Archive for the “Uncategorized” CategoryFrom Tony Hetherington • A description of what was done, what was found — the
07
06
2008
 
Thoughts and ideas from gaming papers and articles 2Posted by: colinsimpson in UncategorizedThe last post is getting a little long so time for another. Larsen, T. (1999) Designing games for novice gamers Gamasutra (3338) Retrieved June 7th, 2008 from http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3338/designing_games_for_novice_gamers.php On the other hand, several games let players start immediately without having to know lots of stuff about how to control the game. Many adventure games, in particular Myst, are easy to get started with and give immediate enjoyment. Novice players also have an easy time getting into 3D shooters such as Doom. Thus, it’s not surprising to see that these games reach a wider audience than other games with a higher entrance barrier. So when you design games for novice gamers, a low entrance barrier is critical. The player should be able to start playing the game almost immediately and understand at once what is happening. Visible Game Mechanics Most people have played one board game or another, such as Monopoly, Ludo, and so on. In these games, the game mechanic is totally visible. In Monopoly, players roll the dice and move that number of squares. That square has an effect on the player that is explicitly written on the square itself or on a corresponding card. Novice gamers are used to visible game mechanics. Themes and settings that seem quite acceptable to experienced gamers may seem weird or disgusting to people who aren’t accustomed to computer games. For example, experienced gamers are quite accustomed to excessive graphic violence and may think that more blood and gore make a game more entertaining. However, many others tout this excessive depiction of violence as a reason not to buy computer games. Intellectual Manageability An experienced gamer is often accustomed to managing many tasks at once. At one extreme are the strategy gamers who can handle up to 20 to 30 structures and 100 to 150 individual units at once with only a mild sense of panic. But even these people prefer to manage the units in groups because, intellectually, it’s easier to manage fewer objects — fewer objects means higher intellectual manageability. Many independent studies in various professional fields conclude that seven is the highest number of objects that a person can comfortably keep in mind at once. This maxim applies to computer games as well. Maintaining an overview of what’s going on is easier if you have a maximum of (more or less) seven things on which to concentrate. If you’re making a game for novice gamers, you should pay attention to the game’s intellectual manageability. Alternatives can also be arranged in hierarchies to adhere to the seven-object rule. At any one time, a player in a role-playing game may choose to move, rest, fight, or administrate his or her character. If the player chooses to fight, he or she can attack, guard, shoot, or use an item. At any level in the hierarchy, the player is never faced with more than seven alternatives from which to choose.
Ryan, T. (1999) Beginning Level Design, Part 1 Gamasutra (3329) Retrieved June 7th, 2008 from http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3329/beginning_level_design_part_1.php Level design is the data entry and layout portion of the game development cycle. A level is, for all intents and purposes, the same as a mission, stage, map or other venue of player interaction. As a level designer, you are chiefly responsible for the gameplay. Challenge comes from difficulty. The trick to good level design is to present challenges that are difficult enough to merit the players’ attention and make their heart or mind race, but not so difficult as to always leave them failing and disappointed. It’s a delicate balance based on what is perceived as the median player skill, and it is a variable constantly adjusted up until the game ships. People don’t like playing the same level twice. Not only does it ruin the entertainment value, it also fails to spark the imagination. It’s therefore incredibly important that levels introduce some variation in the plot, challenge, setting, and characters (i.e. the enemies). Thesis, Antithesis and Synthesis Stories essentially come in three parts:
Understanding and Developing the Thesis in Level Design Each level in itself is its own story. As level designers, you set up the thesis by preparing the initial situation. You position the player and perhaps indicate his initial arsenal or force or set of spells or pieces. You render the setting with your map or your puzzle board. The setting and the situation can change over the course of the level as portions of the level are revealed to the player or new characters or other elements are introduced such as power-ups or new player or enemy forces. As games are interactive, you have to be very conscious about every possible situation a player can be in at any given time or place over the course of the playing the level. Introducing and Refining the Antithesis in Your Level The antithesis is where the players interact with your level. By positioning enemy