Week 10 Question

Jesper Juul distinguishes between games of emergence, where a game is specified as a small number of rules that combine and yield a large number of game variations, and games of progression, where a game presents the player with a series of puzzles or challenges which must be accomplished in a certain order. Discuss whether games of progression, which often attempt to combine a narrative structure with gameplay, are unique to computer-based games.

This question is tricky. On the one hand, games of progression are definitely not unique to computer-based games; on the other, computer-based games are not purely progressive in nature.

An example of progressive non-computer-based games is adventure books. Readers “perform a predefined set of actions in order to complete the game” – reading the story and making the right choices. However, I am hard-pressed to name another well-known example. What comes to mind are mostly traditional games, which according to Juul, are emergence in nature – based on small sets of rules that combine to yield large game variations. Card games, board games, strategy games and most action games are of this nature; even children games such as hide-and-seek or dress-up games. There are specific rules and goals that players adhere to, but coupled with the various ways players can act out their roles, different gameplay emerges. As such, while progressive games are not unique to computer games, the lack of examples (on my part) seemed to make not much of a difference, spurring Juul to comment that “all pre-electronic games are games of emergence” [1].

However, while progressive computer games do exist, most computer games now are hybrids of progressive and emergence games. Larsen and Bennetsen termed this “emergression” [2]. The main issue is replayability. Progressive games are not fun. I have the misfortunate of playing one such – a certain Japanese game, with anime characters, structured like an adventure book where you click the right options to proceed, and it was boring as hell. Hence, while progression is a “historically newer structure that entered the computer game through the adventure genre", current computer games are moving towards emergence structures.

Bennetsen asked, “Is narrativism a necessary step in the development of computer games, or just a sign of immaturity of the medium? [2]” I think the answer is immaturity. Traditional games (from most cultures I know) have evolved to become mostly emergence in nature. The fact that there is a trend towards emergence in current computer game designs seems to hint that emergence structure is the future of games.

In conclusion, progressive games are not unique attributes of computer games. Firstly, there are non-computer games that are progressive; and secondly, even computer games are moving away from a progressive structure. Also, I hasten to add that it is not difficult to create a purely progressive computer- or non-computer-based game. However, it is much harder to invent a game that is fun and replayable. Perhaps, that is what we should be more concerned with – the right recipe for a good game.

Author's Comment:

1. I realised I used a rather inauthoritative source as reference, the one by Larsen and Bennetsen, but I felt that their research was quite extensive and they raised some interesting questions about game designs while examining the importance of the story arc in the emergent game world of GTA.

2. I hope I answered to the point. Heh...I wasn't sure whether the question means that progressive games are computer games or that computer games all have a progressive nature or something else. Anyway, I was speculating that perhaps traditional games had started out with both types and eventually, by the rule of evolution - "survival of the fittest", only emergence games were left. Hence, perhaps that'll be the direction computer game designs will head towards in the future. ;p

References
1. Juul, Jesper. “The Open and the Closed: Games of Emergence and Games of Progression”. Computer Game and Digital Cultures Conference Proceedings. Tampere University Press. 2002.
Available from Internet: http://www.jesperjuul.net/text/openandtheclosed.html
2. Larsen, Simon and Henrik Bennetsen. “Games Studies”. Henrik Bennetsen.com. 2004.
Available from Internet: http://www.henrikbennetsen.com/?page_id=14