The Importance of Virtual Spaces (Revised)
“I think, therefore I am.” These famous words by Philosopher Descartes have sparked centuries of debate over what is, or what can only be speculated, to be real. The axiom comes from Descartes’s desire to remove all doubts and find a singular, objective truth but the senses can be fooled. If everything that you know could be an illusion, how would you know? Most importantly, who gets to decide what’s true? So who are these masters of illusion deceiving your senses? For Descartes, they were hypothetical demons playing tricks on the mind. For the Wachowskis, it was evil robots usurping humanity. I’ll tell you it’s not so grand as the supernatural and, as of today, only a fraction of the transhuman. I present the humble game developer. The world of games and virtual spaces presents us the unique opportunity to see what happens when a single person has complete dominion over the laws of that world. Technology has reached a point where simulated experiences are presenting a viable alternative to satisfying human needs in reality but as the boundary between human consciousness and virtual spaces become enmeshed, developers and designers need to recognize their role as stewards, protectors and paragons of these spaces.
When I tell people that I’m studying interactive media and games, I always get a little embarrassed. The look of confusion and tinge of disinterest that flashes across their face mirrors what society generally thinks of games: crap for kids that I should’ve grown out of a long time ago. Even when I’m coding at 2 am I think to myself, why the hell didn’t I just get a real job? Another more extreme reaction is getting asked when the robots are finally taking over. Disinterest or skepticism. Either way I tell them about the industry; how interactive media, AI, Virtual Reality, and other technology are all converging, and yes, may have the potential for innovators to hijack, simulate, and replace fundamental, natural human experience, but above all else they allow for the creation of vibrant virtual spaces with their own distinct subcultures. 4 years of college have worn away at it but there’s still a little bit of magic that I felt playing my first video game on my Nintendo DS or spending hours online in Destiny with my middle school friends. There’s just something special about playing a game that neither books nor film has. It’s swinging a sword and feeling it cut. It’s determination. It’s love. It’s change. it’s life! Ultimately what most people, and even some game studios don’t understand is that people care about these virtual worlds as much as the real one.
The philosophical study of games, ludology, began in the 1960s with Johan Huizinga’s work Homo Ludens. Though it set the foundation, it has since been split by a number of thinkers contemplating the nature of play and games. Huizinga introduced the concept called the “Magic Circle” and games as a ritualistic activity. “Games … like religious ritual and theater. In all of them, we enter into a consecrated, dedicated ground, where we suspend everyday activities, take up new roles and motivations, and, at a moment’s notice, put it all away again (Huizinga). The magic circle is a sort of meta-reality, wherein all players forego the rules and practices of normal life to engage, temporarily, in a world of make-believe. Reality doesn’t affect those within the magic circle, likewise, the events that transpire within the realm of play have no bearing on reality once the players exit. The magic circle concept has fallen out of favor in recent years, particularly due to discourse on the topic of cheaters, those who disregard the sanctity of the circle by subverting its rules or bringing outside factors in.
Personally, I believe the aesthetic definition of a game better fits modern applications. C. Thi Nguyen a contemporary philosopher is one of the only thinkers of today taking the philosophy of games seriously. In his paper titled The Philosophy of Games he pays particular attention to the aesthetic meaning behind the action of play, noting “In practical life, we select the means for the sake of an independently valuable end. In game life, on the other hand, we select an arbitrary end for the sake of undergoing some particular means” (Nguyen). Huizinga outlines where we play games, but through Aesthetic observation, Nguyen tells us why we play games. We play to experience agency within restrictions. Take for example the sport of football; one takes up the goal of getting the ball to the endzone, but that alone is as simple as leisurely walking it down the field. The goal in itself has no value. However if along with the arbitrary goal you take up obstacles (opposing defense, yards, countdown timers) value suddenly emerges from the actions you make to achieve that goal. We love playing games because we derive value in the experience of achievement through, possibly even despite, certain means.
Facilitated, but not required by technology, people have taken to creating these games and sharing them online. In some cases, like Fortnite, Roblox, or the more archaic Multi-User Dungeon the users themselves are generating content to play online together. Alternatively, independent developers may launch a standalone game that goes viral, sprouting a fandom for its world and characters. Regardless, communities are forming around these virtual game spaces, and increasingly, Younger generations are showing a trend to replace real-life experiences with virtual ones and consume more user-generated content.
