Art vs. Entertainment

Today, during my Narrative Content Design class, we discussed the game Passage. Please try it out if you haven’t played it before. It’s a small free download and it will only take you about 10 minutes to play the entire game. Passage presents a very different and artistic approach to narrative, which is why we were discussing it, but that’s not what I’m going to talk about here.  During our discussion, students were inclined to describe Passage as more of a piece of art than a game. Brenda found it interesting that we made a distinction between the two, saying that she viewed them all in one large category.

I thought about it for a few minutes, and before long I came to the rather obvious conclusion that there will always be a division between games as art and games as entertainment.  To me, games as art are games whose goal is to make a statement. This isn’t necessarily political or activist. Passage, for example, makes a very profound statement about the human condition. There’s nothing political about it. On the other hand, games as entertainment are games whose goal is for the player to have fun. Games that make a statement aren’t always fun. If nothing else, Passage is depressing. There is no sense of victory at the end. Super Columbine Massacre certainly isn’t fun. It’s meant to be disturbing, and it gets its point across very well. At a presentation by Mary Flanagan, I saw a game called ‘Hush’ about the conflict in Rwanda. Even watching Mary play the game was unsettling, and the audience was profoundly affected by it. As statements, all of these games are extremely successful. As entertainment, not so much.

My question is: Can we make games that make a statement fun? And, perhaps more importantly, should we try?

Before I answer either of those questions, I have to say that games that make statements aren’t necessarily NOT fun. I have to admit that the McDonald’s Game is pretty entertaining, if for no other reason, because it’s humorous. The point is that its primary aim is to make a statement. It’s fun simply because of its execution.  So I guess the question actually becomes: Can we make games with two primary goals- making a statement AND being fun?

I think the answer is yes and no. I feel like strong statements can be incorporated into entertaining games, mainly through use of narrative. In fact, the narrative I’m working on now has some very strong messages in it. It puts the player in uncomfortable positions and challenges his beliefs. The narrative is depressing or even frightening at times, but the game itself will be entertaining.

It’s not so hard to incorporate statements into entertaining games. Even games that take place in fantasy worlds have the opportunity to convey deep messages about government, humanity, and all kinds of other things. To draw from another medium, Terry Goodkind makes very strong statements about government and capitalism in the Sword of Truth series, which takes place entirely in a fantasy universe. I think the real issue is likely marketing.  A game like Assassin’s Creed could have easily incorporated a message about modern religion into its narrative, but that might have cost it quite a bit of its appeal to the general population. By nature, games with a message have a much smaller target audience- namely, people who are interested in hearing the message. Even if the game is extremely entertaining, the player may feel that the message of the game is being jammed down his or her throat.

So, should games try to both entertain the player and convey a message? I think so. That’s not to say that games simply for entertainment’s sake shouldn’t be made. After all, what would I do without games like Guitar Hero and Dead Rising? But I do think game developers should take advantage of the incredible opportunity they have to convey messages to the world.  The interactive experience is so real to people. This makes games an astonishingly powerful tool for making statements. And, if an entertaining game makes a statement, it will reach many many more people than the indy art games that are out there now. This will lend more credibility to games as a respectable media, and will thin the perceived gap between games and art.

Bout time for an update…

Unfortunately, there won’t be a real update tonight. I have some work to do. I blame my lack of posting on the holidays and getting back to school. But soon (hopefully very soon), expect a post about a card game I made with some friends, as well as something regarding narrative in games.

The Plague!

My friend, Jamie Cannon, alerted me to an event that happened on the MMORPG World of Warcraft that I found extremely interesting. I’m not sure how I missed hearing about it at the time it happened, but hey, better late than never.

I’ve taken a strong interest in the application of games for purposes other than entertainment, and this event relates directly to that. In September of 2005, World of Warcraft implemented the Zul’Gurub instance. For those of you who don’t play MMOs, an instance is an area a group of players can explore privately without interference from other players. Instances tend to feature some of the game’s most difficult content, as well as its most valuable rewards. In World of Warcraft, the Zul’Gurub instance is designed for players above level 51. The maximum player level at the time this instance was implemented was level 60. Zul’Gurub has several difficult bosses (particularly difficult enemies with special abilities) for players to battle. Arguably the most challenging of these bosses is Hakkar the Soulflayer.

When fighting Hakkar, players are affected by a condition called Corrupted Blood. This condition would last for a set amount of time and would cause between 250-300 points of damage (out of about 2500-5000 health) every couple of seconds. Any player standing near an infected player would contract the condition. To prevent Corrupted Blood from spreading outside Zul’Gurub, infected players would no longer have the condition once they left the instance. However, Corrupted Blood still found its way into major cities. Two factors contributed to this glitch. One was player pets. Certain player classes, such as hunters, have pets, which can be told to attack and use abilities by the player who controls them. If a pet contracted Corrupted Blood, was dismissed before the disease faded, and resummoned outside the instance, it would spread the condition to other players. The other contributing factor was non-player characters (NPCs). NPCs were not immune to the disease and would pass it along to players who interacted with them.

