Do Not Feed The Monkeys: Difference between revisions
From GameLabWiki
Lara.sauer (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
Lara.sauer (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 56: | Line 56: | ||
Sometimes you can also actively get people into trouble; e.g. in the porch cage you can betray your parents to the authorities or in many cages you can record incriminating video material and put it online. | Sometimes you can also actively get people into trouble; e.g. in the porch cage you can betray your parents to the authorities or in many cages you can record incriminating video material and put it online. | ||
'''Torpedoing a game''' | '''Torpedoing a game'''<blockquote>"Playing seems to be an attempt to postpone an end as long as possible without becoming redundant, and to play rough until all the functional closures have been completed, until there is no narrative remainder left, so to speak." - Claus Pias<ref>Pias, Claus: ''Computer-Spiel-Welten''. München: sequenzia2000, S. 172.</ref></blockquote>Here it is possible in various ways not to generate the longest possible gaming experience. You can uninstall the program prematurely and trigger an immediate end, intentionally not pay the landlady or let the health values drop to 0. | ||
"Playing seems to be an attempt to postpone an end as long as possible without becoming redundant, and to play rough until all the functional closures have been completed, until there is no narrative remainder left, so to speak." | |||
Here it is possible in various ways not to generate the longest possible gaming experience. You can uninstall the program prematurely and trigger an immediate end, intentionally not pay the landlady or let the health values drop to 0. | |||
'''Do not play''' | '''Do not play''' | ||
| Line 70: | Line 66: | ||
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.). | 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.). | ||
=== 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. | ||
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. | |||
=== Meta-Reflexion === | |||
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. | |||
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 /> | |||
==Related Research Approaches== | ==Related Research Approaches== | ||
Revision as of 14:31, 30 November 2020
About the Game
Do Not Feed the Monkeys is a voyeur simulator in which players can slip into the role of a person who joins the "The Primate Observation Club". They watch "monkeys" in their cages via live video surveillance on the (in game) computer. Within a maximum of 16 game days, more and more "cages" have to be bought in order to stay in the club, the landlady and provisions like food and coffee have to be paid. However, after the first observation it is obvious that these are not actual monkeys or cages, but humans - sometimes empty rooms. The shown strangers are for example at work, at home etc. As an observer, you can collect keywords from conversations and use a search engine to further research on the (in game) Internet and find out a lot about these people; usually also contact information such as addresses, telephone numbers or chat profiles. Based on this, one can interfere or not in various ways. Every decision has different consequences.
RELEASE DATE: 24 Oct, 2018
DEVELOPER: Fictiorama Studios, BadLand Games Publishing S.L.
PUBLISHER: Alawar Premium
Research-Relevant Topics of the Game
Core Game Mechanics
The cages and time management
In each game run there are up to 16 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 16 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.
In the interactive cages different things happen at certain times, day and night. In order to gather all the information, it is necessary to find out when they become active. There will be an acoustic signal when they do and usually the events are repeated at the same time. Therefore, one must plan other activities - like buying food or working – accordingly. These last mentioned parts of playing are only symbolized by past time; you do not actually get to see or play them out. However, you can miss things by doing so, which can have a very negative effect; e.g. if you miss the landlady several times, the flat will be vacated after 5 days at the latest.
The interactive cages can be ended/closed in different ways by making various choices but don't have to be if the player prefers another style of playing.
Characters
Playable is an undefined entity through which the player controls the actions; neither voice nor body are ever visible. It only appears in that, for example, certain response options are given in conversations, but these are usually based on the information collected by the player to date.
The flat is regularly visited by the landlady (to collect money), by a neighbor (to "borrow" money) and by Wylon's Witnesses. One does not learn anything from these characters; they have no (obvious) personalities. After their first visit, the Witnesses leave behind a plant that blooms white or black, based on the chosen playing style – morally good or bad. It does not affect much besides the game achievements.
Furthermore, the various strangers appear in their cages, which the player observes. One can choose to do just that or to interfere but this is prohibited by the Club, defined as “feeding the monkeys”. In any case it is possible to find out more about these strangers like addresses, names, contact information etc.
Players Choice
Styles of Play
There are different approaches or playing styles from which to choose. These choices will influence the game experience and outcome of the game.
Voyeur; only watching, not interfering
According to the rules of the fictitious club, this is the only correct way to play. However, the appeal of the game is to break this rule and test all the possibilities of interaction with the "monkeys".
Observe and take notes
Objects in the picture or scraps of conversation can be used to collect and connect clues and later evaluate them. In this way, for example, contact data can be found. This is also in accordance with the club.
Special case: Voyeur mode; it is easier to manage resources to monitor more, but there won't be achievements.
Constructive interference
Constructive in the sense of: Acting morally correct (even if not in the sense of the club). In the cage, where someone is stuck in an elevator, for example, this would mean finding out who the man is and where he is locked up. With enough information you can convince the wife on the phone that you are telling the truth and save him.
Destructive interference
In almost every case of interference, one can always choose a "morally reprehensible" but usually lucrative option; in the case of the lift cage, at one point you are offered a lot of money by those responsible for the incident to keep quiet and let him die.
Sometimes you can also actively get people into trouble; e.g. in the porch cage you can betray your parents to the authorities or in many cages you can record incriminating video material and put it online.
Torpedoing a game
"Playing seems to be an attempt to postpone an end as long as possible without becoming redundant, and to play rough until all the functional closures have been completed, until there is no narrative remainder left, so to speak." - Claus Pias[1]
Here it is possible in various ways not to generate the longest possible gaming experience. You can uninstall the program prematurely and trigger an immediate end, intentionally not pay the landlady or let the health values drop to 0.
Do not play
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.
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.).
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?
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.
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.
Meta-Reflexion
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.
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.
" 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
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.
Related Research Approaches
References
Further Information/External Links
Fan Wiki: https://do-not-feed-the-monkeys.fandom.com/wiki/Do_Not_Feed_the_Monkeys_Wiki
Youtube Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lo4mGTfhuDg
Steam Page: https://store.steampowered.com/app/658850/Do_Not_Feed_the_Monkeys/
- ↑ Pias, Claus: Computer-Spiel-Welten. München: sequenzia2000, S. 172.