Do Not Feed The Monkeys - Revision history

Lara.sauer: /* Simulator and the Performative */

2020-12-07T00:20:09Z

Simulator and the Performative

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:20, 7 December 2020
Line 100:		Line 100:
	==Related Research Approaches==		==Related Research Approaches==

	===~~Simulator~~ and the Performative===		===Simulations and the Performative===
	In what ways do simulations in games challenge players to create their own worlds? How are ideas and feelings shared?		In what ways do simulations in games challenge players to create their own worlds? How are ideas and feelings shared?

Lara.sauer: /* Morality */

2020-12-07T00:16:03Z

Morality

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:16, 7 December 2020
Line 86:		Line 86:
	What are moral decisions? To what extent are they made here at the level of the game world or at the level of the "real" world?		What are moral decisions? To what extent are they made here at the level of the game world or at the level of the "real" world?

	As already mentioned above, in this game you are in the position to shape the main character yourself, for example by incorporating moral positions from real life - for the "good" or "bad". This also means that you may be more concerned with actual morality than in other games. In a first-person shooter, for example, you rarely ask yourself whether it is not reprehensible to kill your opponents; it is part of the game mechanics~~. Voyeurism, as in this case, may not be a capital crime by contrast, but it is nevertheless considered to be at least unethical and criminal behaviour~~.		As already mentioned above, in this game you are in the position to shape the main character yourself, for example by incorporating moral positions from real life - for the "good" or "bad". This also means that you may be more concerned with actual morality than in other games. In a first-person shooter, for example, you rarely ask yourself whether it is not reprehensible to kill your opponents; it is part of the game mechanics.

	In this game~~, no~~ information is given about the voyeur whose role ~~you play~~. We know nothing about the person or background. Therefore it is the task of the player - whether consciously or not - to fill this gap themselves and take over the position of the voyeur. In this way it is more immersive than playing a specific character, as the line between player and acting figure is sometimes blurred. Of course this does not mean that the player confuses game with reality. However, through this process of filling in the gaps the experience becomes more intense, because one's own thoughts and feelings are drawn upon, which can lead to a real confrontation with morality. The player is acting performative, without even noticing. Parallel to a theatre situation, they put themselves in the position of another being by accepting strange situations and feelings and reacting accordingly. In this way they create their own reality through interaction with the game.<ref>Cf Fischer-Lichte, Erika: ''Performativität, Eine Einführung''. Bielefeld 2012, S.44.</ref>		The overall top of this game is the criminal or unethical behaviour of voyeurism. No information is given about the voyeur whose role is to be played. We know nothing about the person or background. Therefore it is the task of the player - whether consciously or not - to fill this gap themselves and take over the position of the voyeur. In this way it is more immersive than playing a specific character, as the line between player and acting figure is sometimes blurred. Of course this does not mean that the player confuses game with reality. However, through this process of filling in the gaps the experience becomes more intense, because one's own thoughts and feelings are drawn upon, which can lead to a real confrontation with morality. The player is acting performative, without even noticing. Parallel to a theatre situation, they put themselves in the position of another being by accepting strange situations and feelings and reacting accordingly. In this way they create their own reality through interaction with the game.<ref>Cf Fischer-Lichte, Erika: ''Performativität, Eine Einführung''. Bielefeld 2012, S.44.</ref>

	So, making decisions is the driving part of this game; do I submit to the big rule? Or do I "feed the monkeys", do I interfere in the affairs of others? Option A means pure observation, perhaps providing the club with information, but in any case not intervening yourself: remaining passive. Option B is the decision to become active and to influence and thus breaking the big club rule. The latter is of course much more interesting, as you can find out a lot of spicy details about people's lives, and also more tempting just because it is "forbidden". But still, the fact that you are in a way playing a version of yourself can make you think: Is this decision justified? It can make you feel more responsible for your actions since they feel more like your own.		So, making decisions is the driving part of this game; do I submit to the big rule? Or do I "feed the monkeys", do I interfere in the affairs of others? Option A means pure observation, perhaps providing the club with information, but in any case not intervening yourself: remaining passive. Option B is the decision to become active and to influence and thus breaking the big club rule. The latter is of course much more interesting, as you can find out a lot of spicy details about people's lives, and also more tempting just because it is "forbidden". But still, the fact that you are in a way playing a version of yourself can make you think: Is this decision justified? It can make you feel more responsible for your actions since they feel more like your own.

Lara.sauer: /* About the Game */

2020-12-07T00:09:58Z

About the Game

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:09, 7 December 2020
Line 110:		Line 110:
	<br />		<br />

	===Control and Observation: ~~Panoptism~~===		===Control and Observation: Panopticism===
	Possible Literature:		Possible Literature:

Lara.sauer at 00:08, 7 December 2020

2020-12-07T00:08:38Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:08, 7 December 2020
Line 95:		Line 95:

