« Storyteller As Artist? | Home | One Review, With a Side of Audience »
An Incomplete Life
By Corvus | February 26, 2009
I knew the moment the BoRT Council signed off on February’s topic which January post I was going to tackle. Lola’s treatment of Toni Morrison’s Beloved in Can Slavery be a Game? was exactly the thorny sort of design challenge that I cannot resist. Translating the themes of this particular book into a game, without being offensive and while remaining enjoyable to play, is quite a difficult task.
In fact, the task was difficult enough that I’m not done refining my thoughts. So rather than present you with a finished design, I’m going to share my approach as I tackled the design of An Incomplete Life.
The first question I asked was–does the game really need to be enjoyable? The answer to this is an unequivocal, “Yes.” Even the most difficult texts I have read have been enjoyable on some level. Fun? Not always. Easy? Not particularly. But, like a game that presents a heightened challenge via punitive game dynamics and a visceral, adrenaline fueled experience with its graphics and audio, these books provided a sense of accomplishment at finishing each paragraph, and instilled a deep aesthetic appreciation of the language used.
For this game design, in particular, it’s important to draw the audience in slowly and carefully so that they are fully emotionally engaged early on. Because at the end of the game they are going to be presented with a very difficult choice.
Dealing with our feelings about racism and slavery is a little easier when the topic is presented in the abstract. This allows the player to draw their own comparisons to the real world and is less likely to offend and particular group of people. To this end, I’m removing all trappings of the American south. The characters in An Incomplete Life will be cute cartoon characters that differ only in skin tone, with the player being a “Greenie” and the game’s antagonists being “Blues.” The game is set on a small island that features a castle and traditionally folkloric European village, set against a backdrop of a lush tropical jungle. This contrast between environments will serve, not only as an important part of the core gameplay, but to communicate the expansionist nature of the Blues.
I also decided that the Greenies and Blues would be completely gender neutral. This would not only sidestep any issues with the depictions of a woman in bondage and abject servitude, but would allow a wider audience to identify with their avatar. All animations and audio would be carefully crafted to maintain gender ambiguity, including using a highly symbolic reproduction mechanic.
These details being decided, it was time to focus on how the gameplay would reflect the desired themes. Obviously, before I could do that, I had to clearly identify the desired themes. While a life of slavery is the core thematic concept, I more specifically wanted to explore how a life of slavery could lead you to destroy something you loved, rather than have it exist in the world that your sweat and blood and tears has helped create. Furthermore, I wanted to communicate this entirely through the game mechanic and lead the player to this choice on their own, rather than force a binary decision upon them.
I realized quite early on that the game was going to need two layers of gameplay. There would be the overt gameplay, dictated by the player’s status as a slave, and a second layer that involved actively not participating in the first. While the game’s reward system would be tied to the first layer, the second layer would be more aesthetically pleasing to the player. However, participating in the second layer would need to result in punishment within the first layer, up to and including death.
It was pretty easy to decide upon a mechanic that evinced a feeling of slavery. Practically every computer role playing game to date could easily be interpreted as performing assigned tasks for a ruling class. So I decided that the first layer of the game would involve performing tasks that allow the Blues to increase their empire across the island. Rather than take an RPG approach, however, I decided to present the game more like a simulation. If you’ve seen the gameplay of A Kingdom of Keflings, or even Tribal Trouble 2, you’ve got a rough idea of the style of play. All the tasks assigned to the player would represent physical labor–quarrying and hauling rocks, chopping and hauling wood, planting, harvesting and hauling crops, etc. However, the player would also not be allowed to choose between tasks–all tasks would be randomly assigned and subsequent tasks would be assigned based on how well the player performs a particular task.
In many ways, it would be appropriate to describe the gameplay as allowing the player to control a single unit in a world simulation being played by the AI.
The player would be rewarded for successful completion of tasks with food and access to shelter. The better the performance, the better the quality of food and shelter. Eating and sleeping are essentially the leveling mechanic in the game. Only by eating and sleeping regularly can the player increase their strength, speed, and life. Better food and shelter result in larger experience gains. Poor performance results in disciplinary action. If the player completes a task, but does not do so in a timely fashion, they receive a light beating before being fed and given shelter. Each blow the player takes removes experience and can reduce their strength, speed, or life. Complete failure to complete the tasks assigned results in more severe beatings and no food or shelter. Failing to complete tasks, and avoiding contact with the Blues will result in hunting parties tracking you down and setting dogs on you, completely removing all experience gains and potentially causing the permanent death of your avatar.
Now comes the tricky part of the design. How do I design a second layer of gameplay that is in direct contrast to the first? Further, how do I make the second layer so compelling that they’d risk punishment and death to experience it? Beyond that, what sort of reward do I give the player and how does that reward interrelate with the first layer of gameplay so that the player would be willing to destroy it rather than see it affected?
I decided that the rewards of the second layer of gameplay needed to be completely experiential in nature. Actively participating in the first layer would reduce the positive experience, while avoiding the first layer altogether would increase it. While the gameplay of the first layer is structured and predictable, the second would be free-form and casual.
I decided that each Greenie would be surrounded by an aura. Within this aura color is more vibrant–the grass is greener, the sky is bluer, roses are more red. When a Greenie’s aura overlaps with another Greenie, colors become to strong they overflow their physical boundaries and the air swirls with color. Moving your mouse through these airborne colors causes them to swirl beautifully and will actually repaint the environment when the two Greenies move apart. Eventually these decorated areas will fade, but while they are fresh the aura of any Greenie standing nearby will be strengthened, growing in size and color intensity. The brighter the aura of the Greenie’s involved in creating these areas, the longer the effects last. Eventually, dimensional blobs of color can be created, which can be transported to other areas and burst open, allowing a solo Greenie to play with the colors.