forces and scripting their behavior, or by setting the timing and speed of the bugs they have to zap or the puzzle pieces they have to place, you are creating conflict. This should be where the core gameplay of your level is. Synthesis – Making Your Levels End in a Satisfying Tone Synthesis is the result of an encounter or the entire level. It’s a moment of reflection for players to evaluate the encounter or level and what they got out of it. Whether players fail or succeed, they should be able to recognize why and how they might do better next time. This keeps them interested in trying again or just replaying for a better score or reward. Victory or failure should be obvious. Players should understand why they lost. Victories should come as the direct result of the final acts of the player, not as the result of something the player does midway through the level (the latter tends to make players bored). Ending the mission on a big, satisfying note leaves a player feeling good. Everything the player sees or does must further the story. All of the players’ accomplishments should move them toward the completion of the story or pull them further into the conflict with the villain. Most gamers have a short attention span, especially those who play console games. They don’t have as much patience with minor details and game subtleties. If you present them with too much detail, or if your gameplay hinges on the player understanding the significance of minor details (like a single dialogue message), then you will lose them… Spending a lot of time working on non-interactive details can be a waste of time and resources, although it’s important to put some effort into it because the player will pay some attention to it. Ryan, T. (1999) Beginning Level Design, Part 2: Rules to Design by and Parting Advice Gamasutra (3332) Retrieved June 7th, 2008 from http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3332/beginning_level_design_part_2_.php 20 Rules to Design By 1) Maintain the vision. The “vision” is the core idea of the game design. 2) Learn the design palette. One of the first things you need to establish before you begin your machinations is the design palette. The design palette includes all of the art and game play elements at your disposal. One grave mistake that all designers make at some point is to create mazes. Why is that a mistake? Mazes are one of the first forms of puzzles introduced in computer games. It’s old now. Because all it takes to make a maze is placing walls or other terrain that blocks movement, it’s the easiest game play to create. It is sort of a last resort when you are fresh out of game play elements and ideas. When you get to this point, stop. Try to improve your design palette by coming up with new ways to use existing elements or by pushing the game designer to create more. 4) A level will only ever be as good as you imagine it. A great sculptor doesn’t begin chiseling a block of stone until he envisions in his mind what the completed sculpture will look like. The same is true with level design: there’s no point in beginning to design your map if you can’t truly see what you’re working towards. You might have a vague idea about what you are trying to make, but to start designing away without a clear vision can lead to a lot of wasted time and effort. This isn’t to say that you should leave some time to experiment, but the core idea of the game play for your level should stand on its own. It’s also best to choose a core idea that leaves a lot of room for a variety of game play. When you implement the level, establish the core idea with broad strokes, and just make it work. With that done, decide if the idea has merit and whether you want to go further with the level. If so, fill in the fine details and experiment with subtle game play details. Often it’s the subtler elements and details that make the difference between a good level and a great one. 5) If there’s no difference, what’s the point? Having multiple routes to the same goal is a good way of giving players choices and a sense of freedom while still ensuring they end up at the same point. Yet, if each choice exposes the players to the same types of enemies, the same rewards, and the same risks and costs, then players will only get frustrated and bored when they discover that there is essentially no difference. 6) Cater to different playing styles and abilities. When presenting options, challenges or puzzles to players, try to offer multiple solutions that cater to different player styles and abilities. Some players play conservatively, while others like to play it risky. 