I’m pissed. My problem doesn’t completely lie with players of videogames. They are free do as they please. Though, when one only cares about playing games to obsessive levels, I do get disappointed and want to kick them into realizing they are capable of so much more than following a list of orders and pushing the right buttons.
No, my problem is mainly with the fact that by and large the videogames industry prides itself on making the most addictive games possible. It’s become a selling point to claim just how addictive the game is. Or to a lesser degree, a developer will claim that someone can put in many hours because of its replayability just for the sake of replay rather than to learn something new.
I can’t think of any other media; theater, painting, music, film, novels or other, where the industry works extremely hard to create addictive works and then further encourages that practice by trying to create monetization schemes that benefit the most from addicted players.
I don’t like it. Not at all. I have a very different philosophical approach to game design. I want to create games that people only need to play once. They are certainly free to play more than that, but it’s not necessary because they get a satisfying experience the first time through.
As a social progressive game designer, I see so many people who are unknowingly victims, locked inside a vicious cycle, unable to escape because they don’t know any better. Games have the power to help free people from being victims in their daily lives. Whether it’s being a victim of prejudice, bullying, sexual harassment, social status, economic systems, disability, disease, or even their own mind, many people are trapped in a vicious cycle of victimization and can’t find ways to break away.
A game can do that though. It’s an idea that has yet to gain mainstream acceptance. Critics of the idea, without being able to see my vision with their own eyes, may call this a boring serious game, or a not so fun self-help game. It’s more than that. It’s an inspirational experience that one can relate to and gain valuable wisdom and knowledge to apply to their own lives. It’s the Erin Brockovich of videogames.
Erin Brockovich is a woman who fought against PG&E in court for polluting the drinking water of Hinkley, CA. The citizens had an abnormally high rate of cancer and sickness. Through her hard work and determination, she taught herself law to take on the powerful utility company, PG&E. The sick citizens whom she fought for were compensated $333 million after winning the suit. While money will never help them regain the health and lives lost, what she did was prove that one person can make a difference for a community by fighting for their ideals and justice.
Erin Brockovich’s story inspired millions and became a very successful film, nominated for several academy awards. Her story is one that can inspire someone to act in similar ways to fight against an injustice. It’s a story, no scratch that, it’s an experience that can be replicated in a game and give people not only the motivation but the real life tools and skills to apply in their daily lives.
In the United States, I look around and I see people who are victims of 24 hour news channels that lack news, victims of a food industry that lacks sustenance and victims of a health care industry that does not care.
It’s all shit and it’s all wrong. Everyone knows it, but few act. If only they knew their power. The games industry thrives on power fantasies, but not the kinds that can change a person’s life. Instead, it creates addictive escapist fantasies and many developers pride themselves in that. They pat each other on the back and tell one another they earned their pay by making people happy, by putting smiles on their faces. By helping them escape all shit that’s killing them.
No, they’re not doing that. Not at all. They’re only delaying the routine of victimization, if only for a few hours. But when players turn off the game and get back to their daily lives, the problems are still there. The media still controls what they think. The food still clogs their arteries and the drugs still create more problems than they solve, forcing them to take more drugs. The vicious cycle continues.
They don’t have to be victims though. My own battle with Crohn’s disease is proof of that. I was once a victim, of my own vanity. Of my own low self-esteem. My acne. I took all kinds of acne medications, one after another. From low grade to the motha-fuckin’ A-Bomb itself, Accutane. It destroyed my immune system. Years later, I was diagnosed with Crohn’s disease, an inflammatory bowel disease. Symptoms for people with Crohn’s can range from blood in the stool, fistulas, bowel obstructions and uncontrollable diarrhea.
It’s a shitty way to live… I can joke about it because my Crohn’s is now in remission. I learned how to break free from the vicious cycle by not listening to my pharmaceutical brainwashed doctors. Instead, I listened to my gut and changed my lifestyle and diet. It took a lot of hard work and dedication, but my story proves the benefits one can wield by refusing to be a victim.
I don’t think of Crohn’s as a curse. It’s a gift. I now eat healthier than ever before and love to cook. I don’t take life for granted. My experience proves people don’t have to be victims, not of their relationships, society, technology, corporations, government or of themselves.
