Fun Inc.

  Why Gaming Will

  Dominate the

  Twenty-First-Century

  TOM CHATFIELD

  PEGASUS BOOKS

  NEW YORK

  For Mum, Dad and my wife, Cat

  Contents

  Preface

  1 The fun instinct

  2 Technology and magic

  3 A license to print money

  4 A beautiful science

  5 Dangerous playground

  6 The Warcraft effect

  7 Clouds and flowers

  8 Second lives

  9 Serious play

  10 Beyond fun

  11 Future Inc.?

  Epilogue

  Bibliography and ludography

  Acknowledgements

  Index

  Preface to the American Edition

  In April 2008, my friend Jon flew from North Carolina to visit me in England. Jon manages a store in a small town in Gaston County, just outside Charlotte, and this was the first time he’d travelled outside America; he’d had to get his first ever passport for the trip. It was also the first time we’d met face to face, although we’d known each other for almost two years.

  Jon and I met in World of Warcraft, a game that my wife, Cat, and I have played ever since it launched in 2004. The three of us started out helping each other with in-game tasks. Then, as we got to know each other better, we moved on to talking through microphones and headsets while playing. We swapped emails, linked up on Facebook, discussed books and films, and pieced together the details of our very different lives. Jon was smart, in his early twenties and had dropped out of college due to funding difficulties; Cat and I were working long hours in medicine and publishing, and World of Warcraft offered us a sociable, absorbing evening “out,” away from the pressures of daily life.

  We often think of video games—and of digital culture in general—as a substitute for worldly encounters, and a troubling one at that. Yet our appetite for the digital has grown hand in hand with an increasing recognition of the value of the live and the interpersonal; and, above all, of the importance of the social aspects of technology. More than anything else, it is these sociable, interpersonal forces that are driving forward the next stages of the digital revolution. Jon was the first gaming friend of mine to visit us in London, but not the last: since his stay, several others have made the journey across the Atlantic, while my wife and I have travelled up and down America’s east coast visiting and staying with people we first got to know through video games.

  What this means is that the blank spaces on our map of America have been filling up, gradually, with individual human voices and faces. And while video games are far from the only reason we know people outside our own country, they have meant that we know people far off the tourist trail: people managing stores in small towns, living in military bases, serving their country abroad, raising families at home.

  Video games have been a central part of this process not because they’re uniquely powerful—although the shared experience of play is, at its best, one of the most universal of all human undertakings—but because they’re an increasingly central part of both American culture and of an emerging global culture. I believe that this culture has the power to re-mould the 21st century at least as radically as cinema and television did the 20th.

  This is a shamelessly partisan book about video games, and I make no apologies for that. Over the last decade, alongside my work writing a doctorate and teaching literature, working as an arts and books editor in London, and speaking and writing on technology and the arts, my experience of games has been a hugely enriching part of my life. This is something I hope to share and explore.

  This isn’t, however, a book about why games are “good” any more than it can be a repudiation of why they are not “bad.” These kind of statements are as meaningless as it would be to reduce every book ever written or every film ever shot into a single opinion. It’s precisely because I love games that I’m anxious to point out that 90 percent of the titles out there are not good enough. In everything from their artistic merit to their playability, design and quality assurance, they could be better. Sometimes they are awful, objectionable, banal, or simply not enjoyable. This is to be expected. Contrary to the popular myth of electronic entertainments as implacable engines of manipulation, it is very difficult indeed to make a decent video game, let alone an excellent one. Creating great games is both an art and a science—indeed, it’s one of the most demanding digital activities it’s possible to undertake.

  America is the world’s greatest video-gaming nation, and it should be proud of this status. It dominates globally in terms of the value of its market, but also in the sophistication of its audience and the quality of its industry. It’s thanks to games, in large part, that I have got to know America as I do. Or, to be more precise, it’s thanks to games that I have got to know certain Americans. I am far from alone in this. The greatest value and interest of any medium is always the human experiences it enables, not the machinery in which it encodes them. And, at their best, electronic games can show us at our best: creatively, socially, politically and intellectually.

  Wanting video games to be better is a central part of loving them. But the anatomy and criticism of games is a task for a different book to this one. Indeed, it’s a task already being undertaken with considerable sophistication and relish by the gaming community both online and in print. What I hope to achieve is something at once simpler and more fundamental: to explore why video games are worth taking seriously in the first place; to suggest the nature and range of the discussions it is worth having around them; and to show how these discussions may help us to understand our culture’s increasing augmentation and amplification by technology.

  If there is a fundamental message here, it is of continuity, not transformation. To face the future hopefully, together with all the possibilities of its technology, we must remember that we humans are the same as we ever were. It is only our possibilities of being and action that have changed: we are more stimulated, more distracted, more interconnected, more challenged, more able to learn, more able to lose ourselves than ever before.

