As this month of guest blogging comes to an end culminating in me reaching the ripe old age of forty I have the phrase "Game Over man" from Aliens ringing in my ears. It did remind me of some things I have observed about the whole notion of a game being over from seeing my kids start to take in interest in my games consoles.
The most unusual point is that the 4 year old looks at games with no sentimental baggage, nor with any desire to win in the old fashioned sense. This manifests itself in some very quirky ways and has got me wondering where the limit is in educating a new game player about the social norms that apply just as we educate them with everyday social skills and rules.
To my daughter "Game Over" is viewed as a reward and the cause of much enjoyment.
My wife loves playing Zuma on the 360. Zuma is a 'Tetris' style puzzle game involving a forever growing chain of coloured marbles. You fire new marbles into the spiralling chain and remove groups of three or more of the same colour. When she was pregnant with predlet 2.0 it became one of those things that she did all the time to relax.
Now the four year old wanted to have a go with "mummy's game", but the mechanics and speed required would have appeared at first sight to be unrewarding for her. Instead though she started firing marbles in any direction at top speed until the chain filled up and all the marbles swirl down a pixelated plug hole with a suitable musical fanfare. She had decided that that was the aim of the game, to do that as quickly as possible and clear the level. For us spectating it was actually very annoying. You get used to the rules and the game and watching someone just ignore that and turn it on its head, but still get a kick out of it, is like a phone ringing out unanswered. You can learn to let go of that irritation and just relax, it is only a game after all. With a single player game like that I am guessing we can assume that its all right, you can do what you want with it? Use it like any toy, break the rules, use imagination. What happens when sharing the game or toy with others?
Kids get taught to share and play nicely, learning to blend with people and not upset them. So in a joint game of something that requires the rules to be followed in order for the game to continue where should the line be drawn? Should any line be drawn?
In a park on a slide if a child blocks the slide as that is the game they want to play they are breaking the rules, or social norms of the slide. They will be told by a responsible adult to play nicely and move. How and when do we get to help our kids learn to play nicely with others online or in multiplayer games?
I dont think any of this is a problem, but it is interesting to consider that many people, who have never been gamers, may not regard game etiquette as anything worth considering.
Of course in all this my daughter threw me a curve ball, well actually a golf ball. She had a go on Wii golf and without any explanation swung the golf club and played the first hole on par. As the game had blended with a physical game that she had seen, the mechanics and rules took over. So it may be just the abstact games that we have no existing mental model for that are more fun to subvert?
Finally she wanted to play the Skate demo I had on the 360. She asked how it worked, but really was not interested in the rules. She grabbed the joypad and started moving and pressing things. She took the spirit of skateboarding and exploration and just got on with it. Just skating across the park, swooshing around bowls was reward enough as she had been told she was too young for a real skateboard. So just as I get to drive fast cars, fly planes, shoot things that I cannot do in real life she was now part of that escapism too.
In all of this it was clear that she was generating her own content. Whether to keep for herself or to share with others (in this case "look at this dad"). For all the continued discussion about the bad side of videogames this was someone able to just enjoy the gaming experience gain some new skills, live out a dream and just have some fun.
Whilst metaverses based on game technology get dead serious when they are your job, games can still be games. There are there to be enjoyed.
So to conclude. I dont think I need to force the rules of the game on my kids. Making them aware of them, making sure they dont hurt or offend others is important, but they are just they to be enjoyed at whatever depth or in whatever context they want to. That sounds like a good plan right?
My son started playing "Star Wars Battleground" on the XBox when he was about 5. Could have been 4. I forget. But no older than 5. He saw me playing and already loved Star Wars, so I let him mess with the controller.
For those of you unfamiliar with the game, it's a 3-rd person shooter, where you run around various Star Wars' landscapes, jumping, shooting, flying, driving vehicles, etc. When you die, you just re-rez at a nearby victory point, and keep going. The basic movement controls are incredibly easy, and you don't have to understand "the game" to have fun running a character around and exploring the landscape.
I got to watch him grok more and more of the game over the next year. At first, he needed me to handle the menus for him and restart a level after the other side (inevitably, as he wasn't really "playing") won. He would experiment with different buttons, ask me a question now and then, and start doing more stuff on a long, slow learning curve. For example, when he found out he could drive vehicles, he spent at least a month doing nothing but playing every level and trying out every vehicle. When he discovered the space episodes... another two months just on that.
