Across the Table: Gaming as a Communal Experience

When I mention that I make games as a hobby, the first question I usually get is, "Like... video games?"  The answer is no.  Not, mind you, because I oppose them in principle.  I am an avid video gamer and I would be very amenable to the idea of working on one.


On the other hand, the answer is no not because I don't have the resources or know-how.  I have moderate flash skills and my own copy of the software.  I could be making (and have made) computer-based games.  There are some real limits on what I could do, but not really any more so than are imposed on me by not using that medium.


The answer is no because I want to sit at a table with someone.  I want to hold the cards or roll the dice or move the pieces.  And even as I write on this ephemeral, ethereal idea that is a blog on the internet, I have to say I like to get away from my computer screen.


People behave differently in person than they do remotely.  This should not be news to most of you.  In person, people are generally more patient, more gracious, more considerate, and more reasonable.  Playing is more of a cooperative endeavor when there is no artificial mediator.  On a computer, players seldom have to work through interpreting a rule; reaching mutual agreement about "fairness" is a non-issue in that setting.  The remotely mediated gaming experience implies naturally less ownership than the cooperatively administered game.


More and more, modern gaming is about getting together, not getting away.  I think this goes beyond merely wanting to have multiple players.  I think the trend is toward hanging-out while playing.

Consider what Xbox Live has done to gaming.  You'd think being able to play against people all over the world would be a matter of satisfying the hardcore, best-in-the-world types.  But when you really think about the Xbox Live experience it can be (and usually is) more about finding partners and teammates, talking (or even video conferencing) with friends, and "hanging out," than it is about ladders and rankings.  The whole notion of achievements is built around the idea that people are interested in other people as people beyond their function in a particular match.

This struck me acutely as I watched a stream of Blizzcon.  Blizzard has been in the business of matchmaking for their games for well over a decade now through a service they call Battlenet.  One of the big reveals (in fact it tool up the bulk of one of their panels on the long awaited StarCraft 2) was a total overhaul to Battle.net.

What caught my attention was when the presenter was talking about the places they looked for ideas and inspiration for how the new Battle.net would work... and things like Facebook and Google Chat were mentioned.  That little tidbit gave me a great deal of pause.  What sort of implications does that have?  It seemed both perfectly natural, and perfectly surreal that the Battle.net changes are not aimed primarily at improving gameplay (such as improved stat tracking and ranking algorithms, though I'm sure they have been working hard in those areas).  The renovation is moving to a trans-gaming community experience.

Conceptually speaking, the game is ceasing to be "the thing as such" and is becoming (or perhaps returning to being) the vehicle for a communal experience.

Sure there are still games that we can play in isolation.  I hope that developers will always make games with "campaigns" and single-player content.  After all, sometimes I game because I do want to get away.  But such times for me are much more the exception than the rule.

Which is why, as a designer, I still like dice.  I still like sitting across the table from a person.  I like the burden of hashing out an agreement on rules.  I'm just old-fashioned like that.  Or progressive.  Take your pick.