  This book was largely written in 2009, which means that, in a field defined by constant innovation, its contents are already some distance from the cutting edge. I’m not too worried about this. I hope that what comes through is my belief that by far the most interesting things about both video games and people are those aspects of them that will not transform in the space of twelve months, twelve years, or even half a century. The reasons that games exert so deep and broad an appeal are very ancient, and if we’re to have any hope of understanding the future more than a year at a time, we must take the long perspective.

  Finally, as I write these words in mid-2010, one word in particular looks in urgent need of retirement: “gamers,” that segment of the population who know and play video games. For there is fast becoming no “us” or “them” when it comes to games. In 2009, the National Gamers Survey reported that 83% of the U.S. population played video games, including 72% of men and women over 50. Whatever your opinion on video games, they will soon be universal. Within another generation they have their place in every home and pocket, as inevitable as a computer or mobile phone. This is neither a dreadful nor a marvelous fact: it is an aspect of the world we must learn to live with and understand as best we can.

  We need to take this word “gamers” and throw it away, together with all those other generalizations that open up no debate and that mask the future under vague hopes and wild fears. We need to talk seriously, now, about how to get the best out of games, where the worst really lies, and what the games we play can tell us about ourselves and our future. The news may not all be good. But we cannot afford to ignore it.

  CHAPTER 1

  The fun instinct

  Video games are both a medium and an industry; an emerging and increasingly powerful form of entertainment, expression and communication. Yet they are also just one subset of the grand category of games: structured activities carried out for pleasure, according to certain written or unwritten rules. Games are as old as civilisation itself and are found in all cultures. Evidence survives of competitive game-playing from as early as 2600 BC, while archaeologists have found game ‘boards’ that were apparently scratched onto the backs of statues by bored Assyrian guards in the eighth century BC. Humans have been playing games for at least as long as we have been reading, writing and perhaps even speaking – and this latest great resurgence of game-playing at the heart of modern culture has deep roots in both our cultural and our biological history.

  The urge to play is universal, not just in human cultures but among higher animals. From ants to birds to monkeys, playful rituals such as mock-fighting allow animals to test, improve and even (something that may sound rather fanciful in the case of ants) celebrate their being in the world. It is only humans, however, that play games in the strict sense. A play-fight between primates may obey the most elaborate kind of unwritten rules, but only humans are able to codify their games independently of themselves. We are rule-making (and rule-seeking) creatures, and our love of order extends to play.

  The modern world’s attitude towards games is itself an odd mixture of the dismissive and the deeply committed. In the case of sports, at no point in history has any activity commanded as much attention as sporting endeavour. The 2006 football World Cup was, thanks to the reach of modern media, watched at some point by over three billion people. At the time of writing, this was the single greatest collective experience
in human history, although the 2010 World Cup will surely overtake it. Nothing, including religion, is so thoroughly international, or so blind to the divisions of race, nationality or creed. For all its compromises, the modern Olympics is rightly celebrated as the greatest human festival of internationalism in history.

  And yet games are rigidly separated in the minds of most people from the serious business of work and living. The entire industry of contemporary leisure thrives, in fact, on this separation between work and play. You work, and you spend a significant proportion of your income on leisure, but the two are mutually exclusive; each invokes its own rigid, and seemingly incompatible, set of conventions. Work is about putting your nose to the grindstone: for most people it will entail a degree of self-sacrifice, dedication, effort and, hopefully, the satisfaction that comes from earning your keep. Games, meanwhile, are about escaping from all of this into a mindset where pleasure and entertainment rule, and the whole point is that there is nothing resting on the outcome of the game beyond the value you personally choose to attach to it. This may be extremely high – but it remains governed by personal choice and the principle of pleasure, rather than economic necessity.

  Work, then, seems to be about rules, restrictions and necessities, whereas a game is about pleasure, freedom and escape from urgent need. Nevertheless, all games can also be thought of as little more than an exceptionally rigid set of rules and ideas that have been given a concrete form. Consider the popular board game, Pictionary, in which players compete to draw recognisable versions of as many objects as they can for other people to guess. Within the box of a Pictionary set you’ll find a board, playing pieces, a die, a timer, some paper, some cards with lists of items on, and some pencils. Apart from the board and the cards – which are just a way of measuring progress and providing a list of things to draw – these are everyday items. By packing them up in a box with a set of instructions, however, they are transformed into nothing less than a formal declaration of the desire to play. The purchase of these objects is a kind of licence, buying a space and a time outside the ordinary run of things within which the avowed intent is pleasure.

