History of Games DM2004

[gameofstudyofgames-blog]

A poster done for my end of semester assignment, which is a conceptual game called 1AA (1 After Apocalypse), a multiplayer cooperative/competitive survival and resource management game.

The game is set in a post-apocalyptic world where players must learn to ration their resources and find appropriate alliances in order to survive the new dystopian world. Resources are found all across the gamespace, which invites the player to explore several major cities such as London and New York (each city or major city landmark is accessible through fast travel options).

Death in the game is a result of being killed by hostiles (enemy players or enemy AIs), but instead of a permanent death of the player character, the player character will be revived in the closest medical centre with diminished resources (stolen by killer-player). Permanent death occurs when the player is absent of essential resources in their inventory over a period of time, or when the player is without resources as is killed by hostiles. Permanent death will cause the player to have to restart the game from the beginning with a new character that is basic resources but no exploration of the gamespace.

Formal alliances formed will increase a player’s resource as they will be able to store and access the alliance’s resource bank. The alliances work in a hierarchal manner, where the player-leader of the alliance will have access to everyone’s resources in the resource bank, while lower ranking members of the alliance will only have access to a limited amount of shared resources set by their superiors (officers).

The game will be pushed by a leaderboard system, where the player with the longest survival time and largest number of resources will be placed at the top position, therefore resulting in the leader of the most efficient alliance being placed at the top. This leaderboard system aims to encourage players to seek out these leaders in order to join their alliance, or kill them to steal a significant portion of their alliance’s resources.

[gameofstudyofgames-blog]

For the midterm, I have decided to analyse the game: Overwatch.

For this analysis, I have taken a look at Overwatch’s gamespaces, unit operations, critical process, game classifications, and ludology and narratology.

Gamespace

Overwatch provides players with a variety of maps to play or practice in. Their gamespaces are heavily influenced by real world locations, some even drawing exact names from real world locations, such as Hollywood, Nepal, and Lijiang Tower. Others, while not representations of real world locations, are inspired by them. Kings Row is inspired by London, Temple of Anubis is inspired by Egyptian Temples. Overall, the maps in Overwatch are all representations of real world spaces that have been simulated and abstracted to create unique but also relatable gamespaces.

Unit Operations

Overwatch makes use of several units of operations for the game to move forward. I have decided to look at the core 4 unit operations, Choose, Kill, Secure, Hold.

These 4 unit operations are present in the game of Overwatch when players are engaged in an objective game (outside custom games and the practice range). Players must choose a character to play, kill (eliminate) players from the opponent team, secure their given objective, and hold it until the timer runs out or they achieve the given objective (capture or escorting a payload).

Critical Process

Overwatch’s critical process is the ability to choose the character you wish to play, and also be able to swap to an alternative character while mid-game. This gives players the flexibility to adjust to the skills and choices of his/her opponents and also to change the flow and movement of the game. It also gives players the opportunity to ‘troll’ other players.

Ludology vs Narratology

Overwatch is a game that is driven mostly by its game mechanic instead of a story. Players progress through the game by repeating the same maps, securing the same objectives over and over again, the only difference being the people they play with and/or against. 

However, this does not mean that there is no narrative element in the game. Overwatch, in fact, has a very strong narrative embedded in the gameplay. This narrative is shown through not only the cinematics that publicised the game, but also through the locations and maps in the game, and the characters via their interactions with the locations they are in, and the interactions with the characters that a player’s teammate has chosen.

Game Classification

It is impossible to classify Overwatch into 1 category. While having elements of Padia, Overwatch is mainly a Ludic games, players playing the game with the intention of winning.

Also, while Overwatch is a game that heavily focuses on player skill, it also depends on luck, whether or not your are placed in a good team, or if you are matched up against opponents of higher or lower skill levels. Overwatch also heavily mimics real life as their characters draw inspiration from real life figures such as ninjas, scientists, soldiers, so on and so forth. There is also a sense of vertigo in the game as players often have to take risks in the game if they want to secure a win or get a crazy Play of the Game.

ReThink

Character Lock

How would the game change if the players of Overwatch were unable to swap characters after the game had begun? How would this affect the overall gameplay and level of fun?

