In the beginning… I was a naive girl who had never had the experience of playing video games. And now… well, I’ve played a video game now. I felt pulled in two different directions during this process. The first, my highly competitive side, was very present in the beginning of my play sessions. I was furious at the game for referring me to materials that I had no way of knowing where to find them or to what they were referring to the game. While this fury remained somewhat constant (especially during my first two play sessions), my academic side reigned supreme. I was constantly wanting to analyze the game’s design from an anthropological point of view. I asked myself questions constantly of how the game changes from play to play and civilization to civilization and questioned the intent behind the misguided “edutainment” of the design.

In playing Civilization, particularly the version from 1991, the basics of game design have become more concrete in my understanding of gaming now that I have the experience to relate some terminology to. Bratwaithe and Schreiber (2009) emphasized clearly in the beginning of their chapter that game design is reliant on meaningful decisions (pp. 2-3). The game gives the player the option to make meaningful decisions in what advancements to pursue while simultaneously protecting the cities the player founds. In my case, I made the meaningful (and somewhat idiotic) decision to play without using a mouse control. The player can create lasting civilizations without using the mouse control, but the drop-down menus at the top of the screen could not be utilized. And in the case of a new player with no player manual, the hidden menus also hid additional keyboard commands that would assist the player in achieving the objective of the game. Because of my stumbling through the controls and commands in the game, I did not have civilizations that survived, nor do I have an idea as to what the end objective of the game is or how a player “wins”.

In trying to comprehend the core dynamics of the game, I was referring to Sutton-Smith’s (1997) discussion of ambiguity (pp. 297- 298). In Civilization, there does not appear to be a single core dynamic, but rather a few core dynamics that influence the player’s decisions. At times, the player builds a city, trades with foreign emissaries, and focuses on territorial retention at times of war. These dynamics are constantly in flux and the player has to be aware of each major dynamic in order for the game to continue. During my time playing, I was unable to fully grasp the ambiguity of the game’s dynamics because I would be so focused on trying to attack an enemy army and be completely sidelined by an advisor congratulating me on the discovery of the wheel. In early play sessions, I brushed the advancements to the side as a trivial part of the game instead of using these advancements as a way to find ways to strengthen my city and create treaties with other civilizations.

In going forward with this course, I am going to approach new play sessions with an awareness of the lessons these past experiences with Civilizations have taught me. I may still be a naive game player (as I do not identify as a gamer), but I am more aware in the ambiguity of the game, rules, features and design that all lead to the meaningful decisions I make as a player.

Brathwaite, B. & Schreiber, I. 2009. Challenges for Game Designers. US: Course Technology Learning, pp. 1-34.

Sutton-Smith, B. 1997. The ambiguity of play. In Zimmerman, E. & Salen, K. (eds.) The Game Design Reader: A Rules of Play Anthropology.Cambridge, Massachusettes, MIT Press, pp. 296- 313.