Infected players would pass the condition to other players in the cities simply by standing too close to them. Inside Zul’Gurub, all of the players were high enough levels to withstand the damage caused by Corrupted Blood without dying. However, in the cities, low level players could not withstand the damage dealt by the condition, and they were killed. The condition was removed when the infected player died or when the timer on the condition ran out.

Corrupted Blood effectively created a plague in World of Warcraft’s cities. To many players, the cities were simply uninhabitable, and they began avoiding major cities altogether. Among other things, this had an effect on the game’s player-based economy, which was largely controlled by the auction houses that could only be found in major cities. Blizzard (the developer of World of Warcraft) took measures to stop the plague, including quarantining certain areas. Ultimately, however, the only ‘cure’ for this plague was to change the mechanics of Corrupted Blood. It still causes a large amount of damage, but it no longer spreads from player to player.

Researchers have studied this glitch, applying it to real-life disease outbreaks. If scenarios such as the Corrupted Blood incident could be created in a virtual world, scientists could study people’s unpredictable reactions and better plan for a real-life disease outbreak. This possibility caused the Corrupted Blood plague to get a lot of media attention and several articles have been written on the subject, including this one by Lucy Bannerman.

Although it fascinates me, I won’t go on and on about the idea of applying MMOs as a method of studying disease outbreak. Instead, I’d like to point out that if an MMO environment can be used to simulate a disease outbreak, then why not other types of disasters? Perhaps better emergency planning could be implemented for towns located near nuclear plants if we could simulate a meltdown in an MMO environment. This could help us foresee not only the types of reactions people might have once the disaster has occurred, but the unpredictable events that can lead to a disaster in the first place. After all, Blizzard didn’t foresee that pets would spread Corrupted Blood.

Of course, the nuclear power plant meltdown is a hypothetical situation. To add some reality to my thought process, imagine if we could have somehow simulated a Category 4 hurricane hitting New Orleans before Katrina happened. How many lives would be saved if we knew that so many would be unable to evacuate in such a short amount of time? How many lives would be saved if we knew ahead of time how many would be killed if the levees failed?

This same line of thinking can be applied to hundreds of situations- September 11th, the California Wildfires, floods in West Virginia, tornadoes in the midwest…the list goes on. Corrupted Blood proved that the unforeseeable events that lead to disaster and people’s unpredictable reactions to disaster can all be simulated in a well-populated virtual world.

LeapFrog and the great third party software saga

Since LeapFrog released the Leapster handheld gaming device in 2003, there has been a great deal of controversy over the lack of third party software on LeapFrog devices. Initially, there were absolutely no third party games on LeapFrog gaming systems. LeapFrog executives cited a number of marketing risks as the reason for this, much to the dismay of people like Ian Bogost at Water Cooler Games. Bogost and others continued to call for LeapFrog to allow third party software, and in 2005, they gave in. Sort of.

Scholastic became LeapFrog’s first third party developer, but, as Bogost writes in his article “LeapFrog Leapster Update: L-Max and Third Party Development”, Scholastic and LeapFrog had created less a third party software agreement and more a “co-marketing and co-distribution plan”. HP, Disney, and other companies entered into similar arrangements with LeapFrog, thus creating what they called a “developer network”. This isn’t exactly what those who called for third party LeapFrog software had in mind because it doesn’t allow for independent game developers to make games for the LeapFrog systems.

Now, I don’t claim to understand the intricacies of LeapFrog’s marketing department. I can’t say what would be good or bad for the company itself. What I can do is talk about where I think LeapFrog can benefit from independent third party software and where i think independent developers can benefit from developing for LeapFrog.

From independent developers, LeapFrog stands to gain new and innovative types of educational games. Independent developers could create games that educate children in new and interesting ways rather than sticking to safe, preexisting formulas. Independent developers could also create new characters and narratives that would be found exclusively on LeapFrog systems, and have the potential to give LeapFrog its very own Sonic or Mario- a character that defines the company. Of course, the most obvious benefit LeapFrog would gain from independent developers would be a massive increase in the number of games made for the system. This type of expansion could ultimately make LeapFrog’s systems into competitive consoles. The true potential of LeapFrog’s gaming systems hasn’t been fully explored, and in all likelihood, it won’t be until LeapFrog truly allows third party software.

Independent developers have a lot to gain from LeapFrog as well. From what I can tell, developing for systems like the Leapster seems relatively cheap and easy. A successful LeapFrog title could help get an independent company off the ground with very little investment on the front end. There is also something to be said for developing exclusively for LeapFrog. Take into consideration the idea of creating a Mario for LeapFrog. The company who develops this hypothetical character stands to gain a lot, not just from games featuring said character, but from the merchandising juggernaut that would inevitably follow. Bottom line, if LeapFrog allows third party software, it would open a whole new world to independent developers.