	===Voyeurism in and out of the game===		===Voyeurism in and out of the game===
	The Oxford Dictionary of Film Studies defines voyeurism as: "In both everyday and psychoanalytic usage, illicit pleasure or perverse investment in looking at people and their activities without their knowledge."<ref>https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780198832096.001.0001/acref-9780198832096-e-0762</ref> In Film Studies it is common to talk about the voyeurism in watching others. Aren't games to some extent also voyeuristic? A player becomes a spectator and/or participant in more or less intimate scenes in the lives of characters in the course of the game experience. Maybe it is even more intrusive than watching someones life in a film because it is more of an active choice where to go and to look. Furthermore, although interaction with the game and the characters is mostly a big part of gameplay so immersion is generated, the player is always ~~also~~ an extra-diegetic entity watching the game and themselves at least as the character they are controlling.		The Oxford Dictionary of Film Studies defines voyeurism as: "In both everyday and psychoanalytic usage, illicit pleasure or perverse investment in looking at people and their activities without their knowledge."<ref>https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780198832096.001.0001/acref-9780198832096-e-0762</ref> In Film Studies it is common to talk about the voyeurism in watching others. Aren't games to some extent also voyeuristic? A player becomes a spectator and/or participant in more or less intimate scenes in the lives of characters in the course of the game experience. Maybe it is even more intrusive than watching someones life in a film because it is more of an active choice where to go and to look. Furthermore, although interaction with the game and the characters is mostly a big part of gameplay so immersion can be generated, the player is always an extra-diegetic entity too, watching the game and themselves at least as the character they are controlling.

	In ''Do Not Feed The Monkeys'' the player takes control of an invisible entity by observing. They observe and learn from it how they can/should behave in order to get ahead, as there is no information like background story. <blockquote>" Yep, we put a PC in your game that's on your PC so that you can work on a PC while you're playing the game that's on your PC!" - Developers about the game on their steam page</blockquote>The developers reflect on the fact that as player you will in many games watch one or more characters and control their lives and they emphasise that as a gamer you are actually a voyeur yourself. Observing is the central game mechanics of this game internally, but it is also interesting as an external observation; it becomes possible to observe observing, as the game generates a self-reference.
	~~The <br />~~

	~~<br />~~

			In ''Do Not Feed The Monkeys'' the player takes control of an invisible entity. They observe and learn from it how they can/should behave in order to get ahead, as there is no information like background story of their character. As describes above, they have to access their own experiences to fill the void and to make sense of the displayed situation. So as an observer, the player then observes innerdiegetic others. The game mirrors the situation of a flat and most importantly a computer to "work" on. It is possible to observe observing, as the game generates a self-reference in showing players ironically: "This is you!" The developers reflect on that fact as well: <blockquote>" Yep, we put a PC in your game that's on your PC so that you can work on a PC while you're playing the game that's on your PC!" - Developers about the game on their steam page<br /></blockquote>
	==Related Research Approaches==		==Related Research Approaches==

Lara.sauer at 23:55, 6 December 2020

2020-12-06T23:55:39Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:55, 7 December 2020
Line 15:		Line 15:
	===Core Game Mechanics===		===Core Game Mechanics===

	====~~The cages~~ and time management====		====Cages and time management====
	[[File:Do Not Feed the Monkeys - Cages.png\|thumb\|Access to footage of 16 cages (Phase 2)]]		[[File:Do Not Feed the Monkeys - Cages.png\|thumb\|Access to footage of 16 cages (Phase 2)]]
	In each game run there are up to 25 different cages - aka rooms to spy on - to be seen; for some there is a second camera to buy so you can see more and find out more information, but you will have accordingly one cage less in total - it’s a maximum of 25 camera perspectives. According to the Fan-Wiki there are 46 possible cages (20 interactive and 26 non-interactive). With every new game start the game chooses randomly from the possible situations and you’ll only find out which ones there are this time if you buy them all. Every 5 days you have to fulfill a quota of cages to stay in the club - in the game at all. At the end of the first stage you'll need 9 cages, at the end of the second 16 and at the end of the last stage 25.		In each game run there are up to 25 different cages - aka rooms to spy on - to be seen; for some there is a second camera to buy so you can see more and find out more information, but you will have accordingly one cage less in total - it’s a maximum of 25 camera perspectives. According to the Fan-Wiki there are 46 possible cages (20 interactive and 26 non-interactive). With every new game start the game chooses randomly from the possible situations and you’ll only find out which ones there are this time if you buy them all. Every 5 days you have to fulfill a quota of cages to stay in the club - in the game at all. At the end of the first stage you'll need 9 cages, at the end of the second 16 and at the end of the last stage 25.
Line 61:		Line 61:

	As you can see below, the first action after the start of the game is to agree to the terms and conditions of the club. If you don't want to do this, you must cancel the game.		As you can see below, the first action after the start of the game is to agree to the terms and conditions of the club. If you don't want to do this, you must cancel the game.
			[[File:Privacy.png\|thumb\|To go further the player has to accept these terms]]

