A Critical Review of Parable of the Polygons

Parable of the Polygons is a web game developed by Nicky Case and Vi Hart.  This game is an explorable explanation of systemic bias and diversity. Game theory was used to explain how small individual biases can accumulate into large institutional biases. And also used cute shape-people. Segregation has never been so adorable!

LEARNING ELEMENTS
The game is trying to make us see how the choices we make can bring about harmful consequences. The learning experiences we face are relatable as we can see the results of moving from stable places to unstable places.  The dominant form of interaction would be that the player is moves the pieces from place to place. It supports the learning objective as you are seeing for yourself what your actions are constructing. The system that is most affected is the social factor because you are seeing that harmless choices can make harmful communities.

FORMAL ELEMENTS
There is only one player and it is yourself. There are a lot of other shapes in the game that make up the community. The objective is for the pieces to be cooperative but unfortunately they also compete with one another,
The objective of this game is to show us that our actions can have harmful consequences. Moving the game pieces and seeing how they react in the place you put them was a good reinforce to see the actions you commit.
The rules of the game change as there a lot of mini games within this one game. The rules are simple you have to create a community that the polygons are happy in. Some of the communities like being biased and other communities like being unbiased. There aren’t a lot of money related issues in this game. You do not have to spend anything or buy things within the game.
The conflict is explained within every mini game that you play. Before you begin the game it tells you that there are some polygons that like to be surrounded by other polygons like them. They are resolved if you effectively make a community based on those standards. They prevent the polygons from being placed next to each other as they frown and not be content. This limitation is fun because you have to keep looking for a place that will make the polygons happy. The end of the game is when you finished the last min game and you have experienced what it is like to make harmless choices and still create a chaotic community of polygons.

DRAMATIC ELEMENTS
The main character is us as we play and are in control of the polygons. We get to play as the polygons. The challenges are that some polygons do not get a long with each other. Under given circumstances they want to be in groups of polygons that are the same but they want to be surrounded by other groups of polygons. It takes place in a biased and unbiased community. The general premise of the world is that although our choices may not seem harmful they can turn into bad consequences. The story has an emergent narrative because they vary on the choices you make. The players interactions are what make up the story and the narrative. The game is playful as it challenges you to make choices. You do not know whether they will be right or wrong but it is fun. I think explorers would enjoy this game the most because you get to explore the consequences of placing the polygon in a wrong spot. Tension and resolution are controlled through the placement of the polygons. It creates conflict because you have to follow the rules that dictate where these polygons want to live.

SYSTEM DYNAMICS
The objects in the game are moved around from place to place.
There are no properties required because you are just moving game pieces.
You have to drag the unhappy polygons into a place when they are happy. You get to use your mouse and do so. The relationships are either happy or unhappy for the polygons and they get harder as each game goes on.
It does not exist as an economy because there are no economical factors.
The systems that emerge are that each action you make and the time you take to make the community happy are shown through a table. They are procedural generated as they are shown in the graph after you are done.
The mini games to come are hidden because you have to pass each game to get to the more advances ones. The exposed factors are the one’s that tell you what the community of polygons wants and how they want to live.

FUNCTIONALITY, COMPLETENESS, & BALANCE
The game is fully functional as it has a good working premise, conflict and learning objective. The game is complete because all the factors of choices and consequences are present. The game is very well balanced. There is dominant strategy as time is being imposed. You want to do well and in a short period of time.

FUN AND ACCESSIBILITY
The game is engaging because it enables you to see that the innocent choices we make can have a harmful consequences. The elements promote that you look at the consequences of your choices. The choices are meaningful because they show is the consequences we have to face with when we place the wrong polygon in the wrong places. There aren’t any parts that are boring. The community board however does get bigger and it can be tedious to complete but after a while it gets fun again. There are arbitrary windfalls are the polygons are not always content. The game is fairly easy to play as there is a story behind every game. It takes about 5 minutes top to learn the game. The players learn to play through the mini back stories before the game.