Team Conflict

What would happen if the ability of certain characters were affected by the other characters that have been chosen. It is known that certain characters are enemies, but as of now, picking them in the same team has no effect. But what if, for example, picking Tracer and Widowmaker, would cause both of them to have a reduction in the effectiveness of their abilities if they were on the same team, but would have greater effect against one another if they were on opposing teams?

Narrative Drive

Overwatch is driven by its competitive and repetitive nature. However, what if the game had continued to be driven by it’s strong backstory as initially planned by Blizzard? Would the game still be as popular, or rather, would the gameplay of Overwatch still be the same? Perhaps in a PVP aspect of the game, but the actual game itself would be completely different.

[gameofstudyofgames-blog]

Games & Architecture

Every games has some form of architecture, as reflected in the readings. This space that exists is often an abstract of reality, based off of something we are able to recognise and therefore understand, even in abstract games like Pac-Man. This game space is a blend of representation, simulation, abstraction, and transformation. It is important to note, that even the games that aim to be as realistic as possible still abstract some portions of their game and their game world. Limited by technology, developers must tactfully decide what to include and what to leave out, and these decisions can change the overall experience of a game. To illustrate my points below, I will be using the game Guild Wars 2, which is one of my favourite games, mechanically, but mostly, visually, when it first launched.

Many games have gamespaces often have worldhood, a quality that makes the space inhabitable, or rather we can recognise it as inhabitable. Some of these qualities include not just the physical space but the characters within the space and the fiction history created by the developers.

In the image above, a small portion of the continent, Tyria, is shown. The physical landscape of the continent has changed substantially due to the rising of the dragons which destroyed a large portion of the Shiverpeak mountains, and the emergence of the Sylvari have created a new space in the Magumma jungle. All these bits and pieces of the game’s history have shaped the world map.

There is also the existence of the games own conceptual laws and physics. The way we interact with the world, its inhabitants and the objects present in the world are also abstracted. While we are able to do certain things, as we are given agency, such as talking to NPCs, choose what objects to pick up and throw, we are also limited in the sense that we cannot do ‘whatever we want to do’. We are limited by which characters in the game can be talked to, the questions we ask them, and the responses they give us.

The player (as seen in the volcano screenshot) can stand exceptionally close to a lava pool at the heart of the volcano without suffering any damage. In fact, players can stand inside the lava without dying instantly. Similarly for the snowy mountains, players can walk around with thin or skimpy armour without suffering the consequences of a deathly cold environment.

Many architectural structures and landscapes in games take inspiration from the real world. These real world references are abstracted, represented, simulated, and transformed. With that, many architectural structures in games are also not necessarily architectural spaces. Many buildings in games are unable to be accessed by players, and are simple block objects placed into the game world by developers to populate the world with structures.

There is a large variety of forest types in Guild Wars 2. Some aim for realism, but are abstracted due to limitations in the graphic technology, such as not being able to make the forests as dense. While others are transformed into a new form. For example, the Caledon Forest in the Magumma Jungle has flowers that are the size of trees, and they have houses and bridges that are made up completely out of natural formations, whereby the plants naturally form houses, tables, bridges.

If we take a look at the snowy mountains, the architectural structures bear similar qualities to the temples built on the mountains in Tibet. These structures are represented in the game, however, their function has been greatly abstracted. We are unable to move through these structures as instead of being actual architectural spaces, there are placed in the world as objects instead.

[gameofstudyofgames-blog]

The game that I have chosen to diagrammatize is Overwatch, focusing on the ability to swap characters/heroes throughout the entirety of the game. This swapping of characters is important and can determine a victory or defeat.

Overwatch’s gameplay is based on a competitive 6v6 matchup. Players can choose between a number of heroes of varying traits (tank, offensive, defensive, support) and backgrounds/backstories, with no limitations in the mix and match of the team, ignoring the factions and even the age of the character skins. The only constrain is the choice of the map and the choice of whether to attack of defend an objective when the game begins (however this will be on a rotation). 

This is shown in the lines that go across the diagram from the points, showing that despite whatever the team composition is, everyone looks to secure the objective given to them.