	~~'''''PLACEHOLDER PICTURE'''''~~

	The game ''Do not feed the monkeys'' is not too extensive; a game run lasts up to one hour, depending on the approach. Nevertheless, there is new content to experience after a few runs, because the different approaches and different cages after restarting the game mean that an extremely large number of possible decisions have to be tried out; which is why it is also very suitable for exploratory play. The fact that there is no actual main character, means the player has to fill this role on themselves which also contributes to the feeling of being able to decide a lot on your own. This is also a "voyeur simulator", i.e. something that reflects reality (to a certain extent) or, in science, is an analysis tool for trying something out and comparing it with reality. So in order to do justice to the "simulator", one should try out all possible ways of playing it, while at the same time giving the main character performatively itself various characteristics (e.g. moral/immoral/greedy/generous etc.). A further factor is the achievements. As a result of different playing styles, different Achievements are to be unlocked. However, these are partly mutually exclusive, which means that the game wants to offer further incentives to play it through in other ways as often as possible.		The game ''Do not feed the monkeys'' is not too extensive; a game run lasts up to one hour, depending on the approach. Nevertheless, there is new content to experience after a few runs, because the different approaches and different cages after restarting the game mean that an extremely large number of possible decisions have to be tried out; which is why it is also very suitable for exploratory play. The fact that there is no actual main character, means the player has to fill this role on themselves which also contributes to the feeling of being able to decide a lot on your own. This is also a "voyeur simulator", i.e. something that reflects reality (to a certain extent) or, in science, is an analysis tool for trying something out and comparing it with reality. So in order to do justice to the "simulator", one should try out all possible ways of playing it, while at the same time giving the main character performatively itself various characteristics (e.g. moral/immoral/greedy/generous etc.). A further factor is the achievements. As a result of different playing styles, different Achievements are to be unlocked. However, these are partly mutually exclusive, which means that the game wants to offer further incentives to play it through in other ways as often as possible.
Line 94:		Line 94:
	Sicart speaks of "ludic phronesis" as "the moral wisdom that is developed as players experience games"<ref>Sicart, Miguel: ''The Ethics of Computer Games''. Cambridge 2009. p.112.</ref>. The player learns through their decisions and the related consequences - whether they are immediately apparent or only after playing through them several times - how one can play for the longest time, namely by obeying (club-) rules and spying on others. But on the other hand they learn again and again that this behaviour does not lead to success in the end, because all ends, even if the rules were followed, are unpleasant to deadly. The fact that the game, even with the player's benevolent intervention, still ends the individual stories badly, as presented in the end screen, puts all decisions into perspective and focuses on the bigger picture. The player is repeatedly thrown out of the previously constructed immersion by his own assumptions and unexpected outcomes, creating an interplay of subject inside and outside the game. It is possible that such a game could set in motion a process of cognition, as Sicart introduces the "ludic hermeneutic circle"; to this end, it could be exciting to go deeper into the subject with this example.		Sicart speaks of "ludic phronesis" as "the moral wisdom that is developed as players experience games"<ref>Sicart, Miguel: ''The Ethics of Computer Games''. Cambridge 2009. p.112.</ref>. The player learns through their decisions and the related consequences - whether they are immediately apparent or only after playing through them several times - how one can play for the longest time, namely by obeying (club-) rules and spying on others. But on the other hand they learn again and again that this behaviour does not lead to success in the end, because all ends, even if the rules were followed, are unpleasant to deadly. The fact that the game, even with the player's benevolent intervention, still ends the individual stories badly, as presented in the end screen, puts all decisions into perspective and focuses on the bigger picture. The player is repeatedly thrown out of the previously constructed immersion by his own assumptions and unexpected outcomes, creating an interplay of subject inside and outside the game. It is possible that such a game could set in motion a process of cognition, as Sicart introduces the "ludic hermeneutic circle"; to this end, it could be exciting to go deeper into the subject with this example.

	===~~Meta-Reflexion~~===		===Voyeurism in and out of the game===
	Aren't ~~all~~ games to some extent voyeuristic? ~~The~~ player becomes a spectator and participant in more or less intimate scenes in the lives of characters in the course of the game experience, ~~which usually deals~~ with a ~~certain narrative~~.		The Oxford Dictionary of Film Studies defines voyeurism as: "In both everyday and psychoanalytic usage, illicit pleasure or perverse investment in looking at people and their activities without their knowledge."<ref>https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780198832096.001.0001/acref-9780198832096-e-0762</ref> In Film Studies it is common to talk about the voyeurism in watching others. Aren't games to some extent also voyeuristic? A player becomes a spectator and/or participant in more or less intimate scenes in the lives of characters in the course of the game experience. Maybe it is even more intrusive than watching someones life in a film because it is more of an active choice where to go and to look. Furthermore, although interaction with the game and the characters is mostly a big part of gameplay so immersion is generated, the player is always also an extra-diegetic entity watching the game and themselves at least as the character they are controlling.

	In ~~this case one~~ takes control of an invisible entity by observing. ~~The player observes~~ and ~~learns~~ from it how they can/should behave in order to get ahead, as there is no information like background story. <blockquote>" Yep, we put a PC in your game that's on your PC so that you can work on a PC while you're playing the game that's on your PC!" - Developers about the game on their steam page</blockquote>The developers reflect on the fact that as player you will in many games watch one or more characters and control their lives, and emphasise that as a gamer you are actually a voyeur yourself~~, watching others while they watch others~~. ~~Viewing~~ is the central game mechanics of ~~the~~ game internally, but it is also interesting as an external observation; it becomes possible to observe observing, as the game generates a self-reference.		In ''Do Not Feed The Monkeys'' the player takes control of an invisible entity by observing. They observe and learn from it how they can/should behave in order to get ahead, as there is no information like background story. <blockquote>" Yep, we put a PC in your game that's on your PC so that you can work on a PC while you're playing the game that's on your PC!" - Developers about the game on their steam page</blockquote>The developers reflect on the fact that as player you will in many games watch one or more characters and control their lives and they emphasise that as a gamer you are actually a voyeur yourself. Observing is the central game mechanics of this game internally, but it is also interesting as an external observation; it becomes possible to observe observing, as the game generates a self-reference.
	<br />		The <br />

