Jason Rohrer: The Most Brilliant Game Designer Who Wasn't

Me
Wednesday, May 05, 2010

Editor's note: Forget whether games are art, Dennis wants to know whether games are, well, games. How do we define the practice of manipulating digital avatars in virtual worlds? What criteria do we use? Dennis suggests that conditions of victory and defeat ultimately define "game," though, I'm not so sure I agree. But can this conversation equip us with the terminology to finally discuss games as art? -Rob


A recent article on Crispy Gamer discussed the inadequacies of the word "game." In the comments section of this article, readers provide evidence of this deficiency in the fact that gamers use the word to describe Jason Rohrer's Sleep is Death -- "game" doesn't sufficiently describe Rohrer's work.

"Game" is necessarily vague because it stands for a broad swath of human experiences. The fact that we follow up the sentence "I am playing a game" with the question "what kind of game?" is no failure on behalf of the word. Unless someone specifically refers to this meta view when he uses the word, he uses it improperly. It requires modifiers to have any meaning outside of this one -- like "board," "card," "dice," "video," "altered reality," etc. The language is clear, and adequate, if used properly.

In their book "Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals," Eric Zimmerman and Katie Salen suggest that Sim City may not be a game because it lacks a victory condition. I think this is very reasonable and defensible argument. One of the things we see when we look at a game are victory conditions, -- positive or negative, temporary or permanent -- which are a result of player interaction.

 

A simple game tends to have very defined, permanent victory conditions. Either you clear the deck in solitaire or you don't, and then the game is over and it's time to play another round. One of us puts the other in checkmate or we agree to call it a draw, and then the game is over and it's time to set the pieces up again.

More complex games can have either partial or temporary conditions related to victory. In World of Warcraft, an attempted raid that wipes out the entire party is a temporary condition of loss. We attempted a goal, and we failed it in epic fashion -- thank you, Leeroy. That we can immediately dust ourselves off and get back up to try again is irrelevant in terms of briefly suffering a loss -- a cost associated with failure. In this case, it is the hours spent organizing the raid and then carrying it out without achieving the desired end. We lost time.

Sometimes the victory conditions may be more vague but still present. Sid Meier's Pirates! has a temporary fail state wherein the player loses his ship and money but can gain them back over time. The setback is real and avoidable if one does not fail at certain challenges.

Farmville has a competition between players in regards to who has the biggest and best farm, which facilitates winners and losers and means that victory conditions exist. They may be constantly in flux, but they are still present.

Passage

Passage contains no victory conditions of any sort. The scoring mechanic is a metaphor for life's endeavors -- some of which may bear fruit but many of which will not. No matter what we do, the game ends in five minutes with our death; therefore, what may look like a victory condition is not because it is predetermined. We die in Super Mario Bros. as well, but we have some control over it. Our goal is not to die, hence that is a temporary victory condition.

I personally think that calling Passage a game is doing it a disservice. It is not played, but experienced. It is not a game, but a work of digital art. And I think it is brilliant. More on why, precisely, in a moment.


Game|Life posted an article about Rohrer's Sleep is Death, which mostly takes the form of a conversation between John Mix Meyer and Gus Mastrapa. The article describes this work alternately as "an indie game" or "a multiplayer-storytelling game." To quote from the article:

One person takes the role of “controller,” who steers the story and creates the assets the story will use. The other person, known as the “player,” can either go along with the story the controller has set up or try to subvert it to their own intentions. The controller and the player take turns performing their actions, with each having a 30-second time limit per turn.

This, also, is not a game. There is no goal other than to interact with digital art and tell a story. Would we consider two people taking a piece of paper, marking it out into squares, and treating each square as a cell in a cartoon, drawing the pictures communally to tell a story, a "game"? I certainly would not. I would call it "telling a story."

Mastrapa suggests that the mechanic of players taking turns transforms Sleep is Death into a "game." Perhaps if the time limits behind those turns eventually led to one player being cast out of the experience then it might be fairly considered a "game mechanic." Either do your part to contribute in a meaningful way to the story in 30 seconds before your partner's turn rolls around, or get kicked out of the experience. That sounds like a victory condition -- but this isn't how the software works.

View Shannon Galvin's contribution on the Sleep is Death website. Galvin was a concept artist and 3D modeler for Maxis, and he developed his own set of resources for Rohrer's new software. When you view Shannon's work, you are viewing a slide show of a digital story being told -- not footage of a game being played.

I must admit that when the kitchen scene suddenly transforms into an alien environment, the sense of being in an old-school adventure game is palpable, but similar form does not mean equivalency. What we witness is the manipulation of a set of programmed "rules" to tell a tale. Sleep is Death is more appropriately compared to Second Life in this sense, which is decidedly not a game either.

It would be easy to go with Mastrapa's allusion to Dungeons and Dragons, if we consider the controller in Sleep is Death the "dungeon master" and the second player the "player character," but no mechanics operate under the hood in Shannon's story. We have no virtual die roll to determine whether the the player picks up the knife from the kitchen table or whether the rock successfully rolls into place to block the cave entrance. Role-playing games are more than just story, whether we refer to the tabletop or video incarnations of the genre.

