{"id":671,"date":"2022-02-16T13:44:18","date_gmt":"2022-02-16T18:44:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pressbooks.library.ryerson.ca\/digitaldisabilitystudies\/?post_type=chapter&p=671"},"modified":"2022-02-28T16:41:55","modified_gmt":"2022-02-28T21:41:55","slug":"critical-play-in-action","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/pressbooks.library.torontomu.ca\/digitaldisabilitystudies\/chapter\/critical-play-in-action\/","title":{"raw":"8.5 Critical Play in Action","rendered":"8.5 Critical Play in Action"},"content":{"raw":"So far, we have looked at some game narratives and how they can be harmful by reflecting and participating in legitimating social norms and oppression. We have also thought about how games for change subvert and challenge these norms. Now, let\u2019s think about how we play games, or what players are expected to do when playing games.\r\n\r\nGames are designed for certain people with certain abilities, certain sensibilities, and certain values\/politics. When playing any game (computer games, board games, a sport), players are expected to be able to overcome challenges \u2013 set by either designers or other players \u2013 and be able to physically and mentally complete the game while playing by the rules. As previously mentioned, videogames and their content are often designed by and for straight, white, neurotypical young men with money to purchase these games (Chess, Evans, & Baines, 2016). Rarely are games universally accessible unless they are designed to be so. Video game players often need to design their own controllers or ways of playing to make these games more accessible (See Liu, 2017: https:\/\/perma.cc\/JLN8-QJU9<\/a>). However, accessibility in game design\/play is certainly not limited to physical barriers and more accessible controller design. As we will explore later in this module, accessibility barriers can come from game design elements that go unquestioned \u2013 game difficulty, controls that can\u2019t be adjusted, who the player controls in the game, and more can all present barriers. All these design choices and elements appeal to certain players, while excluding others.\r\n

Batman: Arkham Asylum<\/h1>\r\nThis is what Adan Jerreat-Poole (2018) reflects on when they recall playing Batman: Arkham Asylum (2009), saying,\r\n
I didn\u2019t get to play Ivy. I had to play Batman. And Batman punished Ivy for being a Mad queer femme. He played the role of the legal system, and the legal system punishes people like her, like me. The logic of the game was patriarchal, sanist, ableist.<\/blockquote>\r\nIn order to function as a game, the game forces the player to control a certain character \u2013 in this case, Batman. This choice, made by developers with no say or influence from players, carries certain values, beliefs, and meanings for different people. While games are often praised for being filled with player freedom and choice and openness, this assertion is often far from true.\u00a0<\/strong>\r\n\r\nTo continue this example, and as an example of what Flanagan (2009) describes as players unplaying, [pb_glossary id=\"1124\"]reskinning[\/pb_glossary], and rewriting popular game worlds to offer \u201ctheir own interpretations of play\u201d (p. 48), some players have [pb_glossary id=\"1123\"]modded[\/pb_glossary] a later game in the Arkham Asylum series to allow players to play as Poison Ivy. The video below shows Catowman\/Selina [pb_glossary id=\"1123\"]modded[\/pb_glossary] into Poison Ivy, in the original Poison Ivy's lair. The video will start just before a scripted scene. If you continue to watch, please note the gameplay is violent.\r\n\r\nhttps:\/\/youtu.be\/YH8tE2PESYs?t=294\r\n\r\nSee this article for more information on the mod: https:\/\/www.digitalspy.com\/videogames\/a655658\/batman-arkham-knight-mod-allows-you-to-play-as-villains\/<\/a>.\r\n\r\nWhile we may not know why these players decide to make this modification to the game, it breaks a restrictive part of the game\u2019s design \u2013 forcing the player to play as Batman. These players rewrote and reskinned the structure of play in this videogame to offer their own interpretation of how they want to play the game. They aren\u2019t just playing the game \u2013 they are playing and designing their mods critically, offering a way to play which goes against the expected way of playing, allowing us to think critically about what it means to control a certain character in a game over another; to be forced to play in a particular way.\r\n

