GameBling Game Jam 2.0: The Writing Workshop
GameBling
Game Jam 2.0:
The Writing Workshop
Pauline Hoebanx* & Hanine El Mir*
*Concordia
University
This non-peer-reviewed entry is published as part of the Critical Gambling Studies Blog. To cite this blog post: Hoebanx, P., & El Mir, H. (2024). GameBling Game Jam 2.0: The writing workshop. Critical Gambling Studies Blog. https://doi.org/10.29173/cgs192
This
is a short introduction to a series of blog posts, below, written by
participants in the second edition of the GameBling Game Jam.
GameBling 2.0
On
the 11th and 12th of February 2023, Concordia University hosted the second
edition of the GameBling Game Jam, one year after the successful first
edition (Hoebanx et al., 2023). A game jam is an event during which individuals
or teams attempt to create a game from scratch in a limited amount of time. A
detailed explanation of game jams and a summary of the first edition can be
found in Hoebanx et al. (2023).
In
Hoebanx et al. (2023), we argued that game jams can be used as an innovative
research method “that can help uncover new ways to think about and question
social science concepts.” We put that idea to the test again in the second
edition, with an added twist: we held a writing workshop after the event to
which all jam participants were invited. Of the 16 original participants,
9 participated in the writing workshop. The primary goal was to encourage
jam participants to reflect on and write about their experiences as game
designers, aiming to gain insights into their thinking and design
processes—something that last year’s blog post was not able to achieve (Hoebanx
et al., 2023). The blog posts in this series are the result of this writing
workshop.
While
the theme of the first edition was slot machines, the second edition’s theme
was more abstract: (Un)Lucky. Supported by TAG—the Technoculture, Art and Games Research Centre,
housed in the Milieux Institute for
Arts, Culture and Technology at Concordia University—along with the
research teams at Concordia’s Research
Chair on Gambling—HERMES and Jeu
Responsable à l’Ère Numérique (JREN)—the jam hosted sixteen participants,
the same number as the previous edition. The event was virtual and took place
over Discord and the Gathertown platform. Participants received a $300 bursary
for their participation. Accompanied by four organizers and a floating mentor,
six teams generated eight unique games, which were uploaded to the itch.io page
(GameBling Game Jam 2.0, 2023). Participants had the option to present
game ideas or working game design documents without the requirement of a
finished game on the itch.io page. The organizers emphasized the low-stakes,
exploratory nature of the event and highlighted its experimental space, which
encouraged collaboration, diverse roles, and various interpretations of the
theme.
GameBling 2.0 Event Banner
The
organizers were interested in the outcome of a theme that did not dictate a
specific game mechanic; unlike the previous year, which had called for a focus
on slot machine retention mechanics. As a result, the games that were created
included three card games, an adventure game, a coin-flipping game, and a horse
race betting game. All the games are available to play here.
(Note: STEAKdotORG was not submitted by a
participant in the Game Jam.)
Four
blog posts came out of the writing workshop and focused on the following games:
Luck of the Draw, Charming Offering, Cat Luck, and Flip
a Coin. These blog posts illustrate some of the ways that jam participants
interpreted the theme and later made connections between the theme and
scholarly work about luck, gambling studies, and even drama studies. Unlike the
initial game jam, where all six games portrayed slot machines negatively, our
recent edition presented a more varied perspective. Among the featured games,
only Flip a Coin depicted the hazards of gambling, while the others did
not associate gambling with negative undertones. This shift can be attributed
to the more abstract prompt, (Un)Lucky, which encouraged participants to focus
on the concept of luck rather than on a specific game, since that might carry
pre-existing negative connotations in the collective imaginary.
Through
the facilitation of game jams that prompt participants to contemplate gambling,
our aim is to uncover innovative research methods as valuable tools for
thinking about gambling. As advocated by several critical gambling studies
scholars (e.g., Cassidy et al., 2015; Reynolds et al., 2020), there is a need
for more interdisciplinary research in gambling studies, extending beyond the
conventional clinical and quantitative research. Broadening our comprehension
of gambling experiences and exploring the ways gambling is depicted in our
collective imagination is crucial. This approach reveals nuanced facets of how
gambling is experienced and imagined, and it can guide us toward potential
interventions if necessary.
In
light of this, we invite you to read the posts in this special section of the Critical
Gambling Studies Blog by reflecting on how we can use innovative research
methods to expand the ways we think about and study gambling.
References
Cassidy, R., Pisac, A., & Loussouarn, C.
(Eds.). (2015). Qualitative research in gambling: Exploring the production
and consumption of risk. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203718872
GameBling Game Jam 2.0. (2023, February 11). itch.io. https://itch.io/jam/gamebling-game-jam-2
Hoebanx, P., Isdrake, I., Kairouz, S., Simon, B.,
& French, M. (2023, March 13). The GameBling Game Jam: Game jams as a
method for studying gambling games. Critical Gambling Studies Blog. https://doi.org/10.29173/cgs160
Reynolds, J., Kairouz, S., Ilacqua, S., &
French, M. (2020). Responsible gambling: A scoping review. Critical Gambling
Studies, 1(1), 23–39. https://doi.org/10.29173/cgs42
Luck of the Draw:
Card Games, Superstitions, and Cats
Leonardo Abate
I
participated in the GameBling Game Jam 2.0 alongside Justin Roberts and
E. Jules Maier-Zucchino, taking the name Team Pasta Casa after an inside joke
too long to recount here. Our entry for the jam, Luck of the Draw (Team
Pasta Casa, 2023), is a simple game of chance inspired by the trappings of the
draft tournament format in trading card games (TCGs). The player is presented
with a random selection of three cards from which they must pick one; this
process is repeated over five rounds, resulting in a hand of five cards. Cards
can be lucky or unlucky, and are worth an equal amount of good or bad luck,
with the exception of rarer cards (lucky number 7 and unlucky number 13),
which are worth more points. After the five-card hand is completed, players are
then presented with a random test that can benefit from either good luck or bad
luck. A 20-sided die is rolled, and the result is added to the amount of good
or bad luck accumulated. If the total result is 15 or more, the game is won.
Otherwise, it is lost.
There
are also two secret ending scenarios, which can be accessed by constructing
specific hands: one is unlocked if good and bad luck are balanced (i.e., there
is at most one point of difference between the good and bad luck scores), the
other if the player picked at least three cat-based cards (the tortoiseshell
cat, maneki-neko, and / or the black cat). In both cases, there is no
test, and the player is considered to have won automatically.
Thought Process and Expectations during Development
Coming
into the brainstorming portion of the jam, our lead programmer, Jules,
immediately had the idea of using a draft (a popular tournament format of the
TCG Magic: The Gathering) as the basis for our game design, as it is
something that we all had experience with and it fit the theme of “luck” very
well. A Magic draft tournament requires players to open a set amount of
booster packs provided by the venue, select a card from each, and pass the rest
to a player seated next to them; repeating the process until enough packs have
been opened and cards collected for a full deck to be formed. It is a format
that rewards knowledge of the game’s strategy to construct a functional deck
out of the available pool of cards, but it is also eminently based on luck,
which determines what opportunities are being presented to each player.
