What I Learned from the Video Game Archive

           I went to the UM Library system’s Computer and Video Game Archive at North Campus with a friend for the first minor quest. We played games from pre-2000 and post-2000 devices as I attempted to connect the perspectives I’d encountered in UC-256 to these video games, including theories about competition and fun.

            Stephen Garcia, one of our guest speakers, previously lectured about the psychology of competition. I found that many of the theories he discussed were directly applicable to video games. The N-Effect, “the discovery that increasing the number of competitors (N) can decrease competitive motivation” seemed especially evident while playing Mario Kart, a 15-year old game on the Nintendo 64 platform (Garcia 1). 

            Initially, when only my friend and I played the game, our times were nearly 12 seconds faster, a significant difference, compared to when we increased N to four by allowing two other individuals to join our game. Based on Garcia’s guest lecture, this result was unsurprising because according to the N-Effect, a smaller number of competitors leads to a higher competitive motivation because social comparison increases. Additionally, Garcia stated that closer relationships with the comparison target cause a stronger social comparison, therefore increasing competitive behavior and motivation (Garcia Lecture). I had a close relationship with my friend, but I had distant relationships with the other two individuals we had just met. 

             Later that day, I played Super Smash Brothers Melee on the Gamecube, a game released in 2001. I had played this game throughout my childhood, and although it had been a long time since last playing it, I already knew the basic strategies and techniques to easily defeat the highest level AI enemy.  I remembered reading about Tejada-Flores’ types of “games” in climbing that were used to make those practices meaningful to the gamer (Tejada-Flores 1-2). I decided that applying his perspective to my game would make Super Smash Brothers Melee much more challenging and thus, actually meaningful.

           I gave myself various handicaps, from fighting multiple enemies at a time to not allowing my character to use weapons, to choosing the weakest champions available to play. I did this because I had already mastered the basics of the game, and playing without any sort of handicap would have been far too easy and a meaningless activity. By defeating enemy AI characters in much more challenging matches because of my handicaps, I had a more meaningful experience.

            According to Koster’s Theory of Fun, successful games have certain elements incorporated into them: preparation, a sense of space, a solid core mechanic, a range of challenges, a range of abilities, and skill required in using abilities (Koster 11). After I thought about his perspective, I realized that there isn’t much of a difference in older games or modern games. Sure, newer games may have better graphics and more complex game-play, but successful games of any generation have the same basic factors that make them so great. Koster states, “Games do not permit innovation. They present a pattern… you don’t get to change the physics of a game” (Koster 8). Do you think that the same theories apply to new and old games, or is there some type of difference? I'm interested in hearing what you think!