Hi Everyone!
I wanted to share my final project with you all. I really enjoyed working with you all this semester and I hope we see each other around!
Happy Holidays!
Melissa
The Ludic World of Twins
No Description
Brandon Smith
DH 780
12/15/24
How Have Theories of Play and Gamification, Rooted in Cultural, Political, and Economic Systems, Influenced the Development of Gamification Practices in Video Games, Particularly in Navigating Censorship and Shaping Political and Economic Themes?
Introduction
The intersection of play and gamification offers critical insight into cultural, political, and economic systems, with video games frequently serving as powerful tools for both reflecting and critiquing these societal forces. Early theories of play, particularly Johan Huizinga’s Homo Ludens and Roger Caillois’ Man, Play and Games, laid foundational principles for understanding the role of play in human life. Their work emphasized how play, far from being a mere diversion, is integral to the development of societal norms, politics, and economies. These theoretical frameworks have influenced the design of modern video games, particularly in the use of gamification—where game-like elements are applied to real-world systems to engage, educate, and critique.
Today, video games engage deeply with political and economic themes, often navigating the constraints of censorship and cultural sensitivities. With a global gaming market, the way games tackle complex issues like governance, capitalism, and ethics has become a contentious area for developers. This paper will argue that the theoretical foundations of play and gamification, when rooted in historical and contemporary cultural, political, and economic systems, have not only shaped game design but have also given games the power to serve as critical mediums for societal reflection and critique.
Through case studies such as Civilization, Papers, Please, and Airplane Simulator, this paper explores the symbiotic relationship between gamification, political discourse, and economic education. In addition, it addresses the complexities of navigating censorship in a globalized market. This research ultimately seeks to contribute to the ongoing academic discourse on the role of gamification in video games, particularly regarding their potential as tools for education, critique, and political engagement, while highlighting the challenges developers face in a culturally diverse and politically charged environment.
Early Theories of Play and Gamification
Johan Huizinga’s Homo Ludens
In Homo Ludens, Johan Huizinga presents the concept of play as central to the formation of culture. He argues that play is a voluntary, rule-bound activity that exists in a “magic circle” separated from real life. Within this circle, players are free to explore different behaviors and consequences without real-world repercussions. The magic circle concept remains pivotal in understanding how video games simulate complex, real-world systems—from economics and politics to social structures—within a controlled, fictional environment.
For instance, games such as SimCity and Cities: Skylines exemplify how the “magic circle” allows players to simulate the management of cities and urban planning, testing economic theories, handling social issues like crime or education, and experimenting with policies without real-world consequences. Here, Huizinga’s theory of play offers a lens to understand how video games act as a microcosm of society where players experience the dynamics of power, governance, and economics.
Huizinga’s notion of “play” extends beyond entertainment, allowing players to critique societal norms and experiment with alternative political or economic models. It is this freedom and flexibility within the magic circle that has allowed games to explore diverse, often politically charged themes.
Roger Caillois’ Taxonomy of Play
Roger Caillois, in Man, Play and Games, categorizes play into four primary forms:
These categories illuminate how different video game genres create distinct player experiences. Competitive games such as Monopoly or Street Fighter focus heavily on agôn, emphasizing skill, strategy, and rivalry. Role-playing games (RPGs) like The Witcher or The Elder Scrolls rely on mimicry, immersing players in alternate worlds where they embody characters, navigate political landscapes and make economic decisions. In contrast, Ilinx-focused games such as Mirror’s Edge emphasize physical sensation and vertigo, often through intense, high-speed parkour movement.
Caillois also contrasts paidia (spontaneous, free-form play) with ludus (structured, rule-bound play). This distinction is vital for understanding the balance in many video games, where open-world exploration (paidia) exists alongside more structured quests or challenges (ludus). Games like Grand Theft Auto V offer expansive worlds that allow players to roam freely while also providing structured missions that contribute to an overarching narrative or thematic exploration.
Economic and Political Roots of Gamification
Historical Use of Games for Economic Modeling
The roots of gamification in economic systems can be traced back to the early 20th century. One of the first examples of a game designed with the intent to critique capitalism is The Landlord’s Game, the precursor to Monopoly. Originally designed by Elizabeth Magie in 1903, The Landlord’s Game was intended to demonstrate the social and economic consequences of monopolistic practices. Magie’s design later evolved into the game we know today, which, though still a critique of capitalism, is often played without an understanding of its origins.
Modern video games such as Stardew Valley and EVE Online demonstrate how gamification can be a tool for modeling complex economic behaviors. In Stardew Valley, players manage a farm and engage in economic exchanges, balancing production with market demand. Similarly, EVE Online offers a complex virtual economy where players engage in trade, resource management, and speculative trading, mirroring the real-world intricacies of global capitalism and finance.
Games like The Sims and SimCity also allow players to engage with economic systems, from managing household budgets to constructing entire cities. By simulating the flow of money, goods, and services, these games offer intuitive insights into the interconnectedness of economic systems. These simulations allow players to experiment with different economic models, providing education on topics like budgeting, resource allocation, and the impact of various economic policies.
