Discussion Questions 9
Think back to the very start of the semester, when we talked about the concept of meaningful play, which occurs when "the relationships between actions and outcomes in a game are both discernable and integrated into the larger context of the game" (from Salen and Zimmerman, Rules of Play). When the game is an alternate reality game such as The Beast, where the game does not have any explicitly declared actions and outcomes, and in some cases does not even acknowledge its own existence, is it possible for there to be meaningful play?
Meaningful play is dependent on the player. The player creates meaning in the play. If there can meaningful play in Calvinball, then yes, there can meaningful play in alternate reality games.
Take The Beast for example, even though its tells people that it is not a game, the self-proclaimed players still felt that it was a game and found their own meaning in it. They formed their own actions, deducted their own outcomes and created their own goals.
Just side tracking, but I think that even if a game does has explicitly declared actions and outcomes, there might not necessarily be meaningful play.
Eg: Monopoly + I-don't-want-to-play-stupid-board-games-I-want-to-play-computer-games kid = no meaningful play
Reiterating my previous point, it is the player that creates meaning in the play.
Does this type of "game" require us to rethink our definition of games?
What's our definition of a game?
Ah yes... "a voluntary interactive activity, in which one or more players follow rules that constrain their behavior, enacting an artificial conflict that ends in a quantifiable outcome." (I had to peek at my old blog entry.. how do u expect someone to memorize that whole chunk! Luckily its an open book exam yar? Haha.)
-voluntary
-artificial
-interactive
-players, experiential
-rules
-goals
-conflict
-quantifiable outcome
Just like I did with Calvinball, let me put an alternate reality game like The Beast against these criteria...
-Voluntary: Check. The players are self-proclaimed. No one forced them to become players.
-Artificial: Check. The lines are blurred but the conflicts are made up so it is artificial. (The killing wasn't real.) 9/11 isn't a game because it is not artificial... but that doesn't stop people from finding meaningful play in it, does it? Some people might think of tracking and killing "terrorists" as a game, don't u think? Find-Osama Game was quite popular... but got forgotten amist the excitement caused by the Find-the-WMD Game and Blame-Saddam Game.
-Interactive: Check. The creators of the Beast had to come up with more puzzles because the "players" solved them too fast right? Isn't that a reaction based on player input? There is also the direct outcome of user action. Player solves puzzle = progress to next puzzle. So I think there is interaction albiet in a different/ more subtle way.
-Players, experiential: Check. There are players. Self-professed players... so if being self-professed players is good enough for them, it is good enough for me =) They experience solving the puzzles so yes, it is experiential.
-Rules: Check. There weren't any explicit rules but there were cultural and social rules that the players followed. Eg: The Don't Point-your-gun-at-people-and-threaten-to-blow-their-heads-of-if-one-more-person-tells-you-that-this-is-not-a-game rule.
-Goals: Check. The players came up with their own goals. Short term goal- to solve the puzzles. Long term goal - to find out what this is all about.
-Conflict: Check. Conflict between the creators of the game and the players. Speed of creating puzzles vs speed of solving puzzles.
-Quantifiable outcome: Fuzzy. There wasn't an explicit end so the players didn't know when the game ended. But maybe some took the "This is not a game" from the trailer as a confirmation that it was indeed a game. And thus got their quantifiable outcome from there.
In conclusion, while alternate reality games are very different from our conventional games, they can actually still fit into our original definition of games if we look at them from different points of views.
Meaningful play is dependent on the player. The player creates meaning in the play. If there can meaningful play in Calvinball, then yes, there can meaningful play in alternate reality games.
Take The Beast for example, even though its tells people that it is not a game, the self-proclaimed players still felt that it was a game and found their own meaning in it. They formed their own actions, deducted their own outcomes and created their own goals.
Just side tracking, but I think that even if a game does has explicitly declared actions and outcomes, there might not necessarily be meaningful play.
Eg: Monopoly + I-don't-want-to-play-stupid-board-games-I-want-to-play-computer-games kid = no meaningful play
Reiterating my previous point, it is the player that creates meaning in the play.
Does this type of "game" require us to rethink our definition of games?
What's our definition of a game?
Ah yes... "a voluntary interactive activity, in which one or more players follow rules that constrain their behavior, enacting an artificial conflict that ends in a quantifiable outcome." (I had to peek at my old blog entry.. how do u expect someone to memorize that whole chunk! Luckily its an open book exam yar? Haha.)
-voluntary
-artificial
-interactive
-players, experiential
-rules
-goals
-conflict
-quantifiable outcome
Just like I did with Calvinball, let me put an alternate reality game like The Beast against these criteria...
-Voluntary: Check. The players are self-proclaimed. No one forced them to become players.
-Artificial: Check. The lines are blurred but the conflicts are made up so it is artificial. (The killing wasn't real.) 9/11 isn't a game because it is not artificial... but that doesn't stop people from finding meaningful play in it, does it? Some people might think of tracking and killing "terrorists" as a game, don't u think? Find-Osama Game was quite popular... but got forgotten amist the excitement caused by the Find-the-WMD Game and Blame-Saddam Game.
-Interactive: Check. The creators of the Beast had to come up with more puzzles because the "players" solved them too fast right? Isn't that a reaction based on player input? There is also the direct outcome of user action. Player solves puzzle = progress to next puzzle. So I think there is interaction albiet in a different/ more subtle way.
-Players, experiential: Check. There are players. Self-professed players... so if being self-professed players is good enough for them, it is good enough for me =) They experience solving the puzzles so yes, it is experiential.
-Rules: Check. There weren't any explicit rules but there were cultural and social rules that the players followed. Eg: The Don't Point-your-gun-at-people-and-threaten-to-blow-their-heads-of-if-one-more-person-tells-you-that-this-is-not-a-game rule.
-Goals: Check. The players came up with their own goals. Short term goal- to solve the puzzles. Long term goal - to find out what this is all about.
-Conflict: Check. Conflict between the creators of the game and the players. Speed of creating puzzles vs speed of solving puzzles.
-Quantifiable outcome: Fuzzy. There wasn't an explicit end so the players didn't know when the game ended. But maybe some took the "This is not a game" from the trailer as a confirmation that it was indeed a game. And thus got their quantifiable outcome from there.
In conclusion, while alternate reality games are very different from our conventional games, they can actually still fit into our original definition of games if we look at them from different points of views.
posted by LUT! @ 12:14 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home