7) Reward player imagination and efforts. Players like to experiment and explore. The more solutions, secrets, alternate paths, and so on, that you provide in your level, the more satisfied players will be. It’s a great feeling when, as a player, you come up with a not-so-obvious solution that succeeds. Remember that players almost always go off the main route hoping to find shortcuts, hidden caches of goodies, or other unexpected items. When designing a level, try to think about what players may want to try, and give that to them. When they say, “What if…?” your level should respond with, “Yes, you can.” Pacing is the introduction of conflict and tension, plus what some like to call the “adrenaline rush.” This follows closely the Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis model that we know from stories and films. The tension builds as the player (the thesis) interacts with the antithesis, and it crescendos right before the synthesis, where the reader, watcher or player breathes a sigh of relief. Because games are interactive, forcing a certain pace into the level can be difficult. What if the players don’t do what you want them to do? What if they take too much time? What if it’s too easy and unexciting when it’s played slow or too intense if played too fast? There are some things you can do to remedy this without taking all the interactivity out of it. Time limits add tension that’s immediately perceptible by the player. A time limit can force a player to move more rapidly, or adopt tactics that you want him to use, such as splitting forces to achieve multiple objectives. You can put in an artificial time limit – like a mission clock, a puzzle-solver clock, or a turn time limit. You can institute a realistic time limit into a level, like the time it takes a certain enemy or ally unit to move to its exit point, or the time before enemy reinforcements arrive to overwhelm the player. Controlling the movement speed or distance a player may traverse in a turn drastically affects game play pacing. While you cannot just arbitrarily change this in your level unless you are doing a puzzle game like Tetris, there are other ways you can play with speed. Often terrain affects movement speed, such as swampy ground that slows you down, a highway that permits you to speed up, or an obstructed and twisty route that slows your progress. Giving units different movement speeds and/or movement restrictions can slow or speed up the players, if they have to travel with that unit. 9) Reveal assets carefully. Keeping the player interested in the game requires careful asset revelation. Assets are the game’s eye candy, such as terrain objects, enemy and friendly units, upgrades, puzzles, and so on. All but the simplest games try to reveal these assets gradually to players, so as not to overload them on the first level, and to keep them interested in going on to the next level.\ 10) Challenge the player. Your job as level designer is to challenge the player. A level isn’t truly satisfying unless victory is at times uncertain. So you have to present challenges to players that really test their mettle and make them uncertain of their victory. When doing so, you have to cater to different player abilities (see rule #6) and to increasingly skilled and equipped players. Where your level is positioned in the game timeline or “level progression” should indicate how difficult it needs to be. In the first few levels, players learn how to play the game, so these levels should be a little forgiving. Levels at the end should be the most difficult to coincide with the increased skill and player resources. 12) If the player didn’t see it, it didn’t happen. Don’t assume all players will read dialogue or mission descriptions, and don’t rely on their observation skills, powers of precognition, or capacity for logical deduction to understand what is going on in the level and what they should do. Players must see what is happening to understand it. 13) See through the player’s eyes. Players usually watch most closely those objects that appear on a level’s “event horizon.” The event horizon is where new terrain is revealed and where enemies are engaging the player. Changes in the event horizon often trigger a reaction from players or influence their decisions, and changes elsewhere may not get noticed immediately. For instance, if an enemy unit suddenly appeared in the middle of previously revealed terrain, it may not attract the player’s attention, at least until a blip appeared on the radar or the new unit attacked one of the player’s buildings. However, if the enemy unit appeared where new terrain was being revealed, it’s likely that it would be noticed right away. Likewise, a building isn’t really looked at except when it’s initially revealed. While some players spend time examining previously revealed terrain, most people do not, and it becomes even less likely when the game takes place within a 3D environment. Players usually only observe what is in the “here and now,” and you should put yourself in their position to ensure that you don’t put imperceptible events in your level. 18) Be the adversary. To a certain extent you have to be sadistic to the players. You should enjoy being the adversary, and think from the AI’s perspective. This will help you make much more realistic opponents that a player can understand. Players naturally put a human face on the AI, and so they expect the AI to behave like a human. When you script the AI to behave in a human fashion, it helps players successfully strategize and often draws them deeper into the game. It also evokes a little fear in players, as they don’t expect a game AI to recognize their weaknesses. As the adversary, you need to provoke fear in players and prey on their weaknesses. It’s what makes the game more challenging, fun and fulfilling.
