Disjunctive Multiplay
When we talk about games, we normally use the language of
conjunction, whether through accompaniment ("to play with") or conflict ("to
play against"). Whether for competition, collaboration, or socialization,
multiplayer games aim to connect people in the act of play itself.
Between takes on a very different
charge: it aims to remind players of the abyss that forever separates them from
another. In the face of this gulch, the best we can do is to attempt to trace
the edges of our cohort's gestures and signals, as players of Between do when they interpret the
origins of the weird, mottled colored patterns that appear as if from nowhere
on their screens.
If most multiplayer games are conjunctive, Between is disjunctive. It is a game that aims to disturb notions
of cohesion rather than to create them. And if any common sympathy arises from
the experience, it is a feeling of comfort in the commonality of one's
inevitable isolation.
Herein lies the weird logic of Otherness: apart from
death, it is the one thing we human beings all share. And in so doing, it joins
us even as it pushes us apart.
Before you conclude that the disjunctive multiplayer experience
of Between is limited to the domain
of weird independent art games, consider another, very different title that
also employs disjunctive multiplay: Spore.
When Will Wright first began talking publicly about his
"SimEverything" title, one of the ways he described it was as a "massively
single player game." The game's many editors would allow players to create
their own creatures, vehicles, buildings, and even planets.
To construct a
rich, credible universe, these objects would be uploaded silently to a server,
where they would then be deployed into other players' games.
Unlike purely generative stuffs, some semblance of coherence
would be insured, since human hands would have created each object to be
shared. But unlike so many popular user generated content websites, Spore's various matter would not promote
individual creativity as its first goal.
Rather, it would serve as the Other in
Spore's vast galaxy. The creatures,
vehicles, and buildings that the game draws from a common pool become the
beings, conveyances, and shelters of alien species.
As in Between, Spore's players
do not work together, nor against one another. Instead, each player's
creations, so familiar and transparent to the individual player, become the
aliens in other player's games.
"Alien," a word that literally means "other,"
evokes anxiety because it suggests something utterly unfamiliar, making the
alien creatures of Spore an effective
source of disjunctive play.
In today's world, everywhere we turn we are enjoined toward
commonality. Facebook wants us to see the same groups our friends join, the
same ads others like us click.
Amazon.com and Netflix help us understand what
others who liked what we like also bought or borrowed, and YouTube and Flickr
help us see what graced the retinas of others who watched or looked at what we
just encountered.
In the face of such obsession with commonality, disjunctive
multiplayer experiences remind us that no matter how similar cultures,
marketplaces, or communities might make us, some aspects of other people
remain ever out of reach.
|
However, I feel it could have done with some conclusion as to the implications of 'Disjunctive' play.
...Then again, I am happy to draw my own conclusions. But, it's almost jarring to read an article so neutral here!
Ha! I know what you mean. For my part, from the perspective of design, I think this is a very precious design choice, but its one that has interesting promise for a wide range of genres. From the perspective of criticism, I really appreciate that games like Between try to deal with the complex dissonance among people at a time when we're constantly being told how much we "connect."
Additionally, Spore also offers many options to break the disjunctive play. Players can decide to not connect to the Sporepedia or only download content from buddies or specific feeds. I would be interested to know how Sporepedia actual delivers content to players who turn on unrestricted sharing, whether or not it is random or it follows some recommendation filter.
Finally, does disjunctive play just mean creating an experience where the player has little or no control over the system and other players? I think this is a viable design choice that could be taken much further especially in the realm of player identity in games, where a player has little or no control over how their identity is represented to other players.
Some of the losing strategies in Axelrod's tournaments were very complex... so complex, in fact, that they appeared to the other player to be random. The lesson Axelrod drew from this was that if the other player's actions appear to be random, then the other player is perceived to be unresponsive to your actions. At that point, you can do anything, or nothing -- it doesn't matter -- so you might as well always defect. Therefore, a winning strategy (that is, a strategy that elicits cooperation) will have among other qualities the appearance of non-randomness; there must seem to be some pattern to it.
