skip to main content
10.1145/2513002.2513572acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesieConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

When game over means game over: using permanent death to craft living stories in Minecraft

Published:30 September 2013Publication History

ABSTRACT

The play style of 'perma-death' (permanent death) alters the videogame player's experience by adding harsh consequences to the usually trivial event of character death. While perma-death has a long history as a fixed constraint in certain games and genres, there are numerous cases of players self-imposing the rules of perma-death play in a broader variety of games through voluntary acts such as opting to delete a save file if their character dies. Such self-imposed cases of perma-death radically alter how the player engages with the game. In a collision of fixed affordances and player-imposed rules, the tone of the game's conventional gameplay shifts from one of experimentation to one of vulnerability. To explore how perma-death functions and how it alters the player's experience of a game, this paper looks at a perma-death experiment conducted by the author in the game Minecraft. As the project progressed, its online diary gathered a committed readership. The fear of permanent death did not drastically alter the base game of Minecraft but, as will be explored, imbued the performance of playing Minecraft with a narrative weight.

References

  1. Aarseth, E. 1997. Cybertext: Perspectives on Ergodic Literature. John Hopkins University Press, London. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Abraham, B. 2013. Imposed Rules and 'Expansive Gameplay': A Close Reading of the Far Cry 2 Permadeath Experiment. In Proceedings of Digital Games Research Association 2013 Conference (Atlanta, Georgia, August 26--29, 2013).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Abraham, B. 2009. Permanent Death. Available from http://www.mediafire.com/?4gjrmjio2wq; accessed 29 May 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Atkins, B. 2007. Killing Time: Time Past, Time Present and Time Future in Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time. In Videogame, Player, Text, B. Atkins and T. Krzywinska, Eds. Manchester University Press, Manchester. 237--253.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Carter, M., and Gibbs M. 2013. eSports in EVE Online: Skullduggery, Fair Play and Acceptability in an Unbounded Competition. In Proceedings of the Foundations of Digital Games 2013 Conference (Chania, Greece, May 14--17, 2013). 47--54.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. DeLeon, C. 2011. Games Are Artificial. Videogames Are Not. Games Have Rules. Videogames Do Not. Available from http://www.hobbygamedev.com/spx/games-are-artificial-videogames-are-not-games-have-rules-videogames-do-not/; accessed 30 May 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Eskelinen, M. 2001. The Gaming Situation. Game Studies 1, 1 (July 2001).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Gillen, K. The Sunday Papers. Available from http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2009/07/05/the-sunday-papers-75/; accessed 30 May, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Juul, J. 2005. Half-Real: Video Games Between Real Rules and Fictional Worlds. MIT Press, Cambridge. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. McCrea, C. 2009. Watching Starcraft, Strategy and South Korea. In Gaming Cultures and Place in Asia-Pacific, L. Hjorth and D Chan, Eds. Routledge, New York. 179--193.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Parker, F. 2008. The Significance of Jeep Tag: On Player-Imposed Rules in Video Games. Loading 2, 3 (2008).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Pias, C. 2011. The Game Player's Duty: The User as the Gestalt of the Ports. In Media Archeology: Approaches, Applications and Implications, E. Huhtamo and J. Parikka, Eds. University of California Press, Berkley. 164--183.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Suits, Bernard. 1978. The Grasshopper: Games, Life and Utopia. University of Toronto Press, Toronto.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Taylor, T. L. 2009. The Assemblage of Play. Games and Culture 4, 4 (October 2009). 331--339.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Wilson, D. 2011. Bruttally Unfair Tactics Totally OK Now: On Self-Effacing Games and Unachievements. Game Studies 11, 1 (February 2011).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Wilson, J. 2007. Gameplay and the Aesthetics of Intimacy. Doctoral Thesis. Griffith University.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. When game over means game over: using permanent death to craft living stories in Minecraft

              Recommendations

              Comments

              Login options

              Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

              Sign in
              • Published in

                cover image ACM Other conferences
                IE '13: Proceedings of The 9th Australasian Conference on Interactive Entertainment: Matters of Life and Death
                September 2013
                243 pages
                ISBN:9781450322546
                DOI:10.1145/2513002

                Copyright © 2013 ACM

                Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

                Publisher

                Association for Computing Machinery

                New York, NY, United States

                Publication History

                • Published: 30 September 2013

                Permissions

                Request permissions about this article.

                Request Permissions

                Check for updates

                Qualifiers

                • research-article

                Acceptance Rates

                IE '13 Paper Acceptance Rate20of51submissions,39%Overall Acceptance Rate64of148submissions,43%

              PDF Format

              View or Download as a PDF file.

              PDF

              eReader

              View online with eReader.

              eReader