The Ludologist

Not a new video, but I keep thinking about this video of a level in Call of Duty: Black Ops where the game goes out of its way to make the player think that he/she is playing a major part in driving the action forward, as well as as being constantly on the verge of failing.

Except you aren’t. Apart from two scripted moments, you can play through this 15-minute section without doing anything.

Question #1:  is this wrong? Is it bad design?

I think there is an impetus to denounce this as overly slick, commercial and dishonest design.

But wait! Note how poorly this game example fits with some of the recent discussions (1 2 3) concerning the importance (or non-importance) of choices. I think we currently associate denials of player agency with experimental, subversive, art or personal games.

But Call of Duty probably rates among the games least likely to be described as “experimental”, yet we can also compare this video’s lack of player choice and consequence to some of the discussion of Proteus, whose status as a game is questioned on the Steam Forums, and defended vigorously as such by designer Ed Key.

Question #2: Are there honest and dishonest ways of breaking player expectations? Good and bad? Interesting and uninteresting? How can we tell the difference?

(Someone remarked to me the other day that he used my blog as an archive for historical discussions in games. And it made me realize that I hadn’t posted about #1ReasonWhy.)

Here are two write-ups on #1ReasonWhy. #1ReasonWhy Brings Game Design Discrimination To Light and #1ReasonWhy We Are All Responsible.

More recently, the video from the Game Developers Conference #1ReasonToBe panel has been made available, featuring Brenda Romero, Robin Hunicke, Elizabeth Sampat, Mattie Brice, Leigh Alexander, and Kim McAuliffe: http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1018080/

#1ReasonWhy prompted a number of horror stories, and made for very depressing reading. In addition to the raw quality of people’s experiences, I realized that it was depressing to hear that people had experienced something so different from what I experienced. My immediate personal association of game and computer culture was always one of inclusivity: feeling alienated and ill-fitted in regular and official congregations (such as high school), my experience was that game and computer culture was deep, welcoming, and inclusive – this was where I felt at home and accepted. Sure, people always challenge you on your skills and credentials (Did you play Dwarf Fortress? Do you write your own shaders? How many alts to you really have? Do you still use SVN?), but I felt at home in that.

It is depressing to realize people belonging to the same culture can also be so hostile and excluding on superficial grounds (e.g. gender). It is also clear that many have had the hardest time taking this to heart (see the Kotaku comments here), perhaps for the very same reason – they have personally had good experiences, so why would anyone feel excluded?

Hopefully this discussion is making us all smarter.

I find myself mesmerized by this gif.

Snake is another one of those games that has meant a lot to many people, but that we just didn’t get around to writing much about. Perhaps there could be a book on Snake, in the vein of  10 PRINT?

(Via Brandon Sheffield.)