This week, I was finally able to attend one of the board games nights run by the tutors on my course. I’ve been disappointed to miss these events in previous weeks, so was thrilled when I realised I’d finally be able to take part. As predicted, it was brilliant! A bunch of us turned up and played an excellent game called Dead of Winter. Initially, I was a little skeptical since the game’s theme – a zombie apocalypse – is a concept that’s fairly well-worn; however, after one round of play it became clear that my initial reaction had been unfair. The game felt fresh and exciting due to a mechanic I hadn’t yet encountered in board games: moral choice. At the start of each player’s turn, a card was selected that contained a difficult moral decision. Sometimes the moral choice didn’t take effect because the conditions weren’t met; at other times the choice was read aloud and the players were asked to vote, in unison, with regards to the outcome of the decision. What made it especially tense was that nobody – the reader of the card included – had any idea of the decision’s consequence until after the group vote had been made. Consequently, we were always second-guessing ourselves and wondering whether or not some hidden catastrophe lay in store should we vote incorrectly. It was a fantastic – if fairly harrowing – experience!

In this week’s theory class, things reached an almost philosophical level as we discussed the concept of ‘presence’. This nebulous term means different things to different academics, but, very roughly, it refers to the feeling of being lost in another world. When academics speak of ‘presence’, they often speak of it as coming about through a mediated experience – i.e. one can feel lost in another world when engaging in a ‘hi-tech’ mediated experience like video games just as one can feel lost when engaging in a ‘low-tech’ mediated experience like reading a novel. From the discussion on mediated experiences, a fascinating debate then arose between our tutor, Kelly, and a fellow MA student, Ashley, as they discussed whether there was such a thing as a non-mediated experience. Kelly explained how all experiences could be considered mediated – i.e. looking at a tree is an experience mediated through our bodies. Ashley, on the other hand, wanted to know if every human experience is mediated: for instance, are dreams mediated or non-mediated? Can a dream be considered a non-mediated experience since it’s something that takes place entirely in our heads? It was a fascinating conversation to listen to and made me feel very privileged to be surrounded by such clever people! (Speaking of which, the awesome picture that accompanies this week’s post is the handiwork of another very talented student, Samantha! I wish I could claim it as my own…!)

Fortunately for me, things were a little less cognitively taxing in the afternoon – but no less interesting as a result. With our tutor, Chris, we focused on ways of designing effective rules in games. In the lead up to a design challenge, Chris spoke of the importance of a game’s ‘mechanics’ (rules) matching its ‘metaphor’ (theme/narrative). Hearing this encouraged me to reflect upon a design challenge I’d completed earlier in the week where I’d attempted to conceptualize a new mobile game. At the time of submission, I’d felt pleased because the game’s ‘metaphor’ had felt relatively solid; however, as Chris pointed out, the game’s mechanics – which were overly reliant on mini-games – were not only fairly impractical from a designer’s perspective, but also didn’t quite interlace with the theme successfully, either. It was a useful lesson and I appreciated the feedback.

As the afternoon session continued, so Chris mentioned a selection of games where the rules didn’t really allow for any meaningful choice from the players. Interestingly, he explained how Monopoly – one of the nation’s favourite board games – is an example of poor game design due to the fact that player choice is practically non-existent. He spoke of how its designer, Elizabeth Magie, had originally conceived of it as a means of illustrating the injustices of Capitalism and that it’d never been her intention that the game should be fair! Quite the opposite, in fact. How ironic, then, that this anti-Capitalist symbol should transform into the highly lucrative product it is today.

True to form, the course this week was hugely thought-provoking and left me with far more questions than answers. Just the way I like it.