With
that baseline in mind, we decided to move away from the multiplayer aspects of Magic
(as they felt too complex to tackle within the scope of the jam) and tried to
recapture the feeling of building a viable strategy out of the limited
possibilities available. We decided to style the cards after good luck charms
and bad luck omens from popular folklore in order to stay within the game
theme, to give players familiar with the symbols an intuitive understanding of
the cards’ relative value, and to introduce those unfamiliar to superstitions
from different cultures. Our hope was to use the trappings of a draft game and
the intuitive understanding of good and bad luck to trick the player into value
judgments about the cards (leading them, for example, to avoid bad luck cards
and aim for good luck cards on a first run), while simultaneously using the
ending scenarios to showcase an equivalence of the two types of luck, rewarding
balance rather than obsession of one over the other.
We
initially toyed with more complex design ideas—such as having poker suits
represent different “types” of luck that could be collected (instead of the
simplistic good and bad luck that we went with in the end), cards having more
unique properties, and the final event be some kind of battle scenario that
would require the playing of collected cards to win—but we scrapped these due
to the jam’s time constraints. This ended up being a good call, as it allowed
us to complete the game in time without too much stress, and the thematic
intentions were not undercut by the simplicity of the final game.
Reflections on the Theme of Luck
We
toyed extensively with the theme of luck, as it appears in the game on four
different layers of experience. Firstly, luck is presented in the game’s
aesthetics: all the cards are styled after charms and ill omens from folklore
of different cultures, which we researched during production. We would have
liked to have more in-depth descriptions of the symbols used to potentially
give players some insight into the origin of these folkloristic traditions, but
this feature too was scrapped for time, and we settled instead on witty flavour
text for each card that hints at the origins of each symbol. The use of
pre-existing symbology for luck also helped our intent of priming the player to
expect certain cards to be “better” than others while subverting that belief in
the rules themselves. We even decided to never state the rules explicitly in
the interest of leaving the player’s intuitive assumptions as the only
guidelines when they first play the game.
Figure 4. An example of some lucky cards.
The
hidden layer of this reflection is that, due to the secret scenarios, the ways
to reliably “win” the game have very little to do with luck as presented. This
was not planned from the start as an explicit goal: we included the secret
endings mainly because they sounded fun. But, in an appropriately serendipitous
twist, we realized after testing the game that their implied rhetoric worked
nicely within the larger context of the game. One secret scenario rewards
balancing good luck with ill omens and accepting the ups and downs in fortune
as the wisest course of action, while the other secret scenario rewards a
player that ignores the symbolic lucky or unlucky judgment placed on the cards
in favour of pursuing that which makes one happy (i.e., cats).
We
had hoped to make the secret scenarios achievable in every session. We wanted
them to be a method to bypass the quantified abstraction of luck present in the
internal mechanics of the game. However, we were unfortunately unable to
completely remove the element of randomness, as the secret scenarios still rely
on the pool of cards presented to the player to be achieved. In other words,
while the secret scenarios might be easier and more reliable outcomes to
achieve for the player (balance good and bad luck, or pick three cat cards),
they still might be impossible to reach if presented with a bad draft of cards.
As it turns out, it’s hard to build an engaging game based on luck while also
including solutions that do not rely on chance at all.
Figure 5. The good luck standard ending.
Critical Theorization
Beside
what has already been said about the expectations created by symbols of good
and bad luck, there are two ways in which this game can be put into
conversation with larger critical analyses of gambling and luck. The first is
within the confines of TCGs and their competitive scene. Draft tournaments are
a popular format for TCG competitions, pulling together the various
characteristics that makes the medium successful: their nature as collectibles
(where participants at draft tournaments can keep the cards they drafted and /
or win more cards through the event), as a strategy game (knowledge of the
system is rewarded when constructing a drafted deck), and finally, in the
innate gambling aspect of booster packs. Luck in TCGs is used as a tool for
fairness both within a game (what cards one ends up drawing) and at a referee
level (drafting allows for an impartial, if rarely equal, distribution of
resources); but it is also a commercial snare, as the chance of getting a good
card is used as incentive for buying multiple booster packs (Martin, 2019). Our
game disrupts this framework (albeit somewhat inadvertently) by making the
card-collecting aspect deceptively useless: most cards are equivalent in value
and strategic worth, including the bad luck ones (which a first-time player
might avoid because of their negative connotations), and even if there are ones
that are rarer than others, their collection doesn’t necessarily equate to a
better final result (as the winning strategies remain pursuing balance and
cats, rather than leaving the outcome of the game entirely up to chance).
The
second framework of analysis that could be applied to the game is that of
rituals. As mentioned, all the cards in the game are styled after charms and
ill omens, whose collection grants a quantified representation of luck. In
gambling culture, there is a tendency to maximize one’s luck through rituals
and by avoiding unlucky gestures, circumstances, or symbols (Grunfeld et al.,
2008), which showcases a practical understanding of luck as something that can
be accumulated, or at the very least attracted. This value judgment on certain
things and actions as “lucky” or “unlucky” can be harmless, but it can also
combine with misunderstandings of probability to produce a worse relationship
with gambling. In our game, lucky and unlucky symbols are presented as
qualitatively distinct but morally neutral, without one being innately “better”
than the other in all circumstances, and both being required for the best
endings. This follows a similar logic to the Taoist parable of “The Farmer’s
Luck,” which we were reminded of during development:
There was once an old farmer who had worked his
crops for many years.
One day his horse ran away. Upon hearing the news,
his neighbors came to visit.
“Such bad luck,” they said sympathetically.
“Maybe,” the farmer replied.
The next morning the horse returned, bringing with
it two other wild horses.
“Such good luck!” the neighbors exclaimed.
“Maybe,” replied the old man.
The following day, his son tried to ride one of the
untamed horses, was thrown, and broke his leg.
Again, the neighbors came to offer their sympathy
on his misfortune.
“Such bad luck,” they said.
“Maybe,” answered the farmer.
The day after, military officials came to the
village to draft young men into the army. Seeing that the son’s leg was broken,
they passed him by.
“Such good luck!” cried the neighbors.
“Maybe,” said the farmer.”
(Ying, 2018)
Ultimately,
it’s hard to know what exactly “good luck” or “bad luck” are. Life’s events are
unpredictable, and both good and bad fortune can lead to positive or negative
consequences depending on your perspective. It is perhaps better, then, not to
consider luck in decision-making at all, and instead simply try to collect
cats.
Figure 6. The secret cat ending.
Luck of the Draw
can be played here
Sources
Grunfeld, R., Zangeneh, M., & Diakoloukas, L.
