 2006. We will cite the work we have done on Metal
Gear Solid 2 on PlayStation 2. The player is a special agent This gameplay loop model seems to be an efficient tool
who is attempting to infiltrate an oil rig controlled by a during the early stages of production. It helps to identify
sizable group of terrorists. the core mechanics and to think about how other activities
can support it or allow for variety.
Figure 9 is one of the slides used in course to present the
result of this analysis. It’s focused on the main gameplay Another positive element from a creative standpoint is the
action: infiltration. The flowchart shows the difference establishment of two action types (In Game and Out
between In Game Action (green shapes), Out Game Action Game). This setup encourages game designers to spend
(light green shapes). In dark green, we depicted non time on two aspects during the conception work, which
continuous actions, events like “Neutralize” an enemy or enriches early material. We also see that the early
“Spot” a potential source of danger. formalization of a core loop is helpful to define the
preproduction priorities and to communicate internally
about the game.
In terms of game analysis, we have learned that to extract
the loop from the game, we need to play the game and then
suspend playing while continuing to manipulate it. In other
words, game analysis via gameplay loop opens up a space
that alternates between active engagement in the game
(trying to win) and suspended engagement which gives
way active analysis. We also find that beginning with a
minimalist scenario helps to establish an initial, competent
version of the gameplay loop.

Figure 9: The infiltration gameplay loop in Metal Gear Team work or brainstorming sessions, either in analysis or
Solid 2 design, are facilitated by the simplicity of the gameplay
loop representation and the ease with which one modifies
The game is not composed in this unique loop. It’s it. It’s a methodology that is easy to communicate and can
necessary to ‘zoom out’ to see the connection between this be quickly adopted by participants. It reveals a tangible
gameplay loop and other ones identified in the game. way to visualize gameplay, including the cognitive aspect
Figure 10 shows the possible connections between three of it.
different gameplay loops, and includes the detection event
(when the player is detected by patrolling enemies or We have opted for a (very) micro representation of
cameras). gameplay actions. If you ‘zoom in’ on an action, you have
to describe a challenge. This choice allows us to have a
precise core gameplay representation. But it’s not as easy
represent all of the possible actions of an entire game.
Therefore, we were forced to use a ‘zoom in/out’ layered
representation in our partial analysis. One of our next tasks
involves the challenge of applying this method of analysis
to an entire game, with each player activity is represented
at the most micro level possible.
Compared to methodologies based on game design patterns
or system design, gameplay loop tool has the benefit to
Figure 10: Macro view of gameplay, namely, the connections focus on what the player engages in it to achieve
between three core loops in Metal Gear Solid 2 challenges. Our future work are manifold. In educational
serious game the gameplay loop can explicit if a particular
The demonstration of this analysis to the students was action support a specific pedagogical goal. In collaboration
sometimes followed by an assignment. Students had to with cognitive sciences, we can identify the nature of the
provide a gameplay analysis, including the gameplay loop requested abilities in each action of a game. And from a
of a chosen game. We evaluated how students applied In pedagogical point of view, we want the students to
Game and Out Game action in their deliverables as well as compare this approach with other methods, both in analysis
their ability to provide a consistent loop. and in project design.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 15. Jessie Schell. 2008. The art of game design, A book
We would like to thank Curtis Maughan for his editorial of lenses. Morgan Kaufmann, Burlington, USA.
assistance in the preparation of this article.
16. Steve Swink. 2008. Game Feel. Morgan Kaufmann,
REFERENCES Burlington, USA.
1. Anna Anthropy and Noami Clark. 2014. A game 17. Taito - Tomohiro Nishikado. Space Invader.
design vocabulary. Addisson Wesley, Upper Saddle [ARCADE] (June 1978). Taito, Tokyo, Japan.
River, USA.
2. Emmanuel Guardiola and Stéphane Natkin. 2015. A
Game Design Methodology For Generating A
Psychological Profile Of Players. In Serious games
Analytics, by Christian Sebastian Loh, Yanyan Sheng
and Dirk Ifenthaler, 363_380. Springer, Berlin,
Germany.
3. Emmanuel Guardiola and Stéphane Natkin. 2010.
Player's Model: Criteria for a Gameplay Profile
Measure. In proceedings ICEC 2010 Seoul. Springer,
Berlin, Germany.
4. He-Saw. 2014. Blue Estate The Game. Game [PC] (8
April 2015) [PS4] (24 June 2014) [XboxOne] (18
February 2015). Focus Home Interactive, Paris,
France.
5. Jussi Holopainen. 2011. Fundations of Gameplay,
Ph. D. Dissertation. Blekinge Institute of
Technology, Karlskrona, Sweden.
6. Richard House III. 2005. Game design: Theory &
Practice. 2nd edition. Wordware Publishing, Plano,
USA.
7. Jesper Juul. 2005. Half Real. MIT press, Cambridge,
UK.
8. Viktor Kalvatchev. 2011-2012. Blue Estate. no. 1 to
12. Image Comic, Berkeley, USA.
9. Konami CE Japan - Hideo Kojima. 2001. Metal Gear
Solid 2: Sons of Liberty. [PS2 (8 March 2002)
Konami, Tokyo, Japan.
10. Petri Lankoski and Staffan Björk. 2015. Formal
analysis of gameplay. In Game Research Methods:
An overview, by Petri Lankoski and Staffan Björk,
23-35. ETC Press, Pittsburgh, USA.
11. Stéphane Natkin. 2010. Interactivity in Games: The
Player's Engagement. Vol. 333, in Cutltural
Computing, by Ryohei Nakatsu, Naoko Tosa,
Naghdy, Fazel Fazel, Kok Wai Wong and Philippe
Codognet, 160-168. Springer, Berlin, Germany.
12. Ouat-Entertainment. 2009. Pure Hidden. [PC] (16
April 2010). Ouat-Entertainment, Angoulême,
France.
13. Andrew Rollings and Dave Morris. 2004. Game
architecture and design, A new edition. New Riders,
Indianapolis, USA.
14. Katie Salen and Eric Zimmerman. 2004. Rules of
play: game design fundamentals. MIT press London,
UK.