I have a problem with games. A big one. I hate it, because its part of so many games that I love. It's an issue that has been far more addressed in other media, but still seems to run rampant in games. Like a handful of other issues *cough* portrayal of women *cough*, games seems to be abysmally behind the curve in discussing this topic.
This issue is the problematic trope of the frontier in games. The wild west, the new world, the final frontier, all these classic story and design tropes are so heavily prevalent in games that sometimes it is easy to forget the actual history they are based on.
This issue is the problematic trope of the frontier in games. The wild west, the new world, the final frontier, all these classic story and design tropes are so heavily prevalent in games that sometimes it is easy to forget the actual history they are based on.
Last spring my world was shattered in a discussion I had with a colleague of mine in which he professed his mental dilemma he had with his excitement for the upcoming game No Man's Sky. Why? Seems like a pretty tame game if you ask me, probably one which will appeal greatly to players like me. Players who enjoy limitless, gorgeously procedural worlds in which to explore and discover. Playing with and discovering the procedurality of those games is an artform in itself. I love it, I love sandbox experiences, as I think it begins to play with that which games are best suited for. But I digress.
Why was this game problematic, I asked. He responded by explaining the fact that No Man's Sky, like any game about exploring frontiers, takes an inherently privileged, colonialist standpoint. First of all, it completely disregards any potential for indigenous people. After all, it's "No Man's Sky", right? It belongs to no one. That is, until you come along, the intrepid explorer who arrives with your superior technology to enforce your will on the local inhabitants of a planet. It is predicated on the basic assumption of a limitless, open frontier. Your job is to traverse the universe to the center. In fact, it is your destiny, dare I suggest, your manifest destiny *gasp*.
Why was this game problematic, I asked. He responded by explaining the fact that No Man's Sky, like any game about exploring frontiers, takes an inherently privileged, colonialist standpoint. First of all, it completely disregards any potential for indigenous people. After all, it's "No Man's Sky", right? It belongs to no one. That is, until you come along, the intrepid explorer who arrives with your superior technology to enforce your will on the local inhabitants of a planet. It is predicated on the basic assumption of a limitless, open frontier. Your job is to traverse the universe to the center. In fact, it is your destiny, dare I suggest, your manifest destiny *gasp*.
While I didn't entirely buy his argument, I felt a small gnawing feeling at the back of my brain. Were all these sandbox games built on an assumption of imperialism? The more I considered it, the more patterns I saw. Yes, in fact many great games today are built on this assumption. Arrive, conquer, colonize. Discover, subjugate, create. Kill, conquer, create. You see it most prevalently of course in the 4x and RTS genres, in which the goal of your nation is to explore, expand, exploit, and exterminate. This is the namesake of 4x games. Whenever native populations were represented, it was almost always in the guise of some barely represented NPC (think bandit in Settler's of Catan or 'barbarian' villages in Civilization).
Discovery, Creativity, and Lazy Design
Now, I am saying that this sort of game should not exist, and that everyone should change their design methodology to only represent anti-colonial sentiment. No, not really. I don't have an issue with these conflicts as settings, after all, games are often built around conflict. I take issue with 1:the ubiquity of these designs, and 2: the lazy rhetoric behind them.
Why are these tropes so common? There are many more socio-culturally based reasons behind this, but for now let's purely discuss game design. A naive assumption, but it makes this topic more digestible to begin with. What is so alluring about these games? I can speak best about my own personal attraction to them. For me it comes down to two primary elements: discovery and creativity.
Sandbox style games, and indeed any game with a combinatorial possibility space (even deck-building is an art form when you have a 60 card deck with almost limitless combinations therein) are exciting to me because I get to make my own personal discoveries. People like to feel like they have found something magical, something exciting. Exploration and discovery are intertwined simply through the virtue of discovery. In and of itself I don't think this is a problem. It becomes a problem only in a particular context. First of all, discovery is problematic when placed in a world resembling our own, in the sense that nearly every place on the world has been discovered already, and yet there is a tradition of taking the euro-centric view of things. The Americas are only the 'New World' according to the European view. Obviouslyl there were many different populations living for many many years before the 'discovery' by Europeans. This is known, and is largely addressed in history textbooks. Now. Only very recently in fact. Remember 'Christopher Columbus' day? This is to say that discovery, while not a harmful desire, can manifest in hurtful ways in certain contexts.
Why are these tropes so common? There are many more socio-culturally based reasons behind this, but for now let's purely discuss game design. A naive assumption, but it makes this topic more digestible to begin with. What is so alluring about these games? I can speak best about my own personal attraction to them. For me it comes down to two primary elements: discovery and creativity.
Sandbox style games, and indeed any game with a combinatorial possibility space (even deck-building is an art form when you have a 60 card deck with almost limitless combinations therein) are exciting to me because I get to make my own personal discoveries. People like to feel like they have found something magical, something exciting. Exploration and discovery are intertwined simply through the virtue of discovery. In and of itself I don't think this is a problem. It becomes a problem only in a particular context. First of all, discovery is problematic when placed in a world resembling our own, in the sense that nearly every place on the world has been discovered already, and yet there is a tradition of taking the euro-centric view of things. The Americas are only the 'New World' according to the European view. Obviouslyl there were many different populations living for many many years before the 'discovery' by Europeans. This is known, and is largely addressed in history textbooks. Now. Only very recently in fact. Remember 'Christopher Columbus' day? This is to say that discovery, while not a harmful desire, can manifest in hurtful ways in certain contexts.