(2008). Religiosity and gambling rituals. In M. Zangeneh, A. Blaszczynski,
& N. E. Turner (Eds.), In the pursuit of winning: Problem gambling
theory, research and treatment (pp. 155–165). Springer. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-0-387-72173-6
Martin, M. (2019). Magic: The Obsession. New
Errands: The Undergraduate Journal of American Studies, 6(2). https://doi.org/10.18113/P8ne6261229
Team Pasta Casa. (2023). Luck of the Draw
(Online Version) [Video Game]. itch.io. https://emzsilversound.itch.io/luck-of-the-draw
Ying, J. (2018, March 6). Taoist story: The
farmer’s luck. Living the Present Moment. https://livingthepresentmoment.com/taoist-story-farmers-luck
On Making Charming Offering:
GameBling Game Jam 2023
Isabella Byrne & Calvin Lachance
Over
the course of a February weekend, Calvin Lachance, Isabella Byrne, and Che Tan
formed one of the teams in the second edition of the virtual GameBling Game
Jam presented by JREN, TAG, HERMES,
Research
Chair on Gambling, and Concordia University to build a game that would
touch on the relationships between luck, play, and gambling.
Our entry, Charming Offering, is an analog single-player card game focused on collecting luck-infused offerings for a pantheon of gods. At the start of the game, you randomly pick two gods, each of whom demands specific resources in exchange for bestowing their good luck upon you. You win the game and gain the favour of your chosen gods when you collect all of the requested resources. Resources are gathered by strategizing through a limited number of story events, which either grant or require resources to proceed.
Thoughts on the Process
Calvin:
With tight timelines being constitutive of this game jam, our fixed working
period informed the parameters through which we prioritized tasks, built our
scope, and moulded the final product. Our weekend time-limit was more
circumstantial than constrictive. Despite possessing fewer game-design skills,
I was comfortable with my first game jam project taking the form of an analog
card game; it was well-suited to our collective ideas, experiences, and vision.
The game that I initially imagined had too large a scope for a weekend project.
In the drafting stages, I had hoped for us to create a heavily narrativized
game that would incite the player to reflect on their own relationship to and
beliefs about luck. With more time, I would have enjoyed seeing our team craft
a more detailed narrative that was thematically framed by luck and fortune and
would pertain to in-game items and characters. Within this thematic framework,
players’ gaming experiences would be enriched.
Isabella: We
spent most of the weekend trying to translate our concept into a playable game.
Over the two days, we felt tensions between sticking to our desired themes and
the functional mechanics of the game. At times, we stuck too closely to our
theme, which resulted in a game that wasn’t really fun to play; it did not seem
to have any end goals. We reconfigured the game by adhering to playing card
game mechanics. However, this contributed to feeling like we had distanced
ourselves from our initial idea that inspired us to create the game.
Additionally, in both cases, the games we planned had too broad of a scope to
accomplish over one weekend.
We had to learn (quickly!) how to balance critical
theory with designing a workable game by integrating both features’ essential
elements. We would spend some time discussing the desired theme, then we would
move away from it to focus on the game’s mechanics, and then assess whether we
had successfully woven the two together. What took us the longest was the
process of achieving a concrete idea; during this time, we went through many
different iterations of the game. Finally, once we made the initial prototype,
it was tweaked after playtesting.
Addressing the Theme
Isabella: My
greatest challenge was coming at this process from a writing background rather
than game design. In game design, your point is communicated through inference
in the active play the player undertakes. I felt pressure to “make this game
academic,” as the game jam was taking place within a university context and was
meant to address certain areas of scholarship. I struggled to reconcile the
tension of making a game that was fun while having it “say something,”
especially when adding important context for our themes was not workable
through our medium.
Calvin: As
I discussed previously, I was far more comfortable working with themes and
stories than with logistics. The theme of luck is exceptionally interesting to
me, imbued with a plethora of spiritual, cosmic, and religious aspects that I
hoped to explore. In light of humanity’s long history of attributing the
unknowable or uncertain to the actions of gods, I was intrigued by our
historical relationship between luck and the divine or spiritual. I was also
interested in how mundane items or practices can shape the criteria by which we
measure what is human and what is beyond human. Early on, my teammates
introduced the idea of sitting next to a “lucky person,” introducing the notion
of luck transference through proximity. I thought this was brilliant, and quickly
became attached to incorporating these themes in the final game. And so began
the process of accumulating a series of items and practices that could be
perceived as having an ability to hold, transfer, or negate luck. We
crowdsourced some ideas from other game jam members for our event cards,
prompting them to share some items or rituals which they engaged in.
Incorporating personal accounts into our resource and event cards was another
way, I believe, to integrate humans’ relationships to luck, marked by unique
perception and understanding.
Figure 2. Examples of event cards.
Turning the Theme into a Game
Calvin:
Following research on gods of luck, my personal relationship to the theme was
enhanced by the game-making process. Since I had no experience in game
creation, my team provided some amazing suggestions of card-based games to help
guide us to the final product: games such as FLUXX and Underhand. Additionally,
my research on luck gods provided me with tremendous insight into the cultural
and historical contexts that shaped the relationships between individuals and
luck, and into how we render intelligible these intangible, elusive, and
ephemeral phenomena. Working in a team of brilliant individuals with their own
ideas of luck inevitably shaped how I engaged with and metabolized the theme by
the end of our project.
Figure 3. Examples of God cards.
Conducting research into specific gods of luck
allowed me to explore how the concept of luck can be gamified in a myriad of
ways and what threads connect these possibilities. I realized that, in working
through this theme, luck extends beyond the scope of human capacity and action;
that it is so often understood to be external to us, and out of our control.
Simply put, the game’s goal is to meet a god of luck by engaging in events and
gathering resources. In our game, of course, the randomization of cards (some
representative of bad luck, some of good) working in tune with player
strategizing to meet their goal was one way to exercise the flux of situational
or circumstantial control; by this, I mean where an individual’s actions can
shift outcomes and where it can’t. Many games, even the simplest, take this
shape: you are never wholly lucky or wholly strategic—you are always engaging
in calculated chance. Personally, I wanted our game to feel like a small but
enjoyable exercise in the humanization of luck.
Isabella:
When I heard that we were supposed to make games around luck for this year’s GameBling
Jam, I was excited to think about the relationship between luck,
materiality, and other forms of ritual actions or objects involved in play that
give the player an impression of control over the game. While the game we
finally created involved these themes, we found the process of designing it
with them in mind to be challenging. In this way, this game jam was a good
primer in learning how to turn a concept into a product. I was challenged by
the process of exploring these themes versus creating a finished product. I
felt more intrigued by simply seeing how games were made and playing with this
scholarly area than creating a completed game. Ultimately, I think we struck a
good balance.
What We Learned about Game Design
Isabella:
This process taught me a lot about the importance of iteration in game design.
The game iteratively improved following testing some aspect and then critically
analyzing it. I have no doubt that we could go back to our completed game and
take it apart to make something even better. Iteration appears to be one of the
foundational cornerstones of game design. Each new version was unique and could
have been its own successful version of a game that addressed the theme, but as
we reformed the game with each encounter, we improved it until it became the
best workable product of itself. This process gave me an immense amount of
respect for game designers, especially ones who work on projects much larger
than the one we created. That a game gets finished at all is a feat in itself,
but another when it is effective, clear, and impactful. We got a small taste of
what it would be like working collaboratively on a team where the theme has
unique meaning to us, let alone our three different conceptions of how to make
it come alive.
