Content uploaded by Daniela De Angeli
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Daniela De Angeli on Jan 25, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Agonistic Games: Multiperspective
and Unsettling Games for a Social
Change
Daniela De Angeli *
University of Bath
Claverton Down
BA2 7AY, UK
D.DeAngeli@bath.ac.uk
Daniel J. Finnegan *
University of Bath
Claverton Down
BA2 7AY, UK
D.J.Finnegan@bath.ac.uk
Lee Scott *
Bath Spa University
Newton Park
Newton St. Loe
BA2 9BN, UK
L.Scott@bathspa.ac.uk
Anna Bull
University of Bath
Claverton Down
BA2 7AY, UK
A.Bull@bath.ac.uk
Eamonn O’Neill
University of Bath
Claverton Down
BA2 7AY, UK
E.ONeill@bath.ac.uk
* these authors contributed equally to this paper
Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all 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 third-party components
of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the owner/author(s).
CHI PLAY’18 Extended Abstracts, Oct. 28-31, 2018, Melbourne, Australia.
Copyright is held by the author/owner(s).
ACM ISBN 978-1-4503-5968-9/18/10.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3270316.3270594
Abstract
Historical narratives of conflict typically revolve around
heroes and villains or perpetrators and victims. However,
this dichotomy of events and people into good and evil
greatly reduces the extent to which the past can be
analysed, explained, and understood. To truly understand
the actions that lead to conflict, one must appreciate the
dense network of relationships between social agents, each
with their own personal motivations and ideals. A
contemporary political viewpoint capturing this
multiperspectivity is that of Agonism. Focusing on the
characters and events, Agonism emphasises the
socio-cultural interactions and relationships between all
agents involved including bystanders and, crucially,
perpetrators. We discuss two ‘Games for a Social Change’
that we have developed to promote an Agonistic view:
Endless Blitz and Umschlag ’43. We describe the games
themselves, and the framework of memory studies that
informs our work.
Author Keywords
Agonism, Serious Games for Social Change, war, play
Introduction
Games can engage players in a variety of ways beyond
entertainment [4]. For example, games have been
examined for their social impact [13] and their ability to
Interactivity & Play
CHI PLAY'18 Extended Abstracts, Oct. 28–31, 2018, Melbourne, Australia
103
change attitudes positively [11]. Such games are typically
termed ‘Serious Games for a Social Change’. For example,
games such as Attentet 19421,This War of Mine2, and
Papers Please3each use character role-play to encourage
players to reflect on complex socio-political topics.
A new way of stimulating reflection on socio-political
topics is Agonism. Agonism takes a multi-perspective
view on the motivations of all social agents including
victims, bystanders and importantly, perpetrators. Within
the field of Memory Studies, Agonism is proposed as an
alternative to antagonistic and cosmopolitan views that
typically polarise narratives (i.e. ‘US’ and ‘THEM’) or
focus heavily on the perspectives of victims.
In this paper, we present agonistic games as a tool to
stimulate reflection and understanding. In particular, we
describe the design of two agonistic games: Endless
Blitz and Umschlag ’43. Both games present perspectives
on war from multiple social agents and force players to
make unsettling decisions. We’ve developed our games as
part of “Krieg. Macht. Sinn.” (i.e. “War. Power.
Meaning.”); a temporary exhibition hosted by the Ruhr
Museum in Essen. The exhibition attempts to expose
multiple perspectives on the wars of the 20th Century to
facilitate a reflection on the meaning of war, and
ultimately reinforce social cohesion in Europe which is
currently fraying in the EU as nationalist and xenophobic
movements are on the rise and fuelling ethnic tensions [8].
Agonism and Memory
Memory Studies is an interdisciplinary field of research
that examines individual and collective phenomena, using
1http://attentat1942.com/
2http://www.thiswarofmine.com/
3http://www.papersplea.se/
the past as a tool to understand the present in the
knowledge that memory informs culture and identity.
Within Memory Studies, Agonism refers to a way of
remembering that is an alternative to the established
cosmopolitan and antagonistic views [2]. In the
antagonistic view, the past is remembered as a moral
struggle between two sides; one of which (‘US’) is
presented as good and the other (‘THEM’) as evil. The
view is often linked to nationalistic discourse equating ‘US’
to the national community and ‘THEM’ to foreigners and
migrants. This mode of collective memory fuels political
passions, including strong emotions such as hatred and
contempt for each sides opposition (the ‘OTHER’).
