A Definition of Creative-Based Music Games
Thomas Studley Richard Vella
University of Newcastle
Newcastle, 2300
NSW, Australia
thomas.studley@uon.edu.au
Nathan Scott
University of Newcastle
Newcastle, 2300
NSW, Australia
nathan.scott@newcastle.edu.au
ABSTRACT
Growing interest in the study of video game music has led an
increasing base of scholars to pursue a multi-faceted
investigation of music-based games. Within this domain, a
distinct subset of 'creative-based' music games are emerging as a
fertile new ground for the examination of music in interactive
gaming environments. This paper aims to analyse the nature of
these 'creative-based music games'. We review the current state
of game music literature and show that music traditionally
occupies a 'supportive' role in games. The diverse genre of
'music-games' is then framed as a departure from this supportive
paradigm, introducing a further review covering the existing
classifications of 'music-games'. Discussion of the component
elements in 'creative-based music games' provides a more formal
definition of this class of games. To illustrate this definition
further an early prototype for an original game design
(‘EvoMusic’) is then described. The rules, mechanics, and
underlying concept of EvoMusic are examined in detail and then
discussed in relation to a comparable game from the field
(Soundrop). We conclude that the classification of ‘creative-based
music games’ suggests key design dimensions that help
distinguish games like EvoMusic from other closely related
modes of 'exploratory' musical interaction. Using this
classification there is the potential to explore, develop and
evaluate as yet untapped design features for musical games.
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
Permissions@acm.org.
ACSW 2018, January 30-February 2, 2018, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
© 2018 Association for Computing Machinery.
ACM ISBN 978-1-4503-5436-3/18/01…$15.00
https://doi.org./10.1145/3167918.3167921
University of Newcastle
Newcastle, 2300
NSW, Australia
richard.vella@newcastle.edu.au
Keith Nesbitt
University of Newcastle
Callaghan, 2308
NSW, Australia
keith.nesbitt@newcastle.edu.au
Categories and Subject Descriptors
• Applied computing~Sound and music computing • Applied
computing~Computer games
Keywords
Video Game Music; Music Games; Ludomusicology
ACM Reference format:
Thomas Studley, Richard Vella, Nathan Scott and Keith Nesbitt. 2018. A
Definition of Creative-Based Music Games. In Proceedings of ACSW 2018,
Brisbane, Australia, January 30-February 2, 2018 (ACSW 2018), 10 pages.
DOI: 10.1145/3167918.3167921
1 INTRODUCTION
The expanding discipline of 'ludomusicology' is broadly
concerned with any inquiry at the nexus of music and 'play'. The
majority of this work centres on a multi-faceted investigation of
the role of music in video games. In this core body of
scholarship, music in video games is implicitly positioned as
providing a supportive role. This is akin to the typical role of
music in film scores. A notable departure from this paradigm of
'music-as-support' can be found in the eclectic genre of 'music
games'. Such music games, particularly 'creative-based' ones
form the main focus of this paper. However, first we address the
current state of game music studies and the prevailing
perspectives on the role of game music.
The field of game music studies has grown significantly in the
past decade, marked notably by the emergence of
'ludomusicological' societies around the globe (such as the
Ludomusicology Society of Australia, est. 2017). Scholars such as
Moseley observe that game 'soundtracks' are being analysed by
an increasingly sophisticated music-theoretical apparatus [49].
Indeed, the recent diversification of methodological approaches -
ACSW 2018, January 30-February 2, 2018, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
summarised by Summers [63] - denotes a maturation beyond
strictly musicological readings, and warrants brief survey.
Australian scholar Iain Hart has applied musical semiotics to
the analysis of interactive game music [34]. William Cheng's
volume on meaning in game music unites hermeneutical,
philosophical, and anthropological perspectives in examining the
socio-political 'stakes' of our engagement with game sound [11].
Austin and others consider the inherent performativity of
interacting with digital games [3, 15, 26, 34], while Fritsch and
Collins have addressed game music in the wider cultural context
of fan-created content and machinima [15, 27]. Summers' recent
work has focused on apprehending the tools and sources of
game music analysis [62, 63], and Moseley's centres on
“enlightening historical ludomusical praxis” using digital game
terminology [49].
Implicit throughout this discourse, if not all game music
scholarship, is the notion of 'immersion' [41]. This nebulous term
has long been the subject of examination and debate within
wider game studies, but remains a cornerstone of discussion
regarding the function of music in games [14, 55, 64, 69]. A
collection of quintessential theories relating to immersion [7, 10,
16, 20, 30] are pervasively cited in game music literature, and
van Elferen even offers a holistic framework ('ALI Model') for
analysing 'game musical immersion' [68, 69]. This paper does not
intend to engage in debate on the use of 'immersion'. It hopes
only to stress the phenomenon's significance to the lexicon of
game music discourse so that perspectives on the role of game
music may be faithfully presented.
Non-diegetic music is traditionally used in games to support
the core game activity and content. Within this paradigm the
role of game music can be divided into two distinct categories: 1)
immersive/narrative, and 2) informative/functional. Various
domains in wider game scholarship acknowledge this division,
from Juul's oft cited admission that games are comprised of 'real
rules' and 'fictional worlds' [26, 40, 42] to Ferreira & Falcão's
comparable division of the immersive experience into
'operational' and 'narrative' modes [22]. Work in the field of
auditory display similarly suggests that game sound has both
'informative' and 'immersive' uses [52]. Ekman identifies an
analogous division of game sound into 'narrative' and 'functional'
fit [19], which Fritsch later reconciles more directly with game
music [27]. Fritsch emphasises that these two musical roles
cannot be treated in isolation by example of the equally affective
and informative meanings of Mario's 'death cadence' [27, 53].
Game music with an immersive/narrative role refers to the
use of music to support 'storytelling' and 'emotion' [19]. It is
directly comparable to film music, which theorist Claudia
Gorbman characterises as a 'signifier of emotion' and
'interpreter' of narrative [29]. In this role, music is complicit in
constructing coherent, compelling environments and
encouraging the player's emotional engagement with game
characters and settings [14, 19, 55, 63]. Mouraviev links music,
narrative, and emotion in games in what he considers the
'synchretic network' [50], and various studies have affirmed the
significance of music to game immersion [28, 39, 44, 51].
2
Thomas Studley et al.
Game music with an informative/functional role refers to the
use of music to support 'information' and 'playing' [19]. In this
role, music is apprehended as part of the game's feedback system
for providing critical information to the player about their
activities, goals, progress, and game state. Medina-Gray
describes this as the 'usability' function of game music [48].
Informative/functional game music also intersects the domain of
auditory display, which has examined the informative value of
game music as an 'earcon' [5, 53]. In fact, most game music
scholars invoke the exemplar of music’s use as a signal for
danger [42, 55, 63, 64, 69].
In both of these instances, game music assumes a subordinate
role. External to the prevailing paradigm of 'supportive' game
music is the diverse genre of 'music games'. Austin broadly
defines music games as those in which the formal elements
(rules, dynamics, etc.) are musical in nature [3]. The music in
such games departs from its traditional role by operating at the
foreground of gameplay, and often as a goal. A taxonomy and
ontology of music games will be discussed in the following
section.
