in dependence

Our creative goals included making an exciting physical game that could create a simulation in which players can immerse themselves in, while challenging the extent of their collaboration in times of franticness. We wanted to bring to life a real-life war simulation that would not be dangerous at all, thus we got inspiration from different battle games. The main game that was the most influential to our game is Hunger Games. Like the craziness of the beginning of the Hunger Games, we imitated the manic so that players can be distracted by the message of the actual game. We placed a “cornucopia” of our own by putting the important key swords in a pile, and having everyone face outside in a circle surrounding it. That way, they have a choice to go on the offense or run on the defense. This game builds on the idea of darkplay that we learned from class. The fact is our players are playing a surface-level game, but with the hidden meaning of teamwork in a time of madness, our players are actually being tested in another type of game. It tests against the psychology of our players, seeing if instinct or intellect is the first choice.

When designing our simulation we experienced many changes in our design. Our team kept revising and improving the instructions. When we first started the design, the location at Sixth Residence Halls’s grass field was picked to make the game seem like the Hunger Games; they were out in the wild grass field with rewards and tools scattered around. The grassy area was the battle field, the tables were the safe zones, and the grass was tall enough to hide the candy. It was the perfect place to set up.We also were planning to give everybody a sword and shield. However, we wanted our simulation to cover the critical aspect of working together and uniting as a team. By giving everybody a sword and shield, it was more like a sword fight. If everybody had a weapon and sword they will be against each other, there would be no reason to team up. By noticing that aspect of the simulation, we decided to allow the player to only have a weapon or shield, they cannot have both items on hand. We were expecting people with shields to depend on a person with a sword. Then, we noticed that we needed to add another player goal, so we added the objective of collecting as much candy in 20 minutes.

We raised incentives to wanting to win, which augments the natural instinct in humans to become more competitive and more energized with adrenaline. By raising the stakes, the possibility of the players being able to team up decreased, but we wanted to replicate the feeling of real war, where everything is incredibly hectic and no one has the chance to think about the underlying meaning of what is happening. We pasted hints in hopes that those with shields would congregate together and decipher the riddle, so that they could all work collaboratively to win the game, and evenly share the candies.

While playtesting, we could not emulate the hidden surprise of the message, so instead we focused on the physical aspects of the game, such as how the balloons would pop, especially if we cannot use sharp objects to poke the balloons. We considered the hazards of each material we used, and decided to go with a foam sword to minimize any harm that could be done, and with playtesting, we realized that these swords in fact work perfectly with the balloons; it was both challenging but possible to pop the balloons that resembled lives in game.

Outside of playtesting, on the day of simulation, we had the chance to finally figure out how the psychological parts of the game would work out. Surprisingly, a lot of different routes were taken that we did not even fathom of. For example, because the preparation of balloon tying took a while, we accidentally did not explain the rules thoroughly enough, and the players went wild with things like having 2 shields and 1 sword, etc. It was exciting to see the rush of the players, but also no one had the chance to notice the hints on the shields. They only focused on the war-battle aspect. In the end, one player realized what was on the shields and tried to mediate with the other player. Turns out, it was only a ruse to make the other players think while the player attacks.

The second simulation was more organized, but the energy was not there until the end. People were reluctant to swing the sword. People also noticed the shield, but took no action whatsoever. What’s even more surprising is that the people with the swords were the ones working together. The ones who were helpless, one with the shields, did not even stick together to figure out the hidden message, nor to defend each other from the tyranny of swords. We found that there were so many types of playing dynamics, that went differently than the black and white options we placed on the game. We thought it would be either win alone or win all together, but there is so much more intriguing outcomes from this game.

We believe that not only is this a great psychology experiment, but it also is a great game for an icebreaker! We hope that this game can become replicated and used many more times as a fun activity and also a challenge to peoples’ idea of teamwork and collaboration.