	<br />		<br />
Line 120:		Line 120:

	Sprenger, Florian: ''Politik der Mikroentscheidungen. Edward Snowden, Netzneutralität und die Architekturen des Internets''. Lüneburg 2015. <br />		Sprenger, Florian: ''Politik der Mikroentscheidungen. Edward Snowden, Netzneutralität und die Architekturen des Internets''. Lüneburg 2015. <br />
	~~==References==~~

	==Further Information/External Links==		==Further Information/External Links==
	Fan Wiki: https://do-not-feed-the-monkeys.fandom.com/wiki/Do_Not_Feed_the_Monkeys_Wiki		Fan Wiki: https://do-not-feed-the-monkeys.fandom.com/wiki/Do_Not_Feed_the_Monkeys_Wiki

			Oxford Dictionary about voyeurism: https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780198832096.001.0001/acref-9780198832096-e-0762

	Youtube Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lo4mGTfhuDg		Youtube Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lo4mGTfhuDg

Lara.sauer at 23:08, 6 December 2020

2020-12-06T23:08:53Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:08, 7 December 2020
Line 16:		Line 16:

	====The cages and time management====		====The cages and time management====
	[[File:Do Not Feed the Monkeys - Cages.png\|thumb\|~~Acces~~ to footage ~~of the maximum~~ of 16 cages]]		[[File:Do Not Feed the Monkeys - Cages.png\|thumb\|Access to footage of 16 cages (Phase 2)]]
	In each game run there are up to 25 different cages - aka rooms to spy on - to be seen; for some there is a second camera to buy so you can see more and find out more information, but you will have accordingly one cage less in total - it’s a maximum of 25 camera perspectives. According to the Fan-Wiki there are 46 possible cages (20 interactive and 26 non-interactive). With every new game start the game chooses randomly from the possible situations and you’ll only find out which ones there are this time if you buy them all. Every 5 days you have to fulfill a quota of cages to stay in the club - in the game at all. At the end of the first stage you'll need 9 cages, at the end of the second 16 and at the end of the last stage 25.		In each game run there are up to 25 different cages - aka rooms to spy on - to be seen; for some there is a second camera to buy so you can see more and find out more information, but you will have accordingly one cage less in total - it’s a maximum of 25 camera perspectives. According to the Fan-Wiki there are 46 possible cages (20 interactive and 26 non-interactive). With every new game start the game chooses randomly from the possible situations and you’ll only find out which ones there are this time if you buy them all. Every 5 days you have to fulfill a quota of cages to stay in the club - in the game at all. At the end of the first stage you'll need 9 cages, at the end of the second 16 and at the end of the last stage 25.

Line 104:		Line 104:
	==Related Research Approaches==		==Related Research Approaches==

	=== Simulator and the Performative ===		===Simulator and the Performative===
	In what ways do simulations in games challenge players to create their own worlds? How are ideas and feelings shared?		In what ways do simulations in games challenge players to create their own worlds? How are ideas and feelings shared?

	Possible Literature:		Possible Literature:

	Fischer-Lichte, Erika: ''Performativität, Eine Einführung''. Bielefeld 2012		Fischer-Lichte, Erika: ''Performativität, Eine Einführung''. Bielefeld 2012.

	Sicart, Miguel: ''The Ethics of Computer Games''. Cambridge 2009.		Sicart, Miguel: ''The Ethics of Computer Games''. Cambridge 2009.
	<br />		<br />

	=== Control and Observation: Panoptism ===		===Control and Observation: Panoptism===
	Possible Literature:		Possible Literature:

	Foucault, Michel: ''Überwachen und Strafen, Die Geburt des Gefängnisses.'' Frankfurt a.M. 1976.		Foucault, Michel: ''Überwachen und Strafen, Die Geburt des Gefängnisses.'' Frankfurt a.M. 1976.
	<br />
			Sprenger, Florian: ''Politik der Mikroentscheidungen. Edward Snowden, Netzneutralität und die Architekturen des Internets''. Lüneburg 2015. <br />
	==References==		==References==

Lara.sauer at 22:59, 6 December 2020

2020-12-06T22:59:32Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:59, 7 December 2020
Line 86:		Line 86:
	What are moral decisions? To what extent are they made here at the level of the game world or at the level of the "real" world?		What are moral decisions? To what extent are they made here at the level of the game world or at the level of the "real" world?

	As already mentioned above, in this game you are in the position to shape the main character yourself, for example by incorporating moral positions from real life - for the "good" or "bad". This also means that you may be more concerned with actual morality than in other games. In a first-person shooter, for example, you rarely ask yourself whether it is not reprehensible to kill your opponents; it is part of the game mechanics. In this game, no information is given about the voyeur whose role you play. We know nothing about the person or background. Therefore it is the task of the player - whether consciously or not - to fill this gap themselves and take over the position of the voyeur. In this way it is more immersive than playing a specific character, as the line between player and acting figure is sometimes blurred. Of course this does not mean that the player confuses game with reality. However, through this process of filling in the gaps the experience becomes more intense, because one's own thoughts and feelings are drawn upon, which can lead to a real confrontation with morality. The player is acting performative, without even noticing. Parallel to a theatre situation, they put themselves in the position of another being by accepting strange situations and feelings and reacting accordingly. In this way they create their own reality through interaction with the game.<ref>Cf Fischer-Lichte, Erika: ''Performativität, Eine Einführung''. Bielefeld 2012, S.44.</ref>		As already mentioned above, in this game you are in the position to shape the main character yourself, for example by incorporating moral positions from real life - for the "good" or "bad". This also means that you may be more concerned with actual morality than in other games. In a first-person shooter, for example, you rarely ask yourself whether it is not reprehensible to kill your opponents; it is part of the game mechanics. Voyeurism, as in this case, may not be a capital crime by contrast, but it is nevertheless considered to be at least unethical and criminal behaviour.