Political Simulations and Strategy Games
Political simulations have gained significant popularity in recent years, with games like Democracy 4, Civilization VI, and Tropico offering players the chance to experiment with governance. In Civilization, players build empires, manage resources, and engage in diplomacy or warfare, navigating the complexities of social, political, and economic decision-making. These games often mimic real-world political dynamics, forcing players to balance the demands of military expansion, economic growth, and social stability. Players can also experiment with political ideologies, such as democracy, communism, or fascism, and observe their consequences on the game’s virtual society.
Political simulations not only entertain but also encourage critical thinking about real-world governance. They present complex, often intractable issues, such as the role of military expansion or the ethics of colonialism, in ways that force players to confront uncomfortable questions about the real world. The use of war games in military training further underscores gamification’s potential as a tool for both education and policy critique.
Contemporary Gamification Practices in Video Games
Navigating Censorship in Gaming
Censorship in video games is a constant challenge, particularly when addressing politically sensitive themes. Games often have to navigate the regulatory landscape of various countries, each with its own restrictions on the portrayal of violence, politics, or controversial issues. For example, Airplane Simulator faced backlash for including scenarios reminiscent of the 9/11 attacks, forcing developers to remove certain content to meet cultural sensitivities. Similarly, Blizzard Entertainment’s decision to penalize players for supporting Hong Kong protesters during a 2019 tournament sparked global debates about the role of corporations in moderating political speech in games.
Hand gestures, symbols, and cultural references are also subject to censorship, as their meanings can vary drastically across cultures. For instance, Nazi symbols are often banned in Germany, while other countries impose restrictions on depictions of religion, sexuality, or political movements. Developers must strike a delicate balance between creating games that resonate with global audiences and avoiding offending players in sensitive markets.
Gamification in Economic and Political Education
Beyond entertainment, gamification increasingly serves as a tool for economic and political education. Virtual environments like EVE Online create complex, functioning economies that mirror real-world markets. Players can buy, sell, and trade virtual commodities, providing insight into the mechanisms of capitalism. Similarly, Democracy 4 allows players to experiment with policy decisions, exploring the trade-offs between taxation, healthcare, and environmental protection. These games provide opportunities for players to learn about economics and politics in an engaging, interactive environment.
In this sense, gamification serves both as a pedagogical tool and a platform for critical reflection on political and economic systems. It allows players to experiment with policy and governance decisions, deepening their understanding of the complexities of societal management.
Case Studies of Political and Economic Themes in Video Games
Civilization: Balancing Expansion and Diplomacy
The Civilization series exemplifies how video games incorporate political and economic theories into their gameplay. As players build empires, manage resources, and engage in diplomacy or warfare, they must navigate the competing demands of military expansion, economic stability, and social welfare. The game’s mechanics reflect real-world challenges, such as the need to balance technological advancement with resource management and the importance of maintaining alliances while expanding borders. Civilization challenges players to think critically about governance, strategy, and the long-term consequences of their decisions.
Papers, Please: Navigating Bureaucracy and Ethics
In Papers, Please, players assume the role of an immigration officer in a fictional totalitarian state. The game explores themes of bureaucracy, surveillance, and the ethical dilemmas faced by individuals within an oppressive regime. As players process immigration documents, they must balance efficiency with empathy, deciding whether to admit or deny entry to immigrants based on an ever-changing set of rules. This dynamic mirrors real-world tensions in immigration policy, where bureaucratic decisions can have life-altering consequences for individuals.
The game’s stark portrayal of political control and economic hardship underscores gamification’s potential to foster empathy and critical thinking. By putting players in the position of making moral decisions under pressure, Papers, Please challenges players to reflect on the broader implications of their actions in the real world.
Airplane Simulator: Censorship and Political Sensitivity
Airplane Simulator serves as an intriguing case study for examining how political and cultural sensitivity intersects with game design. The game, which simulates air travel and various emergency scenarios, faced significant backlash for scenarios that seemed eerily reminiscent of the tragic 9/11 attacks. Developers were forced to remove content to appease regulators and avoid alienating international audiences. This case exemplifies how global markets influence game content, especially when developers must navigate censorship laws, including those that restrict depictions of violence or politically sensitive events. Airplane Simulator’s experience with censorship is reflective of a broader trend in the gaming industry, where content is often altered to align with local cultural norms and political expectations.
The issue of censorship is not just about removing certain content; it’s about the broader implications of these changes on the narrative and the game’s ability to engage with critical political themes. The decision to alter or remove content in the name of avoiding controversy challenges developers’ ability to fully explore politically sensitive topics. The tension between artistic expression and the market-driven nature of the gaming industry often forces game creators to compromise on their ability to critically address political or social issues.
This dynamic is particularly evident in titles like Call of Duty, which frequently contains content reflecting real-world geopolitical conflicts. The portrayal of violence and military operations often requires modifications for regional releases, further complicating the developer’s role in conveying their intended message. This raises questions about the ethical responsibility of game designers and the limits of free expression in the context of globalized, commercialized game development.