Of prime interest to this paper is the small and scarcely
addressed subset of music games which Fleshner describes as
'creative-based' [24]. The existing corpus of music games is
presently dominated by performative music games [3, 23], for
which the Guitar Hero series is a prototypical example. ‘Creative-
based music games’ (CBMG) are those in which the core musical
interaction involves the creation or 'making' [3] of music rather
than musical performance or 'matching' [3]. The classification of
CBMG is explored in Section 3 of this paper. The authors then
present a definition (Section 3.4) as a starting point for further
inquiry into the nature of CBMG.
To further illustrate this concept, this paper also presents an
early prototype of an original game design ‘EvoMusic’. Following
an explanation of the rules, mechanics and underlying game
concept, EvoMusic is evaluated against the proposed definition of
CBMG. The intention of this discussion is to elucidate the logic
behind the definition and to generate further study of CBMG as
a novel genre for investigation within the domain of interactive
media. The hope is that future evaluations of such games might
unearth new understandings of their potential for use in
education [12, 23, 47, 58], health [1], and other domains.
2 MUSIC GAMES
Music games (or 'music-based' games) are well covered in the
literature of game music studies. Collins' [14] early text on game
sound discusses the genesis of 'rhythm-action' games, and an
increasing base of scholars have sought to discern the nature of
music games and our interactions with them [3, 15, 24, 26, 43,
56]. Existing approaches to the classification of music games can
be categorised as either broad or strict. In this paper, Austin's
inclusive typology of music game interactivity [3] is used to
represent a broad approach, while Kassabian & Jarman's
definition [43] epitomizes a strict and discerning classification.
Austin broadly defines music games as "those in which the
formal elements are musical in nature" [3]. Extending this,
A Definition of Creative-Based Music Games
Austin posits that 'musicality' is apparent whenever a game's
"most meaningful interaction is musical" [3]. Such broad
terminology suggests that interactions need only be symbolically
related to music, and demonstrates the breadth of Austin's
classification. After surveying the use of genre to classify games,
Austin concludes that music games are often 'games from other
genres with musical elements' and hence 'transcend one single
genre' [3]. Instead, Austin offers an inclusive typology of four
types of 'game music interactivity': matching, mixing, making,
and metonymy [3].
Matching games involve matching the rhythm (Guitar Hero
[33]) or pitch (SingStar [59]) of provided music using some
performative action. This is by far the most common subgenre of
music game [3, 23], and also includes title-/artist-matching
'music quizzes' (SongPop [25]). Mixing games involve re-
arranging pre-packaged sounds (Chiptune Runner [21]), whereas
making games enable a more complete creative agency to
influence core musical components such as pitch, rhythm, and
timbre (Soundrop [17], Seaquence [54]). Metonymy denotes
gameplay in which the subject matter alludes to music or
musical culture, but engages little or no musical mechanics or
decision-making processes (Brütal Legend [18], Music Inc. [66]).
Austin stresses that this taxonomy should not be considered
exhaustive as new platforms and control interfaces will continue
to challenge existing classification systems for music games [3].
Austin's broadly inclusive approach is by far the more
pervasive and aligns with general player perceptions and
community resources like Wikipedia [43, 70]. In fact, some
classifications of music game qualities are even less discerning.
Reale devises a set of four salient criteria which, to summarise,
requires only that a player is able to interact with a visual
representation of a musical objective [56]. Note that of Austin's
taxonomy, 'music-making' games most accurately align with this
paper's intention for the use of 'creative-based'.
Kassabian & Jarman [43] present a contrastingly strict
definition of 'music game'. Where Austin acknowledges
'metonymy' in his taxonomy, Kassabian & Jarman reserve the
term for games in which "the majority of gameplay or activity,
and if applicable, winning and losing, are predicated on the
ability to make good musical choices" [43]. Their emphasis on
'musical choice' is what distinguishes the two classifications. The
implication is that player actions should require some form of
musical decision-making process. This contrasts with Austin,
who would likely qualify non-musical game mechanics so long
as they 'resulted in' music or where 'about' music. Kassabian &
Jarman use this to disqualify popular rail shooter Rez (typically
considered a music game) because the player's shooting of
targets only 'results' in musical events rather than relying upon a
musical task (such as beat perception).
Austin and Kassabian & Jarman each allude to the troubled
ontology of 'play', 'game', and consequently 'music game' [3, 43].
Both preface their discussions with a thorough examination of
'play' and 'game' [9, 36, 61] in an attempt to discern the nature of
less 'prototypical' games that reside on the peripheries of their
respective definitions. Put simply, these are interactive
experiences which are notably 'musical' but may not clearly
ACSW 2018, January 30-February 2, 2018, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
align with conventional understandings of 'game'.
Understandably, this complicates efforts towards a
comprehensive taxonomy.
For Kassabian & Jarman in particular, this manifests in an
attempt to prescribe a distinction between 'music games' and
'music apps' [43]. They propose that 'music games' are 'virtual
worlds' with a telos established by a ‘prelusory goal’ [43, 61]. In
contrast, 'music apps' offer tools to explore audiovisual
possibilities with minimal expertise and effort, and do not
necessarily construct 'virtual worlds' [43]. Significantly, 'music
apps' are inherently exploratory and preclude prelusory goals
beyond 'enjoyment' [43]. 'Music games' represent ludus [9, 49],
or formal 'game' qualities, and the 'disciplinary' side of music (i.e.
technical mastery). 'Music apps' alternatively represent paidia [9,
49], or unstructured 'playfulness', and the 'liberatory' side of
music (i.e. creativity, exploration). 'Music apps' also encompass
the saturated domain of virtual instruments and professional
music-making 'tools'. Kassabian & Jarman decidedly position
such applications as external to 'games' [43].
The construction of a 'virtual world' is a usefully discerning
distinction, and does much to elucidate Kassabian & Jarman's
intentions. It seems they wish to reserve 'game' for musical
interactions within truly artificial gameworlds, which are
'entered', as distinct from utilitarian interactions with virtual
instruments, which are 'used'. Issues remain, however, with their
use of 'disciplinary' and 'liberatory' modes of musical interaction
to distinguish music 'game' from music 'non-game'. Fleshner [23]
makes a compelling case for framing Soundrop, ostensibly a
'music app' by Kassabian & Jarman's standards, as a
pedagogically valuable addition to the genre of music games
despite its "exploratory freedom". Blickhan [6] similarly offers an
interesting ludic interpretation of Björk's Biophilia, which is
marketed largely as an interactive music album. Though
Kassabian & Jarman stress the significance of ‘prelusory goals’ to
their classification of 'music games', their own definition
conversely suggests that formal measures of 'winning and losing'
are not necessitated [43]. This in turn allows for the qualification
of more 'liberatory' musical 'sand-box' games, so long as
gameplay is predicated on musical choice-making.
Clearly, these definitional issues arise at the site of
'exploratory' musical interactions. Such 'games', if they can be so
named, blur the boundaries between systems of gameplay
predicated on free musical creation and 'tools' for music-making
with inherent playful affordances. This emergent issue of music
'game' versus 'tool' leads into this paper's discussion of 'creative-
based' music games.
3 CREATIVE-BASED MUSIC GAMES
To the knowledge of the authors, there exists no widely-accepted
definition of 'creative-based music game' at present. Terms like
'creative' are usually invoked comparatively: 'creative' may be
used as a soft descriptor for music-games that offer an
uncharacteristically high degree of player control over musical
production [23, 43], or to describe the novel pedagogical value of
a particular music-game in developing student creativity [58].
