لطفا منتظر باشید ...
Ways of Looking
A game is a particular way of looking at something, anything. -Clark C. Abt, Serious Games
Social theorist Clark C. Abt makes a powerful suggestion. In his claim that a game is a particular way of looking at something, at anything, we find inspiration for our own approach to game design. How can we use games as a way to understand aesthetics, communication, culture, and other areas of our world that seem so intertwined with games? Conversely, how can we use our understanding of these areas to enrich our practice of designing games? Too often, analyses and readings of games simply do not do justice to their complexity. Game designer and theorist Jesper Juul has made the comment that theories about games tend to fall into two camps: Everything is a game ("War is a game; politics are a game; life is a game; everything is a game!") or Games are X ("Games are an interactive storytelling medium.";"Games are how a child learns about rules.").[4]
If games are not everything, nor just one thing, what are they? Perhaps they are many things. It would be strange for us to say, for example, that poetry is storytelling. Although storytelling is one way of understanding poetry, it is just one of many possible perspectives. We could also explore poetry formally, within the context of rhyme and meter, or historically, with an emphasis on printing technologies. Each of these perspectives offers a valid way of looking at poetry-yet utilizing just one of them gives access to only part of the total picture. On the other hand, these frames, and many others, considered together begin to sketch out the heterogeneous and multifaceted cultural phenomena called poetry. In Rules of Play, this is exactly what we do with games. Our general strategy is to provide multiple points of view for understanding. In doing so, we hope to avoid the common pitfalls Juul mentions while being true to the complex and polymorphous nature of games. Is this approach appropriate for design? Absolutely. In his book Notes on the Synthesis of Form, architect Christopher Alexander wrestles with the challenges of design, describing a methodology that centers on the inherent complexity of design problems. His argument is based in part on the assumption that clarity in form cannot be achieved until there is first clarity in the designer's mind and actions. Alexander asks us to consider the range of factors affecting the design of a kettle.
Let us look again at just what kind of difficulty the designer faces. Take, for example, the design of a simple kettle. He has to invent a kettle, which fits the context of its use. It must not be too small. It must not be hard to pick up when it is hot. It must not be easy to let go of by mistake. It must not be hard to store in the kitchen. It must not be hard to get the water out of. It must pour cleanly. It must not let the water in it cool too quickly. The material it is made out of must not cost too much. It must be able to withstand the temperature of boiling water. It must not be too hard to clean on the outside. It must not be a shape which is too hard to machine. It must not be a shape which is unsuitable for whatever reasonably priced metal it is made of. It must not be too hard to assemble, since this costs man-hours of labor. It must not corrode in steamy kitchens. Its inside must not be too difficult to keep free of scale. It must not be hard to fill with water. It must not be uneconomical to heat small quantities of water in, when it is not full. It must not appeal to such a minority that it cannot be manufactured in an appropriate way because of its small demand. It must not be so tricky to hold that accidents occur when children or invalids try to use it. It must not be able to boil dry and burn out without warning. It must not be unstable on the stove while it is boiling.[5]
Alexander's answer to the challenge of complexity is to organize and classify aspects of the design problem at hand. The patterns that arise as a result of this analysis allow the designer to, as Alexander puts it,"overcome the difficulties of complexity." As the designer systematizes elements of the problem, he or she gives it shape, casting the problem in a whole new light. Games too, share in this degree of complexity. As products of human culture, games fulfill a range of needs, desires, pleasures, and uses. As products of design culture, games reflect a host of technological, material, formal, and economic concerns. It would be ineffective (and even silly) to try and view such a complex phenomenon from a single perspective. To do so would be to miss most of the design problem entirely. Our solution? Game design schemas.
[4]Jesper Juul, Digital Arts and Culture Conference at Brown University, 2001.[5]Christopher Alexander, Notes on the Synthesis of Form (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1964), p.60