Pinchbeck, D. (2008) Story and Recall in First-Person Shooters [Electronic Version] International Journal of Computer Games Technology Volume 2008 pp.1-7 However, what has been underrecognised is the dynamic, epistemological, and psychological impact of story and story elements A simple study was carried out, whereby twenty-six 5.1 Character 5.2. Environment The darkness of the levels was the consistent feature 5.3. Avatar RES subjects found empathy easy too but struggled more 5.4 Plot The need for closure was highly evident in both subject Conspiracy, and its counterpart, amnesia, is a 6. CONCLUSION Even though Cthulhu contains Peters, J. (2007) World of Borecraft: Never play a videogame that’s trying to teach you something Slate 2169019 Retrieved June 8th, 2008 from http://www.slate.com/id/2169019/ When does a game stop being a game and turn into an assignment? Can a game still be called a game if it isn’t any fun? Newsgames are an interesting idea, but this one is less informative than a simple article and less fun than doing the Jumble. Food Import Folly didn’t make me think long and hard about FDA policy—I just ended up left-clicking furiously in a half-assed attempt to “win.” In taking the fun out of video games, companies like Persuasive make them less alluring to people who love games and more alluring to people who don’t. Your boss, for example. Many of Persuasive’s projects were commissioned by corporations as nontraditional job-training tools. The graphics and game play in modern edutainment software have certainly improved since Mavis Beacon’s heyday. But the fundamental conceptual problem still remains: Animating mindless, boring repetition doesn’t make the repetition any less mindless or boring. I think game designer and theorist Raph Koster has it right. “[J]ust strapping an incentive structure on rote practice doesn’t work very well, compared to … building a long-term goal structure, and then presenting challenges on the way,” The basic issue here is that it’s easier to make a fun game educational than it is to inject fun into an educational game. In his 2005 book, Everything Bad Is Good for You, Steven Johnson argues that games like The Sims and Grand Theft Auto make us smarter by training the mind in adaptive behavior and problem-solving. Most overtly educational software, though, ignores the complexities that make games riveting and enriching. The serious-gaming types think they can create educational software from whole cloth. In reality, they have a lot to learn from Grand Theft Auto. Guttler, C. and Johansson, T. (2003) Spatial principles of level-design in multi-player first-person shooters Proceedings of the 2nd workshop on network and system support for games (pp. 158 – 170) New York, NY: ACM In this manner, the paper Setting off from a theoretical Secondly—and that is this text’s The fact that the player is not dragged The term gameplay is often used to judge In single-player games in the FPS
Moore, C. (2008) How to turn your learners into compulsive completers Making Change – ideas for lively elearning Retrieved June 8th, 2008 from http://blog.cathy-moore.com/?p=204 Consider offering a series of rewards throughout a course or other linear experience. Each reward builds on the last to create a desirable collection–all of it imaginary. Or turn the whole thing into a story Of course, you won’t need separate rewards if you can make the entire course a story and use plot devices to make learners want to know what happens next. Kuhlman, T (2008) Motivate your learner with these 5 simple tips The Rapid E-Learning blog Retrieved June 8th, 2008 from http://www.articulate.com/rapid-elearning/motivate-your-learners-with-these-5-simple-tips Typically, people are motivated when their learning has meaning. For example, if I know that passing a course will equate to an increase in my income, I am motivated to pass the course. The same can be said for being motivated by personal safety. Reward Your Learners. People are motivated by rewards. Figure out what type of reward you can give the learners and then build that into the course. Sometimes the rewards can be timed challenges or reaching a certain level of achievement. Other rewards could be actual merchandise, like winning an iPod. It all depends on the course. Rewards don’t have to be tangible items. They can be simple things like affirmation and encouragement. The main point is to connect with the learners and find a way to have them feel good about some sort of achievement in your course. Help Your Learners Perform Better. This ties into the previous point. Your course needs to have value and it needs to be relevant to what your learners do. People will be motivated to take your course and pay attention as they know it will help them perform better. Your job is to connect the learner to the course content. If I’m taking a site safety course, I’m probably less motivated by clicking a button on a simple assessment than if I’m thrown into a real life scenario where I am challenged to work through some issues similar