Now, 2+ years later, he kicks my ass. He plays as if he grew up inside the game... which, in a way, he did. He rarely loses to the computer player, and can do some maneuvers that leave me shaking my head in wonder. The kid's... got... game.
BUT... he still doesn't care at all about playing any of the campaigns or strategic maps. For him, the highest level of "Game Over" is the word "Victory!" or "Defeat!" at the end of a stand-alone level.
Some new games, he likes to play all the way through (Lego Star Wars, Shrek the Third). Some he just wants to play until he gets bored (Paper Mario World). The rhyme/reason for how he plays are... well... much like mine.
Posted by: Andy Havens | Aug 29, 2007 at 17:04
Totally agree with the premise that kids don't care about "winning" ... when my 8 year old plays a linear experience (like SSX or NFSU) he cares about winning (ok - probably just finishing) ... but when he plays Twilight Princess - he can spend hours just running around the world - occasionally stumbling across a challenge that advances a quest/plot-point - but as often as not, he regrets that advancement - as it means he can't go back to an area he was just enjoying. One of the best examples was playing through the point where we turned back into Link and my son expressed regret that he couldn't run around as a wolf anymore ... I get the sense that his entertainment is much more bound up in the alternate reality aspect of experiencing something different rather than trying to "finish" something.
Posted by: Jon Grande | Aug 29, 2007 at 19:07
With current technology kids would have a technical barrier to understanding that they would be dealing with actual people in a virtual world. A kid can work a joystick but probably can't type messages. What is the age when kids generally stop doing parallel play and start playing together? What sort of technology would you need to let kids interact with each other in a virtual world at that age? Voice communication, probably. Facial recognition might help. Non-button controlers too. More realistic environments and human looking characters would help kids understand that other people are playing the game too.
Posted by: Nick | Aug 30, 2007 at 09:26
My 4 year old neice enjoys a bit of Star Wars Lego, even though she has very little idea of what Star Wars is. She plays it not to inhabit that world so much as to have a foot in it and the other with her Dad and Uncle. When she plays she's at the point between the real and the imaginary worlds.
Posted by: eyedropper | Aug 30, 2007 at 09:49
I think as kids get older their enjoyment of games actually flips on it's head. As you state, young children can enjoy games without winning. I think once they reach a certain age, they MUST win to enjoy the game.
I play a lot of Mario Stikers Charged and it seems players will do anything to win, including the same tactic/goal over and over again.
Posted by: Frolicols | Aug 30, 2007 at 10:08
I think we should all remember that the games have been designed and created by adults for adults OR kids, so both kids and adults play an adult creation. Sounds heavy but it's great to see that kids can take out what they want to and not what the 'adult' world says they should. I like the emersive environments of games like Unreal Tournament and will happily run around for ages just admiring the view. With the instant action death-match the object is to get to X kills first but for me that's not an issue, I like to run around and blast the bots/players as each confrontation is a new competition, each has it's own defined clash of weapons, intelligence, moves, etc so it never gets stale or boring. Freedom and interaction are far more important than a mission. After all that's life, it just keeps going until the final 'game over'. Only you don't get to regenerate in France or Germany for another go...
Posted by: Mike Dytham | Aug 30, 2007 at 10:18
The world is populated by 4 year olds, 14 yeaar olds, 64 year olds and 84 year olds and will be until the end. So different groups always have and always will have a different perspective by age, sex, beleif, experience or tolerance on any topic or game. What is the point of observing the view point of 4 year olds or any other group on any topic in isolation? The issue is has mankind changed or is mankind changing. The answer is yes but not because of 4 year olds it's no doubt because of every year olds.Any change in competiteveness is about all groups.
Try getting my eight year old to acccept defeat he acknowledges the loss as inexperience aplauds the winner with generosity and then learning from his opponent wants a re-match as soon as possible so with his new found knowledge he can wim.
Posted by: Geoff hackett | Aug 30, 2007 at 20:12
My daughters currently 3, and as far back as being 1 she's had an interest in what Daddy's doing on his consoles.
