Reading Fernández-Vara’s method of analyzing video games based on the number of players able to play prompted me to consider my group’s final project in this context. Our game is a text-based (Twine) dating simulator, and is physically designed for a single player navigating through passages and selecting options. There is no physical multiplayer option for the game, yet a few of my friends have found ways to play the game in a multiplayer fashion. For example, when I gave our game’s demo to one of my friends, she would ask our other friends for input and reach a collective decision with them before selecting an option.
This generated a style of gameplay I hadn’t discovered when testing the game on my own, as it led to inconsistent decisions throughout a single playthrough of the game. For example my friend physically playing the game started the demo wanting to pursue one specific dating partner, but another friend did not like that bachelor so she encouraged the player to alter her gameplay style in pursuit of a different person. Actively pursuing a specific partner gives the player the opportunity to gain (or lose) points with that person. Accepting the advice of her friend led the player to collect an average amount of points with both partners, instead of having a high level of points with the one they initially pursued and a low level of points with the other partner. While they were only playing a demo, in a full run of the game this would have led to them getting a radically different ending than if they had only pursued the partner they initially wanted. Playing with the input of a group of people therefore led my friend to reach a very different ending in the game, and, I suspect, to have a different experience overall than if she had played alone.
While my friend played the game in a collaborative manner not strictly intended by my design group, I’m wondering if it could actually be considered a multiplayer game according to Fernández-Vara’s definition. I believe the only categories she discusses which the game could fall under would be “single-player vs. game” or “cooperative play”, so the question is whether my friend’s playthrough of my group’s game could be considered cooperative play. It does not seem to fall into the subcategories Fernández-Vara introduces, which are MMOGs, games played simultaneously on multiple devices, or hot-seat multiplayer games like Galaga (although the game could theoretically be played in such a matter if the players trade the controls every time there is new text). Despite not fitting these categories, I would still argue that my friend’s playthrough of my game would be considered cooperative play, because she was able to cooperate on most of the important mechanics of the game.
My other friends were not able to collaborate physically with the player at the keyboard since there was only one device running the game, and only one person was able to be at the controls at a time. However, I don’t believe the physical act of clicking an option is a very significant part of the game. Rather, the bulk of gameplay comes through the mental processes of considering one’s options and processing the story evolution. This process can definitely be collaborative, as was shown by my friends discussing the options presented to them and collectively deciding on a route to take through the game. They were able to cooperate on this mechanic, and so while the physical clicking of game options was not a collaborative act, I believe the most significant aspect of gameplay was done cooperatively.
Beyond merely providing a category to sort the game into, I think labeling my group’s dating simulator as a cooperative game is important for its message. My group is particularly interested in the social context of our game, since it relates to significant issues like climate change and pandemics/public health. Therefore the game being played collaboratively might actually help enhance our intended meaning, by prompting the player to discuss these issues with others. Though we portray the issues satirically in the game, we do want them to be genuinely pondered and discussed. While the former can happen alone, discussion requires multiple parties with enough context to properly communicate their thoughts and collaboratively develop their ideas. Treating a game like our dating simulator as a mode of cooperative play encourages the discussion of our game’s important themes and messages, and therefore enhances the player’s overall takeaway from the game.
Your post made me think about the collaborative and social aspects of games in general. It is quite common for me and my friends to play a game “together” by streaming it to a discord channel and having multiple people watch. But this whole debate of what cooperative play raises questions about the definitions of singe vs multiplayer in general. Do these definitions become arbitrary? These conflicts remind me of the melding of genres; just like how genre could be arbitrary, so does player count. Do these definitions depend more on design intent or how the player uses them? Just like how a player could choose to play a game in an unintended way, thus resulting in a debate of whether that would invalidate the game’s genre, would a change in player count result in changing its definition? This answer could also be made by including a separate single control but cooperative gameplay, though could all single player games fall into this category?
I definitely agree that single-player games can be considered cooperative when multiple people are behind the decisions being made in the game despite only one person pressing the inputs. Playing a game by yourself can be completely different from playing it with people around you. It can hinder your experience in the case of something like a backseat gamer. On the other hand, it can make a game a lot more fun when getting to see other people’s reactions to a game at the same time as playing it. For example, when playing the game Stray, even though it is a single-player game, I found it much more enjoyable when my girlfriend did all of the thinking to follow the story so I could focus on getting a cute view of the cat in the frame.