Hippie or otherwise, DeKoven is a key figure in the New Games Movement, which moved away from competition and towards cooperative play and fun for its own sake. In addition to this movement, however, there have also been contemporary games that have demonstrated various ways in which games (digital or otherwise) have moved away from their respective conventions and towards a more subversive mode of play.
Prui:
This game is demonstrative of the values of the New Games Movement, particularly as put forth by DeKoven in The Well-Played Game. Specifically, Prooey (the spelling looks weird to me, so I’m going to keep spelling it differently ‘til it looks right) emphasizes the importance of the ‘fun community.’ In the same way that Huizinga and Caillois outline ludic principles, DeKoven counters these with guidelines for experiencing a more ‘authentic’ sense of play. One of these is that play is “intended to be without consequence” (DeKoven 2). This actually aligns more with Huizinga and Caillois insofar as play is seen to be a separate realm from ‘reality.’ Prouie is “without consequence” insofar as no player can ever really feel left out or excluded when playing it. Specifically, Proowie does not have a clear ‘win’ condition. It is unclear whether or not—at the end of the game—anyone really wins or loses. In spite of this, the game subverts traditional game conventions in that all players end up in the same state. As such, Pruwee develops a clear sense of community that does not allow for any real antagonism between players.
Velvet-Strike:
This mod-of-a-mod (alternatively: meta-mod or mod-squared) is part of the Open Source movement, as it exists within the digital games community. This game is subversive in two main ways: through representation and its mechanics. Regarding the latter, Velvet-Strike actually implements the same mechanic as its predecessor (that is, shooting), but reverses it insofar as the violence is replaced with art. Rather than shooting bullets, players of Velvet-Strike shoot graffiti. This makes the game mechanic all the more significant in that it takes a clearly oppressive act and makes it ambiguous: while graffiti can be seen as oppressive (i.e. as vandalism), it can also be seen as activism (i.e. as rebellious expression against oppressive structures). In this way, the good/evil binary is completely undermined. Similarly, the “prevalence of militaristic themes” (Pearce 77—though this citation is clearly shoehorned in, it’s really more of a formality as it should be fairly evident throughout the rest of this blogpost that I’ve done the reading here…) is not as defined as conventions would dictate. In the same way that categories of ‘good’ and ‘evil’ have been destroyed, the image of the soldier as the “conventional” male (e.g. straight, tough, strong, etc.) is destabilized. Flowers and art are typically associated with feminine qualities and, as such, their presence in Velvet-Strike is an effective means of problematizing gender constructions and expectations, particularly in video games.
I Love Bees:
In Ludica’s “Sustainable Play,” many games are highlighted as examples of the Digital New Games Movement. I argue that one of them—I Love Bees—is subversive in more unusual ways. One is through its actual gameplay: while it is a reference to Halo 2, itself a digital game, I Love Bees is at its core an ARG, which emphasizes ‘real’ world gameplay. The use of web pages, for instance, is secondary to the fact that the game mostly takes place between humans in a ‘real’ (i.e. physical) space. In this way, it breaks through the “magic circle” argument so prevalent in ludology (Ludica 5). While other games in the New Digital Games Movement are—as the name suggests—digital, I Love Bees focuses its gameplay between humans, which subverts both the human-vs-AI trope, as well as the conventional practice of interacting through a screen. More significantly, however, I find I Love Bees subversive through its purpose. While it exists as a game proper, it is fundamentally an advertisement campaign in order to market Halo 2. This new trend (‘advergaming,’ I believe) is one that flies directly in the face of Huizinga and Caillois (in addition to the magic circle argument) in that the game is not only productive, but it is created specifically for this purpose. That is to say, the play is secondary. In this way, I would almost argue against I Love Bees as a game, were it not for the player community who took it upon themselves to play it as such.
Works Cited:
DeKoven, B. (1978) The Well-Played Game: A Player's Philosophy. New York: Anchor Books, 2nd Ed.
Fron, J., Fullerton, T., Morie, J. & Pearce, C. (aka Ludica) (2005). "Sustainable Play: Towards a New Games Movement for the Digital Age." Digital Arts & Culture Conference Proceedings, Copenhagen, Dec. 2005.