3
ACSW 2018, January 30-February 2, 2018, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
This section works towards a more concrete delimitation of
'creative-based music games' as a distinguishable sub-genre of
music game. The aim of developing a precise definition is to
provide a lens for exploring and evaluating uncharted design
potential.
'Creative-based music game' (CBMG) is a loaded term and
requires considerable unpacking if even a general definition is to
be approached. This requires that agreeable conclusions be
reached on the nature of the components 'game', 'music', and
'creative-based' as they relate to the parent concept of a 'music
game'. In this section, each component will be addressed
sequentially and accompanied by illustrative examples with the
aim of better categorising the design space.
3.1 ‘Music’
Two approaches for apprehending the nature of the 'music' in
music games were presented earlier: Austin's broadly inclusive
taxonomy [3] and Kassabian & Jarman's strict classification
system [43]. The purpose here is to determine which types of
musical interaction [3] qualify games as 'music games'. This
paper considers Kassabian & Jarman's definition, which asserts
that the majority of gameplay be predicated upon 'musical
choice-making' [43], to be the most effective for building a
definition of 'creative-based music game'. Acts of creation (e.g.
composing music) necessitate agency and choice. Thus, a music
game could only be considered 'creative-based' if the player were
able to make and implement musical choices. Note that this does
not yet exclude prototypical rhythm-games like Guitar Hero, in
which players need to make 'good musical choices' [43] about
timing, beat perception, and performative action in order to 'hit'
notes.
Kassabian & Jarman posit that music games under their
definition must also allow players to influence the production of
sound [43]. The authors similarly adopt this stance, as a player
could not discernably create music through a game system if
they were unable to influence music production using its
mechanics. Again this does not exclude Guitar Hero because the
production of the music is contingent on player accuracy;
missing a note causes the sounding guitar track to be
momentarily replaced with an 'error' sound ('thunk'). Games like
Geometry Dash [57], however, are now exempt from this paper's
definition. Players in this 2D-platformer can improve their
navigation of difficult obstacles by performing actions in time
with the background music (i.e. making musical choices).
Regardless, their interactions do not influence the production of
the background music (short of failing and restarting the level).
Two gameplay qualities are hence required to satisfy this
paper's consideration of the 'music' component of 'creative-based
music game'. First, the core gameplay activity must be predicated
on musical decision-making, implicit under which is the use of
some degree of musical skill and critical listening process.
Second, the player must be able to influence the production of
music through the direct use of game mechanics.
3.2 ‘Creative-Based’
4
Thomas Studley et al.
The intent in using the prefix 'creative-based' is to denote a
music game in which the core purpose and appeal of playing is
the creation of original music. As Fleshner [23] summarises, "the
user’s role is reversed from reaction to a stimulus to the creation
of the stimulus itself". Though ostensibly simple, this warrants
further clarification on the meaning of musical 'creation' in this
context. Players of SingStar could well be understood to 'create'
music. After all, their decision to vibrate their vocal cords has
called into being a sounding melody which did not exist
moments earlier. Further, one might consider a Guitar Hero
performance to have 'created' music, as the sound is only
produced when a player willfully 'hits' the notes. One might
think to invoke 'original' music as a distinction, but this invites a
postmodern critique on the meaning of originality and the
'location' of a 'musical work' [38, 49, 63]. Instead, the issue may
be negotiated by considering intent.
The intent in playing games that Austin would consider
'music-matching' [3] has been described by Fleshner [23] and
Auerbach [2] as 'mimicry'. In Guitar Hero and SingStar, the
intention is to mimic the performance of a pre-packaged, hard-
programmed song (i.e. written into the game). Further, the songs
are typically established in popular musical culture and are likely
well known to the player. Even without prior familiarity, the
player is still under no illusion that they have 'composed' the
song. Frustratingly, 'composing' can itself be a problematic
metric as it engages issues of 'player-versus-system' authorship.
This paper proposes that a music game is 'creative-based' if the
player is able to mentally [31] frame their use of the mechanics
as having created new music in all instances of play (or
'playthroughs').
Requiring that this 'mental model' [31] (i.e. using core
mechanics to create music) remain consistent for all
playthroughs allows games like Auditorium [13] to be
distinguished from CBMG. Auditorium is a 2D, web-based, visual
puzzle-solving game with a strong musical aesthetic. Players
manipulate the path of light streams in order to fill 'musical
nodes'. Each node, when filled, contributes a layer to the heard
music. The puzzle is solved when all nodes are filled
concurrently, thereby completing the song and unlocking the
next stage. The 'song' for each level is hard-programmed. Though
the layers can be assembled in different orders - which Austin
would consider a 'music-mixing' game [3] - the final product is
set. The player's use of mechanics does not 'create' music so
much as it 'reveals' the existing musical work, as if they 'earn'
the right to listen by completing the puzzle. Most importantly,
the player is aware of this dynamic and does not consider
themselves a 'creator'.
There is one further dimension to the 'creative-based'
component as presented here. Like much of Kassabian &
Jarman's classification [43] however, it operates on a concentric
schema of 'central' and 'peripheral' examples rather than hard
distinctions. CBMG, if they have satisfied the criteria presented
thus far, can also be classed as 'more' or 'less' creative according
to the number of musical modalities that the player is allowed to
influence. Simply put, a music game that enables players to
manipulate the rhythm, pitch, and timbre of a musical output is
A Definition of Creative-Based Music Games
closer to the 'centre' than a game which only allows rhythm
manipulation. In this way, 'creative-based' is also an evaluative
measure.
3.3 ‘Game’
The weakness of this paper's classification thus far is that the
criteria presented cannot yet differentiate between a CBMG and
a 'virtual instrument'. Here we return to the thorny issue of
'game' versus 'tool'. Blickhan [6] suggests that useful distinctions
remain elusive because the two are not mutually exclusive. A
resolution may be found, however, in Fleshner's [23]
reformulation of the 'musical composition app' Soundrop as a
pedagogically valuable music 'game'.
Soundrop is an iOS application in which the user draws
'sound bars' to manipulate the trajectory of an endless stream of
consistently falling balls. The balls are perpetually generated by a
moveable 'node' and each produce a sounding pitch whenever
they 'bounce' on the sound bars. Pitch is determined by the
distance (on the y-axis) between the node and the contacted
sound bar, and is restricted to the framework of a pentatonic
scale (e.g. C D E G A). Rhythm can be influenced by positioning
sound bars to shorten or lengthen the trajectory of the balls, and
players may also cycle a number of preset sound packs.
Fleshner [23] introduces Soundrop as what is seemingly a
'musical composition app', but asserts that "classroom usage
transforms it into a game with minimal effort". To summarise
Fleshner's experiment, he proposes that multiple players be
given iPads with Soundrop running. A 'judge' then provides a set
of composition parameters or 'rules', following which the other
players create musical compositions for anonymous critique by
the judge. The judge selects whichever composition they feel
best satisfies their given rules, crowns the composer as the
round's 'winner', and a new round commences. Most of the
composition rules imagined by Fleshner [23] relate specifically to
the mechanics of Soundrop, such as "number of sound bars
allowed". More broadly applicable, however, is his suggestion
that an abstract 'aesthetic goal' be given. Fleshner [23] offers
several example 'goals' such as "a basketball game", "a knight
rescuing a princess from a tower", or even "green". Players are
accordingly judged on how effectively their compositions
capture the abstract descriptor (at the judge's discretion).