Calvin: As
Isabella stated above, this process thoroughly enhanced my appreciation and
deepened my respect for the work of game designers. Accounting for the choices
and emotions of the player can seem like an endless assessment of variables.
Doing this in collaboration with other individuals who hold their own ideas,
visions, and methods of working can be daunting. As someone who struggles to
let go of his ideas, I was immensely grateful to be pushed by my teammates to
test, adapt, test again, and tweak our game into something we could all play
and enjoy.
Charming Offering can be played here
Participating in the GameBling Jam 2.0:
An Introduction to Game
Writing and Interdisciplinary Thinking
Alejandra Jimenez
On
February 11–12, 2023, Concordia University’s Technoculture, Art and Games (TAG)
and the Jeu Responsable à l’Ère Numérique (JREN) hosted the GameBling Jam
2.0. The goal of this 48-hour game jam was to design and prototype a video
game around the theme (Un)Lucky! This article will dive into the experience of
participating in it and the framework to develop the game Cat Luck,
followed by a reflection on creative writing and interdisciplinary thinking
around the question: How does this experience produce new knowledge for
non-experienced participants in the field?
The
process of the game jam was captivating from the beginning, with tools to help
participants connect with each other, like the Discord channels where everyone
would introduce themselves, gather resources, get updates and announcements,
and easily reach out to mentors. This was an effective manner of enticing
contributors. On the first day of the jam, the opening ceremony took place in a
virtual room in the Gather app. Participants chose an avatar and a place to sit
around to set up teams and brainstorm ideas. Many of them were experienced
gamers, programmers, designers, and creators. This was a scary scenario for a
firstcomer. However, the feeling was quickly dissipated by the collaborative
environment in which the groups were well-balanced to develop ideas
efficiently.
For
someone who has spent a long time without frequenting video games other than
those easy, non-thinking, addictive cooking Android video games or those
memories in the back of their head such as Atari or 8-bit games, the idea of
the GameBling Jam brought some questions regarding the skills needed to
participate. Having a background in acting and theatre, I reflected on the
contributions of interdisciplinary thinking regarding creative writing for
video games, storytelling, and visual representation. Does drama theory have
anything to do with video games? How are the connections built between the
story, the goals, the obstacles, and the player? How would the story
information be displayed without generating a dialogue-based game?
Cat Luck
Cat
Luck (Jimenez & Isdrake, 2023) was a collaborative
game developed for the GameBling Jam 2.0 using Bitsy by Alejandra
Jimenez and Idun Isdrake. It aims to achieve a basic idea: a fiction about
success and fortuity. It was a compelling process that explored universal,
shared beliefs and codes related to luck. The main character is a cat who plays
in a punk band and is trying to get to play on stage while surviving in the
brutal world of artists. Greta, the cat, is helped by a witch, the player. The
witch’s luck will be challenged by a series of jobs, problems to solve, and
fortuitous events to get the cat to the concert.
The
diegetic world created for this game was based on events that happened to close
friends or to ourselves, or in fictional situations where a punk cat could get
involved. During the brainstorming for the game design, one of the team’s
insights was that luck is related to success. Cat Luck is a parody of
the challenges behind the art world. Also, the group discussed the dichotomy of
good / bad luck, superstition, and the imaginary that might vary
culturally. The game would bring the player into scenarios meant to struggle
with misfortune.
This
helped define some obstacles, characters, and rooms following the premise of
keeping the game simple with a clear set of tasks to solve. There are ten rooms
in total. In each one, the cat shapeshifts, and there are obstacles for the
player to access more rooms.
The
video game aesthetics are based on the 1980s–1990s. The experience of using
Bitsy to create Cat Luck brought the spirit of that time. Although it is
a user-friendly engine, one of the challenges was the time constraints.
Composing with blocks, a two-dimensional image became difficult due to the
number of rooms. Nevertheless, it was clear that a visual reference with
minimal elements would display a sense of space concerning the script. Cat
Luck has a fair result despite the difficulties of getting more elaborate
scenarios. More questions related to writing and game design emerged by
developing this game. Is there a level of detailed descriptions of time and
space present when writing the story that can be suppressed when drawing? If
so, what other ways are possible to integrate them?
Writing the (Un)lucky
The
GameBling Jam 1.0 studied the relationship between gambling and slot
machines. In the article titled “The GameBling Game Jam: Game Jams as a Method
for Studying Gambling Games,” posted in the Critical Gambling Studies Blog,
Hoebanx et al. (2023) refer to game jamming as an innovative procedure of
exploration to inquire and build on concepts related to social science. The
theme “(Un)lucky” in the 2.0 edition was fundamental because of its relation to
gambling. Thus, by understanding luck as a mere chance or a ritualistic
behaviour independent of the set of skills that a player or a game might have,
there is an occasion to inquire about the perception and control of the
cognitive outlook that game designers apply to gamble.
The
theme “(Un)lucky” is recurrent with several references. The following two, a
video game and an animated film, show a contrast in how it is presented.
Although these weren’t considered for the game development during the jamming,
they will help to analyze and open up some elements of creative writing. When
communicating a topic, emotions are also evoked. In any form of storytelling
(including theatre, literature, graphic novels, movies, and video games), the
story is organized around a narrative structure so that the theme communicates
a meaning and a message. It attempts to engage audiences and readers
emotionally.
In
2017, the video game Night in the Woods was launched by Infinite Fall.
This is the story of Mae Borowski, a cat returning home to reconnect with the
life she left behind. However, things are different, and the woods seem strange
when the night arrives. The character-driven adventure game creates a world of
exploration with a successful story. Moreover, it discusses complex themes with
a good sense of humour and eerie places. The player has the chance to choose
the dialogues affecting some interactions. Mae is a character constantly taking
risks and getting involved in dangerous situations, some of them near-death
experiences.
Nevertheless,
the cat is lucky and smart enough to unexpectedly discover a mystery and accept
the changes in her life. In a review posted on the IGN YouTube channel, Chloi
Rad (2018) finds that “mystery adds some dramatic impetus” due to the
interactions between each character’s journey becoming vital for the story. Night
in the Woods is a single-player game in which they are engaged with the
characters and the narrative because their decisions affect the story.
The
2022 computer-animated movie Luck, directed by Peggy Holmes and Javier
Abad, portrays an optimistic moral tale around the human concept of luck. The
plot is set in the Land of Luck, where Sam Greenfield, an unlucky person, finds
a black cat named Bob. They join together in a journey to turn Sam’s luck back.
Elements like the penny, portals, clovers, leprechauns, and stones are present
during the film. Good chance is the main character’s goal. However, they get
involved in clumsy, unlucky situations and life events while traveling across
the Earth, the Bad Luck Land, and the In-Between. Characters like a dragon and
a unicorn manage those places. During the journey, Sam understands that things
aren’t fixed, that humans need to try hard in life, and that it is possible to
see some good luck in bad situations. According to a review posted on YouTube
by CinemaSins (2023), excessive deployment of symbols about good chance makes
the film predictable and naive.