Pok\u00e9mon Go<\/h1>\r\nTo take this concept one step further, we can look at the pushback from some game developers against players who attempt to make their games more accessible. The popular mobile game Pok\u00e9mon Go<\/em> requires players to walk around outside in order to find and catch in-game Pok\u00e9mon. Certain Pok\u00e9mon are assigned to specific locations and so you must physically be able to move around in order to catch them. This gameplay has limitations \u2013 players who can run or move more quickly will be able to find and catch more Pok\u00e9mon. Players who have mobility aids may not be able to move around certain areas or on certain terrain \u2013 again blocking off part of the game. One way players decided to make the game more accessible was by taking automated transportation as a way of moving around to catch Pok\u00e9mon. However, as Jerreat-Poole (2018) writes in their article, this was met with new design elements \u2013 ones even more restrictive and less accessible than before.\r\n
\u201cSince Pok\u00e9mon Go has been out, Niantic has banned disabled players from the game for using third-party software to mimic physical travel and placed restrictions on speed, making it more difficult for disabled players to catch Pok\u00e9mon using automated transportation.\u201d<\/blockquote>\r\nThe quote above includes a link to this article about barriers in Pok\u00e9mon Go<\/em> for disabled players: https:\/\/www.vice.com\/en\/article\/9a3n8e\/pokmon-go-disabled-ban<\/a>\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_1639\" align=\"alignnone\" width=\"2560\"]\"A<\/a> Pokemon GO. Image source: paintimpact.com<\/a>\u00a0(Paintimpact).\u00a0<\/span>pokemon go<\/a>, licensed under<\/span> CC BY 2.0<\/a>.<\/span>[\/caption]\r\n\r\nGames are often not made with a critical play design in mind and as a result players are forced to play within that restrictive, harmful and discriminatory framework (see this article for information on more of the access barriers present in Pok\u00e9mon Go<\/em>: https:\/\/pokemongohub.net\/post\/article\/opinion\/lets-talk-about-accessibility-and-pokemon-go\/<\/a>). In these instances, we can turn our attention to the action of players who may reskin or rewrite these games to make them function as spaces for critical play. However, as seen with Pok\u00e9mon Go<\/em>, sometimes developers will choose to put limitations on these actions, again making design choices that exclude certain people.","rendered":"

So far, we have looked at some game narratives and how they can be harmful by reflecting and participating in legitimating social norms and oppression. We have also thought about how games for change subvert and challenge these norms. Now, let\u2019s think about how we play games, or what players are expected to do when playing games.<\/p>\n

Games are designed for certain people with certain abilities, certain sensibilities, and certain values\/politics. When playing any game (computer games, board games, a sport), players are expected to be able to overcome challenges \u2013 set by either designers or other players \u2013 and be able to physically and mentally complete the game while playing by the rules. As previously mentioned, videogames and their content are often designed by and for straight, white, neurotypical young men with money to purchase these games (Chess, Evans, & Baines, 2016). Rarely are games universally accessible unless they are designed to be so. Video game players often need to design their own controllers or ways of playing to make these games more accessible (See Liu, 2017: https:\/\/perma.cc\/JLN8-QJU9<\/a>). However, accessibility in game design\/play is certainly not limited to physical barriers and more accessible controller design. As we will explore later in this module, accessibility barriers can come from game design elements that go unquestioned \u2013 game difficulty, controls that can\u2019t be adjusted, who the player controls in the game, and more can all present barriers. All these design choices and elements appeal to certain players, while excluding others.<\/p>\n

Batman: Arkham Asylum<\/h1>\n

This is what Adan Jerreat-Poole (2018) reflects on when they recall playing Batman: Arkham Asylum (2009), saying,<\/p>\n

I didn\u2019t get to play Ivy. I had to play Batman. And Batman punished Ivy for being a Mad queer femme. He played the role of the legal system, and the legal system punishes people like her, like me. The logic of the game was patriarchal, sanist, ableist.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In order to function as a game, the game forces the player to control a certain character \u2013 in this case, Batman. This choice, made by developers with no say or influence from players, carries certain values, beliefs, and meanings for different people. While games are often praised for being filled with player freedom and choice and openness, this assertion is often far from true.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

To continue this example, and as an example of what Flanagan (2009) describes as players unplaying,