  During a game of Pictionary, the players’ main activity is drawing on scraps of paper. It’s something they could have done pretty much any time, had they had the inclination. What is it, then, that makes the game? In one sense, the game is born of a consensus: the learning and obeying of a simple set of rules. This consensus allows both competition and collaboration; it allows the measurement of better and worse performances, of more and less achievement. It allows players the satisfaction of showing off their skills, and of achieving something measurable. Since 2001 there has even been such a thing as the World Championship of Pictionary: create a challenge, and there will always be people whose greatest pleasure is demonstrably being the best (and create a game at which there is little or no skill, or opportunity for distinction, and the result will soon be boredom).

  Yet part of the charm of a game like Pictionary is that it is about more than simply crushing your opponents. The drawing component of the game is at least as much about self-expression and incidental delight as it is about competing – an excuse for a controlled few moments of disinhibition. To play it is as much to be creative and sociable as it is to compare skills and achievements. For it is also a team game, whose greatest satisfaction involves successful communication, something that, in most cases, includes shared delight in the awfulness of certain drawing efforts, and the provocation of interactions above and beyond the raw mechanics of the game itself.

  What we have in summary is a complex and powerful set of human motivators: achievement, competition, collaboration, learning and improvement, communication and self-expression. And what makes them a ‘game’, as opposed to something more serious, is the avowedly non-functional context they are framed in – the box, the label, the time set aside for pleasure rather than labour.

  This book is all about a particular kind of game – the most complex and powerful class of games people have ever created – but it’s also about the ways in which these games challenge this dichotomy of work and leisure on a fundamental level. Video games are, uniquely, a medium both for mass audiences and for mass participation: a live event that hundreds of millions of people can not only watch, but take part in. And they also constitute a medium where this participation increasingly overlaps with the ways in which people work, communicate and even define themselves as actors on a digital stage where there is little that cannot be shared, manipulated, re-imagined and made subject to the forces of pleasure and imagination.

  We live in a world where, for both better and worse, the very same digital media serve our social, working and recreational selves; and the arena of digital play is proving to be one that demands many qualities not traditionally associated with leisure: education, management and planning skills, profound effort, even self-sacrifice. From economics to personal relationships to experimental research, old boundaries are being crossed almost every year – and one thing at least is looking increasingly certain. In its way, the question of exactly why we play video games quite so much – and are certain to do so even more in the future – points toward a twenty-first-century cultural shift as profound as the explosion of mass media over the last century.

  The first point to make is that a video game doesn’t require consensus or rule-learning in the way that something like football, chess or Pictionary does. You’re not strolling on to a patch of grass holding a ball or unpacking a box full of pencils and paper. In a video game you are, rather, being presented with a miniature but complete world whose rules are an integral part of its structure – something that has been elaborately crafted down to its tiniest detail. If it’s well designed, you can no more disobey those rules than you can cheat at football by floating across the pitch in defiance of gravity.

  This has a number of important consequences. With a football or a pack of cards, there are hundreds of games you can theoretically play. In a video game, you can only do what the game allows you to. Or, to put it another way, the world of the game itself embodies its rules, and your job is to puzzle them out. Like the real world, video games are arenas into which you’re dropped and left to deduce a method of success for yourself. You can progress only by gaining experience; and the skills that this experience taps into are some of the most fundamental human motivators there are.

  The crucial point here is that, while games are miniature worlds, the ‘reality’ they reflect is not the physical world we inhabit, but the very particular ways in which this universe is manifested within the human mind. They are symbolic or relational realities: places whose primary obligation is not so much to ape the arbitrariness of life as to reproduce the patterns and configurations that humans are most disposed to seek. All of which leads to what is the most important and universal impulse behind the playing of video games: the fact that they are engines of the most sophisticated kind of human learning.

  Within the increasingly distinguished field of video games studies, perhaps the most influential person to have discussed games as learning engines is the designer and author Raph Koster. Koster has, among other things, worked as lead designer on Ultima Online (1997), the world’s first commercially successful massively multiplayer online game (MMO), and as creative director on another MMO milestone, Star Wars Galaxies (2003), based on the Star Wars universe. He’s also the author of an influential book, A Theory of Fun for Game Design (2004), that was one of the first to set out in precise terms what it means to say that games are tools for learning:

  Games are something special and unique. They are concentrated chunks ready for our brains to chew on. Since they are abstracted and iconic, they are readily absorbed. Since they are formal systems, they exclude distracting external details. Usually, our brains have to do hard work to turn messy reality into something as clear as a game is.

  Learning, Koster explains, is something humans find extraordinarily satisfying because the ability to learn certain kinds of lessons is perhaps our most vital trait in evolutionary terms. Uniquely, we have become able to learn as both individuals and as a species, and to construct the symbolic means of perpetuating our learning from generation to generation. In the thousands upon thousands of years during which modern man has evolved, the desire and ability to learn – and the aptitude for solving all manner of spatial, hierarchical, conceptual and relational problems – has ensured both our survival and, over time, our dominance of the earth. It should come as little surprise, then, that the mastery of certain kinds of learning challenge thrills us like little else.