I've always stuck to the "if theres any violence its a no no" although there are some exceptions, such as Final Fantasy or Zelda, so as not to let her see such things happening. For the most part, she's happy with grabbing a spare controller, plugging it in and "playing" along with me, even if the games single player, she things she's doing it and finds it fun. It's a great for us to bond. Other times, specifically with Guitar Hero, she'll grab my Bongo's from Donkey Konga and bash along to the music while I play Guitar. For this reason alone I'm really looking forward to getting ahold of Rock Star.
Posted by: Duane Weatherall | Aug 31, 2007 at 04:49
Interesting post. My children do something that may be related when it comes to console games: they are quite happy to let the other one do a particular section for them in "their" game, and it doesn't bother them one jot. My eldest daughter is, quite frankly, better at Super Mario World on the Wii than I am: she's probably put more hours in. So when I spend ages trying to navigate a particularly difficult set of jumps, only to fall flat on my face again, she just says "oh, let me do it for you Daddy". To her (and my other daughter) it's perfectly natural. To me, it's like copying someone's homework: if I let her do that section, then I won't have done it myself, so what's the point? Different viewpoints; hers isn't necessarily wrong, but then neither's mine.
Posted by: Neal Dench | Aug 31, 2007 at 04:55
My kids are now older than 4. Once the eldest wanted to play games, his little brother was about 3 or 4 and could not play very well and got frustrated by it. We bought a smaller controller and he managed a little better. He's now 10 and plays Combat games better than his Dad.... Kids like to press buttons go with that thats what its all about. Tell them not to and they want to more!
Posted by: Alison | Aug 31, 2007 at 04:58
I work with adults with learning disabilities, and I can relate to this article, albeit with card games instead of computer games.
One man, when playing "snap", plays out of turn, and celebrates when he runs out of cards, thinking he has won. Another will feel sorry for anyone whose cards are running out, and will share his cards with them. Thankfully, the first guy seems grateful to receive more cards, even though he's trying to get rid of them...
The best plan is to forget the rules, and just make sure everyone has fun!
Posted by: John | Aug 31, 2007 at 05:43
In the end of the day isn't a game supposed to be just that? Fun?
And "fun" for me or for you, or to my kids or to their kids is going to be something different most of the times. Whether we try to influence it or not as they grow up.
I still recall when (for me at least) it was fun to play over and over and over the same "level" with that yellow 3/quarters of a circle that we called pacman. No saves; no cutscenes; no real reason for it to be in those levels and play hunter hunted with the ghosts.
And frankly, with the load of work that I lately see, with the minute free recreational time that family, job and life leaves to me, I find myself slowly returning to small online flash games like pac-man...I find myself not really interested to go through all the cutscenes and marvel at how my personae got to where it is at the start of the game...
Perhaps new games are overcomplicated.Perhaps my mind is regressing to a 4 year old's. Or perhaps exploring all the ways of playing and winning and loosing on a simple one-dimensional game was always more "fun" to my generation than an overglorified movie with minor interactive bits in it...
Posted by: Stefanos Patelis | Aug 31, 2007 at 06:05
This reminds me so much of my next door neighbour's little girl, who, aged 4, could quite happily spend an hour or more "playing Tomb Raider" which involved making Lara Croft jump into a big pool of water, swim around a bit and then jump out again. Endless fun.
Posted by: Nicky | Aug 31, 2007 at 06:37
I'm also intrigued by the differences between cultures in this regard - I recently went to Korea, where 'games for girls' appeared to consist of massively multiplayer combat role-playing games (mostly with weapons) that are essentially toned down versions of what the teenagers and adults play (honestly, I'm not making this up). But because this is what girls are growing up playing, that's what they seem to want, and it's the norm.
Posted by: Patrick O'Luanaigh | Aug 31, 2007 at 14:40
Thank you all for your comments, I was off the grid for a few days.
It is great to see that we all see these things happening. I am intrigued by when certain styles and attitudes change and which types of game causes them to change.
It is also interesting as to when competition become important. In a world where competition seems not to be encouraged in children yet they are still finding ways to express the urge to win and compete, and when that becomes the fun part.
Of course there is no clear answer to this, but if it helps to learn that things can be fun regardless of the rules, and we can create our own user generated content just from using whats there that seems a good thought to stick with :-)
Posted by: epredator | Sep 03, 2007 at 06:17