			In this game, no information is given about the voyeur whose role you play. We know nothing about the person or background. Therefore it is the task of the player - whether consciously or not - to fill this gap themselves and take over the position of the voyeur. In this way it is more immersive than playing a specific character, as the line between player and acting figure is sometimes blurred. Of course this does not mean that the player confuses game with reality. However, through this process of filling in the gaps the experience becomes more intense, because one's own thoughts and feelings are drawn upon, which can lead to a real confrontation with morality. The player is acting performative, without even noticing. Parallel to a theatre situation, they put themselves in the position of another being by accepting strange situations and feelings and reacting accordingly. In this way they create their own reality through interaction with the game.<ref>Cf Fischer-Lichte, Erika: ''Performativität, Eine Einführung''. Bielefeld 2012, S.44.</ref>

	So, making decisions is the driving part of this game; do I submit to the big rule? Or do I "feed the monkeys", do I interfere in the affairs of others? Option A means pure observation, perhaps providing the club with information, but in any case not intervening yourself: remaining passive. Option B is the decision to become active and to influence and thus breaking the big club rule. The latter is of course much more interesting, as you can find out a lot of spicy details about people's lives, and also more tempting just because it is "forbidden". But still, the fact that you are in a way playing a version of yourself can make you think: Is this decision justified? It can make you feel more responsible for your actions since they feel more like your own.		So, making decisions is the driving part of this game; do I submit to the big rule? Or do I "feed the monkeys", do I interfere in the affairs of others? Option A means pure observation, perhaps providing the club with information, but in any case not intervening yourself: remaining passive. Option B is the decision to become active and to influence and thus breaking the big club rule. The latter is of course much more interesting, as you can find out a lot of spicy details about people's lives, and also more tempting just because it is "forbidden". But still, the fact that you are in a way playing a version of yourself can make you think: Is this decision justified? It can make you feel more responsible for your actions since they feel more like your own.

			Sicart speaks of "ludic phronesis" as "the moral wisdom that is developed as players experience games"<ref>Sicart, Miguel: ''The Ethics of Computer Games''. Cambridge 2009. p.112.</ref>. The player learns through their decisions and the related consequences - whether they are immediately apparent or only after playing through them several times - how one can play for the longest time, namely by obeying (club-) rules and spying on others. But on the other hand they learn again and again that this behaviour does not lead to success in the end, because all ends, even if the rules were followed, are unpleasant to deadly. The fact that the game, even with the player's benevolent intervention, still ends the individual stories badly, as presented in the end screen, puts all decisions into perspective and focuses on the bigger picture. The player is repeatedly thrown out of the previously constructed immersion by his own assumptions and unexpected outcomes, creating an interplay of subject inside and outside the game. It is possible that such a game could set in motion a process of cognition, as Sicart introduces the "ludic hermeneutic circle"; to this end, it could be exciting to go deeper into the subject with this example.

	===Meta-Reflexion===		===Meta-Reflexion===
Line 94:		Line 98:

	In this case one takes control of an invisible entity by observing. The player observes and learns from it how they can/should behave in order to get ahead, as there is no information like background story. <blockquote>" Yep, we put a PC in your game that's on your PC so that you can work on a PC while you're playing the game that's on your PC!" - Developers about the game on their steam page</blockquote>The developers reflect on the fact that as player you will in many games watch one or more characters and control their lives, and emphasise that as a gamer you are actually a voyeur yourself, watching others while they watch others. Viewing is the central game mechanics of the game internally, but it is also interesting as an external observation; it becomes possible to observe observing, as the game generates a self-reference.		In this case one takes control of an invisible entity by observing. The player observes and learns from it how they can/should behave in order to get ahead, as there is no information like background story. <blockquote>" Yep, we put a PC in your game that's on your PC so that you can work on a PC while you're playing the game that's on your PC!" - Developers about the game on their steam page</blockquote>The developers reflect on the fact that as player you will in many games watch one or more characters and control their lives, and emphasise that as a gamer you are actually a voyeur yourself, watching others while they watch others. Viewing is the central game mechanics of the game internally, but it is also interesting as an external observation; it becomes possible to observe observing, as the game generates a self-reference.
	<br />~~Work in progress...~~		<br />

	<br />		<br />
Line 100:		Line 104:
	==Related Research Approaches==		==Related Research Approaches==

			=== Simulator and the Performative ===
			In what ways do simulations in games challenge players to create their own worlds? How are ideas and feelings shared?

