Re: [-empyre-] this bounced earlier...

[eddo <eddo@c-level.org>]

Hi all,

The discussion is already rolling fast with so many threads and  keen 
points brought on that I'd like respond to:

Jeff - regarding the open ended game design problem

I think its in Huizinga somewhere defining play as something that 
occurs between fixed boundaries - ie rules - this definition carries 
very well to ground the difference between games and  open ended 
"virtual"  worlds (some MUDs, MOOs, Activeworlds, VRML spaces ...etc..)

A handful of brilliantly designed games -  Grand Theft Auto, Morrowind 
(too far towards open in my opinion..), Ultima Online and Everquest 
have found the sweet spot between the rigid and open ended design 
approaches and I think game design will never look back.

I think the problem I have as a player/artist within Online  open ended 
worlds is the motivation to act in an socially expressive way within 
that context. I will try to explain this as best i can - It's a case of 
self expression - take an exhibitionist, a street performer, a "club 
kid", or a elegant thief -  these actors motivated by expression NEED, 
and RELY on the set of social rules and conventions  to mark then in 
relief.

All of my earliest game intervention work was done in Ultima Online and 
Everquest - to my mind these represented at the time the gaming world's 
equivalent of global main street - I felt I was performing in  public 
and my audience was deeply engaged in the conventions of the world - 
allowing any "Subversive" actions to operate as subversive by going 
against the game norms. - doing this in MUDs or any open-ended world 
simply would not have that psychological affect for me.  I think in 
MMOs its really all about agency(vs the game creators and vs the other 
players) and maintaining a sense of identity.

I wrote some about this in a paper some time ago - its at the end in 
the "Player Artifacts" section:

http://www.c-level.cc/%7Eeddo/Stern_TOME.html



Melinda - the difference engine =  game

Yes! this makes a lot of sense and I also believe that here lies the 
treasure trove of potential for "indi" games -

I have two thoughts on this:

This type of game model can work either as a cross culturally 
disseminated artifact - and this is usually done "up the hegemonby 
ladder"   i.e. get person X who belongs to empowered group A  to play 
the game and identify with In game character Y who provides a certain 
representation of person Z belonging to disenfranchised group B

OR

 as an empowering device where group A and group B are the same group

I think in the first example (cross cultural) the key to designing 
these games successfully is can you pull offf Identification - ie 
create immersion and then empathy after immersion is broken - and this 
is so much harder to do with games than with film! The graphics have a 
lot to do with it but so do many elements like voice acting and the use 
of diegetic/phenomenological elements in the game - for instance In the 
design of Waco Resurrection  the decision to use David Koresh's real 
voice - form his song "book of daniel" - was a KEY factor in our game 
design - as was the decision to texture the and model the dividians 
based on the actual faces of those that died in Waco (this never got 
implemented BTW).

I think this type of game model of course demands more tact and 
subtlety of message - like any form of cross cultural propaganda

For the second type of game which primarily functions as a form of 
internal-progaganda UnderAsh, Delta Force, Special Force, Ethnic 
Cleansing, America's Army, Conflict Desert Storm etc etc - the lack of 
subtlety is advantageous within the group that is already politically 
allied (ie the Quire...or the Nation) but this lack of subtly does not 
work as well when crossing over to a more indifferent (or hostile...) 
audience.

Where I can see this (hopeful) conversation  going is to the depths of 
the paradoxes of cross cultural representations and propaganda 
mechanisms - the logic of "victim representation" which is the fuel 
that drives the Israeli/Palestinian/Arab propaganda war. It becomes a 
game of who can play  Underdog better.

And yet -  In the Israeli/Palestinian situation we are talking about a 
very imbalanced power balance - I appreciate and see the need for games 
like UnderAsh to exist (BTW I am an Israeli...) but while playing it as 
an Israeli I find that I was already "In the quire" (Ie believ in a two 
state solution and getting the settlers out at all costs)  the 
identification (same for Special Force) I can say worked for me though 
killing the Israeli soldiers in the territories  - was quite chilling 
and strange ,  as I did serve in the Israeli Army in  the early 90s 
(though not in the occupied territories) - I think I can talk more 
about that experience later...


-eddo