Political and Economic Engagement through Gamification
Gamification has proven to be a versatile tool for engaging with economic and political themes in ways that traditional media often cannot. By immersing players in virtual worlds where they directly interact with economic systems, political structures, and social norms, games offer an experiential learning opportunity. Players do not simply learn about economics or politics—they actively participate in them. This participatory nature of games allows players to experiment with policies, economic strategies, and governance structures, offering them a deeper understanding of these systems.
For example, SimCity and Cities: Skylines allow players to build and manage cities, making decisions about taxation, infrastructure, and resource distribution. These decisions have real-world consequences within the game, and players are often forced to balance competing interests, such as economic growth, environmental sustainability, and social welfare. The challenge of balancing these competing priorities mirrors the dilemmas faced by policymakers in real-world governance. These games, therefore, not only entertain but also educate, teaching players about the complexities of urban planning, resource management, and the impact of political and economic decisions on society.
Similarly, Democracy 4 provides a platform for players to assume the role of a political leader, making decisions on everything from taxation and healthcare to foreign policy. The game’s focus on policy experimentation allows players to test different political ideologies and see the outcomes of their decisions. In this way, the game functions as a tool for both political education and critique, encouraging players to reflect on the role of government in society and the challenges that leaders face in balancing competing interests.
Games like these underscore the potential of gamification to serve as a tool for political and economic education. By allowing players to experiment with policies and governance decisions in a safe, controlled environment, these games provide valuable insights into the complexities of real-world political and economic systems.
Games as Political Critique
While gamification offers a unique platform for political engagement, many games also serve as direct critiques of political and economic systems. Papers, Please is a prime example of how games can challenge players to think critically about authoritarianism, bureaucracy, and ethics. The game places players in the role of a border control officer in a totalitarian state, where they must make decisions that affect the lives of immigrants seeking entry into the country. The game forces players to confront the moral dilemmas inherent in bureaucratic systems, where rules and regulations often supersede individual rights and freedoms.
The choices players make in Papers, Please have real-world implications, making the game an effective vehicle for raising awareness about the human cost of oppressive political regimes. By putting players in a position of authority, the game encourages them to consider the ethical dimensions of their decisions and reflect on the broader consequences of political systems that prioritize efficiency over empathy.
Papers, Please also highlights the power of games to explore political themes in a way that engages players emotionally. By forcing players to confront difficult moral choices, the game fosters empathy for those affected by oppressive political systems. This emotional engagement is a key component of gamification, as it enhances the player’s understanding of political and social issues while also encouraging critical reflection on their own values and beliefs.
Similarly, Spec Ops: The Line serves as a critique of militarism and the glorification of war in video games. The game’s narrative centers on a group of soldiers sent on a mission to Dubai, where they encounter the moral and psychological consequences of their actions. Through its gameplay and narrative, Spec Ops: The Line challenges the traditional heroic narrative found in many military-themed video games, forcing players to question the morality of war and the effects of violence on both soldiers and civilians.
These examples demonstrate how games can function as powerful tools for political critique, offering players a unique opportunity to engage with complex social and political issues. Through their interactive nature, games can foster a deeper understanding of political systems and encourage players to reflect on their own role in shaping the world around them.
Fable: The Role of Morality and Political Systems in Game Design
Fable, developed by Lionhead Studios and released in 2004, is a highly influential action RPG that blends traditional fantasy elements with unique gameplay mechanics, most notably its dynamic moral system. The game allows players to make choices that significantly affect their character’s morality and the world around them. The narrative and design of Fable explore complex political and social themes, offering a rich example of how games can incorporate systems that reflect societal issues, power dynamics, and personal agency.
One of the key features of Fable is its morality system, where player actions throughout the game directly impact the character’s alignment, altering their appearance, abilities, and interactions with NPCs. Good deeds, such as helping townspeople and defeating evil creatures, make the player’s character appear virtuous, while evil actions, like committing crimes or betraying allies, lead to a more sinister transformation. This system introduces a moral dichotomy where the player must balance the benefits of power and freedom with the consequences of their decisions.
While Fable presents the illusion of a free and open moral system, it also critiques the nature of choice within constrained political systems. The game’s design highlights how personal morality can intersect with societal expectations and the limitations of the world around the player. In many ways, the morality system of Fable reflects the tension between individual autonomy and social control, with the player’s ability to influence the world often feeling constrained by the game’s narrative structure.
This interplay between choice and consequence aligns with Johan Huizinga’s theory of play as a framework for understanding Fable’s moral system. According to Huizinga, play creates a space where real-world rules are temporarily suspended, allowing players to experiment with moral decisions and explore their own values. Fable offers this space, but the consequences of players’ actions suggest that even within the confines of a fictional world, moral and political systems can shape and limit the freedom of the individual.
Political Systems and the Quest for Power
In Fable, the theme of political systems is deeply intertwined with the player’s journey. The protagonist’s actions and alignment determine their ability to influence the world, leading to multiple possible endings based on whether they choose to rule as a benevolent monarch or a tyrant. The game presents a political landscape where power is earned through personal decisions, and this power can be used to reshape the world in either a positive or destructive way.