Fleshner's introduction of compositional 'rules', a quantifiable
'winner', and 'aesthetic goals' reframes Soundrop as a 'game'. In
this form, Soundrop meets Kassabian & Jarman's exacting
requirement for a 'prelusory goal' [43, 61]. The authors argue
here that Fleshner's reformulation of Soundrop as a music game
is not contingent on the pedagogical classroom setting as he first
suggests, nor on the distribution of 'judge' and 'composer' roles
to separate, competitive thinking agents. Instead, Soundrop
attains 'game' status as a result of imposing rule-driven 'goals',
whether mechanic- or aesthetic-based, which can in turn be
evaluated or 'judged'. Most significantly, this can all occur within
the 'mental model' [31] of a single thinking player-agent.
Blickhan identifies a similar dynamic in her ludic
interpretation of Björk's interactive album Biophilia [6]. In the
Biophilia app, users are invited to explore the musical 'building
ACSW 2018, January 30-February 2, 2018, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
blocks' of each song "in a tangible, malleable form" [6]. Like
Soundrop, interaction in Biophilia certainly meets this paper's
criteria for 'music' and 'creative-based', though Blickhan asserts
that the app can also be framed as a 'game'. She suggests that
Juul’s [40] “quantifiable outcome” can exist as "a variety of
musical and visual results from exploration within the apps,
with positive or negative emotional recompense depending on
a user’s interpretation of their own engagement" [6]. Further,
Blickhan posits that the player's 'goal' is "merely to explore and
create new sound" [6].
The authors argue that creative music apps like Soundrop can
satisfy Juul's definition of 'game' [40] if framed as a combination
of Fleshner's [23] self-imposed 'aesthetic goals', Blickhan's [6]
position on 'emotional recompense', 'user interpretation' and
'exploration', and game designer Grip's [31] understanding of the
player's 'mental model'. Players do not 'win' or 'lose' in the
traditional meaning as there is no way to be 'incorrect' [6]. Still,
they 'exert effort' [40] to achieve a self-imposed 'aesthetic goal'
[23] of an 'exploratory' [6] nature, the 'value' [40] of which is
mediated by their personal musical bias, and for which the
emotional 'consequences' [6, 40] are both self-negotiated and
'optional' [40].
Fleshner [24] lends further credence to this position in a
recent paper examining the ideas of 'game' and 'play' in Soundrop
and Seaquence, which he himself addresses as "creative-based
video games". Fleshner [4, 24] examines the two games in the
context of Suits' [61] renowned definition of game playing: "the
voluntary attempt to overcome unnecessary obstacles".
Hearkening back to Kassabian & Jarman [43], Fleshner posits
that 'winning' and 'losing' in the context of these creative-based
games is predicated on the ability to make musical choices that
sound "good" [4, 24]. Fleshner then concludes that each player's
"standards of musical taste" provide the required 'obstacles'
which are not only 'unnecessary' [61] but self-imposed [4, 24].
This paper's approach towards apprehending the nature of
'game' in a creative and exploratory context has relied heavily on
the player's 'mental model' [31]. This is by no means unfounded,
as game designers Grip [32] and Sylvester [65] both assert that
games are not played on the 'screen' but 'in the player's head'
using a 'mental model' that they construct. It must be
acknowledged however that this approach is incompatible with
framings of 'game' as an object. Qualities that the authors have
relied upon to classify experiences like Soundrop as a 'game',
such as self-imposed 'aesthetic goals' [23], do not formally exist
within the game object at the 'system' level [31]. These qualities
are instead 'activated' by the player's interaction with the
designed system and mechanics; it is from the player's built
'mental model' of the formal components that the 'game' emerges
[32, 65]. Sylvester's "Player Model Principle" [65] espouses this
ontology of 'games' as residing in the player's mind, and
ludomusicologist Fritsch notably centres her investigation of
'music-based worlds' on a framing of 'games' as activity [26]. It is
critical to this paper's classification of CBMG that 'game' be
framed as an activity [22, 26, 49] to be apprehended "in the
moment that the structure composed by rules and fiction
becomes available to players" [22].
5
ACSW 2018, January 30-February 2, 2018, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
A final issue yet remains with our classification of 'game'. The
literature reviewed here [4, 6, 23, 24] suggests that a
renegotiation of the player's creative musical exploration as a
'goal' with self-imposed 'consequences' mediated by their
personal value-system is adequate to constitute a 'game'. This
framing however could just as easily be applied to virtual
instruments like MorphWiz [71]. Players could impose an
'aesthetic goal' (e.g. 'spooky') and 'rules' (e.g. can only use three
notes), then evaluate the 'success' of their exploration according
to their own musical discretion. This shows that while our
current approach now allows apps like Soundrop to be
considered a 'game', it still does not distinguish between
'creative-based music games' and virtual instruments. Blickhan
[6] suggests that 'games' and 'tools' can be differentiated on the
basis of their use for internal and external tasks respectively.
While this is useful in prototypical examples such as 'weather'
apps, it is more difficult to determine if 'creative musical
exploration' serves as an internal or external task in light of the
framing of 'game' as activity [22, 26]. A distinction between
'game' and 'tool' must be reconciled if CBMG are to be
apprehended.
This paper presents new criteria for the classification of
creative music apps as 'games' based on Suits' [61] notion of
"unnecessary obstacles". The authors argue that CBMG are
separable from virtual instruments because of the presence of
automated mechanics which impose 'unnecessary obstacles'. In
Soundrop, this obstacle is the continuous and inexorable
generation of new 'balls'. Virtual instruments are typically
designed to be robust and useable, and would fundamentally
avoid placing obstacles in the path of the user. If Soundrop had
been designed as a virtual instrument, the player might have
been allowed to stop the unrelenting flow of balls or even spawn
single balls on 'click', enabling the freedom to experiment with
different rhythms. Instead, the player adopts Suits' [61] 'lusory
attitude' and accepts the novel 'obstacle' that the relentless flow
of balls presents to their 'goal' of musical exploration - much as
the 'pool' player accepts the obstacle of sinking balls with a cue
rather than simply placing them in the pockets - so that a 'game'
can emerge.
The authors further argue that the mechanic must be
automated so that the player's interactions cannot interfere with,
nor are required to maintain, the 'obstacle'. This necessarily
presents the obstacle as 'non-negotiable', allowing the player to
frame the mechanic as a 'challenge' to be negotiated on the
trajectory towards their self-imposed musical 'goal'. Thus, the
presence of an 'unnecessary obstacle' as enforced by an
automated game 'mechanic' allows a creative-based music 'game'
to emerge.
3.4 A ‘Definition’
This paper presents a definition of "creative-based music game"
founded on the development of criteria for each constituent
component. For 'music', 1) the core gameplay activity must be
predicated on musical decision-making and 2) the player must be
able to influence the production of music through the direct use
of game mechanics. For 'creative-based', 3) the player must
6
Thomas Studley et al.
plausibly be able to mentally frame their use of the mechanics as
having created new music in all instances of play. For 'game', 4)
an 'unnecessary obstacle' must be enforced by an automated
game mechanic, and 5) the player must 'exert effort' to achieve a
self-imposed 'aesthetic goal', the value of which is mediated by
their personal music bias, and for which the emotional
'consequences' are both self-negotiated and 'optional'. Finally, 6)
the 'game' must be apprehended as an activity rather than an
object.
