Gameology: Commentary and Resources for the Game Studies Community

Abstract:

Simulation and interactivity, ideas inherent to video games, allow the player to engage in an act of impersonation, through an Avatar or not, and dialogue in real time with the universe he is momentarily part of. While this medium is able to provide a gateway to a vast range of roles and situations to be experienced by the user, for several reasons, there has been some constancy on the position given to the player – usually the role of an archetypal hero. Games, electronic or otherwise, usually present a situation of conflict between two or more parties, where the other is an opponent. In videogames, a dramatic tone is often employed through the depiction of a ‘good side’, controlled by the player, and an ‘evil side’, more commonly assigned to the artificial intelligence of the game. As in the seminal Space Invaders, the ‘other’ is regularly depicted in videogames as the enemy or ‘the bad side’.

Of course, there are some exceptions to the rule, and few game designers have had such consideration, within their body of work, about the subject of otherness and alterity such as Peter Molyneux. Games such as Fable, Dungeon Keeper and Black & White give the player the possibility to play according to the universe and mood usually restricted, in other games, to those characters the player cannot control: the villains, the alien – the other.

The objective of this paper is to discuss how the work of Molyneux conveys such themes, as well as other instances of otherness, and how this discourse develops throughout his career. Naturally, this analysis will not be directed towards all the games he has worked on, but rather the ones that better fit within the scope of this reflection. Special attention will be given to Populous, Dungeon Keeper, Black & White, Fable and The Movies.

Video:

Text:

Introduction: computer games, conflict and the hero

In his classic book The Art of Computer Game Design, Chris Crawford elaborates the idea of conflict as being “an intrinsic element of all games” (Crawford, [1982] 1997:14). Conflict would have a central role within games, as players struggle to achieve a goal or victory over other participants. According to Crawford, that could explain the recurrent use of violence in videogames, not because violence itself is crucial for games, but because it is an obvious way to portray conflict. Given the technical constrains of computer games during its early years, it is fair to assume it was also one of the most feasible ways, as physical and bellicose violence could be represented and simulated with an economy of resources that subtler forms of conflict could not. It could be also argued that exacerbated forms of violence permeate the collective imaginary. From narratives originated in ancient times, such as the ones in Greek mythology, to contemporary cultural forms, as seen in movies such as Pulp Fiction and comic books as Frank Miller’s Sin City, violence as extreme forms of conflict have fascinated humankind. Computer games, for being interactive simulations, allow users to play with violence in ways that narratives cannot. However, still according to Crawford, before indulging in such activity, the player has to be presented to a justification to such violent acts. The dehumanization of the player’s opponent is a frequent solution. Crawford writes: “We never, never obliterate human beings; instead, we vaporize ugly space monsters” (1997: 25). Robots, ghosts and other fantastic creatures could be added to the list. However, I beg to disagree with the statement, as some games actually allow (and encourage) the player to attempt against the life of human characters as means to in-game progression. Anthropomorphic enemies or not, a usual justification for the player’s acts is his position as a heroic one. This is often configured through a backstory, cut-scenes or visual cues, reinforcing whatever motives the player’s side has to engage in combat against his enemy.

At this point, we must remember that the heroic condition could be subjective, as argues Joseph Campbell in his book The Power of Myth (Campbell and Moyers, 10988). Campbell sees an intrinsic value to acts considered heroic, which are perceived as such depending on the point of view of the observer. He uses the example of two enemy soldiers, one American and one German, both worthy of a “heroic” condition, in spite of standing in opposite sides (1988: 127).