In
the videogame version, elements of superstition are displayed within
well-structured and plausible situations. This creates an environment for the
player’s engagement by building out their own backstories and shaping the main
character’s life. In contrast, the animated film aims to catch the viewer’s
morals optimistically. The story’s situations are evidently life’s clumsiness
instead of unlucky ones. Everything is set up, so the emotional arc ends with
an optimistic and ingenuous message. Luck is a goal; it’s an ending point. A
single space for the viewer to engage differently with the topic is unlikely to
happen. It might seem unfair to compare two unique languages. Regardless, this
comparison informs how these stories related to luck are presented in different
media with dissimilar goals.
On
the one hand, the opportunity to intervene in the story with the player’s
choices; on the other, the message that human incompetence is a product of bad
luck. Looking deeper into those narratives, is the perception of luck /
chance fixed in our belief system, or is it induced and controlled?
To
develop that inquiry, first, it is relevant to provide some information on what
writing for video games means and if there is a relationship with traditional
writing. Later, it will be necessary to include an analysis through the lens of
interdisciplinary thinking.
In
the article “Explainer: The Art of Video Game Writing,” posted in The
Conversation, Maggs (2016) mentions that the narrative is all that is
built, it is the wholeness of the game and “it can be informed by art, gameplay
design and technical capability that already exist.” Adjustable storytelling
would be central to developing those other clue elements: the game world or the
tactics. It will help to plan the narrative and the game’s progression.
Although game writing can be supported by traditional narrative, it is
different due to the many aspects involved in the design and development of
digital games.
To
continue building on some comparisons between these two writing styles, in the
video blog Game Writer’s Corner, Kae (2020) highlights some of the
differences and challenges of moving from writing more conventional works,
novels for instance, to writing for digital games. She explains that the
narrative is only one part of a more complex production: “Most people will not
care about the dialogue, most people will not remember the characters, most
people will not bother to read the lore” (1:15–1:23). This is related to the
types of players that are involved in the game industry: The Narrative Kindred
Spirit, who is going to be wholly engaged with the story; and The Ludologist,
whose only interest is to play the game. In this regard, no story, dialogues,
or characters are needed; the gameplay would have a clear standpoint; and the
information (quest cues and objectives) would be short, clear, and concise so
that the player’s time is respected. Also, she suggests that dialogues are not
the only way to display information. However, the writer would cherish both
types of players. Hence, this informs how writing for video games is part of a
whole environment where designers tell stories visually, and not everything
relies only on the written word.
Interdisciplinary Thinking
The
experience of participating in the GameBling Jam 2.0 was nourishing and
provided a creative outcome and research possibilities as well. Some insights
are related to the levels of development of each of the video games, how teams
are constituted, the level of expertise using the engines, and the time provided
for the game jam. In prototypes like Cat Luck, interdisciplinary and
collaborative perspectives led to exploring and integrating interests in both
digital games and theatre.
According
to Hoebanx et al. (2023), a game jam is a way to “help new research interests
emerge through the process of game creation.” This statement raised questions
related to my discipline and the game development to expand on in writing. What
tools are required to tell a story in video games? What are the links between
metauniverses, for instance, between a play and a video game, that expand the
audience’s / players’ experience? What makes a video game engaging for
players? Is it the story or challenges, the characters and their goals, the
difficulty levels, or the narratives?
Theatre and Video Games: A Revision of Paradigms
The
relationship between theatre and video games can be traced by comparative
drama. I will use the “soft game” theory to do so. Drama Theory is a
plurimedial form of structuring situations, conflicts, and actions in social
and theatre studies. Moreover, looking into this theory and the theme of luck,
the inquiry would be about the spaces that video game writing opens to chance.
Does interactivity depend on the narrative? How does choice work in
video games?
To
answer these questions, explaining the links and differences between video
games and theatre is necessary. Before that, it must be considered that digital
games are often understood as narrative media, which, like traditional media,
are based on representation. However, some argue that video games are based on
a different paradigm: simulation.
First,
Drama Theory is close to Dramatic Theory, which is specific to theatre
and drama studies. In the classic Western tradition, representation works to
explain and understand reality. Narrative and Drama are concrete manners of
representation. Drama creates a sensory impression for the viewers during a
performance. It is representational and based on a written text. It is a form
of literature in which conflict is the structure; it is the vertebrae. Conflict
produces tension, urgency, and motivation, usually due to the uncertainty of
its results. However, Drama is a plurimedial form of art that cannot be fully
understood with reference to the text itself.
Second,
Drama Theory is a problem-solving, analytical theory; an operational research
method based on Game Theory and building on metagame analysis. Howard (1994)
uses the concept of “soft game” theory to explore the transformations of a game
and how it may vary as a result of pre-play negotiations between players. These
negotiations involve “emotional persuasion and rational argument” (p. 187).
Thus, soft game theory contributes to identifying the transformations affected
by the inner dynamics of pre-play negotiations. In real-life situations, these
transformations come from people’s (or the player’s) perception of reality by
describing “rational and irrational processes of human development” (p. 187).
Howard (1994) based his studies on real-life games as much as on drama because
of its role-playing principle. He states: “Drama, like game playing, is, in
part, a rehearsal for real life and throws light on it in crucial ways” (p. 188).
Drama Theory concentrates on rationality, which conducts goal-directed
behaviour, creative transformations, choices, and decision-making based on
emotions and interactions.
Conversely,
there is an alternative to narrative and representation: simulation. Video
games are particular ways of structuring a simulation. According to Frasca
(2004), simulation models a new system based on a source, keeping some elements
and behaviours of the original in it. Thus, video games can express messages
that representation cannot, and vice-versa. Frasca explains that the narrative
paradigm and the storytelling model are “not only inaccurate but also they
limit our understanding of the medium and our ability to create more compelling
games” (p. 221). Although these paradigms have many elements in common,
their mechanics are different, and they have “diverse rhetoric possibilities”
(p. 222), where simulation operates as an “alternative semiotical
structure.”
Those
elements are core: characters, settings, and events. As per representation, the
narrative is a mechanism of structuring cognitive structures in rational
thought: it produces a description of circumstances and a sequence of incidents
that might be surpassed to generate a “solution concept”: a dramatic resolution
and a rational solution (Howard, 1994, p. 189). In simulation, more
compounded systems work as cogwheels where there is a “sequence of signs that
behave like machines or sign-generators” (Frasca, 2004, p. 223). It helps
to predict complex situations and behaviours by retaining their characteristics
and modelling them according to a set of conditions, which means that there is
a configuration of loaded particulars that generate reactions to certain
stimuli. According to Frasca, simulations are restrained, and diverse
approaches and rules exist to accomplish goals. He states: “In the realm of
simulation, things are more complex: it is about which rules are included in
the model and how they are implemented” (p. 231).
Evidently,
the contrast between these two paradigms is controversial. It has several
detractors and advocates divided into two positions: the narratologists
(or narrativists as named by Frasca) and the ludologists. The former
stand for video games as a new narrative, whereas the latter consider them in
their own nature: simulation. The narrative is binary in essence; it works in a
relation of cause and effect, while simulation does not require coherent
sequence, and yet, it can work with new starting points any time one plays it.