to what I’ll face at work. This type of approach connects me to the content, more so than screen after screen of bullet point information. Set Clear Expectations for the Course. I’m amazed to see my children just click around on the computer screen to get what they want. On the other hand, I’ve watched adults fearful of clicking a next arrow not sure what will happen. People tend to be leery of things they don’t understand, or if they’re not quite sure where they’re going. However, once they get a sense of what’s going on, they’re more apt to be responsive to the course. If you want your learners motivated, then a good way to get them there is to let them know what to expect from the course that you want them to take. This all ties into the points above. You’re asking the learners to spend some of their valuable time going through your course. They expect clarity on what they’ll do, why, and what type of outcome to expect. Tell Them They’re Wrong. Controversy gets our attention and is a good way to motivate. Challenge what a person believes, or even tell him he’s wrong, and you’ll see a person motivated to prove you wrong. Of course, this approach needs to be tempered with common sense. However, there is a lot of value in challenging people and what they know. It’s just a matter of knowing how to do it in a manner that is appropriate. When a person is challenged it puts them at risk and they tend to pay more attention. Create an environment where they can safely fail or make mistakes and you’ll challenge them and keep them engaged. Learning Theories Knowledgebase (2008, June). Behaviorism at Learning-Theories.com. Retrieved June 8th, 2008 from http://www.learning-theories.com/behaviorism.html Summary: Behaviorism is a worldview that operates on a principle of “stimulus-response.” All behavior caused by external stimuli (operant conditioning). All behavior can be explained without the need to consider internal mental states or consciousness. Originators and important contributors: John B. Watson, Ivan Pavlov, B.F. Skinner, E. L. Thorndike (connectionism), Bandura, Tolman (moving toward cognitivism) Keywords: Classical conditioning (Pavlov), Operant conditioning (Skinner), Stimulus-response (S-R) Behaviorism Behaviorism is a worldview that assumes a learner is essentially passive, responding to environmental stimuli. The learner starts off as a clean slate (i.e. tabula rasa) and behavior is shaped through positive reinforcement or negative reinforcement. Both positive reinforcement and negative reinforcement increase the probability that the antecedent behavior will happen again. In contrast, punishment (both positive and negative) decreases the likelihood that the antecedent behavior will happen again. Positive indicates the application of a stimulus; Negative indicates the withholding of a stimulus. Learning is therefore defined as a change in behavior in the learner. Lots of (early) behaviorist work was done with animals (e.g. Pavlov’s dogs) and generalized to humans. Behaviorism precedes the cognitivist worldview. It rejects structuralism and is an extension of Logical Positivism. Learning Theories Knowledgebase (2008, June). Social Learning Theory (Bandura) at Learning-Theories.com. Retrieved June 8th, 2008 from http://www.learning-theories.com/social-learning-theory-bandura.html Social Learning Theory (Bandura) Summary: Bandura’s Social Learning Theory posits that people learn from one another, via observation, imitation, and modeling. The theory has often been called a bridge between behaviorist and cognitive learning theories because it encompasses attention, memory, and motivation. Social Learning Theory (Bandura) People learn through observing others’ behavior, attitudes, and outcomes of those behaviors. “Most human behavior is learned observationally through modeling: from observing others, one forms an idea of how new behaviors are performed, and on later occasions this coded information serves as a guide for action.” (Bandura). Social learning theory explains human behavior in terms of continuous reciprocal interaction between cognitive, behavioral, and environmental influences. Necessary conditions for effective modeling:
Bandura believed in “reciprocal determinism”, that is, the world and a person’s behavior cause each other, while behaviorism essentially states that one’s environment causes one’s behavior, Bandura, who was studying adolescent aggression, found this too simplistic, and so in addition he suggested that behavior causes environment as well. Later, Bandura soon considered personality as an interaction between three components: the environment, behavior, and one’s psychological processes (one’s ability to entertain images in minds and language). Social learning theory has sometimes been called a bridge between behaviorist and cognitive learning theories because it encompasses attention, memory, and motivation. The theory is related to Vygotsky’s Social Development Theory and Lave’s Situated Learning, which also emphasize the importance of social learning.