'Creative-based music games' are a novel subject of inquiry. A
more concise definition is sorely needed to better categorise the
design space. This paper aims to further the work of Fleshner
[23, 24], Blickhan [6] and others [3, 43] by offering the above
definition as a starting point for further inquiry. It is intended
that the original game design examined in the next section will
serve to further elucidate the authors’ proposed classification.
4 ORIGINAL GAME DESIGN
Here we present an early prototype for an original game design
‘EvoMusic’. The current design iteration can be described as a
‘musical biology game’ that allows players to influence the
creation of generative music. EvoMusic is at an early concept
stage and no ‘playable’ build has yet been developed. In this
section the authors explain the rules, structure, and base
mechanics of EvoMusic. The original game is then positioned
within this paper’s definition of CBMG and compared to the
centric example of Soundrop. The intention is that an
examination of EvoMusic will help to elucidate the definition
presented by the authors.
4.1 ‘EvoMusic’
‘EvoMusic’ is an original CBMG inspired by the principles of
single cell biology and evolution. Our current design is a 2D,
single-player game intended for mobile and PC platforms. The
underlying game concept is that a player attempts to shape or
'curate' the evolutionary path of an ever-growing population of
'musical cells' in order to influence an emerging musical 'piece'.
Upon creation, each 'cell' is assigned a single musical 'event'
using probabilistic processes. Examples of these single 'musical
events' include a lone piano pitch, a short hi-hat rhythm, a
synthetic bass drone, or even 'sound effects' such as a creaking
door. The cells intermittently produce their assigned musical
'event' while 'floating' around the display, thereby contributing
to a global 'mix' which is interpreted by the player as a single
musical output (or 'piece'). This means that as the cell population
grows and more 'musical events' are contributed, an organic and
continually-evolving musical composition will gradually emerge.
'Musical cells' are represented visually as floating, colour-
coded orbs (see Fig. 1). The orb colour denotes the 'class' of the
cell, of which there are five: 'SFX' (blue), 'Percussion' (green),
'Pitch-short' (yellow), 'Pitch-long' (pink), and 'Bass' (red). The
cell's class determines which type of musical event will be
assigned to it upon creation (see Fig. 2). This design can easily be
made colour accessible by instead using different cell 'shapes' to
denote class (see Fig. 2)
A Definition of Creative-Based Music Games
Figure 1: Interface prototype for ‘EvoMusic’
Figure 2: Visualisation of ‘classes’ and ‘abilities’
'SFX' cells produce 'sound effects'; these can be either abstract
sounds (e.g. synthetic 'beeps' and 'clicks') or recognisable 'Foley'
sounds (e.g. glass breaking or doors creaking). 'Percussion' cells
produce small rhythmic cells on either acoustic (e.g. snare, hi-
hat, conga) or synthetic (e.g. drum machine) percussion
instruments. 'Pitch-short' cells produce short, single pitches on
instruments with a quick 'attack' (e.g. 'plucked' or 'struck'
instruments like piano, harp, or guitar). 'Pitch-long' cells produce
longer, sustained pitches on instruments that best facilitate
sustained notes (e.g. strings, wind, synthesiser). Note that 'Pitch-
short' and 'Pitch-long' instruments can be either acoustic or
synthetic. 'Bass' cells produce low droning pitches (e.g. double
bass, synthesiser), though this does not preclude quicker
rhythms or 'rests'. The 'sound pack' used for each class can be
chosen by the player before a play session (e.g. choosing 'harp'
for 'Pitch-short'), with additional sound packs unlockable
through in-game objectives (e.g. number of sessions played,
length of session, 'reach 50 percussion cells’).
ACSW 2018, January 30-February 2, 2018, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
EvoMusic begins with a single cell, the class of which is
chosen by the player. The cell then grows in size over a period of
10-15 seconds, intermittently emitting its assigned musical
'event' as it drifts around the display. After this time period the
cell pulsates briefly and 'divides', creating two daughter cells of
the same class (i.e. mitosis). One of the two cells keeps the
assigned musical event of the parent cell (e.g. an E-flat on piano)
while the other new cell is assigned a new event of the same
class (e.g. a B-flat on piano). This process of growth and division
repeats for the two daughter cells, then for the following four
daughter cells, and so on. With each division there is also a
chance (approx. 30%) that a 'mutation' will occur. 'Mutation' still
results in two daughter cells, but one of the two cells will now be
of a different class (selected at random). The 'non-mutated' cell
carries the musical 'event' of the parent cell; if a 'Percussion' cell
playing a hi-hat rhythm 'mutates' upon division, it will result in
one 'Percussion' cell with the same hi-hat rhythm and one cell of
a different class (e.g. a 'Bass' cell with a low E drone). It is
significant to note that the population of musical cells will grow
exponentially (i.e. 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, etc.).
The player is given three 'abilities': 'Lock', 'Mutate', and
'Destroy' (see Fig. 2). 'Lock' prevents a chosen cell from dividing
for a period of time (e.g. 30 seconds). 'Mutate' guarantees that the
next division of the chosen cell results in a mutation. 'Destroy'
permanently destroys a cell, removing its assigned musical event
from the mix. These abilities are the player's primary form of
interaction and function as the means by which they 'compose'
music: the player can remove cells (and hence musical events)
that they dislike, force a 'mutation' in the hopes of spawning a
desired cell class (e.g. 'I want more Percussion events'), or 'Lock'
a cell to reduce growth in a class (e.g. 'I have enough Percussion
cells for now'). The intention is that the player uses the abilities
to 'play God' with the musical population, altering the path of its
evolution in order to influence the musical outcome. The 'Lock'
and ' Destroy' abilities also serve the purpose of balancing the
exponential growth of the cell population. Use of the abilities,
however, is restricted by a 'power bar' (see Fig. 1) which
regenerates over time. Eventually, the musical population will be
duplicating faster than the player's limited resource pool allows
them to intervene. The result is that each play session follows a
natural and inexorable progression towards 'musical chaos'
which the player works against in pursuit of an 'ideal musical
goal'.
The player can also utilise 'dynamic mixing' in EvoMusic by
moving the position of the 'camera' (on a 2D plane). As the cell
population grows larger, they begin to travel beyond the bounds
of the initial field of view (see Fig. 1). The player is given control
of the camera so that they are able to move around the game
space and observe the entire population. The volume of each
cell's 'musical event' in the global 'mix' is determined by its
proximity to the camera (positioned at the center of the screen):
cells currently 'off-screen' have their volume reduced, while cells
in the centre of the FOV are the loudest. This not only allows the
player to dynamically mix their 'composition', but is useful for
discerning the location of particular cells based on the volume of
their sound (e.g. honing in on an unwanted sound).
