In 1996, soon after the release of the Nintendo 64, a friend of mine introduced me to a game called Harvest Moon. Having sided with the enemy in the previous console war (I still don't remember where my Genesis got to), I missed out on the Super Nintendo iteration of the series, and was completely ignorant of the game's mechanics. When he explained it to me, I was pretty skeptical – a farming simulator? The whole thing sounded terribly mundane; plant crops, cut wood, raise livestock, get married, and on and on and on. That didn't sound like a game – it sounded like a descent into an 18th century nightmare world of drudgery and boredom. But, intrigued by my friend's inexplicable enthusiasm and possessing a distinct lack of anything useful to do, I gave it a try. It was incredible. Somehow, Harvest Moon 64 managed to take the mundane nuances of rural living and turn them into a compelling and addictive gameplay experience. At the time, I was unable to effectively articulate what it was about Harvest Moon that I enjoyed so much, but perhaps with a little help from our friends Huizinga, Caillois, and Suits I can explain just why I love this game.
Huizinga, at first, seemed to be largely useless in the context of analyzing any single game. His goal was to define play as a concept in and of itself, not to define why particular forms of play are enjoyable. Early on, he declares that play cannot be defined "logically, biologically, or aesthetically," which would seem to defeat the purpose of analysis. However, he follows this up shortly with the idea of play as "voluntary activity" (Huizinga, 1938, p.102). Caillois (1958, p.125) also mentions the importance of freedom in play and games, and when I read this it became clear that this was one of Harvest Moon's strength. While the game does have a win condition, the freedom of action (or inaction) the user has while working toward this goal is immense. There are multiple ways to "win", and numerous "sidequests" the user can participate in to tune the game to their personal tastes. The player can play the game however he/she wants. As Huizinga (1938) notes, the player "play[s] because they enjoy playing, and therein precisely lies their freedom" (p.103). He also mentions the idea of order and its creation as a fundamental element of play (p.105). Harvest Moon also satisfies this second criterion – both in the sense of space (the player must position his/her fields in a certain configuration) and time (as play progresses, most players fall into a set schedule of doing farm chores, gathering/collecting items of interest, visiting townspeople, etc.).
As opposed to Huizinga's high-level discussion of play as an abstract entity, Callilois (1958) provides us with a more concrete exploration of the idea of a game. He declares that, in a game, "property is exchanged, but no goods are produced", and that, when a game ends, "nothing has been harvested...no masterpiece has been created," (p.124-125). Unfortunately, Harvest Moon (emphasis on the "Harvest") begs to differ. While it is true that no material goods have been created, it is obvious to any player that the farm (and, to a smaller extent, the town as well) that they have helped construct is a small "masterpiece". If the player satisfies the win condition of the game, he/she can continue to play and enjoy the fruits of their labor, which I found to be one of the game's most interesting features. Later, Callilois (1958) also defines the difference between "ruled" play and "make-believe", and asserts that the two cannot co-exist (p.127). I respectfully disagree. In Harvest Moon, the player is free to engage in roleplaying behaviors apart from the games principle winning strategy (making a profitable farm) – what Callilois calls "make-believe" – and is still bound by the rules of the game itself. However, this is due not to the weakness of Callilois' analysis, but to its age. Callilois existed before the age of digital games, which by their very nature are rule-based, and their later adaptation to the world of roleplaying. However, his idea of ludus – "the primitive desire to find diversion and amusement in arbitrary, perpetually recurrent obstacles" (Callilois, 1958, p.145) – perfectly describes my experience with Harvest Moon. Every day the player faces the same challenges (do chores, interact, etc.) with slight variations, and it is this simple, enjoyable repetition that makes the game so addictive. One could say similar things about most modern MMORPGs. Such games have replaced "the hobby", as Callilois describes it, in the digital age (p.145).
Finally, Suits comes in to wrap up the overarching reason behind playing any game – the goal. While the other authors explored this as well, I found Suits' definition to be the most useful. By using his method (Suits, 1978, p.186) to break down the goal of Harvest Moon, we find that there seem to be only two distinct goals: first, to pretend that the player is running a farm; second, to win the game. There is no third goal, as, in Suits' analysis, there are no other players to "defeat". Instead, the player is given of a choice of how to accomplish each of these goals, as the rules are flexible and their are multiple means through which to accomplish victory. The creation of a third goal becomes a goal unto itself, and thus Harvest Moon can, in fact, be called a game.
