Bateman's Imaginary Games: A Love Letter to Walton's Make-Believe Theory

Bateman's Objective

“By looking at the design of games from the perspective of make-believe theory of representation, my objective is not to dictate how game design must be performed—there is no unified method for game design, and to seek one is a fool's errand. Rather, my hope is to offer a different way of thinking about the play of games, and an approach to game design that recognizes the role of imagination and the limitations this implies” (7)

Make-Believe Theory: “representations are props in games of make-believe that (via certain principles) prescribe specific imaginings as to what is true in the fictional world the prop thus establishes” (66-67).

Major questions:

Is play separate from real life? What is a game? Hardcore vs. casual gamers

What constitutes “game culture” nowadays? Are games art?

Is art a game? Is society a game? The institution? How about

game-like?

Games

Bogost vs. Midgley Bogost: Games are both systems of rules and fictions, and

one does not have precedence over the other

“Game is game not just for humans, but also for processor, for plastic cartridge casing, for cartridge bus, for consumer... and so on” (15)

Bateman: This presupposes technology as a part of games (16).

Where do game systems come from?

Midgley – Human need and gaming (pg 19) Together we have “The Magic Circle” but with gaps...

Caillois' four types of ludus: (patterns of play) pgs 27-29

Bateman compares to biological research Agon – Contest, challenge, or competition Alea – Games of chance Ilinx – Games of Vertigo Mimicry – Games of simulation

Grip and Grind

Grip (pg 34) : Coming close to winning, so we try again

Grind (pg 31) : “being asked to perform a series of highly repetitive tasks in order to achieve some measure of progress”

I think he ignores the time aspect of grinding and the way it makes mechanics visible

Hardcore vs. casual

Something draws us in both in the game's design and mechanics as well as in this social need to play

Meaning and uncertainty in games (Malaby) “What is rewarding in a game is the interpretability of

the states the rules of the game throw into the player's awareness” (49)

Uncertainty is central to games, and we respond to those changing states by finding meaning

“Games can be understood as processes that utilize uncertainty in particular ways to create compelling and engaging experiences, while play is best understood as a willingness to improvise in the face of uncertainty” (53)

“Play is thus an attitude we adopt towards uncertainty, and games processes that may make use of this disposition, contriving, simulating or even suppressing contingency so that we might interpret what results” (54)

What is a game? CHECK.

Imagination!

Imagination tied to abstract forms of gaming: pg 61 This section gets kinda dickish

Animals don't have abstract language Most people prefer less imaginative games We, the good gamers, like abstract games

(59) Gamer Hobbyists vs. Mass Market Players

Agency and games Agency “refers to the capacity to take action in a synthetic

world, or (which is the same thing) to choose how to affect the fictional world of a certain game” (83).

PEOPLE WE HATE: Roger Ebert

“It is comparatively easy to demonstrate that the two (player agency and authorial intent) need not be incompatible, and indeed, that it is possible to structure a gamne such that it can evoke emotions, and indeed empathy, in a manner that will allow us to ascribe artistry to its developers” (85-86)

Shadow of the Colossus

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_haQSSO9G58

(87) Closed vs. open ethical design

(88) game designer has authorial control

HMMMM

Props

Make-Believe theory as “prop theory” “Anything which serves the social role of prescribing

certain imaginings is by definition to be considered a prop, irrespective of its nature. Virtual props are thus still to be considered props, just as the means of displaying such virtual things can be considered props. The important point can be stated simply as 'if it prescribes imaginings, it is a prop'.” (95)

Props function in a social context, and therefore bring in baggage to the game just like we do

Pieces, avatars, and dolls

(101) Props function outside of the gamespace b/c they form social institutions

His example: chess piece Avatar functions as source of interaction, Doll functions as

representation (104-105)

PROBLEMS WITH THIS: Bateman puts more importance on the avatar (his view of it) leading to stuff like “a less imaginative player can be 'priced out' by a doll that bears absolutely no resemblance to them” (108).

My question: can we really separate the two?

Am I a gun? Am I an arm? No, I'm James Bond, stupid.

Speaking of interface... (129) Bateman puts heavy emphasis on interface for

digital games (though I would put a number of interfaces involved with him looking at that art on the wall)

The interesting part about interfaces he misses is that they alter the experience: his interface-less art on the wall is still built into a display, for example

BRAVE NEW WORLD!

Fictional Worlds

Work World vs. Game World (137-ish)

WW: Fictional truths in worlds according to their authorized games of make-believe (the mythos)

GW: Fictional truths understood according to players through props

Authorized Game: Player collaborates with the prop (139)

Unofficial Game: She or he plays in a way unintended

Where does this leave players?

Or modders? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCP9Jn2Q0cQ

(157-159) Canonical Principle “The fictional worlds that players engage with are as

distinct from the work worlds of games as the fictional worlds of art and stories are from the corresponding work worlds” (161)

Are we always in an unofficial game, then?

Participation

Real life vs. games :: “real” emotions “Thus an inescapable aspect of the fictional worlds of

games (whether of common games or artworks) is that the participant emotionally participates with that world” (174).

(185) Two emotional connections – You and the avatar, and you and the game

(191) “Representation is as vital as gameplay”

Where does the avatar end and I begin? Also, don't games work by virtue of these multiple threads, unlike cinema?

Ethics

Ludic hermeneutic circle (196-197)

Player brings values, perspectives, experiences to game and works with the game as it affords various constraints or perspectives

Game designers come from these perspectives too “a loop from player as external subject, to player-subject, to

individual player, to community player, and then back to the player as external suibject again” (197)

Open vs. closed ethical design: the ethics of GTA or the ethics of Mass effect?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BE7804xsn7E

Vs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIXvn8GmQfg

Ethical communities

(204) Griefers, spoil sports, and Xbox live

Sicart and player-created values in a community

“This obligation emerges for Sicart from the very fact that gamer hobbyists share together a common culture – indeed, it is from this culture that the very possibility of game literacy emerges, since “we have all played, and we can always share game experiences with other players, even if those experiences are of different games, precisely because we share a common culture as players” (qtd. On 206)

What is gamer culture, though? Do we really have this egalitarian stance?

Virtual Reality?

The almost magic circle 236 – AR 238 – Money 245-247 Authority (Is the institution a game?)

Major questions AGAIN:

Is play separate from real life? What is a game? Hardcore vs. casual gamers

What constitutes “game culture” nowadays? Are games art?

Is art a game? Is society a game? The institution? How about

game-like?