In my reading on this subject, I’ve found very little information published after 2006, so if anyone has heard any further developments about third party software and LeapFrog, please let me know. Ian Bogost’s articles about LeapFrog, which i cited earlier, can all be found at http://www.watercoolergames.org

Responsibility, the great price of freedom

Modern parents are strange creatures. They perceive threats to their children in every shadow and seek to protect them from imagined monsters that rival any their kids might conjure up. This bizarre need to shield kids from everything has taken dodgeball off of American playgrounds and made us wary of any toy with a Made in China sticker on it. Outside play is all but impossible when parents believe that if their child steps outside even for a moment, some crazed kidnapper will come snatch him up.

Undeniably, this absurd fear for the safety of our children comes from the maniacal spin that the media places on everything it reports. The media would have us believe that if a toddler plays in his front yard, he will be kidnapped. If a girl makes a MySpace page, she will be stalked and raped. If a boy gets his hands on Grand Theft Auto, he will shoot up his school with his father’s hunting rifle. Of course, when logic is applied, it is clear that responsible parenting could prevent all of these tragedies. The toddler won’t be kidnapped if his mom or dad watches him while he plays. The girl won’t gain a stalker-turned-rapist if her parents monitor her computer activity and control the amount of information she puts out on the internet. And the boy won’t become a murderer if his parents lock up their guns and address his apparent psychological issues. This all probably seems like common sense, and it is. But, where the media is concerned, logic does not apply. Logic doesn’t attract viewers. Logic doesn’t make for interesting and dramatic stories.

To compound the issue, we live in a society where people are encouraged not to accept responsibility. Parents would rather blame their kid’s potty mouth on television for its rampant cursing than blame themselves for teaching their children not to curse. They would rather blame their son’s pornography addiction on the internet’s lack of censorship than blame themselves for not monitoring his computer activity and teaching him not to indulge in such temptations. They would rather blame their child’s violent tendencies on those horrible violent video games than blame themselves for buying their kid M-rated games.

The fact of the matter is, the First Amendment, our most valuable freedom in this country, allows people to say “bitch” on TV. It allows Jenna Jameson to bare all on film. And it certainly allows game designers to make bloody games. It allows me to keep this blog and say whatever I want in it. It even allows the media to constantly shock the world with its dramatic horror stories.

The First Amendment assumes that people are smart enough and responsible enough to decide for themselves what they believe and don’t believe, what they read and don’t read, what they watch and don’t watch. It also assumes that parents are doing their jobs and raising their kids. It assumes that if little Johnny begs for Manhunt 2 this Christmas, and Mom and Dad don’t want him to play a violent M-rated game, they won’t buy it for him. No matter how much he whines, he’ll just have to settle for Ratchet and Clank or maybe a new bike.

People just don’t seem to realize that when they cry out for the government to regulate video games, movies, and music based on their content, they’re asking for their First Amendment, their most valuable freedom, to be taken from them. And for what reason? Because they don’t want to accept the responsibility that goes along with that freedom. Because they’d rather let the government control what we’re allowed to say than decide for themselves what media they allow in their homes.

The point of all this is that parents today believe that things like violent video games are a threat to their children. This may true to some extent. 8-year-olds have no business playing Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. However, all parents have to do to protect their kids from this threat is not buy them M-rated games. That’s it. What parents don’t realize is that they are the single biggest threat to the video game industry. Politicians would leave the issue of censoring video games alone entirely if their supporters didn’t cry out for them to do something about violence in games. There is nothing people in the video game industry can do to defend themselves from this threat except hope against hope that parents and politicians will stop their senseless war on video games and on the First Amendment itself.

Responsibility is the price of freedom. That is the bottom line, and it is something that people today have clearly lost sight of.

Let the blogging begin.

I’m told on good authority that it’s wise to keep a professional(ish) blog. So I’m doing just that. This is my first entry, coming to you directly from White Sulphur Springs, West Virginia, where it’s a miracle we even have an internet connection.

White Sulphur is a good place though. The town is small and the people are friendly. It’s nice sometimes to come here and escape the reality of the rest of the big bad world. Despite West Virginia’s reputation for ugliness (we’ve all seen the pictures of strip mines and trailer parks), this area is quite lovely. I challenge anyone with a prejudice against West Virginia to come here and say anything different.

It’s fall, and that means college football is in the air. It’s been a strange and exciting college football season, and right now it looks like WVU stands a good chance to play in the national title, which would be incredible. I love football, both professional and college, which seems to be an uncommon trait among my contemporaries.

I guess that should bring me to the actual point of this blog, which will be (among other things I’m sure) game design. I intend to post as coherently as possible about whatever game-related things come to mind.  Ideally, that means I’ll be doing a lot of posting. Of course, all that will depend on how busy I get in the coming months.

Right now, It’s about 20 minutes til game time, so I need to bid the cyber world adieu for the time being. Go Mountaineers! Go Noles! Go Jags!