In fact, the game America’s Army (U.S. Army, 2002), developed for the US Army and played by opponent groups over the internet, is famous for not allowing users to play as terrorists. During game sessions, each group sees itself as the American Army and the opponent group as the terrorists. This could be due to the developer’s awareness of the player’s identification with the characters he controls and its association with a heroic position. In his book Half-Real, game researcher and theorist Jesper Juul points out the interplay between the fictional worlds and real rules videogames are made of (Juul, 2005). One could speculate that this interplay operates between real player and fictional character, and that the ethos of the latter is renegotiated in favour of the progression of the former – and that during play, the player’s personality is never completely divorced from the character and vice-versa. Players, according to Juul, “want to be able to identify with the fictional protagonist and the goal of the game in the fictional world” (2005, 161). This identification was also investigated by Jill Walker, who noted: “In the rhetoric surrounding computer games (…) the difference between playing and being the protagonist is blurred.” (Walker, 2001: 18). Paradoxically, by always depicting the side where the player stands as morally defendable and the other side as not -- to the point that it becomes a convention of the genre, if not video games -- one could adopt a morally questionable self-centred position, and unable to recognise the other beyond those values.

This does not mean that all representations of alterity in games are depicted as malign, but that it frequently happens. This linkage between the ‘other’ and the ‘evil’, as well as the Manichaeism it connotes, is a central point of a series of Peter Molyneux’s works, which I now propose to investigate. Molyneux was specifically chosen for the evolution of his work around the themes of good and evil, as well as for the representation of other instances of otherness in his games.

Populous

Populous (Bullfrog Productions, 1989) originated the genre referred to as ‘god simulation’. The game puts the player in charge of a deity whose power is influenced by the number of followers devoted to him. With a range of environmental powers such as terraforming, flood and volcano activity, the player’s goal is to empower his followers and eliminate the followers of other deities who compete against him for a ‘theological domination’ of the earth. A groundbreaking, innovative title, Populous was the first game credited to Peter Molyneux as a game designer. As the illustration from the DOS-version title screen indicates (Fig. 1), there is an inclination to depict the player’s deity as being a good one (a white-bearded old man who can resemble Zeus or a stereotypical representation of God), and your opponent, who has an also stereotypical demoniac face, as an evil one.

Fig. 1: Title Screen, by Bullfrog Productions (image contributed by user Multimedia Mike). source (13 March 2006).

Thus, the first reference of the good / evil dichotomy in Molyneux’s work operates in the way we first described it in this essay: The player, positioned as the good side, must eliminate the evil, opposite side. It could be argued that the deity’s followers should be regarded as ‘others’ as well. In fact, they reacted to your actions, rather than being directly controlled. However, for the symbiotic relationship between them and their god, who is additionally not represented by a character on screen, they should be considered all instances of the player.

Dungeon Keeper

At the time Dungeon Keeper (Bullfrog Productions, 1997) was released, its gameplay was not as innovative as the one implemented in Populous; Dungeon Keeper is generally described as a RTS (Real Time Strategy) game. However, the most remarkable aspect of this title relied in the representation of the player, now in the role of an evil creature that is in charge of a dungeon constantly attacked by heroic figures. Peter Molyneux himself seems to credit this setting as the most important feature of the game: “Dungeon Keeper’s original concept was, “You play the bad guy”. This was, I though, one of the best ideas I’d ever had. In hindsight, the way the idea was implemented caused it to be not such a compelling game as it should have been.” (Rolling and Morris, 2000: 126). In fact, user’s testimonials usually stress the original concept as part of the fun. An anonymous reviewer from amazon.com declares it “One of the best games on the market, in my opinion. Just love being the bad guy, instead of the regular good versus evil scenerio” (Amazon.com, 2006). This cathartic feeling is shared by other reviewers, such as Claire Fawkes: “Instead of doing bad things on the internet, I was doing bad things in a game. I loved greedily mining for gold-loved the ruby mines-infinate (sic) gold-and I loved killing the good guy” (Amazon.com, 2006). As Brian Sutton-Smith puts in The Ambiguity of Play, “[a game] frees you from one self by binding you to another” (Sutton-Smith, 1997:183)

Dungeon Keeper, it can be said, kept the Manichaeism observed so far in other examples. As in Populous, there is a good side and an evil one, and opposing forces must be eliminated. However, it subverted genre conventions by connecting ‘us’ with ‘evil’ and the ‘other’ with ‘good’, thus demonstrating how arbitrary this classification is. On the technical side, the experience of adopting someone else’s perspective was reinforced by the use of the camera, which the player could change from an isometric mode (Fig.2) to the point of view of a selected creature controlled by him (Fig. 3).