The cosmopolitan view by contrast has tried to counter
and defuse nationalistic discourse, which is seen as the
main cause of war and conflict. Instead it focuses on the
perspectives of victims, their plight and suffering, as a way
of reaching out to the ‘OTHER’ [5]. In doing so, it has
promoted the principles of democracy, dialogue, and
human rights by soliciting feelings of compassion for those
who suffer, and shunning political passions in favour of
rational deliberation. The cosmopolitan view considers
good and evil in moral, abstract terms rather than creating
a bisection to describe distinct communities (‘US’ and
‘THEM’), and thus de-humanises perpetrators irrespective
of the community in which they identify or belong.
Agonism refers specifically to the relationship between
political adversaries who respect one another as
adversaries, share the same symbolic space, and respect
the democratic rules established as conditions for the
struggle for hegemony [7]. It is a view of remembering
that associates the past with socio-political struggles for
power and collective passions, but also brings to light the
social and structural inequalities and historical contexts
Interactivity & Play
CHI PLAY'18 Extended Abstracts, Oct. 28–31, 2018, Melbourne, Australia
104
that underpin such struggles. Like the cosmopolitan view,
Agonism is multi-perspectivist and reflective, but differs
by offering insights into multiple social agents, not just
victims but also bystanders, betrayers and above all,
perpetrators. Furthermore, perpetrators are re-humanised,
through an understanding of the socio-political context
that led to their perpetrating action and behaviour.
Agonism and Games
We are driven by the following question: how can
Agonism be explored, promoted, and pursued via games?
We submit that games can incorporate agonistic elements
that promote reflection upon the past and offer multiple
perspectives, including those of perpetrators. Such
elements may manifest in the game’s context (how it is
positioned socio-politically and culturally), audiovisual
design, narrative (the factual or fictional stories that are
told) and gameplay (the decisions that players make).
We situate Agonistic Games (AGs) as a subset of ’Serious
Games for a Social Change’ given their ability to change
the attitude or behaviour of the player through gameplay
[1]. These games force players to face challenges and
make difficult choices that they would not have to in their
regular life [3,13]. AGs maintain qualities of play,
progression and rule-making while - in keeping with
‘Games for a Social Change’ - encouraging ‘new ways of
seeing the world’ [9]. Such intentions can be achieved by
drawing on two key attributes of games:
1. Factual storytelling. Games can create realistic
historical contexts in which players become
immersed, therefore helping them identify with
people living in unfamiliar historical and
socio-political environments. Narratives may also be
based on the experiences of real people and memory
of the past to assist player identification with
characters.
2. Interactivity. Players are able to assume various
roles, and impact the narrative of the experience by
making choices.
The delineation between AGs and the wider field of
’Serious Games for a Social Change’ occurs in the
intention of the former to draw on multiple perspectives
to promote reflection on the past to impact the present.
Several games exist that engage the socio-political context
we are examining in this paper (the experience of war) via
gameplay elements that could be considered agonistic. A
notable example is Attentet 1942 - a 2017 title developed
by Charles University and the Czech Academy of Sciences
that describes the experience of the Nazi occupation of
Czechoslovakian territory from the viewpoints of both
survivors and perpetrators. Although this game is not
designed to be agonistic, we nevertheless identify that it
has agonistic elements. Historical narratives and personal
memory are used to promote multiperspectivity and
defend difficult decisions made by people who, in the
cosmopolitan view, would likely be labelled as perpetrators
[10]. Attentet 1942 helps confirm that games are an
effective means of stimulating reflection on historical
events, given their ability to expose players through
role-play to the complex system of variables that underpin
them [6].
By drawing on games like Attentet 1942 as well as
literature on Agonism, we have devised the following
tenets of how Agonism may be conveyed within a game:
T1 Frame narratives as decisions and consequences that
are unsettling for the player.
Interactivity & Play
CHI PLAY'18 Extended Abstracts, Oct. 28–31, 2018, Melbourne, Australia
105
T2 Promote reflection by presenting multiple
perspectives on a scenario. This should be achieved
through gameplay that forces the player to engage
with multiple socio-political perspectives.
T3 Establish a resonating context. The games need to
be relevant for the people playing them to help
them connect with the memories and experiences on
an empathetic level.
Designing an Agonistic Game
To develop our AGs, we worked in collaboration with a
team of experts in memory studies. They were part of the
initial design sessions and helped shape how each game’s
choices would fit the theme of Agonism. We designed 2
games as part of our project: Endless Blitz and Umschlag
’43 (See Figure 1).
