Hypocrisy In Game Design
“Do what I say, not what I do.”
On Sunday, I was sitting in church listening to my pastor speak on hypocrisy, and it struck me how much of our world's relational conflict stems from this one issue. I wonder how much money has been spent paying lawyers to craft legal contracts to ensure individuals follow their stated intentions. And how much has been spent arguing over people's actions concerning those documents in court? We humans have a terrible time sticking to our word.
No one wants to be a hypocrite, yet everyone knows they are at times. We were made in the image of God, who is unchanging, faithful, trustworthy, and perfectly consistent. So, we expect this consistency from all our interactions—friends, family, neighbors, business partners, and especially our leaders. Unfortunately, we're a conflicted people, like Paul shared in Romans. "I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do, I do not do, but what I hate I do." Only Jesus could live a perfectly aligned life; the rest have to deal with these sizable gaps between our words and deeds, which may explain why similar problems sometimes appear in the things we create.
In 2007, game developer Clint Hocking coined the term ludonarrative dissonance to describe a problem he encountered in certain games. Ludonarrative dissonance refers to the conflict between a video game's narrative (words) told through non-interactive elements and the narrative told through gameplay (deeds).
To call this problem game design hypocrisy, I admit, is an overstatement, but it conveys this problematic incongruency between words and actions. The conflict that Clint highlights is most likely a matter of carelessness or a lack of awareness on the designer's part. It's similar to when my mind is on work, and I absent-mindedly agree to a request from my wife. You can guess what happens next. Inevitably, I forget to do the thing she asked me to do. In my defense, though, I never intend to break my word to my wife; however, I'm sure the hypocrite never plans to be a hypocrite.
What I find most curious about this game design problem is that in the "real world," there is a saying: actions speak louder than words. But within games, it feels not to be the case. For some, it’s as if the volume connected to actions has been turned down and become background noise. Some players and even some designers don't seem aware that the player's actions communicate anything. Specific mechanics tend to be taken for granted and written off as "that's what you do in games."
I understand that players are drawn to games for different reasons and experience them differently. Some players come to games looking for an escape; others get caught up in the thrill, excitement, and spectacle and fail to reflect on their play afterward. Yet, an important segment of gamers are interested in deep, rich experiences and actively seek meaning from them. If you are a designer with ambitions to create meaningful experiences, ludonarrative dissonance represents a significant pitfall to avoid.
Why do I say significant? Consider this: how deep of a relationship can you have with a hypocrite? In my experience, the relationship can't go very deep. Your thoughts toward that person also change. You may regard them as flaky, uncaring, untrustworthy, fake, or liars. You erect boundaries and add distance to protect yourself because trust has been damaged. Likewise, when someone engages with a dissonant creative work, they may interpret it as problematic, shallow, unimportant, or even pointless. If the creative work is a game, it may break the immersion and remove them from the experience. This should concern everyone on the team at one level because it may negatively affect critic reviews and player ratings, ultimately impacting sales. But, the more significant problem, when considered at a human level, is introducing a barrier that prevents players from connecting with your game. You may have spent countless hours crafting an experience communicating beauty, truth, and goodness, or maybe you are trying to share profound mysteries about our creator and his love. Regardless, when an artist pours themself into a project and it fails to connect with an audience, that is a tragedy.
Many intelligent people have written and spoken at length on this topic. If you're interested in learning more, here is one example. It's a talk I've referred back to numerous times over the years. I hope you get something out of it.
