In 1998, Blizzard Entertainment released Starcraft, a real time strategy game, with similar mechanics to their already popular Warcraft games, but with a different storyline and different focus. The game hit home with a lot of gamers in the community, a large contributor being the built in level editor that came with the game. The creation of custom games was just as popular as the playing of the normal game, and as such Starcraft was a huge success.
Huizinga seems to set out the
definition of a game that goes along quite well with the RTS play style. His first characteristic is that the game
"is free, is in fact freedom."
Despite being confined to a world that is predetermined by the game,
Starcraft does not limit where you expand your base, where you explore, or
where you choose to battle the enemy. In
this aspect the game is free, but it is strictly within the setup of the
game. The second characteristic Huizinga
describes is "that play is not ordinary of real life". As the game takes place in space assuming
thousands of years from now, there is very little connection between the game
and the room in which you are playing in.
The third definition could not fit more perfectly with the RTS play
style. This being that play must begin
and at some point end. Play simply
begins whenever the user wants to start the mission, and as such when the enemy
is destroyed or an objective is met, the user then has a chance to end play, or
keep going. At the end of the missions
there is a clear end to that segment of the game, but the online capacity also
holds to this. The matches start when
the user is ready and end when there is a victor. There are no draws or sketchy in between.
Suits breaks a game down into
components, which is quite simple when
dealing with RTS games like Starcraft.
The goal of the game is to defeat the enemy force. The means are provided through the use of
resources, which are spent on research and the building of units and buildings
either to defend your base or attack an enemy.
The rules are explicitly described to the user, but the way the game is
laid out forces the player into the rules of the game. The map restrictions also limit the
player. Because of the single means to
an end, the lusory attitude of players is a little hard to apply to
Starcraft. A "curious state of affairs wherein one adopts rules which
require one to employ worse rather than better means for reaching an end” isn't
quite achievable. I don't feel this is
an accurate part of the game, and where I agree the attitude of the player must
contribute to the game, the way quits describes it doesn't quite fit.
Caillos seems to be accurate in his description of games. Starcraft, I feel, tries to fall between two of the described attributes Caillos describes. Agon fits quite well within the basic game play of much of what Starcraft is today. "whole group of games would seem to be competitive, that is to say, like a combat in which equality of chances is artificially created, in order that the adversaries should confront each other under ideal conditions." Much of the multi-player modes of Starcraft are just this; people build up armies and fight each other on a map that has been set and studied by all players. On the other hand, the campaign within Starcraft provides a different viewpoint about what the game is trying to accomplish. This follows more with Caillos' mimicry, "All play presupposes the temporary acceptance, if not of an illusion...,then at least of a closed, conventional, and, in certain respects, imaginary universe. " The cut scenes and storyline within the game of Starcraft create a sort of world in which you feel like you are taking a part in. You witness firsthand the conversations between chain of commands, and then control specific characters as they succeed or fail in their mission, all dependent on you. You in a sense become the commander of armies, and must report of your results to your superiors as the game progresses. In addition as you play through each part of the campaign, each introducing another race, you get to see the decisions that the leaders of each race make, and make a personal choice about not only which one you enjoy playing the most, but which you feel is in the right during this galactic war.
In conclusion, more of a combination of the many ideas presented by all the authors would create a more accurate representation of Starcraft, but each brings about a different way in which to look at the game and how it impacts the players and the culture in which it is played in. I would imagine as games become more intricate, the experience and definition of a game will modify to such games.
Bibliography:
Huizinga, Johan. "Nature and significance of play as a
cultural phenomenon." The Game
Design Reader. Ed. Salen and Zimmerman. Boston: MIT, 2006.
Caillois, Roger. "The definition of play and the
classification of games." The Game
Design Reader. Ed. Salen and Zimmerman. Boston, MIT: 2006.
Suits, Bernard. "Construction of a Definition." The Game Design Reader. Ed. Salen and Zimmerman.
Boston, MIT: 2006.
This is a good analysis, Austin, but there are definitely elements in Starcraft that I think pertain to Suits. For instance, doesn't the game have a "fog of war" mechanic? This is a perfect example of what Suits is talking about, a mechanism within the game that arbitrarily makes it harder and less efficient to accomplish your goals.
Posted by: gamegrrrl | 10/18/2009 at 02:03 PM