The second element is that of creativity. I love to create. I am an artist by trade, and I can't stop making things. I know it sounds cheesy but it's true. I can't get enough of it, and games that let me express my creativity within them are exciting. As mentioned before, deck-building is a real joy due to the ability to express myself through a virtually limitless combination of cards. Games in which players are able to build, design, and construct, satisfy this desire. Again, however, when placed in particular contexts it becomes problematic. You want to build something? Sure, go ahead, but you better destroy the environment and butcher native populations in order to make room for your creation.
Imperialism becomes an all-too convenient metaphor to use in these situations. It grants discovery as well as creativity. Sure, it works, but it is based on tropic fictions designed originally to justify and mask the subjugation of native people. So while these fictions are grasping useful and interesting desires, they manifest through lazy, problematic game design.
Imperialism becomes an all-too convenient metaphor to use in these situations. It grants discovery as well as creativity. Sure, it works, but it is based on tropic fictions designed originally to justify and mask the subjugation of native people. So while these fictions are grasping useful and interesting desires, they manifest through lazy, problematic game design.
My thesis project for my Digital Arts and New Media Master's program will attempt to grapple with these exact issues. It is currently titled No Frontier (see what I did there?), and is a game about frontier fantasies and colonialism in games. That last part is important. Yes, I am trying to discuss real world issues, but more specifically I am tackling the way these issues are misrepresented in games.
In considering these issues, and trying not to panic about the way in which my game world was completely turned upside down, I could see two ways of addressing the topic: either I would propose an alternative, one which would satisfy the needs of the players without resorting to dated, problematic tropes, or I would create a game that addresses these problems directly. As of now, I am working on both. I will discuss them separately here.
In considering these issues, and trying not to panic about the way in which my game world was completely turned upside down, I could see two ways of addressing the topic: either I would propose an alternative, one which would satisfy the needs of the players without resorting to dated, problematic tropes, or I would create a game that addresses these problems directly. As of now, I am working on both. I will discuss them separately here.
The Direct Critique - No Frontier
While I believe it can be extremely useful to devise an alternative to these issues, if I were to make a game that provides an alternative to colonialist design tropes, I would succeed at just that: making a game that doesn't talk about colonialism. While this is something I would advocate for game design at large, it does little to reveal the real world issues behind the game rhetoric. More on that later.
Thus, No Frontier is a two player game in which one player take the role of a native population, while the other takes the role of a newcomer who has just arrived on the planet. The goal of the game in terms of dynamics, is that players will realize that there are real world issues behind these convenient, lazy design tropes, and will attempt to come to terms with them in some way.
Thus, No Frontier is a two player game in which one player take the role of a native population, while the other takes the role of a newcomer who has just arrived on the planet. The goal of the game in terms of dynamics, is that players will realize that there are real world issues behind these convenient, lazy design tropes, and will attempt to come to terms with them in some way.
The game begins much as people would expect from the exploration/4x genres. The newcomer arrives with very little supplies, and must forage, explore, and build in order to survive. Meanwhile, the native player has a strong infrastructure already established, and is represented not by a single person, but by a population of several people. As the players progress through the game, they will almost inevitably be forced to interact with each other (often simply out of a necessity for resources or help), after which they will either struggle to keep peace and good will amongst each other, or break out into traditional conflict.
Alternative Endgames
One intervention that exists within the game is that of not rewarding totalitarian play, but rewarding cooperative play. One of the issues with many of the aforementioned games is the fact that they almost always push players towards a totalitarian victory. One must destroy, subjugate, or dominate all other people before one can win the game. This is at the heart of these issues: games adopting a model of historical situations is one thing, encouraging these dogmas as the only means of victory takes it a step further. To highlight this, No Frontier provides several 'win' conditions. The first of which occurs when one sides completely wipes out the other. This functions as a minor victory for that player. However, upon finishing the game, an account of the next 50 years is given to the players, explaining how their actions have shaped the lives of generations. If they were to wipe out the other player, the game would grant a minor victory, while at the same time providing a description of the atrocities they have wrought.
The other win condition for the game is the major victory condition: if both sides can maintain a tenuous peace for a given amount of time, they are able to establish some level of stability in the land. Now, there is an important distinction between stability and peace. By no means do I wish to suggest that colonialism is cool as long as both sides work together. On the contrary, I wish to show how difficult this stability is to maintain, and even if it is maintained, it is likely at a steep cost, one which the native population is most likely forced to pay. However, I also want to make it clear that colonial situations are complicated. Looking historically at the differences between English colonies and French colonies, we can see that the relationship between colonizer and colonized has a drastic effect on postcolonial state of affairs.
The other win condition for the game is the major victory condition: if both sides can maintain a tenuous peace for a given amount of time, they are able to establish some level of stability in the land. Now, there is an important distinction between stability and peace. By no means do I wish to suggest that colonialism is cool as long as both sides work together. On the contrary, I wish to show how difficult this stability is to maintain, and even if it is maintained, it is likely at a steep cost, one which the native population is most likely forced to pay. However, I also want to make it clear that colonial situations are complicated. Looking historically at the differences between English colonies and French colonies, we can see that the relationship between colonizer and colonized has a drastic effect on postcolonial state of affairs.
There is much more to discuss, but I have gone on for too long already. I will be following up with why You and the Garden is an effective alternative to everything I have mentioned thus far, as well as addressing some other elements of No Frontier.