Super Mario 64 was released for the first time on June 23, 1996 (Japan, North America received it in September) as a launch title for the Nintendo 64. It was the first 3D version of Mario to be released, and eventually became one of the most revolutionary games of all time. It was particularly revolutionary for me, as well, for Mario 64 was the first console game I came to own. I poured hours into gathering the game's 120 stars – and enjoyed every moment of it. For me, this was the ideal game. While reading writings by Huizinga, Caillois, and Suits on the definition of a game, my thoughts returned to Super Mario 64. I pondered whether Mario fit their definitions of what a game is, and whether or not I would accept such definitions if it did not.
Huizinga's definition of a game, for the most part, fits Mario 64. His first rule is that all play is voluntary and free, and I cannot see any reason to disagree. My parents gave me my first console, Nintendo 64, and Mario 64 by way of my own imploring. If I were, for some reason, forced by them to play (or by anyone else), perhaps I would still be able to enjoy Mario's gleeful “Here we go!” after every star he gathered; if I were forced to play on pain of death, however, I would be noticeably distracted from the game and unable to enjoy it. Huizinga's second definition, that play is not ordinary to life, could not fit better in any situation, as I certainly do not jump into giant paintings and gather stars with the ultimate goal of saving a princess from a giant, turtle-like lizard during my everyday, normal life. And I doubt I would do so anytime in my life. His fourth and fifth definitions, that play is limited to a certain space and that play creates order, hold true as well. This is quite obvious when Mario takes to flight with his hat with little wings (again, not ordinary to “real” life), he bumps into an invisible wall when he flies too far. It's also strikingly true when he suddenly cannot jump over a tiny line of grass on certain stages, for the sake of possibly running out of the play area. Order is present as well – when you jump into a bottomless pit, when Mario loses all of his health, you “die.” Other rules are present as well: the player's movement is defined by the game, a singular goal is set on every stage, and Mario is only allowed to breathe underwater for a set amount of time. Huizinga also asserts that play is “tense,” and challenges us – that a game is uncertain, chanced, and makes us strive to decide an issue and end the game. This is true as well, in Mario, as the player dodges boulders, fights giant goombas, and dodges flame traps, all to “end” the game by getting the stars and saving the princess. Up until now, Huizinga's definition of the game has fit perfectly.
There are ways in which Huizinga's definition does not fit perfectly, however. His third definition, that play begins, and is at a certain moment “over,” perhaps does not fit as well. While it is true that play begins at a certain moment in Mario 64, when the player starts the game, it is not exactly “over” at a certain moment. Of course, the player can turn off the game before saving the princess, but the goal of the game is not complete and thus has not ended; it is merely paused. Even after the goal is completed, the game continues on, perhaps with a new goal of attaining all 120 stars in the game (only 72 are necessary to reach the princess). Even after that goal is reached, the player is still placed outside Princess Peach's castle, and play continues. Although the number of things to do in the game becomes severely limited, never in the game is the player told, or even hinted, that it is over. Also, according to Huizinga's definition, a sense of “brotherhood” is also made via the game, and secrecy that comes with that brotherhood. He brings this definition to the table with the idea of multi-player games. Mario, however, is single-player. The brotherhood coming directly from the game is non-existent, but it would be a folly to say that one does not share something in common with the many people who play the game on their own consoles. This is shown particularly in online forums that discuss the game. Secrecy, however, is almost nonexistent. Although one is “dressing up,” as Huizinga says, the character is shared, and by no means a secret from everyone else.
The definition offered by Caillois is in many ways similar to Huizinga's. While he agrees that play is voluntary and separate from normal space, time, and the rules of normal life. Caillois asserts, however, that games either create order via rules, or is make-believe – not both. While this assertion is true for children playing cops-and-robbers on the lawn, it is more difficult to place on Mario 64 – or any other video games of today, for that matter. One is obviously playing “make-believe” with Mario, taking control of him and earnestly trying to conquer the goals of his life, rules of the game still apply. Particularly, Mario still bumps into invisible walls. Caillois also defines a game as a situation where “an outcome known in advance... is incompatible with the nature of play.” This holds true with Mario 64, as the player himself, while knowing that they will ultimately achieve their goal, does not know how. His last definition, that a cheat does not destroy the game, the nihilist does, holds true as well. Although I may attempt to cheat in Mario 64, I still do so as a way of achieving a goal inside the game. Mario would not be a game if I did not care for it. Caillois also writes that in a game, something may be exchanged but nothing is created. This could not be more true with Mario 64, as no matter how much I play the game, I still leave the game with nothing gained except perhaps an empty stomach.
Suits's definition, in a nutshell, is the “attempt to achieve a specific state of affairs... using only means permitted by rules”; and where the rules are not the most efficient way to reach that state of affairs and are accepted purely because they allow the game to occur. His definition hardly touches upon Mario 64, because, as mentioned before, the Mario does not have a specific state of affairs that constitutes an end, save for one that the player sets himself. Moreover, while the rules perhaps are not the most efficient way of saving the princess, they are, because the world is virtual, the only means of doing so. A player can hack the console to find shortcuts, but again, the game has no specific state that defines an end besides one set by the player, so the game simply changes. It is not the game intended, but is still a game to the player. The rules, are, however, accepted by the player because without the rules the game would have no structure, and thus cease to be anything at all. But again the game has no end besides one defined by the player, so if the player did not accept the rules, the game would simply become a different game. Perhaps the downfall of Suits's definition is that single-player games are defined solely by a single player.
In a nutshell, none of the three authors fully encompass Super Mario 64 in their definitions of games. This is possibly because their articles were all written in a time where virtual immersion was almost non-existent. Whatever the case, Super Mario 64 still remains for me a game, and no truer form of a game may exist. So what does this lead us to think? Perhaps, that it may be impossible to provide a logical definition, as hinted by Huizinga as he wrote that play has thus far been elusive to scientific and technical logic. The definition of a game has changed, is changing, and will continue to change, because a new generation of games is emerging – and we're in for one hell of a ride.
--------------------------------------------------------
Bibliography
Suits, Bernard. "Construction of a Definition." Game design reader a rules of play anthology. Cambridge, Mass: MIT, 2005. Print.
Caillois, Roger. "The Definition of Play and the Classification of Games." Game design reader a rules of play anthology. Cambridge, Mass: MIT, 2005. Print.
Huizinga, Johan. "Nature and Significance of Play as a Cultural Phenomenon." Game design reader a rules of play anthology. Cambridge, Mass: MIT, 2005. Print.
Really nice essay Jerry, and it addresses the nuances where these classical definitions fall short. I disagree with your analysis of Suits, however, because although the outcome may be variable, the process is achieved via following rules. You bring up cheat codes, but I think in digital games these are just thought of perhaps as a meta-game rather than the way cheating is construed in board games. Finally, your comment about the brotherhood got me thinking about the construction of "gamer." You could argue that the niche market I was referring to in my lecture last week is really the "brotherhood of gamers" (and I mean that as a very distinctly gendered reference), that is the idea that the default "gamer" position is male, and that it is an exclusive "club" for people in the know.
Posted by: gamegrrrl | 10/18/2009 at 08:33 PM