The properties of a game are never static; even a game in existence for hundreds of years can have properties that morph.
An example is the game: Ring a Ring o’ Roses. This game which is a commonly played game on children’s play-grounds was first published in the 1880’s but it was in existence from the 1700’s.
The meaning of this game and how people saw it has evolved and changed over time. When it was first published in print, this game was thought to represent Pagan rites. By the late 20th century this game was commonly held to represent the Black Death experience in 1700’s London. In today’s world, the representation of Pagan rites is back in vogue.
Why is this relevant?
It is relevant to show that games are an evolving medium and how they are perceived is not a static interpretation. Today’s computer games are increasingly being seen as educational tools but there are still a lot of people with the earlier viewpoint that computer games are nothing more than entertainment. Furthermore, the audience for computer games are evolving just as much as the medium itself is evolving.
Which leads me to my central premise: games are a medium that is malleable both by those that make them and those that play them. How a game is perceived is influenced by both those who envision them in the first place and by those those that play them after they are made.
A game can be defined by its time or it can be redefined over time. A computer game that exemplifies both of these qualities is: Postal - a first person shooter game that was first released in 1997 but has been “updated” and “remastered” as recently as today. Originally, critics said that this game was flawed and trivialization was cited as an issue.
Yet, the game explores and expresses concepts and ideas that are so compelling and forceful that people are revisiting and reinterpreting the game over and over.
CCG has been among the leaders in pushing the definition of a game forward and it is one of the reasons I have loyalty as a consumer. At the same time, I have been seeing an orthodoxy emerge in its developmental process that threatens their position as a leader in game publication.
A choice given to an individual does not define its options one way or another. How those options are defined is an interpretive quality and it should be acknowledged as such. To say providing a choice defines its options as comparable is limiting at best and and often self-fulfilling.
Choices sometimes are not comparable and if presented as such, then they can become trivialized. Yet, if these same choices are presented properly (as non-comparable) instead of trivial, these choices become: powerful, flexible and impactful.
Construction of choices in a game is only comparable if they are designed to be comparable. This is a game design decision or execution not an inherit property.
Properties of games are never inherent.