Fig.2: Top View, by user Yemeth. source (13 March 2006).

Fig.3: 1st person View, by user Yemeth. source (13 March 2006).

Black & White

Twelve years after Populous and four years after Dungeon Keeper first came out, Black & White (Lionhead Studios, 2001), was published. Borrowing elements from both previous titles, it was praised by the gaming press as a revolutionary game for its complexity and originality, especially in respect to its open-endness, artificial intelligence and interface. Molyneux himself declared “Black & White is the game I always wanted to make” (Molyneux, 2001:54). Like Populous, Black & White also put the player in the role of a deity who has a symbiotic relationship with its followers. Like Dungeon Keeper, it also allowed the player to perform as ‘the bad guy’.

The game’s title is an analogy to the good / evil behaviours that the player can adopt; a choice between a loved, benign deity and a feared, malign one – each one endorsed by moral advisors resembling, like in Populous opening screen, simplistic representations of god and devil. The choice is not only reflected by the environment elements such as the followers’ village, but also by the development of an animal-looking creature which functions as a pet within the game, learning how to behave from the moral choices of the player and how he punishes or rewards the creature’s actions.

There is a tension on how Black & White is both similar and different to Molyneux’s early games, not only in terms of gameplay, but also the universe it is set on. This tension, indicating both a continuation and a disruption within his discourse, is also noticeable on how the game deals with alterity issues, compared to its predecessors. As opposed to Populous and Dungeon Keeper, Black & White gives the player the right to choose between a good or evil path, also allowing him to transit between the two during game progression. It is important to notice that this mobility, and also the presence of the moral advisors, makes the values of ‘good’ and ‘evil’ no longer exclusive to either the player’s or game-controlled characters, being rather the result of their choices. The villagers / followers have also a greater autonomy compared to the ones in Populous – they now have individual levels of happiness, and their belief must be sustained by the actions of the god-player. This ‘dialogue’ is extended to members of different tribes, who should be co-opted to the player’s theological system (what still can be seen as an imposition, but is not as violent as the extinction proposed by Populous).

Note: Someone asked me, during the Q&A round after the presentation at the Second Annual Univ. of Florida Game Studies Conference, what would represent the fact that, in Black & White, you can play as a benevolent god and still train your creature to be evil. What I suggested then was that it could allow a more ambiguous performance regarding such dichotomy. It is a good question, though, and maybe it should be further investigated.

Fable

Released in 2004, Fable is a RPG that carries forward the dilemma initiated in Black & White. The game’s motto, ‘For every choice a consequence’, indicates that moral issues and the good / evil dichotomy will function in a similar way to the ones in the previously analysed game. However, the nature of Fable and some of its design choices still contribute to the discussion of alterity within the selected framework of this essay – and beyond. From a 3rd-person perspective, the player controls a single character from childhood to manhood. As he progresses in the game, taking a series of quests or wandering in an open-ended fashion, he can improve not only his character’s several skills, visuals and wealth, but also build a reputation as a good or evil person – depending on his deeds. Non-playable characters’ impressions of the main character vary, as he can be feared, loved, admired, etc. Although similar reactions were possible from Black & White villagers, it is important to notice that, in Fable, the player’s character is on a level much more similar to characters’ (i.e. he is not a deity to them), being able to engage into interesting inter-personal interactions, such as getting married. It might be an obvious comment to make, but Fable carries a notion of alterity with a greater sense of humanity than Molyneux’s previous works. Instead of adoration points, there is a reputation system. Plus, the absence of ‘moral advisors’ (as the ones in Black & White) credits moral decisions to the own character / player, not holding any external consciousness responsible for his choices involving other characters.