While in video games, the user can make choices, in a film or a book, an
observer can interpret the events rather than influence or manipulate them as
they are pre-established.
According
to Frasca (2004), “To an external observer, the sequence of signs produced by a
film or a simulation can look exactly the same” (p. 224) due to the
“well-lubricated tool” (p. 226) that narrative rhetoric establishes.
Although he addresses that it might take several generations to shift the
paradigm, interesting “cognitive consequences” might arise by changing the
“literary mind” to the “simulational way of thinking” (p. 224), which
means that an environment of experimentation and repetition is expected rather
than simply telling a story. However, such ideas sound very similar to Howard’s
drama theory. This approach to role-playing activities analyzes how human
processes such as values systems and perception of reality can change and
develop during a game that, to solve a problem, can exceed the rational
(reaching irrational emotional states), exhaustion of emotions, and creative
impulses to get a dramatic resolution, yet, rationally accepted. That is to say
that role-play approaches incorporate “complexity and emotion into a
simulation” (Bolton, 2002, p. 353).
Are there Convergences between Theatre and Video Games?
Games
have a system of participation rules with a clear goal, whereas spectators in
theatre are conceived as passive. However, theatre has transformed so much over
time. Over centuries, the misconception that theatre is “available only to the
eyes and ears” (Laurel, 2014, p. 60) implies that it cannot exist without
spectators.
Due
to the relationship between the stage (space), actors (players), and audiences,
the ritual (considering its antiquity and inherent development of
humanity) called theatre is created. Although there is a stimulation of the
predominant senses, there is a kinesthetic experience in the observer due to
the response of the mirror neurons. Thus, this idea about passiveness needs to
be more accurate. Conventional theatre is based on verisimilitude, which
is related to reality. As mentioned above, drama is the basis of
theatre, stimulating the spectators’ senses to impact them emotionally. In this
paradigm, theatre creates the illusion that everything happening on stage is a
reproduction of reality.
In
contrast to the Aristotelian principle of theatre as an illusion, theatre as
theatre was developed by, among others, by Bertolt Brecht, Vsévolod
Meyerhold, and more contemporary theatre directors like Augusto Boal. The
illusion of theatre neutralized the spectators’ present reality, impeding
social changes. It is relevant to say that theatre was an essential way of
entertainment, and because of that, reality was presented as an “inexorable
progression of incidents without room for alterations” (Frasca, 2004, p. 228).
Theatre as theatre is a principle in which the spectator is aware of the use of
effects to create theatricality and, instead, has a rational response to the
facts presented on stage. The tension of principles between the paradigm shift
from dramatic to post-dramatic theatre involved relational, participative, and
interactive forms. Theatre in the 1960s and 1970s had experimental perspectives
that focused even more on impacting other senses, engaging audiences with no
conventional dramatic conflicts, non-linear stories, and breaking the barriers
of representation. This also gave birth to performance art.
It
is often thought that theatre has nothing to do with digital games, and they
might seem contradictory. However, this comparison has also had several
advocates and detractors, as described before. Nevertheless, those statements,
nowadays, are problematic due to the borders vanishing between both paradigms
when referring to interactivity. In the book Computers as Theatre,
Brenda Laurel (2014) established the vast similarities between video games and
theatre, contributing to the idea of interactive narrative.
Theatre,
like cinema and TV, has been used as a reference to create video games due to
how tension and uncertainty are presented. The traditional narrative
(Aristotelian) follows a three-act structure: presentation–conflict–solution.
This creates a dramatic arc in which the events are processed in
tension, climax, and resolution. For instance, adventure games (role-play and
strategy games as well) follow the conventional structure of the “hero (or
anti-hero) journey.” This system presents a character (created with several
characteristics and features to generate engagement) who, in general,
faces a moral dilemma that must be solved according to established and
normative morals. Howard (1994) indicated the term “paradoxes of rationality”
to explain six dilemmas generated by a rational approach to conflict (p. 189).
As described before, in theatre, players are actors, and spectators only
observe actions; whereas, in video games, players are both characters and
spectators.
Frasca
(2004) references Boal’s Theatre of the Oppressed to give an example of how the
simulation rhetoric creates an environment for education and reenactment. In
this theatre technique, called Forum Theatre, Frasca sees a theatre of
simulation: an oppressive system (reality) is modelled by a representation
system (the play). While issues are presented, the play can be interrupted to
integrate a person from the audience to improvise, take the leading role, and
change the story, giving a possible solution. The plot was created
collectively, and the spectators were also meant to be actors. Boal called them
espectactor. This is a virtuous manner of participatory theatre close to
the video game simulation rhetorics with a different approach from the
conventional narratives. This idea joins both roles of a video game player: an
actor who jumps into the story and a spectator of their actions. In Boalian
drama, what’s interesting is the fact that the simulation is set by a
non-digital, virtual, or computer-based domain that generates a captivating
involvement in the play and a level of autonomy to be part of it. The feature of
interruption and modification of the story is closer to gaming. In the idea of
modification, an espectactor reaches their goal: go along with the imagination
and adapt the game to diverse changes.
Essentially,
what Frasca is conveying is the need to get rid of the “narrative coherence,”
which is well defended by Laurel in the interactive narrative, arguing the
“Aristotelian closure as the source of the user’s pleasure” (2014, p. 229).
On the other hand, Frasca (2004) remarked that the potential of games is the
player’s capacity to start over and enhance their knowledge through the
interpretation of simulated experiences and their repetition. Hence, for a
digital game player (or an espectactor), what is compelling is the make-believe
rather than the closure.
Insights on the “Make-Believe”
The
categorization proposed by Roger Caillois (2001) in game studies can frame the
essence of theatre as mimicry or mimesis, which is role playing.
Caillois establishes three more categories: Agon or competition games; Alea
or chance games; and Ilinx or vertigo games, in which perception is
altered. This classification defines four play forms that continuously
intersect. Two types are structured in a broader spectrum of these categories
and are framed by the play continuum: ludus and paidia, play and
game. One follows a well-defined structure and a set of rules, with winners and
losers. The other is spontaneous, and the rules, although structured, can be
more abstract. Ludus games are more linear and binary, while paidia are more
“open-ended” (Frasca, 2004, p. 230).
From
the acting point of view, as a performer and an actor, I learned that acting
is playing. That rule is applied almost everywhere and taught in every
corner of drama and theatre schools. In English, “play” has diverse meanings,
being a noun and a verb. So, theatre across time has been defined by various
philosophical concepts, and the first is the Aristotelian one of mimesis:
imitation. It is how the actions and events of the characters are shown instead
of being told by a narrator (diegesis). Mimesis is an essential human
feature that involves observation and repetition; in this way, children learn
to behave. Hence, as an actress, my relationship with theatre begins with that
primarily human behaviour. Also, it is undeniable that theatre has taken
centuries to analyze and develop accurate techniques (for playwrights and
actors) to create characters that engage the audiences.