Pearce, Celia. "Games as Art: The Aesthetics of Interactivity." Visible Language: Special Issue on Fluxus. Jan. 2006.
Prui:
This game is demonstrative of the values of the New Games Movement, particularly as put forth by DeKoven in The Well-Played Game. Specifically, Prooey (the spelling looks weird to me, so I’m going to keep spelling it differently ‘til it looks right) emphasizes the importance of the ‘fun community.’ In the same way that Huizinga and Caillois outline ludic principles, DeKoven counters these with guidelines for experiencing a more ‘authentic’ sense of play. One of these is that play is “intended to be without consequence” (DeKoven 2). This actually aligns more with Huizinga and Caillois insofar as play is seen to be a separate realm from ‘reality.’ Prouie is “without consequence” insofar as no player can ever really feel left out or excluded when playing it. Specifically, Proowie does not have a clear ‘win’ condition. It is unclear whether or not—at the end of the game—anyone really wins or loses. In spite of this, the game subverts traditional game conventions in that all players end up in the same state. As such, Pruwee develops a clear sense of community that does not allow for any real antagonism between players.
Velvet-Strike:
This mod-of-a-mod (alternatively: meta-mod or mod-squared) is part of the Open Source movement, as it exists within the digital games community. This game is subversive in two main ways: through representation and its mechanics. Regarding the latter, Velvet-Strike actually implements the same mechanic as its predecessor (that is, shooting), but reverses it insofar as the violence is replaced with art. Rather than shooting bullets, players of Velvet-Strike shoot graffiti. This makes the game mechanic all the more significant in that it takes a clearly oppressive act and makes it ambiguous: while graffiti can be seen as oppressive (i.e. as vandalism), it can also be seen as activism (i.e. as rebellious expression against oppressive structures). In this way, the good/evil binary is completely undermined. Similarly, the “prevalence of militaristic themes” (Pearce 77—though this citation is clearly shoehorned in, it’s really more of a formality as it should be fairly evident throughout the rest of this blogpost that I’ve done the reading here…) is not as defined as conventions would dictate. In the same way that categories of ‘good’ and ‘evil’ have been destroyed, the image of the soldier as the “conventional” male (e.g. straight, tough, strong, etc.) is destabilized. Flowers and art are typically associated with feminine qualities and, as such, their presence in Velvet-Strike is an effective means of problematizing gender constructions and expectations, particularly in video games.
I Love Bees:
In Ludica’s “Sustainable Play,” many games are highlighted as examples of the Digital New Games Movement. I argue that one of them—I Love Bees—is subversive in more unusual ways. One is through its actual gameplay: while it is a reference to Halo 2, itself a digital game, I Love Bees is at its core an ARG, which emphasizes ‘real’ world gameplay. The use of web pages, for instance, is secondary to the fact that the game mostly takes place between humans in a ‘real’ (i.e. physical) space. In this way, it breaks through the “magic circle” argument so prevalent in ludology (Ludica 5). While other games in the New Digital Games Movement are—as the name suggests—digital, I Love Bees focuses its gameplay between humans, which subverts both the human-vs-AI trope, as well as the conventional practice of interacting through a screen. More significantly, however, I find I Love Bees subversive through its purpose. While it exists as a game proper, it is fundamentally an advertisement campaign in order to market Halo 2. This new trend (‘advergaming,’ I believe) is one that flies directly in the face of Huizinga and Caillois (in addition to the magic circle argument) in that the game is not only productive, but it is created specifically for this purpose. That is to say, the play is secondary. In this way, I would almost argue against I Love Bees as a game, were it not for the player community who took it upon themselves to play it as such.
Works Cited:
DeKoven, B. (1978) The Well-Played Game: A Player's Philosophy. New York: Anchor Books, 2nd Ed.
Fron, J., Fullerton, T., Morie, J. & Pearce, C. (aka Ludica) (2005). "Sustainable Play: Towards a New Games Movement for the Digital Age." Digital Arts & Culture Conference Proceedings, Copenhagen, Dec. 2005.
Pearce, Celia. "Games as Art: The Aesthetics of Interactivity." Visible Language: Special Issue on Fluxus. Jan. 2006.
Comments