Extending this to a game context, it would seem to me that a multiplayer game where the interactions between the players (or between the players and the gameworld) become so complex as to be perceived to be random would, at that point, become uninteresting. When the consequences of any gameplay action appear to be unpredictable, then decision-making becomes irrelevant; you're just pulling the handle on a slot machine.
Obviously a lot of people enjoy that kind of thing, but it's probably straining the definition of the word to call that a "game."
So does Between run afoul of this phenomenon that too much complexity in the consequences of a player's action eliminates the value of thoughtful play?
Or is that the entire point of Between?
(It's an interesting game that raises questions like these, if nothing else.)
I appreciate your humble candor, and indeed I think that many, many players of Between (and indeed many of Rohrer's other games) would be less generous in their assessment. Instead they might simply call the game broken. As you suggest, art games can reveal some of our unexamined assumptions about the form of our medium, just as formal innovations in the artistic avant garde did for painting and sculpture and poetry.
@Ben
I hear what you're saying about head-scratching over the system, but I think Between goes beyond that into a unique existential territory. This leads me to your last question: I think disjunction is about far more than control of the system, it's also about a feeling of separateness. That said, I agree that identity is an area ripe for exploration.
Between certainly represents an extreme case of disjunctive play, again a precious one. Spore offers a softer version, as you note, and certainly there are other imaginable variations. My understanding of Spore's content filter is very incomplete, but I do believe it uses some sort of recommendation feature, as you also suspect. In fact, if that feature is more like a collaborative filter, then its possible that the game effectively dials down disjunction -- unless it dials it up.
Interesting connection. As I said above in another reply, I think many players will conclude that the rules of interaction in Between are unmappable to the point of seeming random. They are not really random, of course, but the sensation of hopelessness arises. The thing is: as you suspect, that's the sensation the game intends to provoke! Many players will find it disingenuous, and indeed the design is very risky. Then again, that's part of the rhetoric of the game too: a game published by Esquire, accompanying a sometimes unreasonably personal portrait of the artist, about the perplexity of the self... egads.
But, as you also suggest, at the very least Between makes an interesting provocation about how two (or more) people can interact in a game. So even if one dislikes the extreme case of Between, there's still something to learn from it. Still, I think there's much there to like, even if its a kind of liking that runs contrary to the way we normally enjoy games.
1) now-a-days most of my friends aren't interested in meeting at one spot to play console games in the same room,
2) Most online multiplayer games actually lack the communicative aspect of the interaction so the player may as well just play against an AI, the difference is often unnoticable (if the AI is reasonable)
These observations mark a serious unnoticed problem within what has become a big part of the industry, especially online gaming
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Buber
Also, we should keep in mind that Hegel, Lacan, Levinas and Buber etc. speak about "immediate" encounters with "others", while in video games we first need to survive an encounter with our own representation (a mix of audio-video and controls). Only after being introduced with "ourselves", we can advance into relations with the representations of "others".
I don't know of games that experimented with the disjunction between the player and his representation in the game world.
The problem with this idea is that, much like in reality, it is much easier to achieve disjunctive cooperation than it is to achieve conjunctive play. The lack of communication alone is enough to create a disjunctive game. I've played this game twice and each time the other player had dropped out before even completing the first two rows. I think because there is a natural rift between humans in real life simulating that rift is a simple matter.
Connecting two people is an entirely different matter. Two unite two entities as towards one goal is a beautiful thing and I feel this act is one of the strengths of video games.
I don't have a lot to add, but my reading of this game is that the towers that are being built are metaphors for the two parties' relationship. Given Otherness, our only knowledge of our relationship with an Other is our own conception of that connection and its strength. The fact that each party gets its own tower to build, I think, mirrors our own impressions in a relationship that we are cooperating, but our inputs are different. Sometimes we can build it in our own mind only, and sometimes we need something from the Other, and sometimes our actions influence the Other's conception of the relationship as well.
I don't think it's such an out-there claim to make, since it's clear that as the players understand the mechanisms of the game and their own social interaction better, two strangers will form a kind of close relationship along with their big towers.