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.