https://www.dropbox.com/s/vghuznrf98bl39z/Singularis.html?dl=0
http://twinery.org/2/#!/stories/6d6b3dd1-3f5a-4ce1-a263-f3cd26d441ff/play
The Aim of the Game:
This game proposal suggests a game wherein the player presumes that their choices matter; however, in actual gameplay and design, their choices are meaningless. Utilizing Ian Bogost’s notion(s) of what games “do”, this game will attempt to further frustrate any perceived agency a player presumably has in relation to the game, itself. As such, this game will pay close attention to the ‘art’ section in Bogost’s book; indeed, the ‘style’ of the game is important, here, as it is meant to draw attention to the ability for videogames to manipulate agency. As Bogost claims, “We must look deeper, to the particularities of specific aesthetic trends in game development itself, in hopes of identifying their positions in relation to games and art alike” (2011, p. 12). This project will be a meditation on both the creation of the game and the choices I make as a developer as well as players’ dashed intentions and the implications, as such. In terms of genre, this game would fall under indie/ experimental art game as its purpose is to explore a concept in conjunction with the player.
The name, “Singularis” is equivocated to both the technological singularity as well as gravitational singularity. The word “Singularis” is etymologically found in Late Latin and means “alone (of its kind)”. This origin relates to the reality the player finds themselves in: alone on a spaceship, as well as the gynoid, herself, who is utterly alone in more ways than literally.
Of further interest to this piece is Langdon Winner’s “Do Artifacts Have Politics?” In citing Engels, Winner states: “far from being an idiosyncrasy of capitalist social organization, relationships of authority and subordination arise ‘independently of all social organization, [and] are imposed upon us together with the material conditions under which we produce and make products circulate’” (1980, p. 129). The technology of the gynoid, itself, is laden with its proponents of creation. Ignoring the gynoids personality (coding), for a moment, the very spectacle of the gynoid embodies a white, tall, beautiful woman with a damsel in distress complex. She needs the player to steer the ship? Why? Would a powerful gynoid, such as herself, not be able to do so? Of course, this is crux of the game: relying on preconceived player biases, as well as the political artifact that is the gynoid, this game is meant to highlight one’s own opprobrious ideologies. The gynoid’s own making allows for a contemptuous approach to her as well as the game, itself.
The game, itself, will be a narrative fiction wherein the player must, with the help of a gynoid, who is never named, save the spaceship by making “decisions” about which parts of the ship most need attention. All this is an attempt to subvert the ship’s course from speeding toward a black hole. In the end, the player will never “escape” and will, ultimately, die. The end reveals a gynoid with surprising characteristics – the most surprising being that of agency. Rejecting the ‘good’ gynoid whose aim is only to help her creators, this gynoid carefully plans the deaths of the crewmates and final crewmember for reasons that are meant to be unclear to the player. The reason for being purposefully mystifying ties into the ‘agency’ of the gynoid. Without the gynoid pontificating her greater purpose for the humans, the player feels disconnected from her decisions. This disconnect is important to the game as it signals a gap between the ‘artifact’ (gynoid) and the ‘human’ (player) – a gap that has always been there. This game, in its perplexing presentation, widens this gap, and undoes the sutures between the human and the gynoid – making the player question the very nature of affectual political artifacts.
Rationale:
My dissertation research combines affect theory and gynoids within video games. One such iteration of this research sees the player as inextricably tied to the gynoids, themselves. I argue that the gynoids and the player engage in co-creation of meaning and meaning making within the game. Of further consideration is the medium through which the player engages with the game: console or otherwise. In understanding the modes of engagement, as well as the affectual economy by players and gynoids, I hope to present a demonstration of co-created videogame affect. My proposed game ties nicely into this as it frustrates preconceived “easy” boundaries and forces the player to look at the game’s mechanics and underlying ‘hidden’ decision trees.
Works Cited
Bogost, Ian. (2011). How to Do Things with Videogames. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis: MN.
Winner, Langdon. (1980). “Do Artifacts Have Politics?” Daedalus, Modern Technology: Problem or Opportunity? Vol. 109(1). Pages 121-136.
Games and Philosophy 