			Possible Literature:

			Fischer-Lichte, Erika: ''Performativität, Eine Einführung''. Bielefeld 2012

			Sicart, Miguel: ''The Ethics of Computer Games''. Cambridge 2009.
			<br />

			=== Control and Observation: Panoptism ===
			Possible Literature:

			Foucault, Michel: ''Überwachen und Strafen, Die Geburt des Gefängnisses.'' Frankfurt a.M. 1976.
			<br />
	==References==		==References==

Lara.sauer at 21:44, 6 December 2020

2020-12-06T21:44:55Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:44, 6 December 2020
Line 84:		Line 84:
	<br />In a way, this is a somewhat frustrating outcome each time and tempts you to play the game again and find out what other decisions could have what consequences. This leads to a reciprocal relationship between the player action and the game. Every new decision of the player and the resulting consequence in the game creates the desire to try new decisions, which - possibly - can lead to new consequences. According to Salen and Zimmermanns text "meaningful play" arises <ref>Cf. Salen, Katie and Zimmermann, Eric: ''Rules of Play'', Game Design Fundamentals. Cambridge 2004, p. 33.</ref>; the game reaches its ultimate goal, being played (again and again).		<br />In a way, this is a somewhat frustrating outcome each time and tempts you to play the game again and find out what other decisions could have what consequences. This leads to a reciprocal relationship between the player action and the game. Every new decision of the player and the resulting consequence in the game creates the desire to try new decisions, which - possibly - can lead to new consequences. According to Salen and Zimmermanns text "meaningful play" arises <ref>Cf. Salen, Katie and Zimmermann, Eric: ''Rules of Play'', Game Design Fundamentals. Cambridge 2004, p. 33.</ref>; the game reaches its ultimate goal, being played (again and again).
	===Morality===		===Morality===
	What are moral decisions? To what extent are they made here at the level of the game world or at the level of the "real" world~~? Why are achievements part of these moral considerations~~?		What are moral decisions? To what extent are they made here at the level of the game world or at the level of the "real" world?

	As already mentioned above, in this game you are in the position to shape the main character yourself, for example by incorporating moral positions from real life - for the "good" or "bad". This also means that you may be more concerned with actual morality than in other games. In a first-person shooter, for example, you rarely ask yourself whether it is not reprehensible to kill your opponents; it is part of the game mechanics. In this game, no information is given about the voyeur whose role you play. We know nothing about the person or background. Therefore it is the task of the player - whether consciously or not - to fill this gap themselves and take over the position of the voyeur. In this way it is more immersive than playing a specific character, as the line between player and acting figure is sometimes blurred. Of course this does not mean that the player confuses game with reality. However, through this process of filling in the gaps the experience becomes more intense, because one's own thoughts and feelings are drawn upon, which can lead to a real confrontation with morality. The player is acting performative, without even noticing. Parallel to a theatre situation, they put themselves in the position of another being by accepting strange situations and feelings and reacting accordingly. In this way they create their own reality through interaction with the game.<ref>Cf Fischer-Lichte, Erika: ''Performativität, Eine Einführung''. Bielefeld 2012, S.44.</ref>		As already mentioned above, in this game you are in the position to shape the main character yourself, for example by incorporating moral positions from real life - for the "good" or "bad". This also means that you may be more concerned with actual morality than in other games. In a first-person shooter, for example, you rarely ask yourself whether it is not reprehensible to kill your opponents; it is part of the game mechanics. In this game, no information is given about the voyeur whose role you play. We know nothing about the person or background. Therefore it is the task of the player - whether consciously or not - to fill this gap themselves and take over the position of the voyeur. In this way it is more immersive than playing a specific character, as the line between player and acting figure is sometimes blurred. Of course this does not mean that the player confuses game with reality. However, through this process of filling in the gaps the experience becomes more intense, because one's own thoughts and feelings are drawn upon, which can lead to a real confrontation with morality. The player is acting performative, without even noticing. Parallel to a theatre situation, they put themselves in the position of another being by accepting strange situations and feelings and reacting accordingly. In this way they create their own reality through interaction with the game.<ref>Cf Fischer-Lichte, Erika: ''Performativität, Eine Einführung''. Bielefeld 2012, S.44.</ref>

	~~As mentioned above~~, making decisions is the driving part of this game; do I submit to the big rule? Or do I "feed the monkeys" , so do I interfere in the affairs of others? Option A means pure observation, perhaps providing the club with information, but in any case not intervening yourself: remaining passive. Option B is the decision to become active and to influence and thus breaking the big club rule. The latter is of course much more interesting, as you can find out a lot of spicy details about people's lives, and also more tempting just ~~by the fact that~~ it is "forbidden". But still, the fact that you are in a way playing a version of yourself can make you think: Is this decision justified? It can make you feel more responsible for your actions.		So, making decisions is the driving part of this game; do I submit to the big rule? Or do I "feed the monkeys", do I interfere in the affairs of others? Option A means pure observation, perhaps providing the club with information, but in any case not intervening yourself: remaining passive. Option B is the decision to become active and to influence and thus breaking the big club rule. The latter is of course much more interesting, as you can find out a lot of spicy details about people's lives, and also more tempting just because it is "forbidden". But still, the fact that you are in a way playing a version of yourself can make you think: Is this decision justified? It can make you feel more responsible for your actions since they feel more like your own.