The player can become a hero or villain, and with that comes the political responsibility to govern the kingdom, manage resources, and make laws that affect the game world. This aspect of the game reflects Fable’s commentary on the nature of political authority and leadership. The player’s role in shaping the kingdom mirrors real-world political power structures, where leaders often make decisions that affect the lives of others, for better or worse. This connection to political systems and power is reminiscent of Roger Caillois’ theory of play, which focuses on how games mirror social structures and how play can reflect the exercise of power in society.
By making choices that affect the world politically and morally, Fable invites players to critically engage with themes of leadership, authority, and governance. These choices often highlight the trade-offs between personal power and societal well-being, offering an opportunity to reflect on how political decisions are made in the real world and the potential for both good and harm.
Cultural Critique and Social Commentary
Fable also serves as a critique of societal norms, values, and the human condition. Through its fantasy setting, the game presents a simplified version of the political and social systems that govern real-world societies. The kingdom of Albion, in which the game takes place, is a place where the effects of class, wealth, and moral choices are heavily emphasized. Social inequalities, such as the division between the rich and the poor, are represented in the game world, and players can interact with these societal issues in meaningful ways.
The game encourages players to challenge the status quo, whether through charitable acts or by exploiting the systems in place for personal gain. These interactions form a social commentary, drawing attention to the ways in which power, morality, and class shape individuals’ lives. Fable acts as a microcosm of the larger societal structures in the real world, allowing players to reflect on their own values and the impact of their actions on others.
Additionally, the game’s use of humor and satire amplifies its critique of political and social systems. Characters, quests, and dialogue often poke fun at traditional fantasy tropes, such as the “chosen one” hero or the corrupt politician, offering a satirical commentary on political systems and the personalities that inhabit them. This aspect of Fable aligns well with the framework of cultural critique as outlined by Mary Flanagan in her work on the cultural dimensions of games. By creating a world that mirrors societal issues while using humor to critique them, Fable invites players to question the systems they live within.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, the intersection of play and gamification in video games has proven to be a powerful medium for reflecting, critiquing, and shaping political and economic systems. Theories of play, such as those by Johan Huizinga and Roger Caillois, laid the foundation for understanding how games simulate real-world systems, providing both a space for experimentation and critique. As games have evolved, they have increasingly engaged with political and economic themes, offering players the opportunity to explore complex issues such as governance, capitalism, and the ethical ramifications of their decisions. Games like Civilization, Papers, Please, and SimCity showcase the ways in which gamification can not only entertain but also educate, fostering critical thinking about societal structures. However, as demonstrated through case studies involving censorship, such as Airplane Simulator, the influence of global markets and cultural sensitivities often forces developers to navigate complex challenges. Ultimately, gamification in video games serves as a tool for both political education and critique, providing a unique platform for players to engage with and reflect on the intricacies of real-world systems.
Reflection:
Reflecting on the impact of gamification in video games, it is clear that the practice offers a unique lens through which players can interact with complex political and economic issues. The ability to simulate governance, manage resources, and make moral decisions in a controlled environment not only enhances the educational value of video games but also provides a space for societal reflection. Through games like Papers, Please, which forces players to confront ethical dilemmas in an authoritarian state, and SimCity, which challenges players to balance economic growth with social welfare, the medium demonstrates its potential to provoke thoughtful discussions about real-world systems.
However, the influence of cultural and political forces cannot be ignored. Developers often find themselves walking a fine line between artistic expression and market demands, especially when it comes to addressing sensitive issues. The example of Airplane Simulator serves as a reminder of the constraints that censorship can impose on game design. Despite these challenges, the ongoing evolution of gamification in video games signals a growing recognition of the medium’s potential as a tool for political engagement and critique. As the global gaming industry continues to expand, the role of gamification in shaping both societal norms and individual perspectives will undoubtedly become an even more significant area of exploration in the coming years.
Works Cited:
Caillois, Roger. Man, Play and Games. University of Illinois Press, 2001.
Huizinga, Johan. Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play-Element in Culture. Beacon Press, 1955.
Hey all, I really enjoyed hearing everyone’s projects last night and insights all semester long. Please keep in touch and share links!
My project stuff…
Details…
I think I still have one more post to submit, so I’ll take this opportunity to share my reflections on last week’s class.
1) Josh & Ben’s Presentation
I truly appreciate the readings they selected and how closely their presentation was tied to those materials. Most of all, I admire their sincere reflections as game designers navigating the complexities of the industry while pondering the kinds of games they want to create.
I’m still reflecting on Josh’s comment that “games don’t have to be just playful.” Many profitable games emphasize the “win-lose” loop because it’s an easy way to capture players’ attention and deliver the instant gratification of winning or the sting of losing. However, as Josh pointed out—and as their game exemplifies—there’s another layer to gaming: regaining a playful experience(probably there is a better word, but for now I am going with this one ). In their game, players are drawn into the imaginative vision of fish swimming in the sky. I particularly loved this imagery because it resonated with a personal experience I had while snorkeling. Floating on the waves, with schools of fish gliding beneath me, I felt the seamless connection between the sky and the ocean. This beautifully aligns with Jenkins’ concept of environmental storytelling.
