Play, Games, and Goals
In reading about defining games, I’m intrigued by the demarcation between games and play, and the idea by some that a goal is a necessary element of a game. Salen and Zimmerman describe a goal as a “quantifiable outcome.” E.M. Avedon cites George H. Mead as saying that: “The game has a definite logic, so that there is a definite end to be obtained.” Mead goes on to say that this “definite end—may be thought of as the [game’s] purpose.”
Safeplaces has pushed me to think about these issues in more depth. In the game, you’re given little to no instruction. In fact the instruction you find explicitly tells you to “play”. The scene is of a small hilltop with a boy seated under a tree with a bird in it, surrounded by flowers, mushrooms and other vegetation that play sounds when clicked on. The bird sings a particular tune, and you realize through the game play that by moving the mouse over three particular flowers you can replicate the bird’s tune to solve a piece of the puzzle. The solution isn’t completely apparent or always literally visible, but there is one. The experience requires investigation and moves at a different pace than other games.
I find that when seeking the solution to some puzzles becomes difficult, the game offers little enjoyment other than finding the solution to the puzzle. The experience becomes boring, and if the solution isn’t reached, this feeling can transition into frustration and withdrawal. Safeplaces has a puzzle to be solved that is moderately challenging and a bit opaque at the start. But because the experience is enjoyable beyond the puzzle aspect, it avoids the boring pitfalls of other puzzles.
Safeplaces has inspired me to think about how games can toe the line between achieving a goal or outcome vs. simply the playful experience of the environment or system. An outcome within a game is quantifiable according to Salen and Zimmerman, and implies an end to either the game as a whole, or a period within the game (as with RPG’s). Is an experience where the outcome is ambiguous or difficult to define and quantify a game or just play? What is quantifiable exactly? If the game causes some spiritual or emotional effect within the player that is difficult to define and quantify, is it then not a game? I’m not so sure. What kind of content is appropriate for this sort of outcome? If a puzzle is solvable, but the “solution” is mysterious and logically unintelligible, is it still quantifiable? Indeed, something has happened that may be termed a solution or outcome, but if these solutions are numerous within the system, and the environment is playful in and of itself, are you playing a game?
Have game designers and consumers become myopic by preconceptions of how goals in a game should be structured? My guess is that it’s similar to what happens with cinematic narrative. There are formulas that work, that sell money, that are artsy or pretentious, that are crappy, etc. As I hear all the time from others, games seem to be caught in deep ruts that don’t appeal to many people. Thankfully it’s changing and the audiences ignored by FPS’s and RPG’s are being authored to more. Hopefully more people will create different experiences and explore new paths that are, I think, ripe for exploration.
07:49 PM March 20, 2004