It is fair to say that nowadays emails have become more a matter of sending work-related messages and documents than, for example, social messages to friends, family, and acquaintances. This is the reality of modern internet consumption, based on fast-paced messaging and inanely brief video interactions. This can be plainly attested by the popularity of instant messaging services such as WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger, as well as the addictively omnipresent TikTok. TikTok has in fact become so successful in what it does, that other services such as Instagram have incorporated elements of this video messaging format into their own platform.
Yet I am not here to talk about
TikTok or instant messaging but to focus on an aspect of asynchronous gaming
that has, to an extent, died out. Asynchronous gaming here refers to gaming
conducted over a span of time and not necessarily contiguously. A good example would be the chess-by-mail that
eventually gave rise to chess-by-email. In this manner of interaction, player
‘A’ has his or her turn and then emails the details of that turn to player ‘B.’
Player ‘B’ will then review the actions carried out by player ‘A’, perform his
or her turn of play and send the details back to that player. The cycle is then
repeated, over several rounds till the game is concluded.
There appears to be a debate when
it comes to the definitions here. So to clarify my position on the matter I
will define my understanding of the terms. Whenever I use the term Synchronous,
I mean in Real Time. To further elaborate, all players engaged in synchronous
play may share the same physical space and play immediately as soon as their
opponent completes their turn. I qualified “may” share space because it is
possible to play synchronously but still not share the same space as in the
case of digital adaptations of Board games. This (synchronous) as opposed to
asynchronous play, were Game Time is dilated over both physical space (players
can not be sharing the same space or even be at the same location) nor do they participate
immediately when their turn is up. Basically in the latter method, players may
choose when and where to play their turn and when to communicate the outcome of
their turn to their opponents.
As can be imagined, this method
of play can last a long time. If you were to factor in the speed of traditional
mail and further delays till either player sat down to play, document, and mail
back their turn, it is not surprising that games lasted months if not years.
The introduction of email did speed up the process making the entire game last
far less than its snail-mail counterpart. Still, these games still tended to
last a significant amount of time when compared to live, synchronous play.
In games such as Chess,
asynchronous play via mail worked brilliantly, as it allowed either player to
assess all potential moves and to consider diverse options in more detail. It
was also, invariably, the product of its time. In today’s world where chess
analytics have been passed on to ingenious computer programs powered by
increasingly powerful computer hardware, asynchronous play does not make any
sense. Agreed that players can agree not to use computer assistance to evaluate
their positions, but it would all boil down to a tacit or formal agreement
between participants.
So, while personally I would be
inclined to write-off chess as a contender for asynchronous email-based
gameplay, other more intricate boardgames have lent themselves to this model of
play over the past two years. No need to recapitulate how universally felt the
COVID-19 pandemic was over the past couple of years. Its effects are still
being felt today as we speak. Still, the pandemic had the added effect of
pushing board game enthusiasts online, seeking to marry virtual presence,
emails, and other messaging options to fill the void left by the months of
isolation and social distancing.
As can be imagined, there are
still a substantial number of modern games which cannot truly be played
asynchronously since they envisage some form of simultaneous actions. There
are, on the other hand, those which follow the usual to-and-fro cadence which
can make asynchronous play work. One game that comes to mind is Onitama. This
is a two-player, chess-like game (played in a fraction of the time) that
involves a rotating set of common moves shared by both players.
Regardless of whether one decides
to indulge in asynchronous play using some form of electronic messaging medium
or not, there is still a strong commitment towards the method that needs to be
embraced by all participants. Let us say just for arguments sake that you
decide to play a game using this method, you would need to subscribe to the
following: -
1. It
is likely that you would need a physical copy of the board game as this will
allow you to play through each turn and visualize the steps that need to be
taken.
2. You
would need a permanent space where to layout the board, somewhere where it
cannot be knocked over or disturbed in between turns.
3. Alternatively,
should you not have the space, you would need to find a means to record the
board game state in between turns, for instance by capturing a good image of
the game state before putting it away.
4. More
importantly, you need to commit time to play your turn, record it in a clear
manner and pass on the results of your turn to your opponent through the chosen
electronic medium.
Of the points noted above, “4” is
perhaps the most challenging. It implies that you are committed to respond to
your opponent’s turn, say within a specified amount of time. If you fail to
respond, this will mean that the game could be stalled, and this could lead to
an eventual disinterest in playing further. The success of, or failure, of any
asynchronous play depends strongly on the commitment of all players concerned.
Other games which have an element
of imperfect information, such as games that involve the use of shuffled decks
of cards, could in principle be played asynchronously but they would require an
online platform to act as arbiter to each turn, while performing all the turn
upkeep to keep the game flowing. One such online platform which shone
throughout the various lockdowns is Board Game Arena. This gaming platform offers a
plethora of boardgames that can be played following the asynchronous model. It
also goes as far as to email notifications to players when their turn comes up.
Players can then just log in, take their turn and log off to continue with
their day-to-day activities. Again, even in this instance, point “4” mentioned
earlier would still be very important, even if communication between players is
automated by the platform. To use Board Game Arena, especially when it comes to
premium games, it is sufficient for one player to own the game, other players
can just join a session created by the owner and play. Prices to own a game on
BGA are low and nowhere near the actual price tags of the physical boxes. This
makes gaming on this platform incredibly attractive for board game hobbyists.
So, what does this tell us about
the present and future of board games played using this asynchronous model? My
take is that, while there appears to be a niche of interested players who might
consider the proposition, it all boils down to whether more palatable or
synchronous play is readily available. Personally, if I had the choice, I would
prefer to indulge in synchronous play, but the truth is that finding time for
such engagements can be difficult. The Internet has come a long way towards
filling the gaps and providing virtual venues for asynchronous play but ultimately
the longevity of this model of play still depends strongly on the commitment of
those involved.
Some further reading and links
- A shortlist of android games that can be played asynchronously. https://www.slant.co/topics/2005/~best-asynchronous-online-multiplayer-games-on-android
- The Board Game Arena Website https://en.boardgamearena.com/
- A A link to the Board Game Geek listing for Onitama, a game mentioned in this article. https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/160477/onitama
No comments:
Post a Comment