Spore, Simulation, and Gonzalo Frasca

After recently reading Gonzalo Frasca’s essay “Simulation Versus Narrative: Introduction to Ludology,” I found a lot of interesting information that applies directly to Spore.

Let me start with a very brief introduction to Frasca’s essay. The overall goal of this essay was to show how the concept of narrative is not accurate when applied to the video game medium. Frasca believes that video games are based more on simulation due to the fact that the receiver of the medium is able to modify the behavior of the system, whereas books or movies (narratives) are unchangeable. Two important concepts Frasca centers on in his essay are the terms paidia and ludus, which Roger Caillois introduced in his essay "The Definition of Play." With ludus, the player’s goals are clear and there is a clear line drawn between winners and losers. Paidia, however, leaves the main goals up to the player and allows for manipulation of the rules. Paidia and ludus, along with meta-rules and representation, form the four levels in simulation that can be manipulated.

With that, I’d like to identify some of the parts of the essay that I found to be interesting and relevant to my experience playing Spore. One of the first things that struck me was how Frasca pulled video games away from typical narratives. He said that although there are definitely stories, characters, settings and events in video games, they are not held together by a narrative structure (according to Ludology; the study of games and video games). I could see this because in video games, the player can manipulate the story development and outcome as they wish. For example, in Spore you have your creatures (characters) following a storyline that revolves around the path of evolution, which takes place billions of years ago on unknown worlds. However, this story is never enacted in the same exact way twice, as it is in novels and films. Frasca even says in the essay that you never step in the same video game twice. The player is able to manipulate the rules and play however they want for as long as they want. At the end of each stage in Spore, the game expects you to move on to the next phase of evolution, but I often found myself continuing to play in the completed stage for an extended period of time. In this way I was able to alter the gameplay to have it suit my needs until I was ready to move on. Other civilization and simulation games typically follow this structure. Zeus is one example of another civilization/sim game I’ve played where the gameplay never really ends; it continues even after all the main goals have been accomplished.

When I think of simulation games such as Spore, I tend to classify them under the category of paidia simply because there are so many ways you can alter the gameplay and there is not always a win-lose situation. Other games such as first person shooters and strategy games would relate more closely to ludus because there are certain rules you must follow in order to proceed and eventually win the game. Here, the player’s goals are set and the difference between good and evil forces is very clearly described throughout the game. It is interesting though, because these games can always be altered via meta-rules (Frasca’s fourth level of simulation) through the form of mods. This brings the concept of paidia into the realm of games that follow more of a ludus style. It’s really fascinating how all of these concepts relate to and differ from one another. Frasca’s essay was definitely a very intriguing read and I would recommend it to anyone who is playing a simulation game.