Unlike in a movie, where we can question the characters' decisions, we are making these decisions in games.
In today's #gamedesign thread: using games as an empathy tool 🧵
I was reading Katie Salen and Eric Zimmerman's Rules of Play, and at some point, they pointed out that games of historical wars have a problem: history is a fixed representation of past events. You can't change it.
So what these games emulate is only the initial circumstances
And in that sense, the historical events, in the magic circle of a game, could be changed. This causes a major issue: break of suspension of disbelief.
If players are playing a game that supposedly is historically accurate, then history should be repeated.
So I had this thought, which is something I already pointed out to some friends about games:
Games are a powerful empathy tool.
So instead of simulating just the initial conflict circumstances but allowing for an emergent outcome, why not simulate the outcome as well?
In a movie, for instance, in a terror movie, it's easy to say "I wouldn't enter that house", "I would just run away from that mess"...
But by playing Silent Hill, we understand the character's internal conflict, and there's no way to question his actions.
In the same approach, we could simulate the aspects of a conflict that prevented one side of a war from making the decision that, at first, seemed more logical.
Reality is way more complex than we think and by allowing people to experience all the aspects of the decision making process behind an event, especially the emotional aspects, we allow them to understand what drove the decision
We all question each other's choices based on a projection of our own CURRENT condition.
But once we are put under the same circumstances...
How many times did you engage in combat when you could avoid it? How many times did you avoid when you could easily defeat the opponent?
A game designer who is an EXPERT in using games as an empathy tool is Jason Rohrer, famous for the game Passage where we have to initially decide having a lifelong partner(marry) or not.
The game beautifully displays the consequences of either choice. It's amazing.
But Jason also created many other games that emulate the depths of human's experience, like The Castle Doctrine, where you have to protect your house from being pilled where also pilling other players' houses and protecting your family
There's a game, I couldn't find it, but it's an escape the room, where the character is stuck in his apartment.
The apartment shrinks over time and player loses when it gets too small.
As you play the game, the common "win" condition is using a rope to hang the character.
The game is an analogy to depression, where you feel like ultimately there's no other option, life is getting shorter and death is imminent, and the only thing you can do is choose to let it take rid of you or get rid you yourself, where in the later you're at least in control
Jason Roher also created the award winning game One Hour One Life that simulates the life of primitive societies, each minute is an year and you die at 60. The game has permadeath
BUT you can come back as a newborn with another character and get some of your items back.
The game simulates the concept of family where everyone takes care of each other and pass their assets and properties to the next generation. With that, we understand the concept of heritage and other capitalist-ish ideas of propagation of capital.
In conclusion, we can use games to put players under the circumstances that we want them to have empathy for.
By making their own decisions, players will understand what led someone's choices, ultimately making them aware of the person's circumstances, creating empathy for them
Games are a powerful empathy tool.
Unlike in a movie, where we can question the characters' decisions, we are making these decisions in games.
In today's #gamedesign thread: using games as an empathy tool 🧵I was reading Katie Salen and Eric Zimmerman's Rules of Play, and at some point, they pointed out that games of historical wars have a problem: history is a fixed representation of past events. You can't change it.
So what these games emulate is only the initial circumstancesAnd in that sense, the historical events, in the magic circle of a game, could be changed. This causes a major issue: break of suspension of disbelief.
If players are playing a game that supposedly is historically accurate, then history should be repeated.So I had this thought, which is something I already pointed out to some friends about games:
Games are a powerful empathy tool.
So instead of simulating just the initial conflict circumstances but allowing for an emergent outcome, why not simulate the outcome as well?In a movie, for instance, in a terror movie, it's easy to say "I wouldn't enter that house", "I would just run away from that mess"...
But by playing Silent Hill, we understand the character's internal conflict, and there's no way to question his actions.In the same approach, we could simulate the aspects of a conflict that prevented one side of a war from making the decision that, at first, seemed more logical.Reality is way more complex than we think and by allowing people to experience all the aspects of the decision making process behind an event, especially the emotional aspects, we allow them to understand what drove the decisionWe all question each other's choices based on a projection of our own CURRENT condition.
But once we are put under the same circumstances...
