FEATURE

MIGS: Only Fun and Games?

Mathew Kumar's picture

By Mathew Kumar

November 20, 2009

See also:

Related Articles:

At this year's Montreal International Game Summit the idea of whether games should only be seen as fun was challenged in more than one session. Commentators such as industry veteran Brenda Braithwaite (designer of the Wizardry and Jagged Alliance series, among others) and Edge columnist Randy Smith in particular poured over this thorny issue.

Braithwaite's talk, named 'How I Dumped Electricity And Learned To Love Design', struck at the heart of the problems facing designers considering creating game mechanics about more than just generating pleasure. She related a story Native American photographer Zig Jackson had told her about his inability to bring himself to document a school shooting on a reservation even though he was there with his camera.

"The question he had to ask himself as an artist was 'do I take the picture or not?' The question we find ourselves asking ourselves as game developers is 'will it make money or not?'" she said.

As a result Braithwaite decided to abandon video game projects for six months and concentrate on board game design, discovering first-hand how powerful games that weren't about "fun" could be.

"One day my daughter came home from school and I asked her what she was doing at school, and she said it was Black History Month. As this forms part of her heritage I asked her what she learned about black history, and she said, 'the English went to Africa, they took a bunch of people to America and sold them to other people, until Abraham Lincoln said everyone should be free.'"

"She may only have been seven but I wanted her to understand how much more there was to it than that. So I took some of the wooden figures that I was creating game prototypes with and I asked her to create several families with them. Once she had done that I formed some boats, grabbed some of the figures at random and jammed them into the boats. While I'm doing this, my daughter was trying to put them in order with the families together, telling me I'd 'forgot some' and that they 'wanted to go together'"

"I said to her, 'Honey, no one wants to go'."

The rules of Braithwaite's off-the-cuff game were simple — it takes ten turns to cross the ocean, each boat has thirty pieces of food, every turn roll a die and use up that amount of food — but deeply affecting. "About half way through my daughter said to me 'I don't think we're going to make it'," Braithwaite revealed, "and then she asked me if this really happened. When I told her it did she started to cry, and I started to cry."

From this, Braithwaite realised that it could be possible to capture and express difficult emotions with game mechanics, brought forth by the idea that human on human tragedy such as slavery "required a system. By finding that system and making you complicit in it, you could understand it."

nijinsk1's picture

Good Article

"But the problem faced with giving the player full agency was not only the 'possibility space' but player's own inability to hold real-world values — such as safety — in game"

This is an interesting point. Safety was valued more in the coin-op days where you had to pay your hard earned 10p if you died.

One thing that spoils the majority of online shooters for me is how valueless your characters life is. Say COD for example, players are rewarded for kills but not really punished for deaths, at least not enough. This is driven from unlimited respawns and perks being unlocked by kills only, not from survival. If you got one point for a kill and minus one for death I think it would adjust the game dynamic significantly and make players value their lives more.

I wonder how a game business model would work on a home console if it was pay per play like a coin-op. Say you buy a game disc cheaply(say an online shooter) for a fiver and get 100 lives. When you've died 100 times, you need to top up another fiver. Players would value safety, game devs would have a coin-op in your living room!

I'm interested to know anyone elses opinion on that idea.

elocinanna's picture

I cared about Aeris, I cried when she died. This was something I had not experienced before, and it's execution was masterful. If you remember, right after she dies you have a boss fight, but instead of the music that usually accompanies the boss fights in FFVII, Aeris' haunting theme keeps playing, and it doesn't let you go.

The use of a very gamey mechanic to accentuate the very real narrative idea of death was fantastic. I was sitting there thinking "This can't be real, she's not dead." and begrudgingly fighting a stupid boss. That was not fun, but I think it was the first time I really confronted the death of a loved one.

I definitely agree that we had games that evoked emotions in the past. I'm not sure the difference is entirely marketing though. I think the "horizon" that requires "innovation" is to make a nonlinear game that has an involving story no matter what the player decides to do.

AndyLC's picture

That anecdote with the boat was touching, but I figure a lot of it is because it is parent and child, the child already trusts and holds great investment in the words of her parent, replicating that feeling in videogames is going to be difficult. How do you make a videogame become as trustworthy as one's own parent?

Still, the rest of the article then goes on into the typical view many folks in gaming hold nowdays, something about emotions and gaming and a brave new horizon to cross, as if it's never been done before or hasn't been done for decades.

Videogames have always had titles where you can become emotionally invested in the characters, what happens to them, and sometimes even cry for them. The only difference today is now we have the makers giving interviews about how emotional their game is gonna be and how innovative it's gonna be and how they're doing something nobody else has. The only difference today is marketing.