Special Issue on Religion in Digital Games

The Heidelberg Journal of Religions on the Internet has launched a special issue on Religion in Digital Games. Multiperspective and Interdisciplinary Approaches.

Table of Contents

Article

Complete Edition of “Religion in Digital Games” (Online – Heidelberg Journal of Religions on the Internet) PDF
Simone Heidbrink (ed.), Tobias Knoll (ed.)

Let’s Talk Video Games! Introduction to the Special Issue on Religion in Digital Games PDF
Simone Heidbrink, Tobias Knoll

Theorizing Religion in Digital Games. Perspectives and Approaches PDF
Simone Heidbrink, Tobias Knoll, Jan Wysocki

Studying Religion in Digital Gaming. A Critical Review of an Emerging Field PDF
Gregory Price Grieve, Heidi A. Campbell

Developing a Framework for Understanding the Relationship Between Religion and Videogames PDF
Richard E. Ferdig

Locating the Locus of Study on “Religion” in Video Games PDF
J.D.F. Tuckett, David G. Robertson

Game Cultures as Sub-Creations. Case Studies on Religion & Digital Play PDF
Elke Hemminger

Maker’s Breath. Religion, Magic, and the ‘Godless’ World of BioWare’s Dragon Age II (2011) PDF
Kristin M.S. Bezio

‘The Lamb of Comstock’. Dystopia and Religion in Video Games PDF
Frank G. Bosman

Religion as Resource in Digital Games PDF
Ryan Clark Thames

‘When people pray, a god is born… This god is you!’ An Introduction to Religion and God in Digital Games PDF
Markus Wiemker, Jan Wysocki

The Lord is My Shepard. Confronting Religion in the Mass Effect Trilogy PDF
Joshua A. Irizarry, Ita T. Irizarry

Religion(s) in Videogames. Historical and Anthropological Observations PDF
Alessandro Testa

Socialization of Teenagers Playing The Sims. The Paradoxical Use of Video Games to Re-enchant Life PDF
Pascaline Lorentz

Fátima Postmortem PDF
Luís Lucas Pereira, Licínio Roque

The Mythic Scope of Journey. A Comparative Assessment Concerning the Spirit at Play and Cybernetic Shamanism PDF
Robert William Guyker

Review: „eGods. Faith versus fantasy in computer gaming“ PDF
Moritz Maurer

Patch Wednesday #2: Do Casual Games still Exist?

This is my second Patch Wednesday post where I discuss a question about video games that I think is unanswered, unexplored, or simply not posed yet. I will propose my own tentative ideas, and invite comments. 

The header does sound a bit like Ash Wednesday, so we can reaffirm our faith in the idea of examining video games, but I also call it Patch Wednesday to mark the sometimes ragtag and improvised character of video game studies. It falls mostly on the day after Microsoft’s monthly Patch Tuesday. Time to patch things up and start again.

Question #2: Do Casual Games still Exist?

A Casual RevolutionIt seems a long time ago, but I once wrote a book called A Casual Revolution (2009), where I talked about the expansion of the video game audience, and focused particularly on the downloadable casual games, the Nintendo Wii, and music games.

I had picked the most important platforms, genres, and distribution channels of the day. I knew that these things come and go, and they did, quickly. The Wii is all but gone, and the Wii U is doing poorly and not even built around motion controls, and Sony’s Move didn’t take off. Music games are all but dead. Downloadable casual games is not as important a channel as it used to be.

So do casual games still exist? Is it still an important category? Since publishing the book, I have liked to tell the big-picture story like this (some of this material was also published in the Korean translation):

The Standard Video Game Model

There was a period of time, roughly from 1980 to 2005, when we knew what video games were. Video games, we knew, followed a standard model: they were fairly involved activities that you had to spend hours and days to play; they were mostly sold in boxes; new games and game platforms were always promoted on technically better graphics; games were mostly targeted at young males. (We knew, of course, that video games were in actuality played by men and women, young and old, but most video games were still targeted at the traditional “gamer” demographic.)

This standard model fell apart around 2006. At that time, video games distributed online became a major factor; the industry woke up to the fact that women and adults are perfectly interested in playing video games; the most successful console of the generation, the Nintendo Wii, wasn’t even promoted on better graphics, but on a new easy-to-use interface; game developers began experimenting with games that could be played in shorter sessions.