Endless Blitz is a 2 player game set during a fictional blitz
over a suburban region. The game is inspired by a 5
month campaign led by the allied forces to bomb the Ruhr
Area, a German stronghold during the second world war.
One player takes the role of a bomber while the other acts
as an evacuation officer. Their responsibilities seem
clear-cut at first, yet this dissipates as the game
progresses and each is forced to makes unsettling
decisions that question whether society would view them
as heroes or perpetrators. For instance, the bomber may
choose to disregard orders, and the evacuation officer may
favour protecting friends over more vital personnel such as
nurses. The game is played synchronously across a single
screen, where both players face off against one another.
Gameplay takes place across 4 phases, which each phase
requiring player action via touch-based interaction. In the
first phase, the bomber learns about the available payload
while the evacuation officer studies the attributes of
civilians. The second phase is strategic; the bomber
receives information regarding her targets, while the
evacuation officer learns of the location of shelters. In
phase 3, the bomber chooses her payload based on the
information from phase 2, while the evacuation officer
selects people that will be in her charge. In phase 4, the
bomber flies over the city dropping bombs on targets that
have been identified in the mission brief as high-value
(e.g. those that cut off power or supplies), while the
evacuation officer hurriedly allocates groups of individuals
to appropriately sized shelters. Once phase 4 completes,
each player’s score is presented to them, and gameplay
loops over again from phase 1. Ultimately there is no
winner; the gameplay is designed to symbolise the endless
nature of war.
In Umschlag ’43, up to 4 players assume the role of a
person awaiting deportation at Umschlagplatz4. Players
are briefed initially about their character, which range
from a corrupt Jewish ghetto officer to a Catholic man
with questionable connections to the Nazi party, and told
that their trustworthiness and personal value are being
judged. An NPC (Non-Player Character) name Marek5
then comes forward to tell characters that he is there to
recruit, and therefore save deportees. He however reveals
that he can only save one person. Umschlag ’43 proceeds
with players sharing information about their character’s
formative years and role in the war; choosing either to
share true statements, false statements (lies) or damming
intelligence on other characters that they are familiar
with. Trustworthiness and personal value metrics are
attached to each statement. For example, Philip is selling
4The loading point used by Nazi Germany to assemble Jews in
ghettos for transport to death camps.
5We based this game on Marek Edelman, a leader of the Jewish
Ghetto uprising in Warsaw
Interactivity & Play
CHI PLAY'18 Extended Abstracts, Oct. 28–31, 2018, Melbourne, Australia
106
intelligence to the Nazis (low trustworthiness) but has
connections and valuable information on Axis plans (high
personal value). Although tempting to choose high value
statements, players must be careful not to invalidate their
stories as they proceed to select further, previously unseen
statements, as this may arouse the suspicion of Marek. In
terms of gameplay mechanics, exchanges of information
are done so in rounds and are committed via a single tap
on a tablet device. This stripped down style of interaction
is intended to ensure that the game is fast paced and
loaded with a sense of urgency. Following two rounds of
information exchange, Marek asks all characters who they
think shouldn’t be saved. Players are then given only 5
seconds to make their choice. The game concludes with
Marek revealing his new recruit, along with a text-based
break down of all the truths, lies and defamations traded
during the game.
Figure 1: Screenshots from
Endless Blitz and Umschlag ’43.
The top image depicts an
historically accurate bomb used
in Endless Blitz while the bottom
image depicts a choice imposed
on a player in Umschlag ’43.
Our goal was to design Endless Blitz and Umschlag ’43 to
engage the core tenets listed above. With respect to T1,
we designed our games as a series of explicit and implicit
choices where outcomes are not immediately clear to the
player. Each choice has a consequence, forcing her to
reflect upon her actions once a decision is made. In
Endless Blitz, the choices the bomber and evacuation
officer make during the game (e.g. whether to follow
bombing orders; to prioritize the safety of certain civilians
over others) have unsettling consequences at the end of
the game. In Umschlag ’43, all players are fighting for a
single chance to be saved, even though they are all aware
of their own individual flaws or crimes and may suspect
that other characters may be more valuable to Marek.
Both games provide holistic perspectives on their
respective scenarios through interactions with playable
game characters and NPCs, taking T2 into account. In
Endless Blitz, bombers receive orders from their
commanding officer who provides unique motivations for
carrying out the mission. Players therefore must
sympathise with the role of the WW2 bomber who may
feel mandated to follow orders yet struggle with the moral
implications of their actions. The evacuation officer
character presents a different perspective on the scenario.
