Rules to Play by: An odd perspective

Having talked about story last week, this week I'll try to look at odd, fun and downright strange ways people view Game Design, the Game Designer him/herself or a specific aspect of Design. Taking extreme, odd or bizarre views on Game Design could prove very useful, as extreme statements often invoke extreme reactions, which is exactly what I want.


What Can the Socratic Method Tell Us About Gameplay?
-by Taekwan Kim

In this article Taekwam Kim attempts to show how the Socratic Method can be applied to Gameplay, focussing primarily on player investment.

Kim first explain the Socratic Method, explaining that there are four basic rules the participants must adhere to:
-At least two voices must be heard
-The voices must be intimately connected to the positions they take
-A participant must say what he really thinks
-Participants must sincerely defend their positions

Kim reasons that the Socratic method can be linked to gameplay in the follow fashion:
-No progress is made unilaterally (No progress is made if only one party is involved)
-No cheating by taking a dishonest position (both the game and the player must abide by their roles, never trespassing into eachother's sphere of influence)
-No simply giving in to the other side for the sake of progression

He tries to make this argument stick by giving the example of two players playing a game of Streetfighter, one being a veteran, the other being new to the game. Kim explains that the new player would feel insulted if the veteran player lost on purpose. (The veteran player would have broken one of the rules of the Socratic Method; He did not sincerely defend his position)

Kim then moves to argue that gameplay equals investment, since a player cannot take on an identity completely at odds with his own behaviour. Kim reasons that there would be no meaning in losing, or winning, as the player has no real investment in the game and it effectively becomes a simulation. Kim attempts to prove this by giving the example of playing chess against yourself, and trying to win with both sides. Since the player will always win, and as such, always lose as well, there's no real investment.

The next paragraph deal with Procedural Narrative, and Kim states that we still experience dialogue scenes in videogames as being gameplay because they aren't one-sided events. The reason for this, according to Kim, is that dialogue in games aren't simulations, where the Author tells the story to the player. Instead, they are honest exchanges between clearly defined and established identities (i.e. NPC vs Player), where the player is invested in his own identity and makes choices accordingly.

Following up on this, Kim claims we shouldn't focus on non-linearity per se, but on honest responses to players. In Knights of the Old Republic, we have to engage in petty acts of crime to become a villainous Sith Lord. To Kim, this isn't an honest response to the player's identity, and as such, will leave the player disgruntled.

In a closing statement, Kim attempts to define the word 'game'. He first explains how Carl Jung observed that test-subjects always attempt to 'game' a test, believing that the test is a direct, intellectual challenge and that there is an expected outcome. They create an identity for themselves and attempt to answer the test so that the outcome reflects the identity they try to convey. To Kim, this is the essence of a game; Sculpting your own identity, and having a world that responds to your identity in an honest manner.

I found Kim's article quite interesting to read, although there are several things I can't agree on, or feel that he misses a few crucial points.

In the first section, where Kim explains how the Socratic Method can be applied to game design, he gives the Streetfighter example, later on he tries to show how investment works by using Chess as an example. These are both multiplayer games, and ofcourse they tend to fail when one of the Socratic Method's rules isn't being followed. This however, is due to the fact that the Socratic Method relies on two participants who both abide by the rules. If one participant falls short (as detailed in the Streetfighter example) or is absent (as detailed in the chess example) Kim's argument is solid. However, when we look at singleplayer games, the second participant isn't a flesh and blood player, but a system, designed and built by other people. While I'm sure that the Socratic Method can be applied to such systems as well, I was a little disappointed that Kim didn't elaborate on his theory enough to talk venture into single player games.

What I found interesting was what Kim wrote about investment. When I read it first, my instinct was to disagree with him. Where Kim reasons that a player can't take a role that's contrary to his own behaviour, I reasoned that players played games exactly because they could act contrary to their own behaviour. No sane person would run over people while shooting from a car, then jump out and fire a rocketlauncher at a police helicopter. But then I realised that perhaps Kim wasn't talking so much about 'in-game' behaviour, but about gameplay behaviour. No player will want to play a game that he can't win, or where he can't score, because that is our behaviour as players. Certain goals have to be met, and we have a clear expectation of what these goals are. We won't take any 'identity' in game that moves directly against these goals.

What I really couldn't agree with however, was Kim's definition of a game, as there are plenty of games that do not allow for 'identity sculpting', primarily singleplayer games such as Tetris. (Yes, Pong does allow for identity sculpting, as multiplayer games (and therefore social interaction) always rely on identity) As such, I don't feel Identity Sculpting can be used as a definition for Games in general.

Now, the biggest issue is: How does this actually help me? While Kim makes some nice observations, he makes very few points about how the Socratic Method can be of actual use when designing a game. Still, there is one thing I'd like to take from this article:

Always keep in mind your player's motive (or identity) and treat him honestly in regard to that identity. Look carefully at who your player is. If he is supposed to be an epic villain, don't bother him with mundane stuff.

Gearbox's Pitchford: Magic, Video Games Have A Lot In Common
-Part of a Gamasutra Interview

In this article, Gamasutra interviews Gearbox co-founder Randy Pitchford. During this interview Pitchford speaks about his past profession as a magician, and how this relates to Game Design. Apperantly Gamasutra thought this bit was so special, they actually dedicated a short feature to it.

In the interview, Pitchford explains how Game Design and Magic aren't as different as one would think at first glance. They're in the same business; entertainment. It's all about crafting illusions, about immersing your crowd in something they want to believe in. It's about misdirection, attracting someone's attention and then surprising them.

Pitchford illustrates his statement by using an example from Call of Duty. Whenever the player stays in the same place for too long during a firefight, he'll suddenly get a grenade thrown at him. No actual enmey threw the grenade at the player; the game just spawns it near to the player to get him to move from his position and participate in the firefight. Once a player understands this, he'll complain. He'll state he hates the spawning grenades. And eventhough the designer knows that the player doesn't hate it (afterall, if the grenades didn't spawn there the player would be able to stay in relative safety at all times and therefore never experience danger, making for a bland experience), he will have to change the trick.

In the end it's much like a card trick. As long as you don't understand how it works, it's special. Once you figure it out, the trick becomes much less spectacular. It's not that the trick lost it's value, but the magician will need to come up with a new one to keep your attention.

I found this article pretty interesting, but not because I love magic that much. In the end I think it's about understanding what your user wants. It's about being cocky enough to tell the player 'You don't hate the fact that I spawn grenades at your feet, you hate the fact that you figured it out.' It's about understanding that as a Designer, you should be aware of how you manipulate your player, and if they complain about something, it might not always be in your best interest to immediately change your game on their behalf, but to look at why the player is complaining. If it's just because he figured out your trick, think of a new one rather than giving the player exactly what he wants. In the end, I guess a designer has to be cocky enough to say: "You want to play this, trust me."