When I originally wrote the book, these changes were most clearly visible in music games, the Nintendo Wii, and downloadable PC games. Since then, the casual revolution has continued. The trend is still towards new distribution models, a broader audience, and video games arriving in new shapes and sizes, only the revolution has moved on to new platforms. Much of today’s innovation is happening in games for cell phones where the selling point is rarely the latest graphics, but much more about style, about game designs that fit into the lives of players. Furthermore, games on social networks are showing new ways in which games can be integrated into our lives, allowing us to keep contact with distant friends, still playing through every busy day. Games find a way.

The Tally

To score my own efforts, the book was correct in seeing the casual revolution as an expansion of the audience, and as a series of design principles that made games available to people who would not otherwise play them. I was also correct in seeing it as a change that would continue to reshape the industry.

In retrospect, the book put too much emphasis on particular platforms (notice the controller on the cover), but it is hard to tell such a story in the abstract.

I also described five principles of casual design (this was inspired in part by conversations with many industry people):

  1. Positive fiction. Set in a situation you would actually want to be in.
  2. Usability. Easy to use.
  3. Interruptible and with low required time investment.
  4. Difficulty that can become high over time, but always with lenient punishment for failure.
  5. Juiciness. Excessive supportive feedback to the player.

Does this still hold? Time investment remains the most important barrier to play, and most of the principles hold, with significant footnotes for 1) and 4):

1) Positive fiction: Plants vs. Zombies showed that you can make a mass-audience game that is gross and violent, if the representation is sufficiently cute.

4) Punishment: with the recent popularity of Candy Crush, Canabalt, Super Hexagon or Flappy Bird, some of the casual-hardcore distinction seems to collapse. “Casual Games” were never just easy, even if they have sometimes been discussed as such. But the endless runner genre is hugely successful, even though it actually punishes players strongly for failing since you go back to the beginning. This is, in many games, just offset by an accumulation of powerups and resources.

What I failed to see here was the way in which high difficulty and punishment can actually lower the required time investment. Super Hexagon or Flappy Bird are so difficult that the required time investment becomes minuscule, and the individual game session is only a few seconds long.

Things also not predicted:

  1. That the Wii would fade out so quickly.
  2. That the Xbox One and PlayStation 4, though being delayed as predicted, would still be promoted on better graphics, and would sell well (at least initially).
  3. The popularity of smart phone and table gaming.

*

Ironically, the casual revolution in video games is making the term “casual games” less central that it may have been: the audience has become larger and more diverse, and the distribution channels are becoming less distinct. It used to be that the big-budget “hardcore” games could be found on consoles, and the small-budget “casual” games could be found the casual sites, but this is less clear-cut than it used to be, so where do some of recent hits even belong?

So this is the big picture: we used to know what video games were, and now we don’t. We remain in a space of uncertainty: video games can be so many more things than we thought they could, and they continue to change and confound our expectations.

There Once was a Game called Flappy Bird

Flappy Bird

I was talking to Yannick LeJacq a week ago as he was writing an article on The Unflappable Brilliance of Flappy Bird, about the surprise mobile hit of early 2014.

To my surprise, Flappy Bird received an inordinate amount of hate (which I will get to below), so this was one of the very few articles to show any kind of interest in what made the game popular.

My thoughts on the game, some of which also made it into the article:

  • Flappy Bird is so simple that it appears ironic. For a modern game, we expect upgradesachievements, variation in the game, score increments larger than 1, forgiving collision. And none of those are present in the game.
  • Perhaps this was intentional from the designer, perhaps not. Certainly, to play Flappy Bird is to engage in a bit of irony, marveling at all of the things that we expect, but which are missing.
  • We tend to hope that we will find the perfect game; that there is some formula for creating the best, most addictive game possible. And whenever we have a new hit, those hopes get projected onto it. In recent times, the perfect game has been thought to be games like World of WarcraftFarmVilleCandy Crush. And then another game comes along. Charles Pratt and Tadhg Kelly have made similar points. But I think it goes further: people play Flappy Bird because it flies in the face of what every game designer knows at this point. Not because players care the least about what game designers or theorists like myself think, but because the shared conventional wisdom of How You Shall Design Your Game is making games similar, and players know a breath of fresh air when they see it.
  • The game is hard, but hard is casual: the fact that you fail every few seconds means that the time commitment dwindles down to seconds. (Super Hexagon being another recent example.)
  • Like Qwop, Flappy Bird was a sleeper hit. Very challenging games have a particular snowball effect, where they undergo a phase change from being a challenging game, to being a game where we collectively can marvel at how challenging and unfair it is. (And hence not feel bad about failing.)
  • Naturally, the simplicity is a feature. As I say in The Art of Failure, “This is what games do: they promise us that we can repair a personal inadequacy – an inadequacy that they create in us in the first place.” In Flappy Bird we very quickly learn how adequate we are, but the game is so simple that we also immediately know how to escape that inadequacy (flap sooner or later).