Moreover,
every theatre style has a basis in the make-believe principle. I have also been
an espectactor, a practitioner of the Boalian theatre, Stanislavksi’s method,
Brechtian distancing effect, and Meyerhold and Grotowski’s technique, where the
body and objects (kinesthetics) are the first links between reality and the
simulation of it in worlds modelled by playwrights, dramaturgs, and stage
designers. I have practiced performance art where no acting is needed except
the mere presence in a real-time space doing an action. Here, the relational
sphere with others nourishes the work. As an espectator, I have also
participated in participatory and interactive theatre. Thus, whether inside or
outside the theatre or video games, a player’s experience is kinesthetic,
cognitive, and emotional; if winning or losing is involved, the engagement
would change accordingly.
Theatre
and technology have blurred their borders, serving one another as models.
During the 1980s and 1990s, conventional narratives influenced the design of
video games, and now, digital games and interactive technologies are more
incorporated in theatre pieces worldwide. Nowadays, audiences take up more
space, becoming players, who are, at the same time, playwrights, actors, and
directors. In regard to digital games, simulation appears as an “alternative”
rather than a “replacement” of representation (Frasca, 2004, p. 233)
because their difference goes only to a certain point. On the other hand, Homan
and Homan (2014) stated: “It may be that the video game … will, we think,
become a (rather than the) theatre of the future, or at least the most popular
new expression of theatre’s evolution” (p. 184).
Conclusion
Participating
in TAG and events like the game jam can contribute to producing research
questions and interdisciplinary methods for creators, gamers, and non-gamers.
It made me rethink my practice because it expanded my information and skills.
This is also a way to understand the game design’s collaborative, technical,
and iterative aspects. It was also an encouraging laboratory of creative
writing and its expansions to interactive theatre. Thus, new knowledge is
acquired.
Earlier
in this essay, I referred to the GameBling 2.0 regarding the topic
(Un)Lucky and the insights about game writing and its relationship to chance.
After examining multiple perspectives, I considered the question of whether
chance / luck can be modelled by changing the paradigms in which it is
framed. Considering perspectives such as Frasca’s ideas about the rhetorics of
simulation being a fundamental characteristic of digital games in contrast to
the narrative paradigm’s construction of a black-and-white experience, will
games written under the simulation rules shift the perception of luck on
players?
The
concept of paidia contributes to simulation rhetorics because it helps
establish diverse levels for the players to develop their own goals. Likewise,
simulations can be controlled to transmit ideology. Hence, luck and chance
could be manipulated in the writing and design process. Often, digital games
are perceived as spaces where skills are essential and can be enhanced by
practice and repetition. Also, they can develop tactical thought and,
therefore, success. However, further research is needed to address the
intersections of gambling and video games, supported by both game and gambling
studies, and applying methods such as game jams.
Alejandra
Jimenez is an interdisciplinary artist
and educator, developing her Ph.D. studies in Humanities in the Individualized
program at Concordia University. She holds a B.A. in performing arts from
District University-ASAB and an M.A. in theatre and live arts from the National
University of Colombia. She is interested in creative, transformative, and
communal experiences that address critical intersectional concerns. Alejandra
is a Teesri Duniya Theatre board member, and an editor and workshop facilitator
at Kodama Cartonera. She is affiliated with Hexagram, Milieux-LeParc, COHDS,
ALLab, and SenseLab-3e at Concordia University. https://www.alemisakg.com
Works Cited
Bolton, G. E. (2002). Game theory’s role in
role-playing. International Journal of Forecasting, 18(3), 353–358. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2070(02)00027-4
Caillois, R. (2001). Man, play and games (M.
Barash, Trans.). University of Illinois Press. (Original work published 1958) https://www.press.uillinois.edu/books/?id=p070334
CinemaSins. (2023, June 22). Everything wrong
with Luck in 23 minutes or less [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPgaSgzm7PE
Frasca, G. (2004). Simulation versus narrative:
Introduction to ludology. In M. J. P. Wolf & B. Perron (Eds.), The video
game theory reader (pp. 221–236). Routledge. https://www.routledge.com/The-Video-Game-Theory-Reader/Wolf-Perron/p/book/9780415965798
Hoebanx, P., Isdrake, I., Kairouz, S., Simon, B.,
& French, M. (2023). The GameBling Game Jam: Game jams as a method for
studying gambling games. Critical Gambling Studies Blog. https://doi.org/10.29173/cgs160
Holmes, P., & Abad, J. (Directors). (2022). Luck
[Film]. Skydance Animation.
Homan, D., & Homan, S. (2014). The interactive
theater of video games: The gamer as playwright, director, and actor. Comparative
Drama, 48(1/2), 169–186. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24615358
Howard, N. (1994). Drama theory and its relation to
game theory. Part 1: Dramatic resolution vs. rational solution. Group
Decision and Negotiation, 3, 187–206. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01384354
Infinite Fall. (2017). Night in the woods
[Video game]. Finji. http://www.nightinthewoods.com
Jimenez, A., & Isdrake, I. (2023). Cat luck
[Video Game]. itch.io. https://affectionsandmoves.itch.io/cat-luck
Kae, A. (2020, August 1). Game Writers’ Corner
|| Writing for video games: Why it’s different from other industries
[Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXUrWtGZH3s
Laurel, B. (2014). Computers as theatre (2nd
ed.). Addison-Wesley.
Maggs, B. (2016, June 20). Explainer: The art of
video game writing. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/explainer-the-art-of-video-game-writing-60376
Rad, C. [IGN]. (2018). Night in the woods review
[Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJXP99zwQQw
Further Readings
Beumers, B. (2000, October 27). Theatre as
simulation, or the virtual overcoat: Towards a theater of the postmodern.
ARTMargins. https://artmargins.com/theater-as-simulation-or-the-virtual-overcoat-towards-a-theater-of-the-postmodern
Bryant, J. (2021). From game theory to drama
theory. In D. M. Kilgour & C. Eden (Eds.), Handbook of group decision
and negotiation (pp. 485–504). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49629-6_14
Isigan, A. (2011, August 15). Urgency in video
games. Game Developer. https://www.gamedeveloper.com/design/urgency-in-video-games
Johnson, M. R., & Brock, T. (2019, January 21).
How are video games and gambling converging? Gambling Research Exchange
Ontario. https://www.greo.ca/Modules/EvidenceCentre/Details/how-are-video-games-and-gambling-converging
Mambrol, N. (2020, November 12). Drama theory. Literary
theory and criticism. https://literariness.org/2020/11/12/drama-theory
Manero Iglesias, B. (2015). Del teatro clásico a
los videojuegos educativos [Tesis Doctoral, Universidad Complutense de
Madrid]. Docta Complutense. https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14352/26589
Technoculture, Art and Games (TAG). (n.d.).
