Ethno Post #3

In the context of this week’s readings, a serious game is a game which bridges the play sphere with the real world through its play mechanics. It is not enough that game digitally simulate lively processes such as traffic and weather changes. A core play mechanic is defined as something that advances the progress of a game. This core play mechanic should exist both within and outside the game and may be significant action/issue.

A core play mechanic, by itself very definition, suggests that the interaction is repeated by the player in order to advance in the game. This can lead to a state of flow, therefore accounting for the claims of practical movement exerting a “mesmerizing pull”. This is because flow can be induced by direct and immediate feedback of actions. The act of performing a game action which directly advances the player in the game can be considered to fulfil this criterion, thus resulting in players being in a state of flow. Bogost calls this “procedural rhetoric”. This may be problematic for the game if the game aims to be critical of a real-world issue. Players’ enjoyment of the game may diminish the critical impact of the game on them e.g. in the case of the McDonalds game.

However, at the same time, if managed properly, the mesmerizing pull of the core play mechanics can make the game and its message powerfully compelling e.g. Under Ash. The core play mechanics of the game repeatedly reinforces the sense of powerlessness of the protagonist and helps to generate empathy for the plight faced by the people in the real world who are in the same position as the main character of the game.

In cases when the procedural rhetoric of the game mesmerizes the players instead of inducing critical thinking or reflection on the part of the player, the reading suggests that this can be rectified by an interruption in the flow of play. This can be intentionally though a sabotage installed by the designer or an unmaking of the game initiated by the players.

I feel that Endless Forest is arguably a serious game but a unique case of serious game without a core play mechanics. Its “seriousness” comes from the “sabotage” installed by the designer.

Although the creators of Endless Forest may not have intended it to be so, I feel that Endless Forest can be viewed as a critique of verbal communication in games and perhaps even in real life. The lack of a chat function in Endless Forest and the deer’s lack of speaking abilities is the “sabotage” installed by the designer to forces player who wishes to communicate to rethink interactions and how to craft meaningful interactions which communicates their intended message. Attempting to communicate non-verbally in Endless Forest and being misunderstood by other most of the time has made me more appreciative of the value of words as a means of communication. The real world issue that Endless Forest could have been critiquing might have been the abuse of chat functions in games which is flooded with spam or other types of inappropriate messages.

Aside from procedural rhetoric, the creation of a tranquil environment may also reduce the critical impact of the game as in the case of Endless Forest. Its tranquil environment and lack of core play mechanic results in some players being unmotivated to interact with other players. They explore the game world to relax and may have thus missed out on the critical dimension of the game.

Seminar Question: In the reading, a serious game bridges the play sphere and the real world and tends to attempt to make a critic of some aspect of the real world. However, if there is a self-reflexive game which critiques the nature of game itself, can it be considered a serious game?