The Challenge Facing Abstract Games
The renowned game inventor Reiner Knizia gave us a very interesting interview at MSO3. He said something that I found fascinating, and which interfaces with your views in a stimulating way. He said that the great abstract games would have virtually no chance of commercial success today, that chess and games like it are popular on the strength of their tradition.
He's right, no doubt about it. Maybe there's a small chance that Chess would find a publisher, but only because it is not completely abstract. I mean, even as a new game, it would remain appealing because of the pieces.
But even then it would be a game just like the many others that struggle for survival. And if it would survive - say, stay on the market for more than 5 years - that in itself would already be a success.
But most of other classics would definitely have no chance at all.
Go for example - such a beautiful game, maybe the most aesthetic game ever - would even have problems to get one single good review somewhere. And even that is already too much of a speculation, because nobody would publish it. Bridge, same story. Nobody would be prepared to find out what the game is all about.
So, I agree with Reiner: their blessing is that they are rooted in the past. And, of course, that they belong to the public domain. Everybody may publish them, which means that e.g. chess and checkers can be found in almost every catalogue and every shop.
So what is the future of abstract games? Can they continue to survive and perhaps flourish or evolve?
The most important thing is that new good abstract games are published - and bought and played, of course. And it is of the greatest importance that more people start understanding that, not in the least the players of the classic games.
If not, I fear that even e.g. chess will start suffering from a lack of interest in the not so distant future; it will become an archaic activity of an elitist few.
| "...once you start playing a good abstract game, you are confronted with unlimited possibilities, a new cosmos that you must explore. A fairer and more interesting challenge simply doesn't exist.".
|
Let's assume no new books would be published any more. How many will go on reading Dickens, Dostoyevsky and Proust forever? How will you generate new readers?
Literature is an art and an art must move to be kept alive. That is a shared responsibility of all parties involved: writers, publishers, shopkeepers and, last but not least, readers.
Playing games is also an art, so the act of playing games must move, too. Now, it isn't hard to conclude that there has been little activity in the world of abstract games for decades. Complete stagnation.
Most chess players are chess players, period; Go players stick to Go and most of them will proclaim that it is richer than chess; Bridge players will play bridge until they die.
There is a logic in it, sure. The more you play a certain game, the more you discover its depth and its beauty. And the more effort you put in getting well at that one game, the less interest there is in another game where you have to start from scratch.
Perfectly understandable, but it makes the world of abstract games seen to be very protective and conservative. Each of the classic games could be seen as a little island, disconnected from the continent where life moves on.
That is why an event like MSO so enormously important; it can't be stressed enough how important it is, because it places playing abstract games back on the continent, in the middle of a metropolis, in the middle of life.
Finally something is moving again. Finally players of all kinds of games are brought together, so that they are confronted with the fact that they are part of a bigger whole.
The only thing that is still missing, at least in my opinion, is a greater input of new games. Both visitors and tournament players must have more chance to find out that there are new abstract games that are worth being played.
| "Look at what happened with the world during these 4000 years, look at the evolution mankind made, and yet people still bend over that board, trying to sort out the same unlimited possibilities as 4000 years ago.".
|
Why do you find them so important?
Why? The frustrating thing about this interview is that I could talk for hours about every question you ask. I'll give you an at random answer - just one of the many reasons. And I'll try to make it short.
I think that many will agree that abstract games are the purest of all games: a board, pieces and a minimum of rules; no story, no dice, no money, nothing but sheer essence; all information is there, thus so are all the answers on all possible questions.
Yet, once you start playing a good abstract game, you are confronted with unlimited possibilities, a new cosmos that you must explore. A fairer and more interesting challenge simply doesn't exist.
How else can you explain that a game like Go succeeds in keeping people playing for already 4000 years, if I'm not mistaken. Look at what happened with the world during these 4000 years, look at the evolution mankind made, and yet people still bend over that board, trying to sort out the same unlimited possibilities as 4000 years ago.
Isn't that unbelievable? No other thing represents our heritage better than abstract games. I mean, we are aiming farther than Mars these days, yet we can still sit on a boulder and think about a move, just like people did way back.
So, for me playing an abstract game is the ultimate art, no question about it, for the simple reason that it is the ultimate activity that differs man from other living creatures. That and rolling a die, of course. But rolling a die is not an art, that's "faith" - and that's another story.
Reiner Knizia mentioned Abalone as a rare exception, and said that that had gotten through because great care had been taken in its presentation and design. I couldn't help feeling that there was a lot of truth in what he said.
I'll tell you an anecdote: a few years after I started designing games, Abalone was released and scored extremely well. I thought: fantastic! I thought it was the best thing that could have happened because it proved my point.
| "GIPF is the best thing I ever did and I'm pretty sure that I will never do better. But I'm getting too tired to go on much longer. I'm not a businessman." |
I already had had many discussion about the potential of abstract games but I was getting nowhere. And then suddenly there was Abalone, suddenly I had an strong argument, suddenly I could say: Do you know Abalone? Well, that is a perfect example of an abstract game that is published the way an abstract game should be published - and look at the result.
But the reply I got was: Abalone is not an example, it is the exception confirming the rule. Now, I ask you: is it an example or an exception?
What is special about Abalone?
|
| Abalone
|
It is clear that the presentation and design of Abalone has been very important, yes, but that alone would not have been sufficient.
The biggest problem you face when introducing a new abstract game, is how to make a player aware of the difference between a good move and a bad move. Most will get the impression of wasting time if they don't start having a clue about what to do after, let's say, two games. If the click hasn't come by then, most will never start a third game.
Abalone has an answer to that. Even if you haven't the slightest idea about what you are doing in the beginning, that game still feels like having a good time because of the sheer fun of making a move. You enjoy yourself pushing the marbles for a number of games and meanwhile, bit by bit, you find out more about the strategy. That is the perfect script.
In the beginning you don't play Abalone as a game, no, you play with it as a kind of gadget. And the more you play it, the less gadget it is and the more game it becomes. That is how you reach people who are normally not interested in playing an abstract game.
Have you ever done or considered doing non-abstract games as well?
I did a few non-abstract games, in the late eighties, but they were never published. The problem is that I know very well what I'm doing when I work on an abstract game and much less so when I work on a game with a topic.
I guess it must be something like asking a novelist to write a script. If you are good at the one thing, it doesn't automatically mean that you are also good at the other thing, even if they are close to each other. Any way, it happens that I have been working on a few card games recently.
And so what does the future hold?
|
| Part 3 of the GIPF project
|
It is about time that I make a bit of room for other things again, the farther away from the game business, the better. A fact is that I never intended to become full time occupied with games, and certainly never had in mind to get obsessed by them.
I thought about quitting five years ago. I found that I had spent enough time in the game scene, but then I got the idea for GIPF and since then I work around the clock. I still often think about quitting, but I can't. At least not yet.
GIPF is the best thing I ever did and I'm pretty sure that I will never do better. But I'm getting too tired to go on much longer. I'm not a businessman.
I have given myself one more year to get Project GIPF on track. The 4th game of the Project will be released in the beginning of 2001, but if things do not start to go a bit more easy, it may be about time to come to a few wise conclusions.
We'll see. Meanwhile I go on. Finishing Project GIPF would be a dream come true. 3 down, 1 coming up, 2 to go!
|