“People have an expectation that the media they consume will provide more than just entertainment–they expect to find real meaning and fulfillment. Video games and user-generated content can offer more interaction, socialization, and utility, and their popularity with younger generations could potentially transform the media and entertainment industry” (PR Newswire).
People, especially the younger generations are looking to get more out of their entertainment experiences. People aren’t happy just watching a standalone episode, they want that episode to carry over into a larger narrative across multiple platforms. They crave books, TV, movies, and games all united by a web of user-generated content posted across digital spaces. These spaces are real and have real effects on their users. People are forming communities
The role developers must play in their virtual spaces ought to be that of a steward. A firm guiding hand with the final say of the reality in his world. With this resolute vision you can raise your ideas from nothingness, but at the same time you must recognize that you serve at the behest of your audience. In game development, we often go through a rigorous process called “playtesting” where we bring in players to play though an alpha, or beta version of the game. We do this because we could spend countless hours and dollars designing, coding and making art but that doesn’t guarantee that the idea is fun. In my first class we read Game Design Workshop by Tracy Fullerton, a primer on game design practices. They said “A game, like a party, is an interactive experience that is only fully realized after your guests arrive “ (Fullerton 4). As designers we have to pay attention to what works and what doesn’t. Where does the player look, what do they try to touch? Where are they getting frustrated? Bored? Wait no, there! They just had smiled! Theres the fun! A game designer may come up with a concept they think is cool, innovative, progressive, but if the audience doesn’t find it fun it’ll get tossed in the trash with no hesitation. So like using pigs to sniff out truffles, game designers use playtesters to sniff out what parts of the game are fun and what parts need to get cut. What’s important to note is that the playtester, or if the game is already launched your players, may go in an entirely different direction from your vision. Especially in these moment, you become the steward. You must decide what is right, your vision, or the audience’s preference. What separates the good designers from the bad, and the communities which grow and the ones that die on the vine, is maintaining the delicate balance between a coherent artiste’s vision and the taste and preferences of the audience. Virtual spaces are not one way conversations, but lived in spaces, and when they don’t confirm the identity and experiences of its players, they’ll simply leave.
If it is not designers who care, it will be corporations looking to squeeze every possible dollar out of players. Just this year, a game called Destiny 2 made a choice in the interest of the shareholder over the interest of the players. Destiny 2 is a live service game in which players pay for periodic expansions, or season passes. Since 2014 I’ve been part of the Destiny community, through highs and lows I would still buy the season passes, $40 a pop because I loved the game, I loved the world, and I loved playing with my friends. This year, however, a whistleblower revealed that the executive team at Bungie, the developers, decided to “underdeliver” on the previous expansion. That means they delivered less and inferior content for the same price as previous expansions. The player base, already fed up with Bungie’s choices to nickel and dime them every 3 months boiled over, and took to social media decrying the studio. The one thing above all that developers must cultivate, must steward in their audience is a sense of trust, and Bungie had finally broken theirs.
As a new graduate, I know I can’t change the industry overnight, nor do I want to try. The current AAA game industry rests its laurels on a larger, even more immobile economic system. That’s why I’m looking towards the indie game space. Developers of all levels of experience post their projects which bud their own small, yet vocal communities. What motivates me to enter the game industry isn’t the money, it’s the buy-in, the trust, and the support from the fans of my work. To this end, I can only spread the message of treating virtual spaces with respect. Respect the idea, the content, and the players. In the end your game lives and dies by your community.
Works Cited
Fullerton, Tracy. Game Design Workshop : A Playcentric Approach to Creating Innovative Games. Boca Raton, FL, CRC Press / Taylor & Francis Group, 2019.
Huizinga, Johan. Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play-Element in Culture. 1938. Angelico Press, 2016.
Nguyen, C. Thi. “Philosophy of Games.” Philosophy Compass, vol. 12, no. 8, Aug. 2017, p. e12426, https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12426.
“The Quest for Connection: Younger Generations Look to User-generated Content and Video Games to Find Value, Meaning and Personal Fulfillment.” PR Newswire, 17 Apr. 2023, p. NA. Gale In Context: Biography, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A745905996/BIC?u=usocal_main&sid=bookmark-BIC&xid=5ca7c837. Accessed 26 Nov. 2023.