Furthermore, the act of taking photos as a core gameplay element shifts the focus away from competition, allowing players to rediscover playfulness in a gentle, introspective way. This reminds me of Unpacking, another game rooted in nostalgic gameplay. In Unpacking, players follow the protagonist through various life stages by unpacking moving boxes and arranging items in new living spaces. For someone like me, who finds joy in organizing and tidying, this gameplay was immensely satisfying. Yet, as I placed objects in their designated spots, I gradually pieced together the protagonist’s life story—a clear example of Jenkins’ embedded narrative. Like The Wide Sky is Running Out of Catfish!, this game avoids linear storytelling dictated by the author and instead invites players to engage in autonomous exploration.
This design philosophy also reminds me of a quote from a Nintendo game designer who said that great level design should encourage players to ask questions, rather than treating them as tools to complete predefined tasks. Good design respects player agency and invites them to co-create the gaming experience. Games are meant to entertain, to provide a sense of achievement, curiosity, and even fulfillment through the concretization of fantasies.
Of course, indie games like Catfish and Unpacking face challenges, especially when it comes to their niche audiences. For example, I loved Unpacking because of my affinity for organizing, but some of my friends avoided it because they found the concept of virtual housework unappealing—especially since real-life housework already feels exhausting.
2) Identification Theory in Games
Recently, in my film philosophy class, we discussed identification theory, which explores how audiences understand and connect with characters and stories in films. This connection can be cognitive or emotional. For example, viewers might identify with a female character who faces workplace discrimination due to her maternity status. The helplessness and sadness expressed by the characters affect our emotions and help the audience better understand the situation of the characters and the social issue. However, one limitation of identification theory is that we, as viewers, remain bystanders. While we might empathize with the character, we are not fully immersed in their experience. For instance, if a character enjoys eating cilantro but we dislike it, we may not fully share their joy. Instead, we substitute cilantro with something we enjoy to better understand the character’s emotions. So, we can imagine their experience, understand them, but cannot truly feel as them.
While identification theory helps explain how films extend our emotional and cognitive worlds, it also has its shortcomings. Our emotions often dissipate quickly because we are aware that film characters and scenarios are fictional. We witness their struggles, but we don’t inhabit their situations. Games, on the other hand, might foster a stronger sense of identification, offering players a more immersive experience compared to film.
Unlike films, games actively position players as agents. Whether you’re playing a Thanksgiving turkey escaping capture or a snake in Snake, you become the protagonist, not a bystander. This agent-based engagement intensifies emotional experiences, making games a potentially more powerful medium for identification.
3) The Power of Language
Travis once mentioned how reading Jenkins’ work helped consolidate his previously scattered thoughts into something more coherent. This remark reminded me of the power of language. While I initially started exploring games as a way to find alternatives to language for communication—preferring mime or dance performances over theater—I’ve come to appreciate language’s ability to shape and refine our scattered ideas.
Even when there’s no audience, the act of articulating thoughts forces abstract concepts into structured entities that can interact with the world. Language allows us to reflect, revise, and uncover the meanings hidden within our thoughts. It transforms fleeting emotions into intersubjective truths that others can understand.
At the beginning of this course, I often questioned the relationship between playing games and reading gaming theories. Personally, I enjoy reading others’ insights, but I also felt conflicted, wondering if theories could truly contribute to understanding games while playing and designing seem more direct and impactful. This internal conflict mirrors my broader experience with philosophy as an academic discipline. Philosophy often feels intangible, existing solely in the mind, in conversations, or on paper, without the accessible, interactive feature of creating a game that can be shared and experienced by others.
However, by the final class, I began to reconcile this conflict. Brandon’s presentation(and every presentation we got) on reflecting on a classic game (even though I hadn’t played it, I’d watched related videos) showed me that playing games and analyzing them are two distinct but equally enjoyable activities. Playing immerses us in the experience, while analyzing lets us extract meaning and share insights with others, seeking resonance. This duality reminded me of literary criticism: initially, I couldn’t understand why it often departed from the author’s intent, but I came to realize that reading a text and using it as material to create new interpretations are separate yet valuable activities. This concept is akin to metagaming.
4) self-reflexion in modern art
In response to the question posed in our final class—”What are games like today?”(I forgot the exact original words)—I see modern games as deeply reflective, embodying the spirit of modernism. They interrogate the medium itself, exploring its characteristics and possibilities. The theories we’ve read and our observations of games are all part of this reflective process, just as playing and analyzing games are part of the practice. Completing this reflective process requires our active participation.
Much like visiting MoMA to view modernist art, the content of the work isn’t always the focal point; the audience’s engagement, thoughts, and feelings complete the artwork. This reflective approach feels like a fitting conclusion to the course. This explanation has temporarily alleviated my doubts about critique and theory, but it might only be temporary…
Though I’ve written a lot here, I still feel like I’ve barely scratched the surface. Nonetheless, this post represents my gratitude for the course and the insights I’ve gained.