The changing of characters throughout the game gives a sense of dynamism and diversity, allowing players to change the flow of the game at a whim, ultimately to attain a specific objective (attack or defend a point).

Both teams race against the clock to obtain their given objective. Once the timer runs out, the team that completes their objective (i.e, prevented the opposing team from occupying their point), will win the game. Should there be at least one player from each opposing team on the objective when the timer runs out, the game goes into overtime until only one team remains on the objective.

In this diagram I have chosen to include the character profile types as well, such as their race (human or omnic), their alliance (good or bad), and even the time in which the characters are portrayed to be in (some of the character skins represent their character at different states of time, such as before the Omnic Crisis (Pre-Crisis) and after the Omnic Crisis (Post-Crisis). Take Ana for example; she is depicted as a much older female soldier, but there is an option to change her character skin to have much younger version of the character without have any effect or consequence to the game. Therefore this blurs the concept of time in the game of when the events of the match are taking place.

Though it is strongly suggested that these games occur after the Omnic Crisis and after the recall of the Overwatch Program, the events and the circumstances of the match-ups and the team composition can suggest otherwise. For example, Genji used to be a part of Overwatch but eventually left and trained under the tutelage of Zenyatta, yet Genji can be used to play alongside a team composed purely of Overwatch members. Another example is Reaper, who used to be teammates with Soldier 76 but eventually betrayed him and joined Talon, yet the two can participate in a game alongside one another without any conflict. 

[gameofstudyofgames-blog]

For the study of games, I believe there are two very important aspects to consider. The technology used, and the drive. Therefore, I have split my framework into two main sections, namely Technology and Drive. 

To explain this further, I shall delve into the two main headers.

1. Technology

The level of technology can draw a player to play the game, and also to continue playing the game. New technologies will make people want to try something they have never tried before, and old technologies draw in people with a sense of familiarity and sometimes nostalgia.

Beyond that, is the platform the game uses. In the case of video games, the medium is ultimately digital, giving us the considerations of PCs, consoles, and handheld devices (PSPs, Nintendo DS, Smart Phones). Most games are able to be played across platforms, but certain games, such as Halo, can only be played on the Xbox, which greatly limits a person’s ability to play the game (say he doesn’t have the console). Above physical platform, there is also the digital platform, whether the game is played in the tradition sense, or in the new forms of augmented reality (like Pokemon GO), or the new Virtual Reality style of games using VR Headsets.

This extends to the another point under technology, being the movement involved in a video game. With more traditional video games, the physical movement of the player is stationary (meaning he doesn’t walk around), but with the introduction of new kinds of technology like augmented reality and virtual reality, players are able to move their bodies either within a constrained space, or about any space they would like to.

2. Drive

What drives a player to play the game or to finish the game is also an important aspect in the study of games. From here, I’ve split drive into 3 different aspects, Rewards, Narrative, and Gameplay.

Players driven by Rewards tend to play games that reward their time, effort, and skill, usually with character skins or prizes. Competitive games tend to rewards players with a skill ranking against other players, which will cause players to want to overtake the current best player.

Players that are driven by narratives will enjoy games that have a strong story, bringing them to complete the game based on the flow of the story above other aspects of the game. 

There are also players that are driven by the pure Gameplay of a game. This could be from their level of interest in the gameplay and the fun they have in the gameplay mechanics. This also segments into the level of interactivity within the gameplay. Some games offer single player gameplay while others offer multiplayer gameplay in the form or co-operative, competitive, or both. 

[gameofstudyofgames-blog]

Relationship Between L & N

Gonzalo Frasca writes that Ludology does not necessarily reject narrative or narrative elements in games, but is rather the study of the games themselves. However, many people define Ludology as “the study of game structure (or gameplay) as opposed to the study of games as narratives or games as a visual medium.” Similarly narratology is a set of theories of narrative that are independent of the medium of representation. Therefore, the two are not opposite sides of a spectrum, as many argue, but rather narratology could potentially be used as a tool in Ludology to better understand video games. 

While it is true that not all games necessarily have a narrative component to them, there are also many that do. And it is narratology or rather the narrative of games is an aspect or element that enhances and complements Ludology.