Bibliography
Huizinga, J. (1938). Nature and significance of play as a cultural phenomenon. The Game Design Reader, 96-119.
Caillois, R. (1958). The definition of play and the classification of games. The Game Design Reader, 122-155.
Suits, B. (1978). Construction of a Definition. The Game Design Reader, 173-191.
Huizinga, at first, seemed to be largely useless in the context of analyzing any single game. His goal was to define play as a concept in and of itself, not to define why particular forms of play are enjoyable. Early on, he declares that play cannot be defined "logically, biologically, or aesthetically," which would seem to defeat the purpose of analysis. However, he follows this up shortly with the idea of play as "voluntary activity" (Huizinga, 1938, p.102). Caillois (1958, p.125) also mentions the importance of freedom in play and games, and when I read this it became clear that this was one of Harvest Moon's strength. While the game does have a win condition, the freedom of action (or inaction) the user has while working toward this goal is immense. There are multiple ways to "win", and numerous "sidequests" the user can participate in to tune the game to their personal tastes. The player can play the game however he/she wants. As Huizinga (1938) notes, the player "play[s] because they enjoy playing, and therein precisely lies their freedom" (p.103). He also mentions the idea of order and its creation as a fundamental element of play (p.105). Harvest Moon also satisfies this second criterion – both in the sense of space (the player must position his/her fields in a certain configuration) and time (as play progresses, most players fall into a set schedule of doing farm chores, gathering/collecting items of interest, visiting townspeople, etc.).
As opposed to Huizinga's high-level discussion of play as an abstract entity, Callilois (1958) provides us with a more concrete exploration of the idea of a game. He declares that, in a game, "property is exchanged, but no goods are produced", and that, when a game ends, "nothing has been harvested...no masterpiece has been created," (p.124-125). Unfortunately, Harvest Moon (emphasis on the "Harvest") begs to differ. While it is true that no material goods have been created, it is obvious to any player that the farm (and, to a smaller extent, the town as well) that they have helped construct is a small "masterpiece". If the player satisfies the win condition of the game, he/she can continue to play and enjoy the fruits of their labor, which I found to be one of the game's most interesting features. Later, Callilois (1958) also defines the difference between "ruled" play and "make-believe", and asserts that the two cannot co-exist (p.127). I respectfully disagree. In Harvest Moon, the player is free to engage in roleplaying behaviors apart from the games principle winning strategy (making a profitable farm) – what Callilois calls "make-believe" – and is still bound by the rules of the game itself. However, this is due not to the weakness of Callilois' analysis, but to its age. Callilois existed before the age of digital games, which by their very nature are rule-based, and their later adaptation to the world of roleplaying. However, his idea of ludus – "the primitive desire to find diversion and amusement in arbitrary, perpetually recurrent obstacles" (Callilois, 1958, p.145) – perfectly describes my experience with Harvest Moon. Every day the player faces the same challenges (do chores, interact, etc.) with slight variations, and it is this simple, enjoyable repetition that makes the game so addictive. One could say similar things about most modern MMORPGs. Such games have replaced "the hobby", as Callilois describes it, in the digital age (p.145).
Finally, Suits comes in to wrap up the overarching reason behind playing any game – the goal. While the other authors explored this as well, I found Suits' definition to be the most useful. By using his method (Suits, 1978, p.186) to break down the goal of Harvest Moon, we find that there seem to be only two distinct goals: first, to pretend that the player is running a farm; second, to win the game. There is no third goal, as, in Suits' analysis, there are no other players to "defeat". Instead, the player is given of a choice of how to accomplish each of these goals, as the rules are flexible and their are multiple means through which to accomplish victory. The creation of a third goal becomes a goal unto itself, and thus Harvest Moon can, in fact, be called a game.
Bibliography
Huizinga, J. (1938). Nature and significance of play as a cultural phenomenon. The Game Design Reader, 96-119.
Caillois, R. (1958). The definition of play and the classification of games. The Game Design Reader, 122-155.
Suits, B. (1978). Construction of a Definition. The Game Design Reader, 173-191.
Brilliant post David. This is an exemplary rendition of this assignment! You covered all the bases and brought in your own personal experience as well; it's also well-structured and articulate.
Posted by: gamegrrrl | 10/18/2009 at 09:40 PM