Today’s Plan
- Project 1 Preview & List of Games for Project 1 (and maybe 2)
- Defining Procedural Rhetoric
- Homework
Project 1 Preview
The homework that I laid out on Wednesday–due next Monday–is to do a few practice runs with the procedural heuristic I modified from Custer. You play two games for about 15 minutes and contribute to the Google Doc I shared last class. Here is the list of procedural games that Custer included in his article.
Next Wednesday, we will formally begin Project 1, an extended analysis of the procedural dimensions of a game. You will play games for about 6-8 hours–you might play more than one game in order to compare them, or you might play a short game 4-5 times to compare experiences / decision trees. Or you might play the first 6-8 hours of a longer game. I’ve created a table of the most interesting games folks played last spring in the Custer document (above). What should be clear is that I am looking for games that do *something* interesting mechanically. “Interesting” is often a terrible word to use, since it is essentially meaningless. It is one of those words that, if you use it in a draft, you should circle back to and eliminate–replace it with something concrete, something that tells me what, specifically, is interesting. I use it here because I cannot anticipate what might be “interesting” about the game you play and write about. I’ve also included one game on the list–Cards Against Calamity–that is so spectacularly bad in its implementation that it deserves to be here. Finally, this list is not meant to be exhaustive. While I play video games a lot, I do not play a lot of video games. If you have a game that you think should be included here–a game that has a unique scoring system or encourages “different” kind of play, then please suggest it! The document is set to “anyone with the link can edit,” so you can go ahead and make a new row and put it in the table. [I did not have time to complete the table this morning–will try and work on that by next class].
In next Wednesday’s class we will create gaming journals in Google Docs. As you play your game, you will write 3-4 entries that use the heuristic I shared to analyze game mechanics, rules, scoring systems, “play.” I want to stress that while you will have to summarize and analyze the plot and theme of a game, those are not the central concern of the paper. I am concerned with how the mechanics work with or against that plot. I am also concerned with how the developers are attempting to shape your feelings towards the game, its characters, and especially its theme,
Defining Procedural Rhetoric
Let’s review where we were last class.
We defined procedural rhetoric as how a game’s systems, rules, and scoring reflect or make an argument (implicitly or explicitly) about how our world does or should work. Developers may or may not intend for a game to communicate a political message. Games with a very explicit, unquestionable political message are “serious games.” Games that leave its message more ambiguous are not a “serious” game. A procedural analysis of a game also might examine what a game *does* and *does not* allow us or require us to do. The focus of a procedural analysis is always on 1) what we do, 2) how that makes us feel (this is related to phenomenology, and I will talk more about it on Wednesday), and what 1 & 2 say about the world in which we live and the way we choose to live in it.
On that last point–last class we differentiated “plot” and “theme.” Plot is the series of events in a game–what happens, and in what order. Theme is what a game is saying about how we do, should, or could live our lives. It addresses problems that we often face, emotions that we might not know how to handle, and/or seeks to “unfamiliarize” us with the way our wold has been structured (unsettles us, asks questions, provokes critical or creative thinking).
I provided a heuristic that I modified from Custer. For the upcoming paper, I want to refine it a bit.
- What is the plot / summary / topic of this game?
- What it the theme of this game?
- Theme is what a game is saying about how we do, should, or could live our lives. It addresses problems that we often face, emotions that we might not know how to handle, and/or seeks to “unfamiliarize” us with the way our wold has been structured (unsettles us, asks questions, provokes critical or creative thinking).
- Is there any interesting about the scoring system for this game? Is it clear (or possible) to “win” the game?
- Is there anything interesting about the mechanics or play of this game? Does it mess with a traditional genre convention?
- What are some potential “arguments” made by the mechanics or scoring systems?
- In what ways do the mechanics match the argument or “mood” of the game?
- In what ways do the mechanics clash with/ignore the argument or “mood” of the game?
- How might we modify the mechanics to create more procedural harmony/aesthetic impact?
- How do you “feel” playing this game? What emotions do you believe the developers want the game to evoke?
At some point today, I would like to spend some time playing Every Day the Same Dream, a game from Italian indie developer Molleindustria Games.
Homework for Wednesday
A reminder that your homework for Wednesday is to read the Custer article and then play 2 games from his list for 15 minutes or so each (you may play one of the better games, like Depression Quest for longer instead). Then contribute to the workspace. There’s more details regarding this assignment in Canvas.
For those that want to get ahead. I will ask that you have played your Project 1 game for 6 hours and written at least 3 responses in a Google Doc gaming journal by Monday, January 23rd. I am expecting the Project 1 papers to be due on Sunday, January 29th.