Retrieved June 18, 2024, from https://tag.hexagram.ca
Wolf, M. J. P., & Perron, B. (Eds.). (2004). The
video game theory reader. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203700457
GameBling Jam Writing Workshop:
Flip a Coin Reflection
Vinh Tuan Dat (Percy) Nguyen*
*Concordia
University
Introduction
For
the GameBling 2.0 Game Jam, I made Flip a Coin: a simple browser
game where players bet money on one side of a flipping coin. The goal is
simple: gamble to your heart’s content and cash in the goods! The odds seem
reasonable to the untrained eye, as a 50% chance of winning is high in
gambling.
In
the (eventual) case of bankruptcy, players will be introduced to Russian
Roulette, a dangerous way to earn free coins. Whenever out of cash, players may
then risk their life to continue feeding their crippling gambling obsession.
Thought Process
I
was the sole creator on this project. In the initial stages of planning the
game, I envisioned a story-branching narrative game. I decided against this
because the random nature of luck removes the meaning of choices. In an
action–adventure game, players should be rewarded for making the right choices.
If player decisions are constantly influenced by random number generators
(RNG), winning is no longer gratifying, while losing feels empty and unfair.
Yet, this randomness is often the reality in commercial gambling where luck, or
rather bad luck, is a significant determinant that dictates gambling outcomes.
The
only choice that players can take in Flip a Coin is the simple action of
gambling. Players must comply with this act as it is their only option to
advance the narrative. The lack of player agency, bound to the repetitive act
of gambling, paints my vision of compulsive gambling and its momentous repercussions
for the gambler. This art of persuasion is called procedural rhetoric in which
the message of the game is conveyed through processes and rules-based systems.
By limiting players’ choices to one single path, or one recurring process, the
game mirrors the unyielding urge to gamble that addicted gamblers experience.
I
am quite content with the final game output. If given more time and skills to
develop this prototype, I would stray away from the theme of gambling and delve
into how people perceive luckiness upon birth. What factors decide a fortunate
upbringing? A solid country of birth or good wealth? A lack of birth defects or
happy, married parents? Luck is subjective and respective to each individual
and their worldview.
Reflections
As
a skeptical individual, I believe in cause and consequence rather than the
unpredictability of luck. I tend to lessen the importance of luck, being the
unexpected and the unaccounted factor, in favour of a predictable outcome. This
could be something like simply refusing to buy lottery scratchers to avoiding
driving late at night when the probability of accidents caused by driving under
the influence is the highest. While I understand that some factors are beyond
my control, I do have the choice to engage or disengage from dubious
behaviours. I dislike luck for how its unpredictability interferes with our
daily lives.
The
theme of luck and chance is implicitly communicated through the gambling
activities that players engage with. Betting with one’s money in a game of
heads or tails or wagering one’s life in Russian Roulette demonstrates the many
ways players try to beat the odds, regardless of potential consequence.
Flip
a Coin also explores the theme of
“beginner’s luck”: a superstitious phenomenon where novice players are believed
to experience early successes in gambling activities. New players are given a
ratio of 70% against 30% in Heads or Tails for their first five days. This
secret algorithm is employed to increase newcomers’ luck and invite them to
indulge in gambling. However, from day five onward, the win / lose ratio
is altered to 45% versus 55%, subtly reducing players’ win rate to ensure
profit for the casino. Given that the odds are against players, bankruptcy is
meant to occur with time, forcing players to resort to Russian Roulette.
Russian Roulette has odds of 5 to 6 for a chance of winning a thousand dollars.
However, losing only once will result in death, or rather, an immediate game
over.
Original Intention
Flip
a Coin is a ridiculous and satirical
take on gambling games. The game takes a critical and humorous stance as it
punishes players with a virtual demise for their gambling endeavours. As the
game progresses, a new twist emerges: from the tenth day onward, the game
forces players to wager a higher amount than their previous bet in the Heads or
Tails minigame. This rule effectively trains players to adopt a high-risk,
high-reward approach. From risking bankruptcy to betting one’s very existence,
the stakes in play evolve over time to mirror a gambler’s growing greed. The
introduction of Russian Roulette as a means to address bankruptcy adds a poetic
and extreme layer to the gameplay. The chamber-spinning minigame is but a
poetic and extreme analogy of modern gambling machines, highlighting the irony
of risking one’s mortality for another shot at the thrill of gambling. It
exposes the disconnect of gamblers from reality and their compulsion to satisfy
an insatiable abyss of avarice.
Flip
a Coin communicates a narrative of
stress and suspense through sound design. The juxtaposition of the upbeat
casino jazz in Heads or Tails to the silently spinning cylinder of the Russian
Roulette revolver speaks volumes about the severity of the nature of gambling.
Critical Theorization
Marionneau
and Nikkinen (2022) note that suicidality increases amongst heavy gamblers as
opposed to their nongambling counterparts. Citing a past United Kingdom study
on gambling-related suicides and suicidality, the authors note that “19.2 percent
of problem gamblers had thought about suicide in the past year, in comparison
to 4.1 percent among those with no signs of problem gambling.” Similar
studies in Sweden and Italy also reveal an increase in suicidality amongst
problematic gamblers (Marionneau & Nikkinen, 2022). While the severity of
gambling is not directly linked to suicide, indebtedness and shame are bridging
processes that connect the two acts (Marionneau & Nikkinen, 2022).
Upon
reading this study, I realized that indebtedness and shame are two missing
factors that define the harms of gambling in Flip a Coin.
As
the player’s balance could never go below zero, this unrealistic game mechanic
takes away the anxiety-inducing debt that is present in heavy gamblers. Certain
forms of monetary punishments would serve as a great middle ground, a
transition from normal life to one of indebtedness and fear, forcing players to
resort to gambling their own life. Introducing new options to the game, such as
offering different types of loans, would help to ground this virtual game to
the actual world and present a much more realistic demonstration of gambling
problems.
Incorporating
shame into Flip a Coin would be another needed but difficult task as I
have not experienced first-hand compulsive gambling. It then would be best to
crowdsource data from past and present problem gamblers to depict this
heartfelt embarrassment from gambling problems.
Flip a Coin can be played here
Bibliography
Marionneau, V., & Nikkinen, J. (2022).
Gambling-related suicides and suicidality: A systematic review of qualitative
evidence. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 13, 980303. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2022.980303
Game Credits
Art
Glass: https://www.pngwing.com/en/free-png-bmteg/download
Kawaii face: http://clipart-library.com/clip-art/kawaii-face-transparent-background-5.htm
Russian Roulette: https://depositphotos.com/vector-images/russian-roulette.html
Sounds
CasinoBG Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99ABAddEiQs&ab_channel=MelodySounds-CopyrightFreeMusic
Cocking Revolver: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZPUqxZRiLQ&ab_channel=TMGOTBEATZ
Coin spin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7c0xKlRkFlw&ab_channel=SoundEffectsLibrary
Pick sfx: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shI-BL0y8Kg&ab_channel=Jocabundus
Revolver Click: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Potg0kDqIXc&ab_channel=FreeifyMusic
Revolver Spinning: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjZElXeXgQU&ab_channel=PSSoundeffectsFX-NoCopyright
Shooting SFX: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgB3fY0Amhs&ab_channel=ScottRoman
Comments
Post a Comment