How many times did you engage in combat when you could avoid it? How many times did you avoid when you could easily defeat the opponent?A game designer who is an EXPERT in using games as an empathy tool is Jason Rohrer, famous for the game Passage where we have to initially decide having a lifelong partner(marry) or not.
The game beautifully displays the consequences of either choice. It's amazing.But Jason also created many other games that emulate the depths of human's experience, like The Castle Doctrine, where you have to protect your house from being pilled where also pilling other players' houses and protecting your familyThere's a game, I couldn't find it, but it's an escape the room, where the character is stuck in his apartment.
The apartment shrinks over time and player loses when it gets too small.
As you play the game, the common "win" condition is using a rope to hang the character.The game is an analogy to depression, where you feel like ultimately there's no other option, life is getting shorter and death is imminent, and the only thing you can do is choose to let it take rid of you or get rid you yourself, where in the later you're at least in controlJason Roher also created the award winning game One Hour One Life that simulates the life of primitive societies, each minute is an year and you die at 60. The game has permadeath
BUT you can come back as a newborn with another character and get some of your items back.The game simulates the concept of family where everyone takes care of each other and pass their assets and properties to the next generation. With that, we understand the concept of heritage and other capitalist-ish ideas of propagation of capital.In conclusion, we can use games to put players under the circumstances that we want them to have empathy for.
By making their own decisions, players will understand what led someone's choices, ultimately making them aware of the person's circumstances, creating empathy for them
Games are a powerful empathy tool.
Unlike in a movie, where we can question the characters' decisions, we are making these decisions in games.
In today's #gamedesign thread: using games as an empathy tool 🧵 ... I was reading Katie Salen and Eric Zimmerman's Rules of Play, and at some point, they pointed out that games of historical wars have a problem: history is a fixed representation of past events. You can't change it.
So what these games emulate is only the initial circumstances ... And in that sense, the historical events, in the magic circle of a game, could be changed. This causes a major issue: break of suspension of disbelief.
If players are playing a game that supposedly is historically accurate, then history should be repeated. ... So I had this thought, which is something I already pointed out to some friends about games:
Games are a powerful empathy tool.
So instead of simulating just the initial conflict circumstances but allowing for an emergent outcome, why not simulate the outcome as well? ... In a movie, for instance, in a terror movie, it's easy to say "I wouldn't enter that house", "I would just run away from that mess"...
But by playing Silent Hill, we understand the character's internal conflict, and there's no way to question his actions. ... In the same approach, we could simulate the aspects of a conflict that prevented one side of a war from making the decision that, at first, seemed more logical. ... Reality is way more complex than we think and by allowing people to experience all the aspects of the decision making process behind an event, especially the emotional aspects, we allow them to understand what drove the decision ... We all question each other's choices based on a projection of our own CURRENT condition.
But once we are put under the same circumstances...
How many times did you engage in combat when you could avoid it? How many times did you avoid when you could easily defeat the opponent? ... A game designer who is an EXPERT in using games as an empathy tool is Jason Rohrer, famous for the game Passage where we have to initially decide having a lifelong partner(marry) or not.
The game beautifully displays the consequences of either choice. It's amazing. ... But Jason also created many other games that emulate the depths of human's experience, like The Castle Doctrine, where you have to protect your house from being pilled where also pilling other players' houses and protecting your family ... There's a game, I couldn't find it, but it's an escape the room, where the character is stuck in his apartment.
The apartment shrinks over time and player loses when it gets too small.
As you play the game, the common "win" condition is using a rope to hang the character. ... The game is an analogy to depression, where you feel like ultimately there's no other option, life is getting shorter and death is imminent, and the only thing you can do is choose to let it take rid of you or get rid you yourself, where in the later you're at least in control ... Jason Roher also created the award winning game One Hour One Life that simulates the life of primitive societies, each minute is an year and you die at 60. The game has permadeath
BUT you can come back as a newborn with another character and get some of your items back. ... The game simulates the concept of family where everyone takes care of each other and pass their assets and properties to the next generation. With that, we understand the concept of heritage and other capitalist-ish ideas of propagation of capital. ... In conclusion, we can use games to put players under the circumstances that we want them to have empathy for.
By making their own decisions, players will understand what led someone's choices, ultimately making them aware of the person's circumstances, creating empathy for them
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
Update