Learning Theories Knowledgebase (2008, June). Situated Learning Theory (Lave) at Learning-Theories.com. Retrieved June 8th, 2008 from http://www.learning-theories.com/situated-learning-theory-lave.html Summary: Situated Learning Theory posits that learning is unintentional and situated within authentic activity, context, and culture. Originator: Jean Lave Key Terms: Legitimate Peripheral Participation (LPP), Cognitive Apprenticeship Situated Learning Theory (Lave) In contrast with most classroom learning activities that involve abstract knowledge which is and out of context, Lave argues that learning is situated; that is, as it normally occurs, learning is embedded within activity, context and culture. It is also usually unintentional rather than deliberate. Lave and Wenger (1991) call this a process of “legitimate peripheral participation.” Knowledge needs to be presented in authentic contexts — settings and situations that would normally involve that knowledge. Social interaction and collaboration are essential components of situated learning — learners become involved in a “community of practice” which embodies certain beliefs and behaviors to be acquired. As the beginner or novice moves from the periphery of a community to its center, he or she becomes more active and engaged within the culture and eventually assumes the role of an expert. Other researchers have further developed Situated Learning theory. Brown, Collins & Duguid (1989) emphasize the idea of cognitive apprenticeship: “Cognitive apprenticeship supports learning in a domain by enabling students to acquire, develop and use cognitive tools in authentic domain activity. Learning, both outside and inside school, advances through collaborative social interaction and the social construction of knowledge.” Situated learning is related to Vygotsky’s notion of learning through social development. Social Development Theory (Vygotsky) Summary: Social Development Theory argues that social interaction precedes development; consciousness and cognition are the end product of socialization and social behavior. Originator: Lev Vygotsky (1896-1934). Key terms: Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), More Knowledgeable Other (MKO) Vygotsky’s Social Development Theory Vygotsky’s Social Development Theory is the work of Russian psychologist Lev Vygotsky (1896-1934), who lived during Russian Revolution. Vygotsky’s work was largely unkown to the West until it was published in 1962. Vygotsky’s theory is one of the foundations of constructivism. It asserts three major themes: Major themes:
Vygotsky focused on the connections between people and the sociocultural context in which they act and interact in shared experiences (Crawford, 1996). According to Vygotsky, humans use tools that develop from a culture, such as speech and writing, to mediate their social environments. Initially children develop these tools to serve solely as social functions, ways to communicate needs. Vygotsky believed that the internalization of these tools led to higher thinking skills. Applications of the Vygotsky’s Social Development Theory Many schools have traditionally held a transmissionist or instructionist model in which a teacher or lecturer ‘transmits’ information to students. In contrast, Vygotsky’s theory promotes learning contexts in which students play an active role in learning. Roles of the teacher and student are therefore shifted, as a teacher should collaborate with his or her students in order to help facilitate meaning construction in students. Learning therefore becomes a reciprocal experience for the students and teacher. Learning Theories Knowledgebase (2008, June). ADDIE Model at Learning-Theories.com. Retrieved June 8th, 2008 from http://www.learning-theories.com/addie-model.html ADDIE Model Summary: The ADDIE model is a systematic instructional design model consisting of five phases: (1) Analysis, (2) Design, (3) Development, (4) Implementation, and (5) Evaluation. Various flavors and versions of the ADDIE model exist. Originator: Unknown. Refined by Dick and Carey and others. Key terms: Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, Evaluation ADDIE Model The generic term for the five-phase instructional design model consisting of Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and Evaluation. Each step has an outcome that feeds into the next step in the sequence. There are probably over 100+ different variations of the generic ADDIE model. The five phases of ADDIE are as follows: Analysis
Design
Development
Implementation
Evaluation
