![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.lexifletcher.dcreate.domains\/DIG401\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/Screenshot-2025-02-17-at-11.15.21-PM-1.png\")
<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<\/a><\/figure>\nThe modification itself introduces subtle but significant structural changes. On the opponent\u2019s board (the player without the baby figures), a discreet warning states \u201c1 hit for a casualty\u201d beneath the standard menu of hits required to sink ships. Each baby figure occupies four spaces but needs only one hit to \u201csink\u201d\u2014a stark commentary on how mass civilian deaths are commonly reduced to a single, devalued statistic. I made minimal alterations to the instructions, merely noting \u201c3 special\u201d surprises for one opponent, thereby preserving the game\u2019s functionality while introducing moral weight.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n
<\/a>In designing this hack, I considered Rittel and Webber\u2019s characteristics of \u201cwicked problems,\u201d as discussed in Sicart\u2019s analysis of ethical gameplay (Sicart 95). More specifically I focused on how wicked problems resist simple solutions; any attempt at resolution can create new complications. By modifying Battleship, I aimed to engage with these complexities in several ways.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
First, I address how the civilian cost of war cannot be easily resolved or morally quantified. Placing the baby figures on only one player\u2019s board generates an informational asymmetry that parallels real-world conflicts: one side remains unaware of the magnitude of their actions until after inflicting damage. This design choice reflects the incomplete or contradictory knowledge often central to wicked problems, echoing the lingering ethical questions about war throughout human history.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Second, the adaptation illuminates how attempted solutions to wicked problems spawn fresh ethical dilemmas. I drew further inspiration from the \u201cMen Against Fire\u201d episode of Black Mirror<\/em>, where soldiers are visually manipulated to perceive specific civilians as monsters, thus enabling violence without remorse, and asserting and dangerous message about the true threat of genocide. Although this technology is ethically fraught, it is not impossible that it could be justified under a purported \u201cgreater good,\u201d demonstrating that solutions to wicked problems can never be purely good or bad but often create their own complications.<\/p>\n\n\n\n My game modification aimed to align with Flanagan’s discussion how of critical play creates space for “careful examination of social, cultural, political, or even personal themes\u201d (Flanagan 6). However, rather than disrupting the play space completely, it operates through what I call an intervention of amplification – stepping in to heighten awareness of meanings already present in the game’s structure. Thus, the subversive elements in this project operate on multiple levels. Rather than fully reskinning or rewriting the game\u2019s narrative, my intervention intensifies existing nuances. While adding baby figures highlights the tragedy of civilian deaths in a straightforward manner, this modification also draws attention to how the game already abstracts the thousands of lives represented by the ships themselves. This dual critique underlines both the loss of innocent lives and our acceptance of military casualties as mere game pieces.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This design engages Sicart’s concept of ethical gameplay provides crucial theoretical grounding for the project by establishing a complex interplay between the procedural mechanics and representational elements of play. By introducing deliberate tension between these layers, the modification creates a meaningful cognitive dissonance for players. The hidden warning about civilian casualties and the intentionally asymmetric distribution of knowledge between players serves to disrupt the traditional flow of gameplay satisfaction. This disruption manifests as a form of cognitive friction – where players must simultaneously navigate their desire to succeed at the game while processing the moral implications of their actions. The uneven information landscape forces players to confront uncomfortable realizations about civilian casualties only after damage has been inflicted, mirroring real-world scenarios where the human cost of military action often becomes apparent too late. This careful design choice compels players to engage in deeper moral contemplation about warfare and its consequences, pushing beyond the surface-level abstraction present in the original game to consider the profound human impact in a way that the standard version deliberately avoids or minimizes. Moreover, this consideration evolves as the player reflects on the nature of the original game, extending the possible remorse of guilt they felt for the baby casualties to the theoretical lives carried on each ship.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Moreover, as a game that has been played through many generations, I also hoped that a sense of nostalgia for the players would help invoke reflective or meditative thought about the game. The vintage set I chose deliberately taps into this familiarity, allowing players to first approach the game with comfortable recognition before encountering the modification’s moral implications. This nostalgic connection creates an additional layer of cognitive friction – players must reconcile their childhood memories of Battleship as innocent entertainment with a new awareness of how the game has always abstracted the human cost of warfare. By building on players’ existing emotional connection to the game, the modification gains power from the contrast between remembered playful engagement and newfound ethical consideration. The familiar grid, plastic pieces, and classic “hit or miss” mechanics take on new meaning when players discover the presence of civilian casualties, transforming nostalgic comfort into critical reflection.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Overall, my goal in this Hack was not transform the game’s meaning completely, but to create space for moral consideration within its existing framework. Adding physical representations of civilian casualties while maintaining the game’s core mechanics highlights how war games simultaneously engage with and abstract away from the human cost of conflict. I hope project demonstrates how subtle interventions can reveal layers of meaning in familiar play spaces, encouraging critical reflection on how we engage with serious themes through play.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Mary Flanagan, Critical Play: Radical Game Design <\/em><\/a>(2009)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<\/a><\/a>Works Cited<\/summary>\n