
Molleindustria is best known for games like the McDonald's Game and Oiligarchy, games that combine a strong political stance with actual gameplay, something that the games for change movement could certainly learn from. In Kosmosis, Pedercini, Molleindustria's auteur, has done something quite different: it's a five-day game created as part of an Experimental Gameplay challenge (the "unexperimental shooter" theme).
The underlying idea behind Kosmosis is that the modern shmup genre is an epiphenomenon of the capitalist war machine; in the designer's notes, he notes that the ur-game of the genre, Steve Russell's Space War, was created at MIT, which is heavily funded by the Department of Defense, and was based on a space-race inspired military fantasy. (In this, he is incorrect; Russell was inspired by E.E. "Doc" Smith's Lensmen series, which is indeed military fantasy, but was written in the 30s and 40s, long before the US/Soviet space race.) Kosmosis is, on one level, an attempt to imagine what shooters might look like if created in a universe where, as the creator puts it, "non-degenerated socialist values are hegemonic."
As you page through the game's short initial instructions, he makes the values he is trying to impart through gameplay explicit. I'll go through them, and relate them to actual gameplay.
"Thesis I: The task of the vanguard is to instill revolutionary class consciousness in the intergalatic proletariat." During play, you are a small red-tinged dot maneuvering across the playfield. Across the playfield are "prolets" -- small white dots -- and "reactionary war machines" -- large glowing green spheres. When you get close enough to prolets, they join you, and follow you about. You are the revolutionary vanguard, as it were.
"Thesis II: The people united will never be defeated." When you have enough prolets, you press space-bar and turn into a rotating sphere; in this form, when you intersect the nucleus of one of the "war machines," you can damage or destroy it. The people apparently remain united only for a time, however; eventually, you turn back into a cluster of revolutionary prolets, some of which break off instead of continuing to follow you. Note that intersecting war machines when not in "united" form, some prolets are extinguished.
"Thesis III: The role of the vanguard will diminish as the educated masses gain autonomy." As the game progresses, it becomes harder to maneuver your 'vanguard prolet,' and masses of revolutionary prolets will occasionally transform themselves into attack form to take out war machines. This makes the game harder to play over time, however. As the instructions say, "Don't try to dominate the swarm, join the swarm."
Swarm is the right word here, because the prolets are designed to follow flocking behavior. Indeed, the notion that this game is a "shooter" in any sense, except in the sense of an ideological reaction to the shooter as a genre, is risible; combat, when it occurs, is essentially a form of melee, the dominant aspect of gameplay is maneuvering your vanguard to convert prolets, and nothing actually shoots at anything else (not even the war machines at you).
What I find utterly fascinating about this game is that Pedercini clearly did begin with a set of precepts that he wanted somehow to encapsulate in gameplay, and has succeeded in doing so. Part of "success" is, of course, simple labelling; calling the white dots prolets, and your ability to cause them to join your swarm "instilling revolutionary consciousness" sustains the aesthetic the designer is attempting to create. But part of it is also inherent in the gameplay, that is, in the action of the player and the construct of the application: diminishing control over time, the conversion mechanism, autonomous action by revolutionary prolets in the late game.
Molleindustria, in other words, understands to the core what most developers of serious games have never understood: the mechanic is the message. You don't get across ideas in a game by embedding bits of text in an otherwise conventional game; you build your game around them.
As a game qua game, Kosmosis is interesting, but not amazing; it is, after all, a five-day project, and "thesis III" (diminishing control) makes it increasingly frustrating to play. Still, it is worth experiencing -- and notable also for its use of semiautonomous flocking behavior, a idea that a number of other indie creators have also explored (e.g., Dyson and Genocide Automation).


















I kind of get the mechanic
I kind of get the mechanic is the message. There was this game somewhere where you had one guy and you had to sneeze just once, and try and hit other people with the sneeze, who would incubate then fire a sneeze after awhile. It did deliver a message about how deseases spread based on personal habits.
However, where is the capacity to engage and disagree or argue with the message? Essentially it's just playing it out - the message can't be challenged. Sometimes people do this to a degree in other games with sort of 'edge cases', like in GTA they will avoid running over civilians and even obey traffic signals. Some people would go through the original doom with just the pistol and fists, or just plain fists.
Where is the capacity to edge case and play against the message?
Not that having a message in the mechanic isn't already a challenge and perhaps I'm looking too far ahead, but still.
I'm somewhat inspired
I'm somewhat inspired by the concept of this game to make a shmup that gives the player the choice between capitalist or socialist gameplay, to let them determine for themselves the benefits of each, rather than make a statement that either is better. The result will certainly be an over-simplification of the debate, however, as I would only commit a few weeks to such a project.
As for Kosmosis' deteriorating controls, I like the concept and find it entirely appropriate given the context, but must agree that from a gameplay perspective it probably detracts. This is a shame, as lack of direct control is a recurring theme in my designs. (For which I entirely blame Greg...)
On freedom of choice
Hi, you are both addressing a somewhat recurring objection, related to the idea that games and non-linear texts in general can and should provide several different perspectives using the recombinatory properties of new media. I've been arguing for a while that such kind of games would end up being just a more sophisticated and probably mystifying "persuasive games". The point is that player's level of (apparent) freedom has nothing to do with a supposed ideological neutrality, old media like newspapers and television demonstrate every day that you can give the impression of multiple views and still control and manipulate the terms of the debates.
Though there are some ways to mis-play a game (like playing GTA in the "Canadian" way [http://www.machinima.com/film/view&id=561]), the best way to "disagree" with an argument mounted by a game is to jump outside the text, criticize its inconsistencies and possibly make a different game. That's pretty much molleindustria's mission statement. In this case the provocative assumption is that "normal" shooters ARE informed by capitalist systems of values and kosmosis is an oblique way to point that.
Anyway the annoying deterioration of the control system kinda works against the socialist argument. This little game is meant to be a bit ambiguous in its agenda.
Balance of the Planet
Actually, it -is- possible to allow players to modify gameplay in an ideologically neutral way; Crawford did it in his old title Balance of the Planet. Which is not a great game, btw, but is certainly interesting in this regard.
Essentially, Crawford makes all of the game's algorithmic assumptions visible, and allows you to modify variables with sliders. Thus, if you think nuclear power is safe as houses, say, you can slide the chance of a meltdown down to zero, while if you think global warming is even more of an issue, you can slide its effects way up. In essence, the game can be adjusted to reflect your particular ideological assumptions.
Well, I wasn't talking about
Well, I wasn't talking about modifying gameplay in an idiologically nuetral way. I'm saying it's idiology VS idiology, round one, FIGHT! SONIC BOOM!
Or to be a bit less over the top, you can fight the drive like crazy idiology of GTA. You don't just get your way and the game designer didn't just get his way.
"I've been arguing for a while that such kind of games would end up being just a more sophisticated and probably mystifying "persuasive games""
Would? Like always? With all the variables involved, I'm not sure I can imagine it could only ever land in the pusuasive games basket? It could, I grant, but always? But if you don't want to develop that way, fair enough.