	===Meta-Reflexion===		===Meta-Reflexion===

Lara.sauer at 21:09, 6 December 2020

2020-12-06T21:09:40Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:09, 6 December 2020
Line 79:		Line 79:
	On the 16th day of the game the player can then only open the door of the flat and must accept a parcel from the postman. In the 1st case it contains a drug or something similar that leads to death. In the 2nd case he receives instructions on how to behave at the highest level; they have obviously become an observed person themselves. In the 3rd case they are sent by instructions to the actual monkey cage of a zoo and is released from the club.		On the 16th day of the game the player can then only open the door of the flat and must accept a parcel from the postman. In the 1st case it contains a drug or something similar that leads to death. In the 2nd case he receives instructions on how to behave at the highest level; they have obviously become an observed person themselves. In the 3rd case they are sent by instructions to the actual monkey cage of a zoo and is released from the club.

	If a player leaves the club prematurely by uninstalling the "Monkey Vision" programme or by not reaching the cage minimum at the end of a game phase, another end is triggered; in the first phase (with a maximum of 9 cages) the player is told that they have simply continued their boring life. In later phases the neighbours behave conspicuously and it becomes clear that your character is being monitored. If the player tries to get out of the club then or after, they will be arrested for their membership.		If a player leaves the club prematurely by uninstalling the "Monkey Vision" programme or by not reaching the cage minimum at the end of a game phase, another end will be triggered; in the first phase (with a maximum of 9 cages) the player is told that they have simply continued their boring life after that. In later phases the neighbours behave conspicuously and it becomes clear that your character is being monitored. If the player tries to get out of the club then or after, they will be arrested for their membership.

	All ends have in common that for the player some effects of their actions are summarised. It is usually the case that even when trying to have a positive effect on the lives of the "monkeys", this has turned into a negative one. This makes it clear that the obvious agency of the player is only superficial. The game always suggests in the end: you can't do more than that.		All ends have in common that for the player some effects of their actions are summarised. It is usually the case that even when trying to have a positive effect on the lives of the "monkeys", this has turned into a negative one. This makes it clear that the obvious agency of the player is only superficial. The game always suggests in the end: you can't do more than that.
Line 88:		Line 88:
	As already mentioned above, in this game you are in the position to shape the main character yourself, for example by incorporating moral positions from real life - for the "good" or "bad". This also means that you may be more concerned with actual morality than in other games. In a first-person shooter, for example, you rarely ask yourself whether it is not reprehensible to kill your opponents; it is part of the game mechanics. In this game, no information is given about the voyeur whose role you play. We know nothing about the person or background. Therefore it is the task of the player - whether consciously or not - to fill this gap themselves and take over the position of the voyeur. In this way it is more immersive than playing a specific character, as the line between player and acting figure is sometimes blurred. Of course this does not mean that the player confuses game with reality. However, through this process of filling in the gaps the experience becomes more intense, because one's own thoughts and feelings are drawn upon, which can lead to a real confrontation with morality. The player is acting performative, without even noticing. Parallel to a theatre situation, they put themselves in the position of another being by accepting strange situations and feelings and reacting accordingly. In this way they create their own reality through interaction with the game.<ref>Cf Fischer-Lichte, Erika: ''Performativität, Eine Einführung''. Bielefeld 2012, S.44.</ref>		As already mentioned above, in this game you are in the position to shape the main character yourself, for example by incorporating moral positions from real life - for the "good" or "bad". This also means that you may be more concerned with actual morality than in other games. In a first-person shooter, for example, you rarely ask yourself whether it is not reprehensible to kill your opponents; it is part of the game mechanics. In this game, no information is given about the voyeur whose role you play. We know nothing about the person or background. Therefore it is the task of the player - whether consciously or not - to fill this gap themselves and take over the position of the voyeur. In this way it is more immersive than playing a specific character, as the line between player and acting figure is sometimes blurred. Of course this does not mean that the player confuses game with reality. However, through this process of filling in the gaps the experience becomes more intense, because one's own thoughts and feelings are drawn upon, which can lead to a real confrontation with morality. The player is acting performative, without even noticing. Parallel to a theatre situation, they put themselves in the position of another being by accepting strange situations and feelings and reacting accordingly. In this way they create their own reality through interaction with the game.<ref>Cf Fischer-Lichte, Erika: ''Performativität, Eine Einführung''. Bielefeld 2012, S.44.</ref>

	As mentioned above, making decisions is the driving part of this game; do I submit to the big rule? Or do I "feed the monkeys" , so do I interfere in the affairs of others? Option A means pure observation, perhaps providing the club with information, but in any case not intervening yourself: remaining passive. Option B is the decision to become active and to influence and thus breaking the big club rule.		As mentioned above, making decisions is the driving part of this game; do I submit to the big rule? Or do I "feed the monkeys" , so do I interfere in the affairs of others? Option A means pure observation, perhaps providing the club with information, but in any case not intervening yourself: remaining passive. Option B is the decision to become active and to influence and thus breaking the big club rule. The latter is of course much more interesting, as you can find out a lot of spicy details about people's lives, and also more tempting just by the fact that it is "forbidden". But still, the fact that you are in a way playing a version of yourself can make you think: Is this decision justified? It can make you feel more responsible for your actions.

	===Meta-Reflexion===		===Meta-Reflexion===

Lara.sauer at 20:11, 6 December 2020

2020-12-06T20:11:09Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:11, 6 December 2020
Line 75:		Line 75:
	2. Did the player provide sufficient information about the observed persons by replying to the club emails?		2. Did the player provide sufficient information about the observed persons by replying to the club emails?

