The Game of Life, initially created by Milton Bradley in 1860 and later modernized by Bill Markham and Reuben Klamer, is a board game that simulates a journey through various life milestones such as attending college, choosing a career, getting married, and having children. It is designed for players of all ages and has become a staple in family game nights. For my critical analysis, I played the mobile version of the game on my iPad, completing the “full mode” with random players.
Central Argument
To play The Game of Life as a feminist means to critically analyze the game’s mechanics and narrative choices to understand how they either reflect or challenge societal norms. Currently, the game fails to incorporate feminist theory, predominantly by reinforcing stereotypical life trajectories and restricting player decision-making. By integrating feminist perspectives, The Game of Life could be transformed to offer more inclusive and diverse narrative choices, enhanced player agency, and a broader definition of success. These changes would not only challenge conventional life paths and gender roles but also promote greater equity among players.
The primary mechanic of “The Game of Life” that fails to incorporate feminist theory is the game’s reliance on mandatory and luck-based spaces. For instance, at the start of the game, players are compelled to make a significant choice between attending college or starting a career. This early decision restricts players’ agency by forcing them into life-altering paths without the flexibility to revisit these choices later. Another problematic design occurs at the marriage space, where all players must stop and get married, picking a spouse without the option to reflect different life choices or the possibility of separation later, which does not accommodate diverse life trajectories. Furthermore, the game culminates at the retirement space where players’ success is measured strictly by their net worth, ignoring other forms of achievement.
Similarly, the game also constrains players through life path decisions, where they must decide at specific moments whether to pursue further education, start a family, or choose between a risky or safe path. While the decision to choose between a risky or safe route introduces an element of suspense and risk, it is limited to only one section of the board, preventing players from making risky choices throughout the game. This limited opportunity for strategic decision-making further restricts player agency.
Lastly, the game’s dependency on a spinner for moving across the board introduces significant luck-based elements where critical life events such as buying a house, selling property, or having children can only occur by chance. Although these random outcomes may mirror the unpredictability of real life, they undermine player agency and do not align with feminist principles that advocate for more controlled and meaningful choice-making in games.
Throughout the game, there is a clear overall arc of player progression from early adulthood to retirement. However, the game architecture lacks loops. This linear progression is heavily predefined by the game’s mandatory spaces, which dictate significant life decisions at set points along the path. This rigid structure not only simplifies the complexity of life’s journey but also reduces the opportunities for players to experience a more dynamic and personalized game progression.
In conclusion, the rigid structure of mandatory, life path, and luck-based spaces collectively restricts player agency, which contradicts feminist theory’s emphasis on autonomy and meaningful choice. The mandatory spaces require all players to make significant, life-defining decisions at fixed points without the option to revisit or alter these choices, reflecting a deterministic view of life that limits agency. The life path decisions, while providing critical junctures for shaping one’s game trajectory, are constrained to specific moments and lack flexibility, preventing players from adapting or revising their strategies as the game progresses. Additionally, the reliance on a spinner introduces a high degree of randomness, undermining strategic decision-making and reinforcing the notion that life’s outcomes are more about luck than informed choices. These design elements not only narrow the scope of player decision-making but also perpetuate a simplistic and often stereotypical narrative of success and life progression.
Integrating feminist theory could drastically transform The Game of Life by broadening the narrative choices available to players. This would allow for more diverse and realistic portrayals of life paths that validate different forms of success and personal fulfillment. By enhancing player agency through more flexible and strategic game mechanics, the game could offer a richer, more empowering experience that encourages players to engage with the concept of life’s journey and reflect more inclusively on the diverse ways individuals navigate their lives. Such changes would not only align the game more closely with feminist ideals but also provide a more engaging gameplay experience for all players.
Discussion Question
How does the option to select a character’s gender in a game influence the player’s sense of identity and agency within the game? Are there benefits to allowing players to define their character’s narrative versus following a preset storyline?