1) On the concept of “Metagaming”
Understanding Boluk and LeMieux’s concept of “metagaming” has been somewhat challenging for me, especially because much of our classroom discussion assumes that games are structured activities governed by rules. For example, Huizinga defines games as a free activity, carried out within a specific time and space, according to voluntarily accepted rules, and separated from ordinary life. Caillois extends this definition, while Suits adds that games are the voluntary attempt to overcome unnecessary obstacles, with the rules constituting those obstacles. In past discussions, I have embraced these explanatory frameworks because they effectively encompass traditional games, board games, and video games.
This traditional understanding of games helps explain why players can become deeply immersed in them. In the world of games, players are assigned new identities, given goals, and equipped with methods to achieve them. Even if players don’t pursue every objective, the temporary goals they adopt allow them to experience the joy of play. These traditional definitions view games as closed systems—experiences contained within a specific game.
However, Boluk and LeMieux’s concept of metagaming seeks to go further, expanding the boundaries of what constitutes play. Their intent seems to stem from a critique of the current gaming industry:
“A widely held, naturalized system of beliefs that conflates the fantasy of escapism with the commodity form and encloses play within the magic circle of neoliberal capital… In the same way that the British land enclosure of the eighteenth century transformed public land into private property, so too has the videogame industry worked to privatize the culture of games and play. Games have been replaced by videogames, and play has been replaced by fun.”
According to them, contemporary games limit our understanding and experience of play by reducing it to a purchasable commodity, one that promises temporary happiness through designed narratives, collaborative experiences, or thrilling battles. In their view, being a consumer of the gaming industry means engaging in a passive experience, where players purchase a pre-designed, predictable set of emotions and outcomes. This closed and structured conception of games, emphasizing rules, is narrow and obscures the creative potential of play.
To counter this, Boluk and LeMieux propose that metagaming is a set of practices that occurs before, after, and during play. They include the design process preceding the game, emergent player-created gameplay beyond the rules, and post-game activities such as mods or fan fiction within their broader definition of gaming. I interpret their expanded definition as an effort to emphasize the creative agency of players.
Rather than simply buying a ticket to “play” as a spectator, where the audience’s emotions are guided by a playwright, Boluk and LeMieux envision players as creators of a “play,” actively shaping the emotional trajectory. Similarly, rather than purchasing a prepackaged game designed for predictable completion, creating a game, inventing unique gameplay mechanics, or crafting fan fiction are, in their eyes, more genuine expressions of play.
Through this reflection, I can see that the innovation of metagaming lies in rethinking structured, rule-based play while critiquing a consumerist gaming industry.
However, I still believe that the traditional definitions from Huizinga and Suits retain their explanatory power. Traditional definitions better account for why we become immersed in the experience of games—because the rules, though artificial, provide players with a distinct interplay of challenge and enjoyment. In contrast, Boluk and LeMieux’s expanded scope of game-related activities, while creative, feels more parallel to game-adjacent culture or practices rather than central to the traditional concept of “game.”
2) On Deformance and Interpretation
Reading this article helped deepen my understanding of metagaming and provided insights for my presentation on “words game.” I believe Boluk and LeMieux might view Emily Dickinson’s method of reading backward as a form of play with poetry. When I read her poem “I Felt a Funeral in My Brain” in reverse order, the emotional trajectory shifted dramatically. In its original sequence, the poem builds from reason to madness, with its rhythm accelerating to a crescendo. Reading it backward, however, creates a sense of emotional contraction, from agitation to the calm stillness of death.
Our usual approach to interpreting poetry, whether by seeking the author’s creative intent or analyzing its unique stylistic features, often imposes a goal-driven framework on the reading experience. This is akin to what Boluk and LeMieux critique: treating games (or poems) as isolated products meant to be played, consumed, or interpreted within fixed boundaries. However, by letting go of these constraints—reading backward, focusing only on verbs or nouns, or treating poetry purely as a playful material—one can experience the interactive joys of creativity. This, I believe, is what Boluk and LeMieux see as the liberating playfulness that fosters creative delight.
For my presentation on “word games,” the design I chose sits somewhat between these perspectives. It is a puzzle-solving game with a single correct solution, meaning its progression aligns with a traditional structured play experience. However, its creativity stems from playful interaction with the medium of text itself. By altering the structure of words, players change the text’s content and, by extension, the entire story. This type of gameplay holds significant potential for future innovations.
Preface
For much of my game designing career, most of my games have been designed “bottom-up,” which essentially boils down to “gameplay first, aesthetics later.” I first ideate particular mechanics that I find fun and exciting in a vacuum (existing only as abstract objects and rules). Then, once I tune the gameplay to my liking and identify the emotions and themes that emerge from the gameplay based on playtests, I add a coat of art, narrative, and other aesthetics that fit to support what already exists mechanically.
It’s rare that I ever start a project “top-down,” or know exactly what themes, narrative, messages, or emotions I want to emerge within the player. It’s uncharted territory for me to start with a mold of wanting to make a game that makes the user “feel like X,” or “understand what it’s like to be Y,” or “is themed around the stories of Z,” and then building mechanics based on this.
