|
Einstein and Games
By: Jim 'Bismarck' Cobb Date: 2005-October-12 This year marks the 100th anniversary of the publication of Albert Einstein’s five papers that revolutionized physics.. Odd as it may seem, games designers and players should use this occasion to examine how Einstein’s intentions and methods are comparable to approaches to serious games. Such an exercise may lead to clearer understandings of what serious gaming is about and may lead to better designs and more relevant forum discussions. Einstein was a theoretical, not empirical, physicist. He never split an atom; he did not devise the experiment that proved light bent around large celestial bodies. Instead, he approached problems asking “How?” and “What if?’. He then imagined prosaic examples in what he called “thought experiments” (Gedankenexperimenten). The most famous example of this is the train that gained mass as it approached the speed of light. Once he imagined a suitable solution, he set out to prove it in the abstract, making his case with mathematical equations. When challenged, he would turn to his equations and say “Prove me wrong”. He had to be absolutely correct in his assumptions, paradigms and algorithms. The fact that real life experiments proved most of his theories were correct was irrelevant to him. He had already established their validity in the abstract. Designers and gamers who seek the educational value of gaming approach the problems in similar ways. They ask questions such as: “What if the Macedonian phalanx on the left at Gaugamela had broken?” “How would Northern Europe have developed had Henry VIII not broken with Rome?” “What if Napoleon started his attack an hour early at Waterloo?” “Could the Germans possibly have beaten the RAF during August – September 1940?” The first step for a designer is to use “thought experiments” to decide what level and scale can most satisfactorily answer the question. Will the player be a king, a corps commander or a field-grade officer? He then turns to his abstraction, the game mechanism. This game mechanism is the equivalent of Einstein’s equations. Games are abstractions that test different hypothesis. Like Einstein, developers should keep the abstractions at a proper level, use the best set of facts available and make sure his algorithms are correct. He needs to be sure that all significant factors are in play, details are correct and algorithms yield believable results. One area where he cannot copy Einstein is his attitude toward his peers. He must make his “experiment” accessible through workable graphics and interface. The community that designers must convince is the set of serious gamers. They need to be critical and thorough in their examination. However, they too must approach the subject with some rigor. They must understand the designer’s intentions. For example, they must not approach an operational game as if it were tactical. They should prepare themselves in the background of the subject. They should not allow what they consider to be dull graphics to obscure the designer’s intent but should criticize graphics and interfaces that actually hamper or block play. If they feel errors of fact or concept have been made, they need to give clear, well-stated facts and examples that the designer can easily check and incorporate into the game. This discussion is obviously not about the “fun factor” or business aspects of gaming. Games as educational tools is the aim. However, the common notion that a serious game cannot be fun or profitable is not only wrong but dangerous. Society is not using any media enough to progress away from the venal lowest common denominator. Gaming, although a multi-billion dollar enterprise, is become another “vast wasteland” as depicted by Newton Minnow in his discussion of TV in 1960. Some of the onus for elevating gaming is on developers and publishers. If a serious game seems to be boring, they can create ahistorical scenarios to give the product some spice. However, the greater part of the responsibility falls on the players, not so much as consumers but as citizens. Serious gamers should act responsibly in their approach to games. Other players need to understand that they should want more from games than a few hours of entertainment. They should also look to receive insight and broader concepts they can use to understand and improve their world. Einstein’s ultimate goal was to understand the workings of God. Gaming also should have high aspirations. |