A more appropriate metaphor would be Legos or Erector sets. We "play with" Legos to construct an object, but we do not "play" Legos. We do not win or lose at Legos, we simply interact with them to whatever end we feel is appropriate. We can "play with" the programming and assets of Sleep is Death to create a story, but we do not "play" it in any recognizable sense of the word.

 
1 2 Nextarrow
Problem? Report this post
BITMOB'S SPONSOR
Adsense-placeholder
Comments (10)
Robsavillo
May 05, 2010

Notions of victory and defeat can vary greatly, and for that reason I think they are poorly equipped as defining characteristics of being a game. Instead, I think a game is anything in which participants exploit a rule set to achieve a particular end -- even if that end is the exploitation of the rule set itself.

Default_picture
May 05, 2010

Excellent article indeed. I agree with you for the most part. I think if competition were involved in simulation games, victory is there. Let's say Seven Kingdoms. Although more of StarCraft genre, you still competed in building the best and most ruling empire of land on the map. Some-what similar in the Sim City situation, and least a small portion of  the building aspects.


But at the same time, a game needs a story to unfold and give the gamer that sort of suspense (depending on what type your playing). Unless it's a sport or racing, action and fighting games have their share of stories and endings. I think the Metal Gear series is for sure a form of art--it brought the players into their own world of Metal Gear and brought it's character's to life. When you watch a movie, let's say Dark Knight, you believed the Heath Ledger was The Joker, not the actor. When you played Metal Gear Solid 4, you were sucked into thinking that Ocelot was Liquid from his hand. Yes, it's more like a movie, but I think many games that share cinemas and story telling are getting closer and closer to not just a "game." It's crafted and in depth.

Twitpic
May 05, 2010

This is a really wonderfully written article. I see your points, and I take note of them, but I do disagree with them.

If I decide to play a game of basketball with my friends, but choose not to keep score, we're still playing a game. Sure, there is no win or lose, we're just having fun, but it is a game. If I shoot the ball and make it into the basket, it's the other persons turn. Just like in Sleep is Death.

I'm really hesitant to not call Sleep is Death a game. It sure is different, but it's more like a new genre of games -- one I'm looking forward to more developers experimenting with.

Again, great article, but I do disagree with you.

Me
May 05, 2010

@ Chris - I would argue that you are still playing a game when you play that game of basketball, you are just choosing to ignore the scoring mechanic; but when we categorize basketball we consider the default ruleset, not personal adaptations. We could say that anyone who plays Halo not to actually play but to set up events for movie recordings is not "actually" playing Halo, but it's still a game.

I can't call Sleep is Death a game because "interactive storytelling exercise" describes it more accurately. I think it's akin to how biologists assign species to life - they look for the things which that species has the most in common with, and then place it into the appropriate category. Sleep is Death has more in common with communal storytelling exercises than it does anything we would recognize as a game, which is why I disqualify it. In my mind, if a category is appropriate, there is no question as to whether a thing in that category belongs there.

So, we could say that by virtue of Sleep is Death even being questionable as a game, it therefore automatically is not, and that the identification with a more appropriate category is irrelevant to the case. There just happens to be another category ready for us to place Sleep is Death into. :)

@ Rob - There's a difference between play and a game, I think. What you describe sounds like play from a developmental point of view, the way child psychologists might talk about it...but not all "play" is a "game." I'd like to hear you expand upon this perspective!

Twitpic
May 05, 2010

@ Dennis: Great point! Well, you've given me something to think about, which is always good.

I think maybe I just disagree with a game having to have a victory condition, or a win or lose scenario. Of course, that may just be the rebel inside of me. ;)

Robsavillo
May 06, 2010

Dennis, in my mind, exploiting a rule set to achieve an end meets your standard of victory/defeat without explicitly calling the end victory or defeat. The participants have agreed to follow a set of rules in order to accomplish something, whether that something be competitive or cooperative doesn't make much of a difference to me. In other words, I don't think games necessarily need to be competitive to be games.

I haven't played Sleep Is Death, but I presume that underlying mechanics do operate under the hood, much like D&D. Player interactions through the creation of story must adhere to some rules, otherwise the program couldn't express player input in a meaningful way.

Me
May 06, 2010

@Rob - Sleep is Death doesn't have a rule set. I can't accept the semantic argument that programming code constitutes a rule set the way we, as gamers, use the term "rule set." Any time we have to really bend the meaning of a word or phrase it order to make it work in a specific context is the first clue, for me, that we're using the wrong word.

The code would be the closest thing to a ruleset, but even that is open code. In the Game|Life article the two writers talk about how they "broke" the 30-second trade-off between users to give themselves as much time as they wanted to interact with the software. This is a good illustration of how Sleep is Death doesn't really have "rules," which further suggests it is not a game in my mind.

I agree with you entirely that games don't have to be competitive *between players* to be games. When my friend and I play Gears of War campaigns co-op, we're still playing a game. The competition is to survive, to complete the game, to overcome the challenges presented to us.