As we studied different theorists and observed different projects throughout the semester, I found myself particularly drawn to the narrative intentionality of these projects. Whether it’s “Depression Quest” with its systemic expression of living with depression, or Pippin Barr’s minimalist experiences that convey meaning through constraints, much of what we’ve viewed had a very clear abstract intent that drives the rest of the design and expresses it through the player’s engagement.
Project
Drawing inspiration from these works and theorists like Bogost’s concept of procedural rhetoric and Murray’s ideas about kaleidoscopic storytelling, I aim to take a novel I have a deep appreciation for – “Kafka on the Shore” by Haruki Murakami – and create a gaming experience that expresses its themes and aesthetics through mechanics rather than just narrative adaptation.
The key thing I’m attempting to avoid with this project is simply converting the narrative into a linear, interactable format. The focus here is not to retell the narrative but to create a gaming experience that expresses the same themes and aesthetics as the story. I hope that a player who has never read the novel may play the game and, when asked what themes and emotions were involved in its gameplay, will match much of what’s present in the novel. Meanwhile, a player familiar with the book will come out of it thinking, “Wow I really felt like I was playing as the character from the story!”
Current Ideas
What precisely this project looks like will be iterative as I work on it throughout the month. I’m still unsure if it will be best to approach this as a digital experience or potentially as a board game, so I’m hesitant to make any hard commitments until I figure more out. However, the central concept I’m playing with is the strong theme of Fate & Prophecy in the novel. The key characters of note with this theme are Kafka Tamura, Nakata Satoru, and Colonel Sanders, with three players currently planned to take on these roles.
Of course, these ideas are high-level and subject to change, and I’d like to incorporate many other key symbols and parts of the novel (Turning of the entrance stone to change the game state, Kafka taking over Nakata’s body, etc.) I’d need to fill in a lot of stuff, but I hope this demonstrates the type of narrative conversion I’m going for.
Deliverables:
Just in case anyone didn’t get the email/forum post, I’m sick today, so class is canceled. I’ve updated the schedule accordingly, so we’ll run back the same material (and B’s presentation) next week.
Most people are fascinated by twins. There is something otherworldly about twins, they are slippery and hard to pin down. There always seems to be something happening between the two of them that the people around them aren’t privy to. Personally, I love indulging in this dynamic. As an adult, most of the new people I meet don’t know I have an identical twin, which stands in stark contrast to how I grew up. Due to sheer randomness (identical twins (monozygotic) do not have a known genetic component, unlike fraternal twins (dizygotic), which are genetic due to hyper ovulation) my father is also an identical twin. He is close to his brother, they lived within 5 minutes of each other throughout my life. They now live maybe 20 minutes away from each other, but have plans to spend their golden years with each other living together in I assume quiet solitude since they’re both quite deaf. It reinforced for my sister and I that we were to be each other’s #1 priority, everyone and everything else in our lives came second to our twinship.
I think this particular experience allowed my twin world to flourish in more obvious ways. My sister and I were encouraged to lean into our own “magic circle” rather than being forced to conform to individuality and normalcy. There is a childlike playfulness that exists between twins long after we’re supposed to have grown up and become serious people. Play is something that is celebrated and encouraged in children, but not something we generally accept with adults. This can also be said for twinship. When we see young twins we’re delighted. We love to see these two small people dressed the same and acting the same while we revel in their intimacy (twintimacy). Much like play, this scenario is supposed to be abandoned by the time twins are adults. The special bond the twins share is meant to be replaced by preferably heterosexual romantic life partners, where the twins are now seen as individuals.
Some twins will follow this path, they do not ascribe to the myth that twins share a more special bond than any other sibling, or the dynamic was harmful for one or both of them so they’ve become estranged, and for some twins it’s just not that deep. But for others, they hang onto that “magic circle” well into adulthood. My sister and I live across the street from each other, we went to the same college, shared a dorm room, and lived together into our mid 20s. We both majored in History, but I double majored in English and she did Women and Gender Studies. We share many of the same interests, style/appearance, friends, etc. We are used to receiving a range of reactions from being called “cute”, pointing and staring, silly questions, being totally freaked out, etc. It is weird to see adult twins out in the wild together. In order to cope with this objectification I find myself trying to gain agency by engaging in play and playfulness. Sometimes the observer is in on it and sometimes they aren’t.
For my final project I would like to explore the sites of play and playfulness that exist within twinship. I would love to make an interactive fiction/hypertext that explores this ludic world, but I worry a research paper might need to come first in order to pin down the sites and root them in the theory we’ve been studying all semester. Where is playfulness rooted in twinship? Is there actually a game being played? How are passersby drawn in? What can be learned from this site of play? What does it mean when the game being played is intentional (tricks) vs cases of mistaken identity (genuine confusion)? What does it all mean? If I am able to pull together a hyptertext, I would use Twine to make an interactive world that takes the reader/interactor through scenarios that twins find themselves in from the point of view of the twins themselves. Does the reader/interactor enforce societal expectations on twins and discourage their play world? Or do they encourage the twins and then get to witness the site of playfulness that is happening? I will explore mimicry and ilinx and the ways that twins unsettle the status quo. The reader/interactor will have the opportunity to choose which order in which they gain the full context of the twin world and the sites of play therein. Otherwise, I will do a traditional research paper exploring the sites of play in twinship through the lens of some of the theorists we have read this semester.