With that said, there are also many aspects of game research that are not necessarily covered by either Ludology or Narratology, and one of which, I believe, is how the medium of games affect the game itself. From the articles about Pokemon GO, we see that we have stepped into a new era of games. Pokemon has evolved from being a single player pixel-based game, into what I can only call a weird, real life MMORPG. While the former was a world-wide phenomenon, Pokemon GO has completely taken the world by storm by being a game developed form augmented reality. While essentially having the same concept as its predecessor – catching Pokemon and training them – the way Pokemon GO is played and the risks involved in playing the game are completely different. 

[gameofstudyofgames-blog]

Unit Operations

Overwatch is a game with different game objectives depending on the map that is randomly chosen by the engine. Overwatch’s basic unit operation of gameplay is to capture(the objective). Each team must capture the map objective and keep it in their possession over their opponents (over a period of time) in order to win the game. 

Monopoly’s basic unit operation is to acquire. The more money and property a player acquires in a game of monopoly, the higher his chances at winning, whereby the more he earns from his properties, he increases his ability to control the board and attain more assets over the other players, thereby establishing a monopoly and winning the game.

[gameofstudyofgames-blog]

Can We ‘Save The World’?

I believe that we can save the world by playing games online. What Jane said is true. There are millions of people in the world investing their time into online games because they aim to be the best in something in a virtual world because they can make a difference there, but they feel like they can’t make a difference in the real world. I believe that if we are able to find a way to make the virtual game world have an actual physical impact on the real world, we can make a big difference in the lives of many people.

However, some of the statements she has made were also idealistic and rather naive. She claims that the gaming community or the online community is extremely helpful and ‘nice’, but in reality, many games have toxic environments, filled with veteran players who bully new players, making the game unenjoyable for others and also adds on to the already existing problem of online bullying.

[gameofstudyofgames-blog]

Re-Mission

While all the games make use of medical terminology, particularly those linked to cancer, there is nothing in the game that consciously makes a person think about cancer. There is nothing sentimental attaching the player to the message behind the game. In all the games, the terms used  can be easily replaced without changing the nature or concept of the game.

There is nothing attaching me or a player to the game except the need to progress further to the next level. There is nothing compelling about playing except for progressing. The game needs something, a kind of draw, for a player to feel like they have a purpose in the game. Perhaps a stronger narrative or a more complex gameplay instead of something as simple as aim and click with little to no consequence in the choices of the gameplay.

[gameofstudyofgames-blog]

According to Caillois' categorization, while different games or states of play have a dominant characteristic, it does not mean they do not have other characteristics present.

In this diagram, I attempt to show that it is difficult to completely classify one game/play type into Caillois’ categorization. There are many overlaps in games and there can be different levels of Paidia and Ludus, even in the same game with different objectives.

[gameofstudyofgames-blog]

The Magic Circle

In Huizinga’s A Study of the Play-Element in Culture, he explains that the magic circle or in it’s simplest terms, the playing ground of a game, rules are set which controls the game, it brings the element of order within the game which separates the game world from the real world. For example, in a game of Chess, the Chess pieces are bound by the board and are specific pieces are only allowed to move in specified directions. The very essence of the game is bound by a space, and a series of permitted movements. And as Huizinga explains, in this magic circle, ‘order is absolute and supreme’, and any ‘deviation from it “spoils the game”’ and wandering from the absolute structure of the game makes the play worthless.

However, there are many instances where players slide out of this magic circle, where the game world and the real world begin to mingle. To explain this, I will use the example of a game of Monopoly. In its most basic essence, the game of Monopoly calls for its players to go around a board that is laid out with points and properties that can be bought with the given game currency. If a player lands on a piece of property, they can choose to either buy it, or pay a fee should it belong to another player. I don’t know about you, but I have been in plenty of Monopoly games where deals have been struck in game that have not been specified in the set of rules given and developed by those who created the game, or even set at the beginning of the play. For example, players create alliances to lessen the fees paid if they landed on one another’s property. Real life chores and small favours were traded for a particular piece in the game. All these ‘under the table’ deals are not necessarily a part of the game as they were not forbidden or even written to be allowed in the game, but they do happen. Does it make the game any less than it is? Or does it just add another element?