لطفا منتظر باشید ...
The Level Playing Field of Conflict
Competition and cooperation, goals and struggle, victory and loss: how does it all add up? What are the general conditions of a game conflict? One core principle of conflict in games is that it is fair. Game conflict is impartial conflict: it is premised on the idea that all players have an equal chance at winning, that the game system is intrinsically equitable, that the game's contest takes place on a level playing field, which does not favor one side over the other. Anthropologist Roger Caillois points this out in speaking about competitive forms of play: "A whole group of games would seem to be competitive, that is to say, like a combat in which equality of chances is artificially created, in order that the adversaries should confront each other under ideal conditions, susceptible of giving precise and incontestable value to the winner's triumph."[5]
Why would a game strive so forcefully to create equality in this way? As our definition states, a game is an artificial conflict. The game structure creates an artificial arena, in which everything is removed except for the factors involved in the conflict. Chess is a context for intellectual strategic competition. In a gymnastics competition, only gymnastics skills matter. In real life, the conflicts and struggles faced are never so clearly articulated and understood as in a game. The idea that players are entering into a fair conflict, where they won't be fooled or tricked by the game itself, is a key component of the lusory attitude. Even though games may have elements of uncertainty, the structure within which that uncertainty plays out is known in advance. The qualities of rules themselves make this so. As we know from Defining Rules, rules of a game limit player action, are explicit, unambiguous, binding, and shared by all players. Within the magic circle, players experience a kind of equality and fairness that is not present outside games.
Loop
Is it really true that games strive to create spaces of equality, where only the play of the game can determine the winner of a game? Are games so pure and separate from the real world that no other factors possibly enter into the play? Generally speaking, no. But in this chapter we are analyzing games on a formal level, removed from consideration of their relation to the outside world. And in a formal sense, yes, games are spaces of pure conflict, separate from the outside world.
"meter" that kept track of the number of butterflies and displayed how close the game was to being overcrowded could have been added, but that seemed to unnecessarily complicate the game interface. Having made a decision about the loss conditions (a timer), it was determined that the game would be given discrete levels, with the goal of each level to catch a certain number of butterflies. It was decided that the number of butterflies did not decline over the course of a level: every time you caught a group, the same number of butterflies immediately flew in from the side of the screen. There were several reasons for these decisions. First, there was a desire to create a game that seemed full of possibilities. If the goal of the game was to clear the screen, then the game would have gradually emptied out as the player proceeded through a level. The game would have felt less dynamic and alive: given any set of butterflies, there would have been a single best solution for clearing the screen-and as a level proceeded, the possibilities for different actions decreased. The solution to keep the number of butterflies constant kept the game exciting and full of alternate strategies. Even though a level ended when a quota of butterflies had been captured, it was possible to exceed the level's victory conditions by going over the quota. You could, for example, strategically capture enough butterflies so that you only had to capture one more to reach your quota-and then snatch a large group of them for your final loop, putting you well above the quota. Butterflies captured beyond your quota earned you large bonus points. The best players managed their butterflies carefully, creeping up on the quota and then scoring a large group at the end that took them well over the quota amount. This kind of careful play was only made possible by the particular structures that had been designed into the game. Digital games tend to proceed as a series of levels and have loss conditions that end the game, LOOP being one such example. Deciding what constitutes success in a level and what ends the game are absolutely crucial game design decisions. Too often, game designers take these decisions for granted, following design conventions instead of inventing new ones. What about a game in which there are multiple loss or win conditions? What if the goal of the game is to lose as quickly as possible, or run out of points? Just as Catch the Dragon's Tail played with traditional ideas of competition and cooperation, your games can play with traditional ideas of winning and losing as well.
Given the artificial nature of games, is fairness possible? Does the magic circle offer a truly level playing field? Caillois thinks not:
As carefully as one tries to bring it about, absolute equality does not seem to be realizable. Sometimes, as in checkers or chess, the fact of moving first is an advantage, for this priority permits the favored player to occupy key positions or to impose a special strategy. Conversely, in bidding games, such as bridge, the last bidder profits from the clues afforded by the bids of his opponents. Again, at croquet, to be last multiplies the player's resources. In sports contests, the exposure, the fact of having the sun in front or in back; the wind which aids or hinders one or the other side; the fact, in disputing for positions on a circular track, of finding oneself in the inside or outside lane constitutes a crucial test, a trump or disadvantage whose influence may be negated or modified by drawing lots at the beginning, then by strict alternation of favored positions.[6]
There is indeed a contradiction at work in the idea of equality within games. As Caillois points out, equality is something that is sought after in games, but somehow never quite achieved- at least, in the non-digital game examples he cites. What about digital games? In some ways, they have an advantage when it comes to creating a level playing field. The constrained context of a computer system allows for greater control over the exact conditions of play. On the other hand, the complex automated nature of digital games can place players at some distance from the rules. Players can easily grow suspicious of an unfair network lag, a "cheating" AI, or a low processing speed "stutter." This kind of player distrust, whether or not it is based in reality, can ruin a game. The magic circle is fragile, easily dispelled when players fail to invest faith in the game. If your players feel that your game is unfair, that it lacks a level playing field, it is unlikely that they will want to play. Within the magic circle, a game is suspended between the ideal notion of a level playing field and the reality of inevitable unfairness, a reality that creeps into every game, even while the magic circle's border holds it at bay. Perhaps games do not take place on an absolutely level playing field. But they are premised on the very real idea of fairness and equality. This struggle is part of what gives games their vitality. All games participate in this conflict between fairness and unfairness, a struggle that reaches its climax in rule-breaking, a phenomena explored fully in the next schema. But even within a more limited game design context, establishing a sense of fairness is crucial to successful game play. The following case study looks at one example of this problem in detail. [5]Roger Caillois, Man, Play, and Games (London: Thames and Hudson, 1962), p. 14. [6]Ibid. p. 14-15.
