Goals? Goals!? We Don't Need No Stinkin' Goals!

When I began evaluating some of the games discussed in the readings for this post, I was at first at a loss as to how to evaluate their subversive and/or innovative uses of "traditional" gaming concepts, namely because I was unsure of which set of concepts with which to begin. In the end, I settled on the list presented by Pearce in "Games as Art" (2006, p.69) as my starting point, and to view how each of the games I've selected to evaluate treat each of the concepts presented therein –  specifically, the concept of "the goal".

The first game I looked at is Spacewar, specifically the updated version of the original 1962 game from MIT that is discussed by Brand in his article for Rolling Stone (1972). Initially, it seemed to me there was very little about this game that was remarkable – it conformed pretty strictly to the list outlined by Pearce (2006, p.69). There was something interesting I noticed as I continued to read Brand's article, though, and that was the presence of community around this game, and its relation to the concept of "the goal". After rereading Brand's (1972) initial description of a play session, it occurred to me that, while there was a win condition for each single "battle", the overall victor was entirely determined by the players. In fact, many of the constraints Brand (1972) mentions are entirely player defined. Team Competition vs. Free-for-all was not supported by the underlying mechanics of the game. It was, as DeKoven (2002) describes, an attempt for the players to "want to play well together" (p.7). Also, the free distribution and modifiability of the game's code reflects Pearce's (2006) reflections on the use collectivism and "commonness" to create newer, more enjoyable experiences (86). Indeed, the Open Source mindset, the idea of fiddling with code as a sort of play in and of itself, was strong in the Spacewar community Brand (1972) describes.

Some of these same ideas – particularly player-formed goals – are reflected strongly by the New Games movement. The discussion of the game Earthball (Fron et al.,  2005, p.2) I found particularly interesting, namely in its subversion of the idea of rules or constraints. While the game still a sort of "parametrized play" as discussed by Pearce (2006, p.69), the wording of the parameters makes them somewhat ill-defined. After all, while Brand separated the players into two teams –  "those who want to push the Earth over the row of flags at that end of the field, and those who want to push it over the fence at the other end" (Fron et al., 2005, p.2) – it is left up to the players to decide which "team" they belong to, and there are no constraints placed on switching back and forth. And why should there be? By letting the constraints be defined by each player's subjective psychology, Brand enabled structured play without forcing arbitrary conflict. It's still "Us vs. Them", but "Them" and "Us" are so ill-defined that "Them" is eventually discarded and it just becomes "Us", enjoying the act of playing.

Finally, and a bit of a radical departure, I found the "game" I Love Bees interesting in it's subversion of the "magic circle" (Fron et al., 2005, p.5). In it's simple attempt to plunge the user into an alternate reality, the lines between the game world and the real world weak and ill-defined, I Love Bees managed to explore the boundaries of other formal elements of gaming. Particularly, because the real world was so entangled with the experience, the amount of information the player has access to is, essentially, infinite; they have all the resources of the Internet at their fingertips. This use of information and resources  (Pearce, 2006, p.69), two important elements of games, strengthens the subversion of the "magic circle", and draws the player in deeper than would be possible with a typical game. It is also mentioned that the game was initially an advertising campaign (Fron et al., 2005, p.5), and it simply grew beyond its initial scope. The idea of "emergence" in gaming is another sort of subversion, as it deviates from the strict goals and rules imposed by more "traditional" gaming experiences. Also, as with the previous two games, the user's goal is entirely up to them. There is no mechanic for winning, and no reward other than satisfying their own intellectual curiosity, and the thrill of discovery. It is another instance of DeKoven's (2002) ideals of play for the sake of playing, as its own reward.


Bibliography

Brand, S. (1972). SPACEWAR: Fanatic Life and Symbolic Death Among the Computer Bums. Rolling Stone.

DeKoven, B. (2002). Talking about what we're looking for. The Well-Played Game. 1-9.

Fron, J., Fullerton, T., Morie, J. & Pearce, C. (2005). Sustainable Play: Towards A New Games Movement for the Digital Age. Digital Arts & Culture Conference Proceedings, Copenhagen. 1-6.

Pierce, C. (2006). Games as Art: The Aesthetics of Interactivity. Visible Language: Special Issue on Fluxus. 66-89.

Comments

[gamegrrrl]

Really nice post, David, and hilarious title!