The backlash and the removal

And then the developer removed the game on Sunday February 9th.

Leading up to his, the Vietnamese developer had received a considerable amount of hate, the high point possibly being the claim that Flappy Bird Is Making $50,000 A Day Off Ripped Art mostly because the pipes look like Mario pipes. This seemed to start a meme that somehow this game was in legal dire straits both for making green pipes and because other flap-the-wings-and-avoid-obstacles games already existed. Some sites gloated at the removal and suggested that it could have been caused by legal challenges. All of this is nonsense, of course. In my limited legal understanding, there is nothing copyrightable about green pipes, and nothing copyrightable about a core game mechanic. Flappy Bird is among the least guilty games in terms of cloning and borrowing graphics. Also remember that this was the game that no one expected to see.

Some other quotes:

  • “as a game, the tap-to-fly-between-the-pipes gameplay is almost insultingly simple and uninteresting” (source).
  • More thoughtful was Ian Bogost’s article. “Flappy Bird is a game that accepts that it is stupid to be a game.” (Source). Ian shares the feeling that there is something excessive about the game, and that this provides a certain enjoyment.
  • But don’t get me started on comments.

The Backlash Backlash

All of this is very depressing. For reasons hard to fathom, a game by a small developer in Vietnam receives huge amounts of not-very-well-thought-through vitriol for making a game that confounds our expectations.

Get a grip everybody! The point is to be able to understand why people might be playing something that you are not naturally gravitating towards. If you want to be cognizant about games, your task is to understand why,  not just shout that “this game is stupid”.

And [all] journalists should try calling a legal expert before they point their fingers. And not to fan the flames. Sigh. Try to find that inner curiosity.

 

PS. Robert Yang has another critical look at the whole affair.

PPS. And just after I posted this, I see that Keith Stuart has posted an article featuring Bennett Foddy.

PPPS. And here is an interview with Dong Nguyen himself, where he says that he took the game down because it was too addictive – which differs from the motivations that everybody else ascribed the game’s removal to.

Well Played vol 3, number 1

New issue of Well Played.

Assassin’s Creed III: The Complete Unofficial Guide, a Teacher’s Limited Edition
Wade Berger, Patrick Staley

Fiasco and Failure: Uncovering Hidden Rules in a Story Game
Sean C. Duncan

Ninja Gaiden Black and the Tutorial-Less Tutorial
Jason Mathias

Interaction Images promote Character Identification in Heavy Rain
Michael Nixon, Jim Bizzocchi

Replaying the remnants in Mark of the Ninja
Pierre-Marc Côté

Good Fences Make Good Neighbors: Values of Digital Objects in FarmVille2
Jane Gruning

Ascension: a Case Study in Deckbuilding Games
Andy Nealen

The Journal of Games Criticism

We have a new contender: The Journal of Games Criticism vol 1, issue 1 is out.

From Nicholas Hanford’s editorial:

With this journal, it is our aim to create a space for all members of the game studies, game journalism, and game development communities to publish criticism that influences both the making of games and betters our understanding of games as cultural artifacts.

Table of contents:

ARTICLES

Editorial: Standing on the Horizon of the Second Generation

by N. Hanford

Welcome to the inaugural issue of our open access, peer reviewed journal. Drawing out the assumptions and ideals of the journal, this text serves as an introduction for the current and future issues of the Journal of Games Criticism.

The Other Side of the Valley; Or, Between Freud and Videogames

by K. Aardse

This paper explores the root of the uncanny valley as based in Freud’s uncanny and posits that the uncanny valley allows us to engage in acts of violence and enjoy a masochistic relationship with the videogame; this relationship would break down if the uncanny valley is conquered.

INVITED ARTICLES

Across Worlds and Bodies: Criticism in the Age of Video Games

by B. Keogh

This article highlights the values inherited by game studies that have resisted the creation of a toolkit for close, descriptive analysis of individual texts. It suggests one path forward grounded in the phenomenological pleasures of videogame play across worlds and bodies.

“You’re Just Gonna Be Nice”: How Players Engage with Moral Choice Systems 

by A. Lange

Are you a Paragon, or a Renegade? Light Side, or Dark Side? I surveyed over 1000 gamers to see how they engaged with moral choice systems in video games. The results are sadly predictable: You’re all too nice.