My project will be informed by Flannigan, Sutton-Smith, Bogost, and Whitson. I will also be drawing on insights (twinsights) from How to Be Multiple: The Philosophy of Twins by Helena de Bres (a twin herself and Philosophy professor). Is there anything that can be learned from this project? At minimum I hope that it gives singletons a sense of what the relationship between some twins is really like. Ideally it would allow everyone who interacts with the text to find these areas of play and resistance in their own lives and relationships. For my own personal satisfaction I would like to articulate thoughts that have been swirling around in my head for a long time and add something to the conversation on twins from the twin perspective.
For my final project, I intend to write about the relationship between games and the military industrial complex. My paper will center around the question of why we like to replicate war in games, and what the effect of this mimicry is on our understanding of war’s relationship to culture. My paper will examine if and how militarism is ushered into our unconscious through the games we play and witness in everyday contexts, placing a particular emphasis on the tools and methods of warfare (rather than the explicit acting-out of conflict). Is there a violent meta-language in games like Risk that may seem innocent to us? Are we complicit in sharpening state surveillance tools when we play Pokémon GO? Through research into the development of war games, I hope to resolve some of the questions I have around the consequences of militarism on play.
While games are typically thought of as all fun and play, scholars like Mary Flanagan and Shoshana Zuboff push us towards a critical analysis of play, where we discover elements of the military industrial complex embedded, for example, in the surveillance data and locative media central to some games. We might also consider the psychological connections between the state of play and the military state: Brian Sutton-Smith encourages us to consider the “dark side of play”, which implicates power and social relationships in the context of games. In addition to a close-reading of the tools and language of the military industrial complex in game design, my paper will examine the explicit replication of war in games, taking examples from simulated war games like Call of Duty and official “war gaming” to sports games that enact the agonistic qualities of play. My research will be supported by our readings from Flanagan’s Critical Play (2009), Zuboff’s The Age of Surveillance Capitalism (2018), Sutton-Smith’s The Ambiguity of Play (1997); as well as writing found off the syllabus, including T.J. Cornell and T.B. Allen’s book War and Games (2002), James Der Derian’s 1990 article, “The Simulation Syndrome: From Warn Games to Game Wars”, and Matthew Thomas Payne’s book Playing War: Military Games After 9/11 (2016). I will also consider texts that challenge the relationship between war, games, and our own perceptions of national identity and cultural memory, such as Phillip Hammond and Holger Potszch’s book War Games: Memory, Militarism, and the Subject of Play (2021) and Pötzsch, H. & Šisler, V.’s article “Playing cultural memory: Framing history in Call of Duty: Black Ops and Czechoslovakia 38–89: Assassination”. My paper might, at this point, benefit from a more narrow focus: I may hone in on Google Earth as a way to synthesize my interests in data surveillance, locative games, and military strategies presented through game design. Finally, I will turn to theorists like Judith Butler to engage with the affect of war in playable media. Butler’s 2009 book The Frames of War offers a critical analysis of the media’s portrayal of armed conflict, which surely complicates the creation of propagandistic war games developed in the aftermath of 9/11.
Overview
For my final project, I would like to write a research paper that will investigate and explore the ways that Dungeons & Dragons has historically intersected with the fields of fantasy and political ideologies through its multiple editions. More specifically, I would like to analyze Dungeons & Dragons through the lens of critical race, queerness, and imperialism and how all the game has evolved through its 50-year history. This would be an extension of my class presentation in which I take a deeper dive through the game.
Throughout my study of these games, I want to take a much deeper look at the ways that Dungeons & Dragons has worked to perpetuate and exemplify ideologies of Western imperialism and contrast it with the attempts to address those ideas and evolve into more modern viewpoints. One of the first ways that I will do this is exploring the game’s relationship to wargaming and how the practice is both upheld and subverted by Dungeons and dragons. Afterwards, I seek to engage with how D&D presents ideas surrounding race, gender, and queerness within its character creation and the acts of mimicry that are essential to playing the game. Finally, I want to explore the ways that Dungeons and Dragons has intertwined with popular culture throughout history, moving from a game for “Satan-worship” to a much more mainstream format and what factors contributed to it.
Methodology
Dungeons and Dragons, first published in 1974, has had multiple editions in the last 50 years. To help keep my research paper more organized, I’ve decided to focus on the main editions of the game and exclude most other expansions. This means that I will be investigating the following sources:
While looking at all these games, I will examine the mechanics and character creation processes for each edition and the thought process behind changing each of them with every edition. I also plan to read articles concerning how each of these editions were made and the purpose behind changing aspects of the game. Through this, I hope to gain a better understanding of the game through the lens of capital and culture.
As for sources to help me with my analysis, I found the following to help guide my studies with the intention of finding more.