I imagine the music turning to sweeping strings during the color play, while the music of the first gameplay layer is repetitive and dull.
Completing the tasks in the first gameplay layer reduces the size and intensity of a Greenie’s aura, representing the institutionalization of the Greenie’s spirit. Even being in proximity to a Blue dampens the Greenie’s aura. This necessitates avoiding both work and Blues in order to experience the beauty of the game. Beatings also reduce the aura, along with experience. Of course, the Blues do not allow the Greenies to wander to far if they do not trust them. The only means of gaining their trust is to complete assigned tasks on time. This, and the threat of punishment, necessitates some level of involvement in the first layer of gameplay.
This brings me to the final thematic element–the destruction of something precious to the player. I had initially decided that I would not require the player to destroy a living creature, much less their own child. I was also struggling how to communicate the weight and importance of this action to the player. As I sat down to write this post this morning, the solution hit me like a big oaken mallet on the back of the head.
The first step is to remove control over the course of the overall game by removing the ability to save or reload the game. Once the player begins a game, the only way to reset the world is to die, or delete the hidden save files. The second step is to tie the element that is to be destroyed to the continuance of the game.
I mentioned that advanced color play would eventually result in transportable blobs of color. The more the player engages in color play, the higher the chance that one of these blobs will produce a young Greenie–the natural result of hiding in the wilderness and engaging in color play with another adult Greenie. This young Greenie if born with a very bright aura, but instinctively reports in to the nearest Blue for a task. The moment a task is assigned, the player loses control over their original avatar and is given control over the new Greenie, starting them off with no experience, but a brighter aura that increases the intensity and beauty of the second gameplay layer… for a time.
However, with each Greenie that dies (including AI-controlled Greenies), the Blues gain more control over the island, making it more and more difficult to escape their presence and engage in color play. And the more complete their influence on the island, the less and less brilliant are the colors and sound produced by the second gameplay layer and the more and more restrictive the effects of performing tasks for, and receiving punishment from, the Blues. If needed, the Blues will expand to nearby islands when they’ve reached 100% control of the first.
Eventually, the gameplay becomes a bleak and repetitive affair and the only means to escape it is to die… or to kill your Greenie offspring before they report to a Blue for their first task. This is the one time violence against other characters is allowed and when they do so, their offspring’s aura merges with their own, dramatically increasing its intensity. This action also results in the immediate capture and death of the avatar at the hands of the Blues. No beatings, no dogs, just a quick, clean death.
Once the players dies, they are presented with a glimpse of their final avatar’s afterlife. The more beauty they spread during the game, and the brighter their aura when they died, the more bright and glowing the spirit of their deceased avatar. The after life if shown as a beautiful wilderness with Greenies and Blues working together to increase its beauty.
And after their first death, a new Afterlife Mode appears on the main menu. In Afterlife Mode the player is able to enter a sandbox mode where they can control all the spirits of their dead avatars (providing they’ve played the main game more than once) to decorate and build a paradise. The more spirits they have, the more environmental details available to them. The stronger their spirits, the more colors, the more new gameplay elements available as well.
This game would require careful balancing to pull off successfully. The inclusion of an Afterlife sandbox extracts the reward system from the second gameplay layer in a way that is satisfyingly reminiscent of Western civilization’s religious beliefs. It also reinforces the player’s willingness to take an action that is considered negative within the structure of the game.
Tagged:beloved, Blogs of the Round Table, literary conversions, slavery, toni morrison. | 6 Comments »
February 26th, 2009 at 9:17 am
Um, does this mean that the best way to have a good afterlife is to kill you child?
I hope that was *meant* to be disturbing, because it is.
Still thinking about this, I like the idea of rewarding the Player outside of the Character’s goals (assuming survival really is a Character’s goal in this game).
February 26th, 2009 at 9:27 am
Of course it’s meant to be disturbing. In fact, my intent is to so thoroughly entice the player into the game space that they continue to play, despite any cognitive dissonance they may experience as a result of their actions within the storyworld.
February 27th, 2009 at 10:31 am
Very interesting Corvus, for some reason I thought of a disturb version of the Zoombinis while reading this entry
What I like about this idea is how both game systems are at odds against each other yet are intertwined at the same time.
I also like the parallel in some way to real life for most people. Having tasks that fit into the basic needs (food, shelter, money but not in this case). Then there is the goal of having something bigger then those tasks (for most people religon) that doesn’t mesh well with the tasks in the first group like in your game idea.
My question is that if the player chooses to not kill their child and just keeps on completing tasks does the game ever end or do they just keep working until the player decides to shut off the game?
February 27th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
Eventually the landscape becomes too saturated with the Blues and their territory that the Greenies can’t get far enough away to generate enough color to have offspring. Once that happens, the player will eventually die of old age and the game will end.
And it would also be possible to play without ever escaping and making enough color to have offspring and the game would end with your first avatar.
February 27th, 2009 at 9:27 pm
Your descriptions of “Greenies” and “Blues” somewhat reminds me Ted Geisel’s well-known work “The Sneetches”. Dr. Seuss was brilliant at wrapping social commentary in bright, shiny kid’s books and now I’m wondering what video game adaptations of his works might look like. (For instance, “The Lorax” seems ripe for many wild game ideas.)
February 27th, 2009 at 9:38 pm
Geisel has been a pretty huge influence on me and I absolutely had the Sneetches in mind as I wrote this.