7
ACSW 2018, January 30-February 2, 2018, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
Given the auditory primacy of EvoMusic, it is particularly
critical that the visual display communicates information
pertinent to the player's musical decision-making (i.e. the
gameplay). A musical cell will 'flash' or 'pulse' whenever its
musical 'event' is emitted so that the player is made aware of
which event is assigned to each cell. This allows them to take an
appropriate musical action (e.g. 'Destroy' an unwanted harp
note). The player is also given a numerical indication of the
quantity of active cells in each class (see Fig. 1). By allowing near
instant approximation of the population's constitution, the
player is able to react more quickly than if they had depended
solely upon critical listening. This is because audio is a time-
based modality and takes longer to communicate such
information. The 'power bar' display denotes how many abilities
could currently be used, and symbolic representations of each
ability are placed on affected cells until the respective action has
been executed (see Fig. 1). Finally, the player is given a 'timer' to
provide feedback on the length of their play session and musical
composition.
The music in EvoMusic will be organised by an integrated
generative music system. We use the term 'generative' here in
the sense of the Wooller et al. [72] framework, which describes
an algorithm whose output has a greater musical predisposition
and an increased data size as compared to the input. The
generative music system would track each cell and additionally
receive information on the quantity of cells within each class.
The system would then generate MIDI data to be processed by an
in-built library of virtual instruments. We propose to prototype
such a system using the visual programming language Max. Few
mainstream video games have adopted procedural approaches to
music, with notable exceptions in Spore and No Man's Sky.
Summers [63] cites difficulties with implementation and an
incompatibility with strong thematic identities as possible
causes. However, recent work in 'experience-based' music
generation shows promise in devising solutions to both of these
issues [8, 45, 60].
4.2 Discussion
EvoMusic represents a central example of CBMG as defined by
the authors. The gameplay is fundamentally predicated on
'musical decision-making', as demonstrated by the player's use of
'abilities' to shape the musical cell population toward their
personal musical taste (or other experimental objective). Implicit
in this interaction is the use of musical evaluation and critical
listening processes. Players are also able to influence the
production of sound as similarly demonstrated by their use of
'abilities' (e.g. removing musical events with 'Destroy', or
creating new events with 'Mutate').
EvoMusic is 'creative-based' because players can easily frame
their use of mechanics as having created 'new' music within
their constructed 'mental model' [31] of the game. Note that the
player's 'use of mechanics' includes both the use and 'non-use' of
the 'abilities', as well as the initial selection of the first cell's
'class', as each of these are conscious musical decisions which
affect the musical outcome. This holds true for all play sessions
as a result of the random processes inherent to the game design
8
Thomas Studley et al.
(i.e. random nature of 'mutations' and probabilistic 'musical
event' assignment), the lack of a pre-defined 'musical destination'
(e.g. like in Auditorium), and the player's agency to influence
musical outcomes. Further, EvoMusic can be evaluated as 'highly'
creative-based because the player can influence multiple musical
modalities such as pitch, rhythm, timbre, and dynamics (i.e.
through camera movement).
To qualify as a 'game', our definition requires that an
'unnecessary obstacle' be enforced by an automated game
mechanic. In EvoMusic, this mechanic is the perpetual division of
the musical cells that underpins all gameplay. If EvoMusic were a
virtual instrument or strictly a musical 'tool', the player might be
allowed to create and remove cells at their own discretion, halt
the process of cell division outright, or use 'abilities' freely
without a resource-based restriction. Instead, cell division is
automated and non-negotiable, and players must use resource-
restricted abilities to 'shape' the ever-growing musical
population (rather than simply 'creating' new cells). The
relentless 'cell division' mechanic gives rise to a dynamic [37] of
'challenge': the player strains against the 'unnecessary obstacle'
of the population's exponential and inexorable growth in pursuit
of a self-prescribed musical 'goal'. The comparable mechanic in
Soundrop is the unrelenting flow of 'balls' as discussed prior. In
both instances the player adopts Suits' 'lusory attitude' [61],
accepting the 'unnecessary obstacle' so that a musical 'game' can
emerge.
Our definition of CBMG also requires that players 'exert
effort' to achieve a self-imposed 'aesthetic goal'. In the context of
EvoMusic, these 'goals' are able to manifest as either direct
musical objectives or more abstract aesthetic descriptions. The
most immediate and conventional player goal is simply to create
music that they 'enjoy', as mediated by their personal musical
taste. Beyond this, the player may wish to explore the musical
outcome of investing all effort into prohibiting the growth of a
particular cell class (e.g. using 'Destroy' on all 'Percussion' cells
that appear). In what could be considered 'reactionary play' [62,
63], the player might even allow the 'natural path' of the
population's evolution (and hence the music) to run its course by
refusing to use any 'abilities'. The player still 'exerts effort' in this
instance because they invest time and cognitive load into the
observation and evaluation of their musical 'experiment' (e.g. 'if I
start with a 'Bass' cell and do nothing else, where will the music
end up?'). More abstract aesthetic goals include visually-driven
objectives related to 'colour' or 'spatial distribution'. For instance,
the player may inform their use of 'abilities' based on the self-
imposed objective of creating the most 'colourful' visual display
possible. The player in turn discovers the musical outcome of
their abstract goal.
The player evaluates the 'success' of each imposed 'goal' using
their own musical value-system. This operates on two levels: the
player first evaluates the extent to which they have achieved the
self-imposed 'goal', but also judges the 'value' of the goal 'choice'
itself (e.g. 'did the design of this goal allow me to discover
interesting music?'). Evaluation occurs at all stages of gameplay.
This includes prior to gameplay during the formation of musical
goals, throughout gameplay where progress is evaluated and
A Definition of Creative-Based Music Games
goals are persistently updated, and after gameplay where the
player passes a final musical 'judgement' to be referenced in
future play sessions. Because each goal is self-imposed and
'valued' by the player's own musical taste, the emotional
'consequences' of each musical 'outcome' are both self-negotiated
and optional. Finally, the 'game' of EvoMusic must be
apprehended as an activity [22, 26, 49] that emerges in the
moment when 1) the generated music becomes available to the
player and 2) they understand that their interactions can
influence the musical outcome.
As shown, EvoMusic satisfies all components of the definition
of "creative-based music games" presented here by the authors.
EvoMusic can hence be positioned alongside Soundrop as a
‘central’ example of CBMG, and may be used to elucidate this
paper's classification of the novel sub-genre. In the future, the
authors plan to prototype EvoMusic further and intend to
investigate the potential for translation into a three-dimensional,
virtual reality game space. The aim in presenting a definition of
CBMG is to better categorise the surrounding design space. The
definition offers a lens through which creative music games can
be compared, both to one another and to wider modes of related
musical interaction. In turn, this paper’s classification can be
used to explore and evaluate uncharted design potential for
music games. At present, there are very few CBMG available for
examination. A greater diversity of CBMG are needed to
evaluate the effectiveness of the authors' definition in discerning
between different types of music-based interaction. Less 'central'
examples in particular are needed to challenge the boundaries of
this paper's definition. Existing systems of classification for both
CBMG and 'music games' at large will need to be revised as the
area becomes more populated.
5 CONCLUSION
The existing corpus of music games is dominated by
performance-based, 'music-matching' [3] interaction. 'Creative-
based music games' (CBMG) are an emerging, yet scarcely
examined subset of music games in which the core interaction
involves the creation or 'making' [3] of music. This paper
proposes a definition of CBMG as a starting point for further
inquiry into the novel sub-genre. The authors present an early
prototype for an original game design, 'EvoMusic', which is then
positioned as a 'central' example of CBMG. The intention is that
this demonstrative example will help to elucidate the
classification devised by the authors.
