Participatory Gaming Culture
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Master thesis Participatory gaming culture: Indie game design as dialogue between player & creator Martijn van Best student ID: 3175421 [email protected] New Media Studies Faculty of Humanities UTRECHT UNIVERSITY Course code: 200700088 THE-Scriptie / MA NMDC Supervisor: Erna Kotkamp Second reader: René Glas DATE: March 28th, 2011 1 To Mieke 2 Abstract In this thesis I argue that dichotomies between independent game design and mainstream design based on team size, commercial appeal or creative audacity are non-constructive. Instead, I consider the potential for a personal connection between player and designer a trademark of the indie scene. I investigate to what extent indie game designers are able to establish a personal dialogue with their audience through their game, instead of regular channels like blogs and Twitter. I argue that such a dialogue is established by means of abusive game design, a concept developed by Douglas Wilson and Miguel Sicart of the University of Copenhagen. Players who wish to master (partially) abusive games, need to learn about the designer's intentions rather than the game system. This would allow for a dialogue between player and creator. This dialogue is part of a participatory culture in which existing conventions are questioned and modified, and then fed back to the mainstream. However, in a case study of indie title Super Crate Box (2010), it appears that in order to provide a worthwhile playing experience, indie designers need to strike a careful balance between their wish for a personal 'mark' and conventional, user friendly design that masks their presence. Tags: participatory culture, indie game design, abusive game design, mainstream, convention-breaking 3 “An abusive game designer is like a virus – one which avoids killing the host in order to better propagate throughout the population.” Douglas Wilson & Miguel Sicart, in “Now It’s Personal: On Abusive Game Design” (2010) 4 Acknowledgements I thank my supervisor Erna Kotkamp for her advice, criticism, helpful references to academic articles and the occasional political debate. I extend my gratitude to René Glas, who provided me with helpful suggestions and criticism for completing this thesis. A special, warm 'thank you' to the people at Dutch Game Garden: Jan-Pieter van Seventer, Viktor Wijnen, Sjors Houkes, Joshua de Jong and Zuraida Buter. For hiring me as an intern at their office in 2010 and introducing me to the Dutch game industry. I thank indie developers Jan Willem Nijman and Rami Ismail of studio Vlambeer for (unwittingly) inspiring me to write this thesis. A great amount of classic rock artists on Spotify kept me going these pasts months. They managed to fire me up enough each day to continue finishing this thesis. Many thanks to Queen, Kansas, Asia and others. I also wish to thank my fellow students. Mainly through the medium of Twitter, they provided me with advice, helpful links, support and distraction. During my years of study, I could always count on the love and support of two people: my parents Marij and William van Best. I'd like to use this little space to thank them for always being there for me. Without them, I would not be where I am now. I also thank my sister Carline for her love and advice. Many thanks to Mieke for her love, advice and patience, and motivating me to complete this thesis. I wouldn't have been the same if it weren't for her. 5 Table of Contents 1.0 – Introduction ......................................................................7 1.1 - Changes in the industry .................................................................7 1.1.1 New independence............................................................7 1.1.2 Marketability of indie games.................................................8 1.1.3 Personal connection: a trademark of indie?..............................10 1.1.4 Research question & methodology.........................................11 1.1.5 About Super Crate Box......................................................13 2.0 – Game design and participatory culture.....................................15 2.1 – What is participatory culture?.........................................................15 2.1.1 Defining participatory culture..............................................15 2.1.2 Underlying paradigm of participatory culture...........................16 2.1.3 Importance of participatory culture......................................17 2.1.4 Extended cultural industries and lead users.............................18 2.2 – Games and participatory culture......................................................21 2.2.1 Different degrees of participation: interpretation......................21 2.2.2 Different degrees of participation: reconfiguration & construction..22 3.0 - Abusive game design as participatory culture.............................24 3.1 - Exploring abusive game design........................................................24 3.1.1 A dialectic relationship between player and designer..................24 3.1.2 Forms of abusive game design.............................................25 3.2 - Super Crate Box as abusive game.....................................................26 3.2.1 Unfair Design..................................................................26 3.2.2 Aesthetic Abuse...............................................................28 3.2.3 Physical Abuse................................................................29 3.2.4 Lying to the Player...........................................................29 3.2.5 Social Abuse...................................................................30 4.0 - Conclusion.......................................................................31 5.0 – References.......................................................................33 5.1 Scientific articles, books, blog posts and news articles..................33 5.2 Developers' blogs and indie forums..........................................35 5.3 Ludography......................................................................36 5.4 Images............................................................................37 6 1.0 – Introduction 1.1 - Changes in the industry 1.1.1 New independence Independent video game developers have been on the rise in recent years. Titles like Super Meat Boy (2010), VVVVVV (2010), flOw (2007) and Braid (2008) were created by teams consisting of only a handful of people yet they garnered plenty of critical and in some cases financial success. This is an interesting development, since for a long time it seemed as if games created in the proverbial attic or basement, described in such seminal works as Joystick Nation (Hertz, 1997) and Trigger Happy (Poole, 2000), were gone for good. The dawn of the first Playstation and the “era of expensive team-based 3D game production” had seemingly killed off the lone coder, reminisces game journalist Keith Stuart in a web article for British newspaper The Guardian. In his piece he compares the current generation of independent designers with those from the 1980's, such as the Bitmap Brothers and Sensible Software. The difference with the 80's, according to Stuart, lies in the current abundance of “...cheap powerful computers, freely available open source software and various online distribution channels...” that make it possible for designers to create games more easily, cheaper and with a higher chance of marketability. (Stuart, 2010) Although not every independently produced game is profitable, at least some of the 'new indies' seem to be commercially or critically successful. In an industry dominated by heavily marketed titles that are supposed to bring in millions in revenue, digital distribution platforms provide a channel for small projects to be relatively easily and cheaply put on the market and -in some cases- garner a decent enough profit to secure the prolonged development activities of the designer(s). Braid by Jonathan Blow made 825.000 dollars on Xbox Live in its first week. (Sridharan, 2008) Minimalist puzzle platformer Limbo (2010) by Danish studio Playdead sold 300.000 copies costing 15 dollars each in its first month of release. (Sheffield, 2010) The Humble Indie Bundle (2010), containing five acclaimed independent titles that had been on the market for some time, made 1.273.613 dollars, of which 392.953 dollars went to charity. Its successor, the Humble Indie Bundle 2, raised more than 1,8 million dollars. (Wolfire Games, 2010) Although numbers like these are dwarfed by profit margins of successful retail titles like Treyarch's 2010 title Call of Duty: Black Ops, which generated 360 million dollar revenue on day one, (Graft, 2010) it must be remembered that indie titles differ from big publishers' titles in several important ways: they generally take less time to make (counting man-hours, at least), rely less on graphical prowess and visual or cinematic realism, are created by smaller teams and skip the retail process thanks to digital distribution. All this cuts down on costs, even though distributing titles over download channels is not free as the proprietor takes a license fee and a chunk of the sales.1 1 Indie developers pay Microsoft a 99 dollar license fee for an XNA tool kit, in order to develop for Xbox Live Arcade or Windows Mobile. The use of this tool kit is not mandatory since open source tools can also be used. However, Microsoft takes around 30 to 70 percent of sales for games, depending on their participation in the project. Developing PSN games for Sony's Playstation