After playing mario kart, reading the ”Against procedurality” piece, and discussing it in class, it seemed clear that while many games have intended rules, mario kart honestly doesn’t have any. There isn’t really even any incentive to win the race– each player can have their own reason to enter the game and that can drive how they choose to play. Like we discussed in class, players can truly choose to go about the game in any way they want– if that means actively trying to make others lose by also sacrificing yourself, or intentionally trying to see how slow you can go, then thats purely on you. The piece says that “the idea of the importance of rules for understanding play and games is not new” yet while some claim that “rules are the crux of games”, others say “the meaning of a game cannot be reduced to its rules”. I would argue, that in mario kart neither notion really applies, because the rules do not really exist. The author mentions that we can in fact think this way and doing so allows us to be liberated from “considering that players are determined and conditioned by the game rules”. Just from playing Mario Kart a couple of times, it was clear that if I wanted to drive in circles or stay in one place and wait to hit other people I fully could. The only thing I can think that the rules really create are limitations– due to some innate rules of the game structure, there are instances that you can’t do anything you want. For example, in some versions of mario kart, the game will physically turn you around if you drive in the wrong direction for too long. So in many cases, rules dont necessarily reward but rather punish or limit what the player can do within the realm of the game.
I think this is all so evident in the case of Mario Kart because it can be multiplayer and the game can accordingly be pretty malleable. Once again, the “rules” or even intended purpose of the game, to win the race, can be tampered with and customized between individuals or groups and made into something that you personally enjoy. Mario Kart in my opinion just meant for fun, i dont think it speaks on any deeper message, which is also contributing to how little the rules matter– the game makers aren’t necessarily pushing you in some kind of direction to make sure their point gets across to the player. Overall, I dont think a game is better or worse depending on its amount of rules, but I think Mario Kart is truly just meant to be enjoyed and part of that can be messing with the rules.
Hi, thanks for sharing your thoughts! I also found myself simply enjoying Mario Cart as a game, especially the chaotic moments when players are using shells or bumping into each other. It has a different vibe from more realistic racing games, like Forza, in which I constantly feel tension and stress and have to focus and plan every move I make. I think the accessibility and lack of rules in Mario Cart strengthens its functionality as a party/family game. Furthermore, the lawlessness prompts the players to challenge rules, such as by taking short cut or just playing for hitting people rather than getting the first place. I think this interaction between Mario Cart's lawless design and players' actions to challenge…
I think what is important to consider is how rules and limitations (or lack thereof) incline players to enjoy certain elements of the game. Moreover, gameplay rules can be defined by things other than articulated restrictions, direct restrictions on player action (such as preventing reverse runs), and other such methods that the game non-diegetically employs to affect player intent. For example, the shape of the terrain, the function of the vehicles, and how they interact with their surroundings can also be interpreted as a kind of "rule". Collision physics, slower velocity in the side-roads, and other such factors within Mario Kart subliminally incline players to enjoy a certain kind of game, rather than presenting to players a sandbox world wherein…