Players here experience the tension felt by people who
undertook this role, where quick decisions had to be made
to prioritise either the protection one’s own friends and
family or society more broadly. In Umschlag ’43, players
assume roles of characters that are each from a different
socio-cultural background. Through communication,
interaction, and reflection players gain an understanding
of life during conflict and how a person’s context shapes
their decisions. This helps provide personal insight into
why such (sometimes unsettling) decisions were made.
Finally, with respect to T3, both games take their own
approach to context and personal connection. As Endless
Blitz is to be exhibited in the Ruhr Museum in Essen, we
establish a local context and strong relationship with the
past by taking the Battle of the Ruhr as inspiration for the
game’s setting. In Umschlag ’43, the game is set in a well
recognized historical place (Umschlagplatz), with context
that resonates strongly with German communities,
including those living in the Ruhr. This context is further
developed through role-play with identifiable characters.
Conclusion
AGs promote social cohesion by forcing players to make
unsettling choices, empathizing with others and thus
changing their attitude or behavior through gameplay.
They promote reflection by presenting multiple
perspectives on topics that are relevant for players. In line
with this, we have positioned AGs within the field of
Interactivity & Play
CHI PLAY'18 Extended Abstracts, Oct. 28–31, 2018, Melbourne, Australia
107
‘Serious Games for a Social Change’ [1,13,12], and
described the design of two AGs for installation at the
Ruhr Museum in Essen: Endless Blitz and Umschlag ’43.
We hope our games encourage reflection within the CHI
Play community and beyond on themes of war and
Agonism, and instigate behaviour changes in players. As
social cohesion is fraying across the EU and North
America, we submit that there is a growing need for
interventions that establish a collective understanding on
global issues. Future work will evaluate the success of our
games in their social impact and how they promote social
cohesion.
Acknowledgements
Daniela De Angeli, Anna Bull, and Eamonn O’Neill’s (in
part) research is funded by UNREST [H2020-EU3.6
(Project ID 693523]. Daniel J. Finnegan and Eamonn
O’Neill’s research is funded by CAMERA, the RCUK
Centre for the Analysis of Motion, Entertainment
Research and Applications, EP/M023281/1. We thank
Wulf Kansteiner, Cristian Cercel, and staff at the Ruhr
Museum in Essen, Germany for their insightful comments.
We also thank the students from both Bath Spa
University and the University of Bath for their support in
developing these games.
References
[1] Bogost, I. Persuasive games : the expressive power
of videogames. MIT Press, 2007.
[2] Bull, A. C., and Hansen, H. L. On agonistic memory.
Memory Studies 9, 4 (oct 2016), 390–404.
[3] Holm Sørensen, B., and Meyer, B. Serious Games in
language learning and teaching a theoretical
perspective. In Proceedings of DiGRA 2007
Conference (2007), 559–566.
[4] Laamarti, F., Eid, M., and El Saddik, A. An
Overview of Serious Games. International Journal of
Computer Games Technology 2014 (2014), 1–15.
[5] Levy, D., and Sznaider, N. Sovereignty transformed:
a sociology of human rights. The British Journal of
Sociology 57, 4 (dec 2006), 657–676.
[6] McCall, J. Gaming the past: Using video games to
teach secondary history. Routledge, 2013.
[7] Mouffe, C. Agonistic politics between ethics and
politics. Critique and Humanism Journal, 35 (2010),
13–22.
[8] Rydgren, J. The Oxford Handbook of the Radical
Right. Oxford University Press, 2018.
[9] Schrier, K. Knowledge games: how playing games
can solve problems, create insight, and make change.
JHU Press, 2016.
[10] ˇ
Sisler, V. Contested Memories of War in
Czechoslovakia 38-89: Assassination: Designing a
Serious Game on Contemporary History.
International Journal of Computer Game Research
16, 2 (2016).
[11] Steinemann, S. T., Mekler, E. D., and Opwis, K.
Increasing Donating Behavior Through a Game for
Change. In Proceedings of the 2015 Annual
Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play
- CHI PLAY ’15, ACM Press (New York, New York,
USA, 2015), 319–329.
[12] Steinemann, S. T., Mekler, E. D., and Opwis, K.
The Winner Gives It All’. In Proceedings of the 2016
Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction
in Play Companion Extended Abstracts - CHI PLAY
Companion ’16, ACM Press (New York, New York,
USA, 2016), 291–298.
[13] Swain, C. Designing Games to Effect Social Change.
In Proceedings of DiGRA 2007 Conference (2007).
Interactivity & Play
CHI PLAY'18 Extended Abstracts, Oct. 28–31, 2018, Melbourne, Australia
108