I think the reason why everyone wants to call Sleep is Death a game is twofold:

1) It speaks to this recent debate with Roger Ebert. "See, look at Jason Rohrer! Games really ARE art!" I had a dialogue with Gus Mastrapa where he intimated as much - he asked why we should "give games like these away" to any other medium. My response was that humans don't give things away when they categorize items, they categorize them into the most appropriate category, and that process has nothing to do with how we personally feel about what category a thing winds up in. Not if we're doing it correctly.

2) As soon as we see graphics and interactivity, we leap to apply the label "video game." It comes very natural and easily to us. As I write these responses, I have to make myself use the word "user," not "player," and "software," not "game," because I have to fight those gamer instincts to apply the easy label - but they are gamer instincts. If I force myself to take a step back and look at Sleep is Death from the point of view of a media theorist, to what degree I can from my film and New Media backgrounds, I can't maintain the perception that this is a game.

It just goes to show how deeply ingrained in us it has become to make these sorts of automatic leaps when we see familiar elements being employed. Once upon a time Second Life was called a "game," and now I rarely, if ever, hear it described as such. I mostly hear about SL in academia, with people building virtual libraries and giving virtual lectures. Second Life is "virtual reality," the more appropriate category, and that's what has stuck, not "game."

Lance_darnell
May 06, 2010

Wonderful post! Amazing, well thought comments! I am not going to say where I stand, for I think most of the viewpoints were well stated above. 

Robsavillo
May 06, 2010

I don't think it's a semantic argument that program code is a rule set. Absolutely, code is a rule set, it's just digitally enforced by the computer instead of socially enforced by friends. If the program says my character can only jump so high or hold so many guns -- those are rules.

And breaking the rules -- whether that be hacking or modding -- is not any different than setting house rules for a board game. All you're doing is redefining the rules that the players have agreed to follow.

And from what I understand about Sleep Is Death, it's not analogous to Second Life.

Me
May 07, 2010

Please note that I did specifically say I couldn't accept equating code with the phrase "rule set" - the way I hear gamers use the phrase - "rule set." I only hear the phrase used in reference to tabletop RPG or war games, and exclusively in discussion of the actual game mechanics, i.e. what die roll one needs to hit, whether a piece of terrain grant cover, how much weight a character can carry according to a table or chart.

I rarely hear them using the phrase to describe the size of the playing space, which certainly has a marked effect on the progress of play in a tabletop wargame, but which strikes me as more of a mechanical consideration, a framing of the space within play takes place rather than the play itself. Connected, but different.

 
However: computer code has nothing, intrinsically, to do with games. It has to do with software behavior. Sometimes that software is a game, sometimes it isn't - so I can't accept that Sleep is Death is a game *just* because it is expressed in computer code which we could call a "ruleset." My father's tax accounting software packages also are expressed in computer code. They are assuredly *not* games.
 
 
We can't call Sleep is Death a game on account of its lacking victory conditions, and we can't call it a game simply because it is software which has code. This is the analogy to Second Life. Second Life has a "rule set" from your argument because it has code. It has avatars, and graphics, and virtual environments, all of which we commonly associate with video games...but I cannot accept that Second Life is a game, either.
 
It has the trappings of a video game, but not the substance which I consider essential and intrinsic to all the other things which we call "games" without arguing whether they actually are or not: card games, dice games, tabletop wargames, role-playing games, or video games. They all have victory conditions.
 
The fact that they all have this in common, AND that we don't argue about whether or not they are games, is the point. It suggests very strongly that the airtight qualification for something being a "game" or not is the presence of absence of victory conditions in any form, overt or subtle.
 
Second Life and Sleep is Death do not have those conditions, hence they are analogous to one another. They look like video games, they are easy to mistake as video games, but if we dig deep down and ask ourselves what a "game" really is, they both cease to fit the definition.

 

I will keep responding so long as you keep posting comments, which can make me come off sounding like a know-it-all who always wants the last word, but I will keep responding because I love a good debate and you just made me retract a point, which hones my argument, which is the POINT of a good debate.

The point of my piece, however, is that this discussion we are having is a valuable aspect of the "games as art" debate. I don't know many gamers who have these sorts of discussions. They are content to just pop discs in and out of drives and call it a day. Most art enthusiasts I know DO have substantive discussions about the art they enjoy, from theoretical points of view.

My feeling is that video games are not art yet precisely because these conversations don't take place among the rank and file, those of us who consume the media, for the most part. Designers like Jesse Schell have them. Theorists like Zimmerman and Salen have them.  Rarely do my gaming friends have any desire to have those discussions. Some of them do, but the vast majority do not.

I think that if we took a hard look at art enthusiasts, it would likely be the other way around...so do we want to argue that the interactive nature of video games versus the more passive intake of the accepted arts somehow serves to squash the critical thinking that seems to go hand-in-hand with impassioned interest in the "accepted" arts?

And if so...doesn't that speak directly against video games being art, in the sense of their being much less intellectually and emotionally engaging? I'm not sure I want to take that route. I'd rather inspire discussions like these and see what takes root, and let the sustainable nature of these discussions among "rank and file" game enthusiasts speak to the maturity of our medium. Eventually, the collective weight of those discussions will force video games into the realm of "art" by popular consensus.

You must log in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.