gregsteen.tumblr.com

I recently came across a “Choose Your Own Adventure” style game that used Twitter as a medium. I thought it was clever, but it wasn’t much fun, as you could only play through about three steps before you either won or died.

But that’s OK; it was a proof of concept effort. I’d love to see a few other people create more intricate games such as this on Twitter. And yes, I would classify this as a game.

I’ve seen several other instances of Twitter being used as a platform for some kind of homegrown and socially-driven game/experience, but one in particular stands out in my mind.

Last summer Professor Layton, a character from a Nintendo DS game, came to life on Twitter and began issuing riddles and brainteasers in the style of the game. Before long other characters from the same fictional universe had opened Twitter accounts and were playing a part in a narrative that unfolded in real time. The story culminated with the professor’s kidnapping, perpetrated by his arch-nemesis. It was up to fans of the game to save the professor and secure the upcoming release of the new Professor Layton game.

Most people assumed this was a clever promotion planned by Nintendo, but it turns out that all of the character Twitter accounts were being run by fans, and with no knowledge or involvement from Nintendo. Not only that, but none of the fans knew each other or did much behind-the-scenes coordination. The riddles, the converstations, the kidnapping - all improvised. The fans who engaged the character accounts were just as much a part of the story as the characters themselves.

Contrast this with the style of game represented by Spymaster on Twitter and any number of games on Facebook. Fundamentally similar to MMORPG’s (Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Games) such as World of Warcraft, these games allow a large number of people to enter a single spacious microcosm of the online world and interact with each other in real time. These games harness our societal instincts and use them to make the game more engaging. You get to interact with friends and forge new relationships, playing alongside characters that are backed by the intelligence, authenticity and unpredictability of human beings.

But the functionality of the games are rigidly defined. The people involved must choose from a pre-selected set of options dictated by the game’s designers. Social dynamics are at play, but these games are ultimately just a small step past conventional online multi-player games.

The examples cited above are interesting to me because the format of the game itself is influenced by people and is subject to social dynamics.

I’ve always loved playing capture the flag. I was an enthusiastic participant as a kid, quietly hiding in the woods for hours in order to get the drop on the other team.

I love capture the flag because anything can happen. There are rules, but as long as they are not violated, the possibilities are endless. Creativity and human ingenuity are the defining factors of a winning team. It feels real in a way that basketball and chess do not.

I believe it is this free-form structure (or lack thereof) that allows games of this nature to transcend other, more conventional types of gaming.

Technology in general, and social networks in particular, have made digital collaboration much more accessible, convenient, and functional. We are in a time where close relationships are conducted online as much as they are offline and where friendships forged on social networks transfer into the physical world. I hope that the developing public awareness of this shift will result in more socially-driven games created and defined by the community that plays them. The challenge will be figuring out how to foster this type of activity without wielding control of the process.