The definition presented in this paper is an early effort to
better categorise the design space surrounding CBMG. Using this
classification, there is the potential to explore, develop and
evaluate as yet untapped design features for musical games. A
greater quantity and diversity of CBMG are needed to evaluate
the effectiveness of this definition in discerning CBMG from
other closely related modes of 'exploratory' musical interaction.
Systems for classifying CBMG should be persistently revised as
the catalogue of CBMG continues to expand.
ACSW 2018, January 30-February 2, 2018, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
Acknowledgements
This work was supported through an Australian Government
Research Training Program Scholarship.
REFERENCES
[1] Anders-Petter Andersson and Birgitta Cappelen. 2014. Musical Interaction
for Health Improvement. In Karen Collins, Bill Kapralos, and Holly Tessler
(Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Interactive Audio, 247-262. Oxford University
Press, New York, NY.
[2] Brent Auerbach. 2010. Pedagogical Applications of the Video Game Dance
Dance Revolution to Aural Skills Instruction. Music Theory Online, 16 (1).
[3] Michael Austin. 2016. Introduction - Taking Note of Music Games. In
Michael Austin (Ed.), Music Video Games: Performance, Politics, and Play.
Bloomsbury, New York, NY.
[4] Mark Benis. 2017. Conference Report: 2017 North American Conference on
Video Game Music. Retrieved 24 July, 2017 from
http://gamemusicstudies.org/?p=84
[5] Meera M. Blattner, Denise A. Sumikawa, Robert M. Greenberg. 1989.
Earcons and icons: their structure and common design principles. Human
Computer Interactive, 4(1), 11-14. DOI: 10.1207/s15327051hci0401_1
[6] Samantha Blickhan. 2016. "Listening" Through Digital Interaction in Björk's
Biophilia. In Michiel Kamp, Tim Summers, and Mark Sweeney (Eds.),
Ludomusicology: Approaches to Video Game Music, 133-151. Equinox
Publishing, Sheffield, UK.
[7] Emily Brown and Paul Cairns. 2004. A Grounded Investigation of Game
Immersion. Paper presented at the ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human
Factors in Computing Systems. Vienna, Austria.
[8] Daniel Brown. 2012. Expressing Narrative Function In Adaptive, Computer-
Composed Music (Music Composition). Ph.D. Dissertation. University of
California, Santa Cruz.
[9] Roger Caillois. 2001 [1958].Man, Play and Games (Meyer Barash, Trans.).
University of Illinois Press, Champaign, IL.
[10] Gordon Calleja. 2011. In-Game: From Immersion to Incorporation. MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA.
[11] William Cheng. 2014. Sound Play: Video Games and the Musical Imagination.
Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
[12] Szu-Ming Chung and Chun-Tunsai Wu. 2017. Designing Music Games and
Mobile Apps for Early Music Learning. In Minhua Ma and Andreas
Oikonomou (Eds.), Serious Games and Edutainment Applications: Volume II,
57-76. Springer.
[13] Cipher Prime. 2008. Auditorium. Game [Web]. (April 2008). Cipher Prime,
Philadelphia, PA. Playable at
http://www.cipherprime.com/games/auditorium/
[14] Karen Collins. 2008. Game Sound: An Introduction to the History, Theory, and
Practice of Video Game Music and Sound Design. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
[15] Karen Collins. 2013. Playing with Sound: A Theory of Interacting with Sound
and Music in Video Games. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
[16] Mihaly Csíkszentmihályi. 1990. Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience.
Harper & Row, New York, NY.
[17] Develoe LLC. 2010. Soundrop. Game [iOS]. (1 April 2010). Develoe LLC.
[18] Double Fine Productions. 2009. Brütal Legend. Game [Xbox 360]. (13 October
2009). Electronic Arts, CA.
[19] Inger Ekman. 2014. A Cognitive Approach to the Emotional Function of
Game Sound. In Karen Collins, Bill Kapralos, and Holly Tessler (Eds.), The
Oxford Handbook of Interactive Audio, 196-212. Oxford University Press, New
York, NY.
[20] Laura Ermi and Frans Mäyrä. 2005. Fundamental Components of the
Gameplay Experience: Analysing Immersion. Paper presented at the2005
DiGRA Conference: Changing Views - Worlds in Play. Vancouver, Canada.
[21] Evil Indie Games. 2013. Chiptune Runner. Game [iOS]. (26 September 2013).
Evil Indie Games.
[22] Emmanoel Ferreira and Thiago Falcão. 2009. Through the Looking Glass:
Weavings between the Magic Circle and Immersive Processes in Video
Games. Paper presented at the 2009 DiGRA Conference: Breaking New Ground
- Innovation in Games, Play, Practice and Theory. West London, UK.
[23] Nathan Fleshner. 2016. Pitching the Rhythm: Music Games for the iPad. In
Michael Austin (Ed.), Music Video Games: Performance, Politics, and Play.
Bloomsbury, New York, NY.
[24] Nathan Fleshner. 2017. The Ideas of Play and Game in Creative-Based Video
Games. Paper presented at the North American Conference on Video Game
Music (NACVGM ‘2017), Austin, TX.
[25] FreshPlanet. 2012. SongPop. Game [iOS]. (May 2012). FreshPlanet, New York,
NY.
[26] Melanie Fritsch. 2014. Worlds of Music: Strategies for Creating Music-based
Experiences in Videogames. In Karen Collins, Bill Kapralos, and Holly
Tessler (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Interactive Audio, 167-177. Oxford
9
 ACSW 2018, January 30-February 2, 2018, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
University Press, New York, NY.
[27] Melanie Fritsch. 2016. "It's a-me, Mario!" Playing with Video Game Music. In
Michiel Kamp, Tim Summers, and Mark Sweeney (Eds.), Ludomusicology:
Approaches to Video Game Music, 92-115. Equinox Publishing, Sheffield, UK.
[28] Hans-Peter Gasselseder. 2014. Re-scoring the Game's Score: Dynamic Music,
Personality, and Immersion in the Ludonarrative. IADIS International
Journal, 12 (1), 17-34.
[29] Claudia Gorbman. 1987. Unheard Melodies: Narrative Film Music. Indiana
University Press, Bloomington, IN.
[30] Oliver Grau. 2003. Visual Art: From Illusion to Immersion. MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA.
[31] Thomas Grip. 2017. The SSM Framework of Game Design. Retrieved 17 June,
2017 from http://frictionalgames.blogspot.com.au/2017/05/the-ssm-
framework-of-game-design.html
[32] Thomas Grip. 2017. The Complexity Fallacy. Gamasutra. UBM Technology.
Retrieved 6 July, 2017 from
https://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/ThomasGrip/20170703/300916/The_Comp
lexity_Fallacy.php
[33] Harmonix. 2005. Guitar Hero. Game [PS2]. (8 November 2005). RedOctane,
CA.
[34] Iain Hart. 2014. Meaningful Play: Performativity, Interactivity and Semiotics
in Video Game Music. Musicology Australia, 36 (2), 273-290.
[35] Hello Games. 2016. No Man's Sky. Game [PS4]. (9 August 2016). Hello
Games, Guildford, England.
[36] Johann Huizinga. 1955. Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play Element in Culture.
Beacon Press, Boston, MA.