Rapid prototyping (continual feedback) has sometimes been cited as as a way to improve the generic ADDIE model. Taylor, C. (2007) Reward Players, Don’t Punish them! Game Daily (70504) Retrieved June 8th, 2008 from http://www.gamedaily.com/articles/features/reward-players-dont-punish-them/70504/?biz=1 Over the past few years, I have noticed a new and fascinating trend in game design: Games are moving toward reward systems and very much away from punishment systems. Punishment goes back to the days of coin-operated games, and even amusement parks. You got three baseballs to throw at the milk jugs, and you couldn’t win a prize unless you actually had skill. Otherwise, the game would have no meaning, and the game operator wouldn’t make a living. (A blocker is a term that game designers use to call a part of the game that stops the player’s forward progression because of a complex puzzle, or arbitrary twist in the game.) Video games will auto-save your game. Most will auto-load. When you die, you don’t lose all your stuff or all your experience points. We are making huge progress. We’re finding ways to be entertaining without beating the player down for being dumb and slow. And even though casual games have taught us a lot these past few years about making accessible and non-punishment oriented games, many of them can still get difficult quickly. But overall, we’re moving in a good direction. O’Connell, M. (2008) ADDIE Design Process Canberra, ACT: Flex.Ed/CIT The ADDIE process is an education design process that enables the design and development of your teaching and learning. This is a continuous process which includes analysis, design, development, implementation and evaluation. The ADDIE process is most effective when used to facilitate learner-centred approaches. Analyse:
Design:
Develop:
Implement:
Evaluate:
04
06
2008
Thoughts and ideas from Gaming papers and articlesPosted by: colinsimpson in UncategorizedTime has gotten away from me with this project and the research has taken a bit of a hit. I’ve been finding more and more things (that’s the easy part) but actually digging down into them to see what nuggets of wisdom there are to be gleaned is another thing entirely. Rather than explore the papers in depth now, I’m just going to grab the most useful and salient points/quotes. Violence and games Endestad, T. and Torgerson, L (2003) Computer games and violence: Is there really a connection? Proceedings of DiGRA 2003 Conference: Level Up . Utrecht, The Netherlands: DiGRA “The presented results come from a large, representative study, with approximately 2000
Design of games – flow, motivation and player action Paras, B (2003) Learning to Play: The design on in-game training to enhance videogame experience In an attempt to provide a robust definition of ‘game’, Katie Salen and Eric Zimmerman (2004) looked at eight different definitions of game as provided by game historians and designers. They then deconstructed their definitions and isolated specific characteristics that were common to most or all of the definitions. They used their shared characteristics to construct a composite definition that reflected much of the best critical thinking in the history and theory 2.2.4.2 Flow 2.3.1 Behaviourist Stimulus Response 2.3.4 Learning Environments Sound in FPS games EGrimshaw, M. and Schott, G. (2007) Situated Gaming as a sonic experience: The acoustic ecology of First-Person Shooters Proceedings of DiGRA 2007 Conference: FuturePlay . Toronto, Canada: DiGRA Statements such as “the only thing the player knows about In We elected to treat audio Furthermore, the action of the Modes of listening are utilized for various sounds within Using cutscenes VS not using cutscenes Pinchbeck, D. (2007) Counting barrels in Quake 4: affordances and homodiegetic structures in FPS worlds Proceedings of DiGRA 2007 Conference: FuturePlay . Toronto, Canada: DiGRA Since the release of Half Life (1998), first-person Modern first-person games 1 can be characterized by an In Presence in 3D games McMahan, A. (2003) Immersion, Engagement and Presence: A method for Analysing 3-D Video games. In Wolf, M. and Perron, B (Ed.), The Video Game Theory Reader (pp.67 – 86) New York: Routledge immersion Three Engagement Technical literature on pres- Steuer gives a useful outline of the provenance of the term presence: Matthew Lombard and Theresa Ditton define presence as “the artifi- Quality of Social Interaction Realism “The art of V[R]E design is surely to provide users with carefully structured Perceptual and Psychological Immersion Theorists such as The Use of a Social Actor in the Medium Intelligent Environment I am currently conducting an experiment in how the sense of presence (More of the same – presence in games) Pinchbeck, D., Stevens, B., Van Laar, D., Hand, S., Newman, K. 2006. Narrative, agency and observational behavioiur in a first person shooter environment. Presented at Narrative AI and Games AISOB Symposium, Bristol, UK, April 2006 The relationship between narrative and play is fre- Simply because