However, people aren’t going to get there without a little help. A game can be the hammer that smashes the chains and breaks them free. But the kinds of games the industry strives to make aren’t going to help anyone get there any sooner. To help people realize their full potential and help improve the world, we can start by breaking the vicious cycle on addictive multi-play games. In this complex and increasingly dishonest world we live in, it’s time the videogame industry stepped up to the responsibility it has when wielding such a powerful yet largely untapped medium.
© 2009, Reid Bryant Kimball. All rights reserved.
Tags: addictive, gamesforchange, mmo, positive impact, replayability, socialissu, socialissue, videogames
Hey Reid! Thanks for the cross-post.
I largely agree, although I think there’s a place for these kinds of games, in moderation. But we are not hitting a large portion of this market well, because of a few issues. I think (1) money, (2) real design success (not competitive, but “celebrity broadcast” techniques). Those are the next steps, for this goal.
http://dankline.wordpress.com/2009/08/09/game-design-helping-people-fight-back/
A small quibble – I’m not sure the replayability is the problem. I’m pretty convinced the replayability is inherent, even desirable in the medium. There’s a difference between replayability (from beginning to end) and replayability (gameplay feedback loop), but it’s really just as much nuance as it sounds, and I think, narrative excepted, you can’t have one without the other.
It’s the driver for that replayability that’s the issue, optimizing for the perfect Skinner’s Box. We could just be optimizing it for a host of other things.
Dan,
I agree with you, it is “the driver for that replayability” that I have an issue with. I have no problem with replayability if it offers someone a different perspective to learn something new. Or even to practice what they already know, i.e. approaches to communicating effectively with politicians or bigots for example.
Can you explain more what you mean by “real design success (not competitive, but “celebrity broadcast” techniques).”?
Yes!
I am really inspired by your post, by the way. I’m having trouble thinking of things to say other than “Yes!” and “Wow!” and such, let’s see…
I liked the point about replayability being a waste of time unless it offers an opportunity to learn something new. Simple, but I hadn’t thought of it that way before.
Games can liberate people from their real life prisons instead of trapping them in artificial ones! Yes, this is a powerful message, thank you!
But how do we do this? I believe it but I don’t see the answer just yet.
To me it seems like the place to start is awareness. Show people where they are trapped by making a game about it. How do you go beyond that, though?
Axcho, thanks for the kind words.
Yeah, I agree that a game can change its topic from sci-fi or fantasy to taking place in the real world and dealing with issues we face everyday. That’s not hard technically. The hard part is convincing people that game mechanics based on real life can be interesting.
Your other question, how do game designers transition people from winning in the game to winning in real life? No right way, but I look to documentaries for ideas. The recently released Food, Inc. actually presents text on screen at the end saying, “You can vote 3 times a day, but choosing to eat healthy food.” A game could do the same, but that moment has to be at the height when players feel most inspired, emotionally lit up and empowered to do something. It helps if the game can be seen as a simulation/practice for improving a similar situation in their life.
Another option is to engage the fan community of such a game to host “play & discuss” groups nationally. It will take a grassroots effort to organize such a thing but I think they can encourage people to host parties where people play the games together, discuss the issues explored and at the same time discuss how to improve things in their life.
This comment is long, I should have made it another blog post. Might do that later.
I do agree – championing addictive gameplay over real value (I like to think of it as answering – or at least asking – a question) is ridiculous, though I think the ideal you’re hoping for is an impossibility. Sometimes I like to consider a slice of time… if the whole planet were wiped out, what would people 1000 years from now think of us? I’m sure they’d see even the most basic yet addictive game and have some analog in their own society. Entertainment is a necessity, escapism is important in a crazy world.
The best authors of fiction (both books and movies) must’ve had the knowledge that their story would be taken as a form of distraction as much as anything else. Think of Shakespeare – his plays were being seen by the common man, and surely they were there to forget about their shitty lives more than to be entertained, and they might go see the same play over and over again. Of course, it could easily be argued that you’d learn something new each time through… so maybe I’m proving your point more than anything. Just take heart in remembering that all the crap will fall by the wayside.
The money factor is a big one, at least to my mind. If I have to plunk down $60 for a game and only get two hours of game time out of it, no matter how compelling, I’m going to feel cheated out of my hard-earned money and realize I could have gone to see four movies for that price and had eight or more hours of enjoyment out of my entertainment dollar. Or bought seven books and had even more. Idealistically it would be nice not to have to consider that side of the equation, but I think realistically it needs to be involved in these kinds of discussions.