[37] Robin Hunicke, Marc LeBlanc, and Robert Zubek. 2004. MDA: A Formal
Approach to Game Design and Game Research. Paper presented at the AAAI
Workshop on Challenges in Game AI.
http://www.aaai.org/Papers/Workshops/2004/WS-04-04/WS04-04-001.pdf
[38] Vladimir Jankélévitch. 2003. Music and the Ineffable (Carolyn Abbate,
Trans.). Princeton University Press, NJ.
[39] Kristine Jørgensen. 2008. Left in the Dark: Playing Computer Games with
the Sound Turned Off. In Karen Collins (Ed.), From Pac-Man to Pop Music:
Interactive Audio in Games and New Media, 163-167. Ashgate, Farnham, UK.
[40] Jesper Juul. 2005. Half-Real. Video Games between Real Rules and Fictional
Worlds. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
[41] Michiel Kamp, Tim Summers, and Mark Sweeney (Eds.). 2016.
Ludomusicology: Approaches to Video Game Music. Equinox Publishing,
Sheffield, UK.
[42] Michiel Kamp. 2016. Suture and Peritexts: Music Beyond Gameplay and
Diegesis. In Michiel Kamp, Tim Summers, and Mark Sweeney (Eds.),
Ludomusicology: Approaches to Video Game Music, 73-91. Equinox
Publishing, Sheffield, UK.
[43] Anahid Kassabian and Freya Jarman. 2016. Game and Play in Music Video
Games. In Michiel Kamp, Tim Summers, and Mark Sweeney (Eds.),
Ludomusicology: Approaches to Video Game Music, 116-132. Equinox
Publishing, Sheffield, UK.
[44] Scott D. Lipscomb and Sean M. Zehnder. 2004. Immersion in the Virtual
Environment: The Effect of a Musical Score on the Video Gaming
Experience. Journal of Physiological Anthropology and Applied Human
Science, 23, 337-343.
[45] Phil Lopes, Antonios Liapis, and Georgios N. Yannakakis. 2016. Framing
Tension for Game Generation. Paper presented at the 7th International
Conference on Computational Creativity (ICCC ‘2016).
http://yannakakis.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/ICCC_2016_Framing.pdf
[46] Maxis. 2008. Spore. Game [Windows]. (7 September 2008). Electronic Arts,
CA.
[47] Kenneth B. McAlpine. 2017. Reappropriating Video Game Technologies for
the Enactive Learning of Music. In Minhua Ma and Andreas Oikonomou
(Eds.), Serious Games and Edutainment Applications: Volume II, 77-99.
Springer.
[48] Elizabeth Medina-Gray. 2016. Modularity in Video Game Music. In Michiel
Kamp, Tim Summers, and Mark Sweeney (Eds.), Ludomusicology: Approaches
to Video Game Music, 53-72. Equinox Publishing, Sheffield, UK.
[49] Roger Moseley. 2016. Keys to Play: Music as a Ludic Medium from Apollo to
Nintendo. University of California Press, Oakland, CA.
[50] Ivan Mouraviev. 2017. The Synchretic Network: Linking Music, Narrative,
and Emotion in the Video Game Journey. Nota Bene: Canadian
Undergraduate Journal of Musicology, 10 (1), 64-80.
[51] Lennart Nacke and Mark Grimshaw. 2010. Player-game Interaction through
Affective Sound. In Mark Grimshaw (Ed.), Game Sound Technology and
Player Interaction: Concepts and Developments, 264-285. IGI Global, Hershey,
PA.
[52] Patrick Ng and Keith Nesbitt. 2013 Informative Sound Design in Video
Games. In Proceedings of the 9th Australasian Conference on Interactive
Entertainment (IE ‘2013). ACM Press, New York, NY.
[53] Nintendo R&D4. 1985. Super Mario Brothers. Game [NES]. (13 September
1985). Nintendo, Kyoto, Japan.
10
Thomas Studley et al.
[54] Okaynokay. 2017. Seaquence. Game [iOS]. (14 March 2017). Gray Area
Foundation For The Arts, San Francisco, CA.
[55] Winifred Phillips. 2014. A Composer’s Guide to Game Music. MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA.
[56] Steven B. Reale. 2014. Transcribing Musical Worlds; or, Is L.A. Noire a Music
Game? In K. J. Donnelly, William Gibbons, and Neil Lerner (Eds.), Music in
Video Games: Studying Play. Routledge, New York, NY.
[57] Robert Topala. 2013. Geometry Dash. Game [iOS]. (13 August 2013). RobTop
Games.
[58] David Roesner, Anna Paisley, and Gianna Cassidy. 2016. Guitar Heroes in
the Classroom: The Creative Potential of Music Games. In Michael Austin
(Ed.), Music Video Games: Performance, Politics, and Play. Bloomsbury, New
York, NY.
[59] SCE London Studio. 2007. SingStar. Game [PS3]. (7 December 2007). Sony
Computer Entertainment.
[60] Marco Scirea, Julian Togelius, Peter Eklund, and Sebastian Risi. 2016.
MetaCompose: A Compositional Evolutionary Music Composer. Paper
presented at the 2016 International Conference on Evolutionary and
Biologically Inspired Music, Sound, Art and Design (EvoMUSART ‘2016), Porto,
Portugal.
[61] Bernard Suits. 2005. Grasshopper: Games, Life, and Utopia. Broadview Press,
Peterborough, Ontario, Canada.
[62] Tim Summers. 2016. Analysing Video Game Music: Sources, Methods, and a
Case Study. In Michiel Kamp, Tim Summers, and Mark Sweeney (Eds.),
Ludomusicology: Approaches to Video Game Music, 8-31. Equinox Publishing,
Sheffield, UK.
[63] Tim Summers. 2016. Understanding Video Game Music. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, UK.
[64] Michael Sweet. 2014. Writing Interactive Music for Video Games: A
Composer’s Guide (1st. ed.). Addison-Wesley, IN.
[65] Tynan Sylvester. 2013. The Simulation Dream. Gamasutra. UBM Technology.
Retrieved 6 July, 2017 from
http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/TynanSylvester/20130602/193462/The_Sim
ulation_Dream.php
[66] UK Music. 2014. Music Inc. Game [Android]. (February 2014). UK Music,
London, UK.
[67] United Game Artists. 2001. Rez. Game [PS2]. (22 November 2001). Sega,
Tokyo, Japan.
[68] Isabella van Elferen. 2012. The ALI Model: Towards a Theory of Game
Musical Immersion. Paper presented at Ludomusicology: Game Music
Research [Royal Musical Association Study Day], April 16, 2012, St
Catherine’s College, Oxford, UK.
[69] Isabella van Elferen. 2016. Analysing Game Musical Immersion: The ALI
Model. In Michiel Kamp, Tim Summers, and Mark Sweeney (Eds.),
Ludomusicology: Approaches to Video Game Music, 32-52. Equinox
Publishing, Sheffield, UK.
[70] Wikipedia [English Language]. 2017. “Music Video Game”. Wikipedia.org.
Retrieved 2 September, 2017 from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_video_game
[71] Wizdom Music LLC. 2010. MorphWiz. App [iOS]. (6 July 2010). Wizdom
Music LLC.
[72] Renee Wooller, Andrew R. Brown, Eduardo Miranda, Rodney Berry, and
Joachim Diederich. 2005. A framework for comparison of process in
algorithmic music systems. In Generative Arts Practice (2005). Creativity and
Cognition Studio Press, Sydney, Australia, 109-124.