The Meme Meme
Darwin's
thinking has gone well beyond his original imagination. In Richard Dawkins'
book The Selfish Gene he coined the term "meme" to mean a unit or
element of cultural ideas and practices, transmitted from one mind to another,
much like genes are transmitted from one generation to another.
For example,
the very concept of a meme is a meme --
and I have just transmitted it into your mind. If this is the first time you
are hearing of it, it has reproduced, and if you find it interesting enough to
repeat to someone else it may thrive and expand more.
A game mechanism, like the idea of having multiple lives
that are expended in a game and earned through scoring points, is a meme that
was established early in the arcade game industry and spread widely from one
game to another, with modifications over time. This sort of co-opting of
evolution by analogy is rampant throughout the games industry.
It may seem
forced to speak of game mechanisms evolving when they are in fact appropriated
by other designers swapping (or stealing!) ideas and not truly living and
reproducing on their own. But it turns out that some forms of bacteria swap
genes with each other in a phenomenon called "horizontal gene transfer".
Often the natural world is more complex and surprising than we realize. And if
game design is more like the process of intentional genetic engineering than
like natural selection, it still owes a lot to Darwin.
The Origin of Genres
Another example of his contribution is the way we look at game
genres that I have been referring to throughout this article. In many ways a
game genre is like a biological class or order of living things. Just as people
are of the order of primates, within the class of mammals, an MMORPG is an
order of the larger class of RPG.
Of course this is only an analogy, but a surprisingly apt
one. We often refer to a genre that has fallen out of favor as a "dinosaur",
or talk about how the modern concept of first-person shooters is "evolving"
to include more sophisticated storytelling.
Certainly games compete on the open
market, and something very like evolution happens based on their ability to
succeed financially -- and "reproduce" by spawning sequels or
imitations. In a similar way, game consoles are said to evolve, adding features,
competing with each other.
It's more than just an interesting analogy, since it is
possible to use an understanding of the principles of evolution to consider how
to make a particular game more viable and competitive in the economic
environment.
For instance, the current members of this generation of consoles
each have to adapt to the fast-growing demand for inexpensive downloadable
content, and the sudden rise in popularity of casual games of many types.
The
one slowest to respond, or inefficient at using the new delivery systems will
likely "die off" in the next generation of game systems. Of course
consoles are not living things, but are built by companies -- but companies
also exist in a fast-evolving Darwinian landscape of competition.
I have only touched on a few ways that Darwin's
thinking has influenced our industry and game design in particular.
But in
doing so I may have planted a meme in your brain that, in time, will evolve
into a whole new game mechanism -- or perhaps a new game genre. Happy Birthday,
Charlie!
|
That game is of course E.V.O ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E.V.O ).
Also relevant to the discussion is indie game Venture Africa which features autonomous AI animals and indirectly teaches about natural selection through its gameplay. Developer Pocketwatch Games did an excellent job at blurring the lines between education and entertainment with the title and received several complaints from religious intelligent design types about the game even though there is no overt messaging within it.
It's also worth noting that (un)Intelligent Design is far more popular than evolution: from Syndicate to The Sims, the emphasis is generally on the player choosing the path of the gameplay, story and in-game behaviour. There's a good reason for this: evolution is by nature random, which makes it hard to debug or finetune. Black and White is one example of a game which promised a lot from the concept of AI, but ended up being heavily toned down thanks to the unpredictability.
Something more interesting would be to look at the way games themselves have evolved: from Space Panic through to Super Mario Galaxy, 3D Monster Maze to Half Life 2: there's a clear path of evolution, complete with high levels of cross-fertilisation and mutation. Only the strongest genes survive into the next generation, and the cycle then begins anew...
In many ways a plant type is like a class of car. Just as Ford Mustangs are of the order of sports car sedan, within the class of automobile, a potato is of the order of tuber, of the larger class of plant.
I
This practice of iteration is far more rapid than in the lifecycle of a game archetype and is an excellent example of how Darwin's theories are modeled in our business.
Nonetheless, an excellent article Noah.
Some other specific responses:
DK, I agree that what Darwin had to say about sexual selection was in fact even more interesting in many ways than survival of the fittest, precisely because it seems so counterintuitive. There are a lot of intriguing things we could discuss about game design through that particular lens - everything from how, in the mid-80's, it became "fashionable' to advertise modem play on the game boxes even though a majority of people buying the games didn't actually have modems - turns out they equated modem play with state of the art games, even though it was irrelevant to their own situation. A similar thing happened a few years later with CD-ROM games debuting, features that are seen as "sexy" are important in deciding to buy a game even if they are functionally irrelevant - even the fact that I can use the term sexy in that context shows how relevant Darwin's ideas are.
JVII, I agree that merely drawing parallels is pretty useless, but I disagree that this is the case here. I think there is a lot we can learn from the way biologists classify living things when we attempt to classify game genres, which, like living things, often have contradictory qualities that make it hard to discern their origins until one looks into their ancestral past. Or to put it in very concrete terms, when working on an adventure game design for a recently-released game (Mata Hari) I thought hard about what features of old adventure games were "adaptive" and helped them succeed in the competitive world of commercial games, and which features were the equivalent of an appendix, perhaps once part of a useful function but now just carried along for the ride, consuming resources.
RZ, I have to take exception to your comments. You seem to imply that Darwin is best revered in the US, which is just not true - take a look at http://www.economist.com/daily/chartgallery/displayStory.cfm?story_id=13062613&s
ource=features_box4
for example. Darwin didn't invent or discover evolution, but did put together a coherent way to explain the mechanism behind it, and that (as well as some of his other ideas like sexual selection) is certainly why I appreciate him.
MG, thanks! You do point out two more areas where ideas of evolution are even more directly linked to game development - in fact I expect that agile development/scrum/rapid iteration practices could benefit even more than they already have by applying ideas from evolutionary biology.