Other interesting subjects for further research on alterity and otherness in Fable, although too specific for this essay, concern gender issues and sexuality. In the game, the player’s character (which is never female) can get married to male characters and female ones as well, and also wear women clothing, makeup and hairstyles. No profound analysis of this subject can be made here; although I believe it counter-balances the usual dose of machismo encountered in games (see also Graner Ray, 2004). Furthermore, it allows players to impersonate minorities (and, if part of that minority, see themselves represented), and adopt behaviours rarely found in videogames.

The Movies

Disconnected from the fantasy worlds that illustrate the games previously described, The Movies, published in 2005, is often described as two distinct products in one (Kosak, 2005; Davis, 2005). It is not only a management simulation or ‘tycoon game’, a genre already familiar to Molyneux, who designed the game Theme Park (Bullfrog Productions, 1994), but also a moviemaking tool. Actually, it would be more appropriate to call it a machinima-making tool, as this is the term used to designate cinematic productions made using games and their engines.

In terms of game mechanisms, there are similarities (however tenuous as they may sound) between The Movies and Black & White, as tycoon games usually offer a god-like perspective and allow direct manipulation of characters (whether they are ‘followers’ or ‘employees’) by a sovereign hand. Still, some of the game’s features and characteristics express some changes in the way alterity is approached. First, partly because of the universe it is set (a Hollywood-esque film studio), the Manichaeism trait, and the ‘good vs. evil’ debate is practically removed from the management, goal-oriented part of the game. While the competition against other studios can take away some awards from the player, his performance is dictated almost exclusively for his actions, not suffering interventions from an enemy side.

It is also quite interesting to see how the how the game’s free-form portion, the movie-making tool, can be fitted within the discussion. In spite of being open-ended, one of its suggested uses, judging from footage presented by Molyneux himself (Molyneux, 2005), is the subversion of classic Hollywood movie genres. Molyneux’s presentation at the British Film Institute counted with the exhibition of several short films made by Lionhead staff, some of which played with movie conventions, resulting in homoerotic parodies of sitcoms and zombie love stories. This can be seen not only as a criticism to a formulaic discourse from the movie industry (full or archetypal heroes and villains itself – see Christopher Vogler’s The Writer’s Journey), but also as an invitation to the appropriation of the discourse and its means from the players.

Conclusion

There were many reasons for choosing Peter Molyneux’s games as this essay’s subject. The originality of his work, pointed out several times in this text, is only one of them. Another one is the longevity of his prolific career, established through decades and extended to several game platforms. However, the most influential aspect was the straightforward depiction of elements such as ‘good’ and ‘evil’ in the games here analysed (with the exception of The Movies). The varied approach to this subject and its relationship to the theme of alterity in his work, at different times reaffirming, subverting and questioned the vision presented in this article’s introduction, reflects the multiplicity of positions that can be formalized using videogames as support. The evolution of Molyneux’s work is punctuated by radical transformations in his discourse (Table 1).

Summarizing, we can see that the dominant discourse in videogame regarding the other as an evil opponent is present in Populous. Dungeon Keeper plays with this convention, making evident the subjective nature of the link between ‘evil’ and ‘other’ (plus giving players the thrill of taking part in the bad side). Later, Black & White disconnects the idea of ‘good’ and ‘evil’ as being inherent to only one of the conflicting sides, but a matter of choice – an idea further explored in Fable. Finally, The Movies obliterates the good / evil dichotomy and gives the player the power to experiment with such (and other) conventions.

If once there was reluctance in assigning the player to an ‘evil’ role (as pointed out by Crawford), games like Black & White acknowledge the player as able to identify his evil (or good) character as a fictional one, exercised in a domain where he is free to play with this role and actions attached to it. “Games are playgrounds where players can experiment with doing things they would or would not normally do.” (Juul, 2005:193). There seems to be a limit to the (con)fusion between player and character.

Molyneux, of course, is not alone. During this time, several other games challenged and changed the universe of videogames, expanding its possibilities. His work, however, for all the reasons given before, serves as a testimony of the condition of video games as an art-form and industry that, like Peter Molyneux’s work, walks continuously towards maturity and multiplicity within its discourse.

Works Cited:

Bookmark/Search this post with:
– – –