Public Memory and Gamer Identity: Retrogaming as Nostalgia

by D. S. Heineman

This essay adopts a critical perspective to analyze the rise of retrogaming culture and its related practices. Specifically, it considers the role of nostalgia in both constructing a retrogamer identity and in contesting histories of the medium.

Visualizing Game Studies: Materiality and Sociality from Chessboard to Circuit Board 

by A. Trammell & A. Sinnreich

In this essay, we describe a paradigm shift in the social function and reception of games, from metaphors to social instruments. We also offer a taxonomic visualization of the Game Studies field in order to show the history of this paradigm shift.

BOOK REVIEW

Gaming for Better Life: A Review of Jane McGonigal’s Reality Is Broken

by Q. Ji

Jane McGonigal’s groundbreaking work Reality Is Broken challenged the negative-effects-oriented rhetoric of game criticism by reconciling the contradictory relationship among games, individual well-being, and social change from a game designer’s perspective.

Patch Wednesday: What Determines how a Game is Played?

This is my inaugural Patch Wednesday post where I discuss a question about video games that I think is unanswered, unexplored, or simply not posed yet. I will propose my own tentative ideas, and invite comments.

The header does sound a bit like Ash Wednesday, so we can reaffirm our faith in the idea of examining video games, but I also call it Patch Wednesday to mark the sometimes ragtag and improvised character of video game studies. It falls mostly on the day after Microsoft’s monthly Patch Tuesday. Time to patch things up and start again.

Question #1: What Determines how a Game is Played

That is, is the player ultimately controlled by the game, or is the game ultimately controlled by the player? I am working on a small piece on this subject.

I believe that there have historically been four central conceptions of the act of playing a game: freedom, submission, subversion and creation.

1) Freedom
The idea that playing a game is a type of freedom, where the game creates a space in which players have a freedom that is enabled by the game design.

  • Salen & Zimmerman (Rules of Play) say that, “Play is free movement within a more rigid structure”.

2) Submission
The idea that playing a game is a type submission, where the player is bound by the limits set forth by the game rules.

  • Gadamer (Truth and Method) argues that, “The real subject of the game  … is not the player but the game itself. What holds the player in its spell, draws him into play, is the game itself.”  (For Gadamer this is not negative as such.)
  • Many traditional critical views of video games follow this model but rate it as profoundly negative, describing players as being led or controlled by the game. Loftus & Loftus compared video games to Skinner boxes.
  • Newer critical opinions on social games and free-to-play games also tend to assume that there is a particular type of design that reduces players to mindless automatons.

3) Subversion
Playing as subversion, where the player overcomes both the intentions of the designer, and the apparent limitations of the game object.

  • Mikael Jakobsson (“Playing with the rules”) examines players of a Smash Brothers variation called Random Smash and argues, “that the very nature of a game can change without changing the core rules”.
  • Linda Hughes (“Children’s games and gaming”), studying Foursquare players, argues that, “players can take the same game and collectively make of it strikingly different experiences”.
  • Mia Consalvo’s book Cheating also stresses how players may act against designer intentions.

4) Creation
Playing as creation, where the game is ultimately created by the activity of the players.  (I discussed this stance in an article on Zero-Player Games.)

  • Ermi and Mäyrä (“Fundamental components of the gameplay experience”), say that “Yet, the essence of a game is rooted in its interactive nature, and there is no game without a player.”
  • Anne-Mette Thorhauge (“The Rules of the Game”) claims that game rules are in actuality created by players. “The player culture is not just something taking place ‘‘on top’’ of the game, it rather defines the game as a product of the continuous communication and negotiation among players.”

Hybrid and prescriptive ideas
The four positions above are generalizations about how the playing of a game works, but there are also arguments made for the benefits of particular types of design. Calls for emergent gameplay (like those of Harvey Smith) argue for the value of games that leave room for the player.

Conversely, some people who argue for games as expressive devices claim that games should control the player in order to facilitate the designer’s ability to communicate a message. (This discussion would be worth a separate post.)

I have also personally been interested in the examination of how particular game designs can be more or less open, saying that we cannot generalize and decide between the positions outlined above (Emergence and Progression, Without a Goal, Flexible Games). It could sound like this is already present in Roger Caillois’ Paidia-Ludus distinction, but Caillois emphasizes that paidia are unstructured activities, rather than structured activities that give rise to freedom.

Anything else?
Is this a complete list?