	3. Did the player "survive" - i.e. keep enough health points and buy all the cages necessary to advance to the next phase - but did not do or achieve either 1. or 2.		3. Did the player "survive" - i.e. keep enough health points and buy all the cages necessary to advance to the next phase - but did not do or achieve either 1. or 2.?

	On the 16th day of the game the player can then only open the door of the flat and must accept a parcel from the postman. In the 1st case it contains a drug or something similar that leads to death. In the 2nd case he receives instructions on how to behave at the highest level; they have obviously become an observed person themselves. In the 3rd case they are sent by instructions to the actual monkey cage of a zoo and is released from the club.		On the 16th day of the game the player can then only open the door of the flat and must accept a parcel from the postman. In the 1st case it contains a drug or something similar that leads to death. In the 2nd case he receives instructions on how to behave at the highest level; they have obviously become an observed person themselves. In the 3rd case they are sent by instructions to the actual monkey cage of a zoo and is released from the club.
Line 82:		Line 82:

	All ends have in common that for the player some effects of their actions are summarised. It is usually the case that even when trying to have a positive effect on the lives of the "monkeys", this has turned into a negative one. This makes it clear that the obvious agency of the player is only superficial. The game always suggests in the end: you can't do more than that.		All ends have in common that for the player some effects of their actions are summarised. It is usually the case that even when trying to have a positive effect on the lives of the "monkeys", this has turned into a negative one. This makes it clear that the obvious agency of the player is only superficial. The game always suggests in the end: you can't do more than that.
	<br />In a way, this is a somewhat frustrating outcome each time and tempts you to play the game again and find out what other decisions could have what consequences. This leads to a reciprocal relationship between the player action and the game. Every new decision of the player and the resulting consequence in the game creates the desire to try new decisions, which - possibly - can lead to new consequences~~; according~~ to Salen and Zimmermanns text "meaningful play" arises.<ref>Cf. Salen, Katie and Zimmermann, Eric: ''Rules of Play'', Game Design Fundamentals. Cambridge 2004, p. 33.</ref>		<br />In a way, this is a somewhat frustrating outcome each time and tempts you to play the game again and find out what other decisions could have what consequences. This leads to a reciprocal relationship between the player action and the game. Every new decision of the player and the resulting consequence in the game creates the desire to try new decisions, which - possibly - can lead to new consequences. According to Salen and Zimmermanns text "meaningful play" arises <ref>Cf. Salen, Katie and Zimmermann, Eric: ''Rules of Play'', Game Design Fundamentals. Cambridge 2004, p. 33.</ref>; the game reaches its ultimate goal, being played (again and again).
	===Morality===		===Morality===
	What are moral decisions? To what extent are they made here at the level of the game world or at the level of the "real" world? Why are achievements part of these moral considerations?		What are moral decisions? To what extent are they made here at the level of the game world or at the level of the "real" world? Why are achievements part of these moral considerations?

	As already mentioned above, in this game you are in the position to shape the main character yourself, for example by incorporating moral positions from real life - for the "good" or "bad". This also means that you may be more concerned with actual morality than in other games. In a first-person shooter, for example, you rarely ask yourself whether it is not reprehensible to kill your opponents; it is part of the game mechanics. In this game, no information is given about the voyeur whose role you play. We know nothing about the person or background. Therefore it is the task of the player - whether consciously or not - to fill this gap themselves and take over the position of the voyeur. In this way it is more immersive than playing a specific character, as the line between player and acting figure is sometimes blurred. Of course this does not mean that the player confuses game with reality. However, through this process of filling in the gaps the experience becomes more intense, because one's own thoughts and feelings are drawn upon, which can lead to a real confrontation with morality. The player is acting performative, without even noticing.		As already mentioned above, in this game you are in the position to shape the main character yourself, for example by incorporating moral positions from real life - for the "good" or "bad". This also means that you may be more concerned with actual morality than in other games. In a first-person shooter, for example, you rarely ask yourself whether it is not reprehensible to kill your opponents; it is part of the game mechanics. In this game, no information is given about the voyeur whose role you play. We know nothing about the person or background. Therefore it is the task of the player - whether consciously or not - to fill this gap themselves and take over the position of the voyeur. In this way it is more immersive than playing a specific character, as the line between player and acting figure is sometimes blurred. Of course this does not mean that the player confuses game with reality. However, through this process of filling in the gaps the experience becomes more intense, because one's own thoughts and feelings are drawn upon, which can lead to a real confrontation with morality. The player is acting performative, without even noticing. Parallel to a theatre situation, they put themselves in the position of another being by accepting strange situations and feelings and reacting accordingly. In this way they create their own reality through interaction with the game.<ref>Cf Fischer-Lichte, Erika: ''Performativität, Eine Einführung''. Bielefeld 2012, S.44.</ref>

	~~The starting point~~ of this game ~~is the decision~~; do I submit to the big rule? Or do I "feed the monkeys" so I interfere in the affairs of others? Option A means pure observation, perhaps providing the club with information, but in any case not intervening yourself: remaining passive. Option B is the decision to become active and to influence and thus breaking the big club rule.		As mentioned above, making decisions is the driving part of this game; do I submit to the big rule? Or do I "feed the monkeys" , so do I interfere in the affairs of others? Option A means pure observation, perhaps providing the club with information, but in any case not intervening yourself: remaining passive. Option B is the decision to become active and to influence and thus breaking the big club rule.

	===Meta-Reflexion===		===Meta-Reflexion===