we remember narratives well, it FPS games were selected Deus Ex (2000) ef- Eye tracking was initially put forward as an ad- Jenkins (2003) postulates four types of narrative Narrative must be distinguished from story in (The researchers got 5 players of different skill levels to play 2 levels of HalfLife2 and used eye tracking devices to record what they looked at during the sessions) A number of key differences to observational Fig 2: Novices tend to track objects with focal point By contrast, experienced gamers restricted their The suggestion that experienced gamers oper- Non-human but moving objects seemed secon- The evidence of hierarchical attention, especially The fact that non-narrative devices are the More stuff on how to tell story in games – cutscene vs non-cutscene Cheng, P. (2007) Waiting for something to happen: Narratives, Interactivity and Agency and the Video Game Cut-Scene Proceedings of DiGRA 2007 Conference: FuturePlay . Toronto, Canada: DiGRA Since cut-scenes often follow Building on this definition then, the standard There are many unique aspects to King Kong. It Frome, J. (2007) Eight Ways Videogames Generate Emotion Proceedings of DiGRA 2007 Conference: FuturePlay . Toronto, Canada: DiGRA The notion of emotional response relies on the extremely Players take two Is it this aspect of the observer-participant role that I propose a We can think of game emotions as Narrative emotions are based on a videogame’s characters, Although it is fairly intuitive that videogames can generate The last type of emotion in the model is ecological we may consciously know that The different audience roles and types of emotion discussed Sorensen, B. and Meyer, B. (2007) Serious Games in language learning and teaching – a theoretical perspective Proceedings of DiGRA 2007 Conference: FuturePlay . Toronto, Canada: DiGRA Warschauer Games may provide the opportunity for going beyond Two main conclusions from the research project Children The Mingoville course contains 10 missions that take the Magnussen, R. (2007) Teacher roles in learning games – When games become situated in schools Proceedings of DiGRA 2007 Conference: FuturePlay . Toronto, Canada: DiGRA Using learning games in education gives rise to a learning In the manual the teacher’s role is primarily defined as a We received several comments about the teacher manual The teacher might not be aware of how changing the game Jarvinen, A. (2007) Introducing Applied Ludology: Hands-on methods for Game Studies Proceedings of DiGRA 2007 Conference: FuturePlay . Toronto, Canada: DiGRA The theory of game elements is based on the METHOD FOR IDENTIFYING GAME ELEMENTS METHOD FOR IDENTIFYING GAME MECHANICS AND Uncertainty factors as cues of non-trivial player abilities The results which the method yields can be used for a Rambusch, J., Jakobsson, P. and Pargman, D. (2007) Exploring E-sports: A Case Study of Gameplay in Counter-Strike Proceedings of DiGRA 2007 Conference: FuturePlay . Toronto, Canada: DiGRA From a methodological standpoint there are two ways of studying and understanding gameplay. On the one hand there is the handling of the game, i.e. the actual (physical and motorical) activity of playing the game. On the other hand, we have player’s meaning-making activities, i.e. their understanding of the game in terms of how the game is to be played, their role in the game and the culture around the game [cf. 30]. This is an analytical distinction since in practice both elements are closely related; the handling of the game has an impact on players’ understanding of the game and vice versa. For instance, our study shows that players who become better at handling Counter-Strike start taking playing activities more seriously which leads to more practice and yet higher levels of proficiency The idea of both elements being closely related is strongly supported by theories of embodied and situated cognition (EC/SC). According to these theories sensori-motor activity is inextricably intertwined with higher cognitive processes such as learning, reasoning, problem solving and decision- making, i.e. handling and meaning-making are closely related. Moreover, gameplay is a situated social-cultural activity, spanning brain, body, and game environment [25]. It is distributed and coordinated across player, game interface, game world and game structure [1] as well as other objects and people. People are very proficient in using the material and social environment and act in for their own benefit [8,16] and the same goes for playing computer games; the line between virtual game world and real life is not as clear-cut as often believed. However, as video recordings and interviews revealed, configuration of the equipment does have an important impact on gameplay in CS. This has little to do with players’ beliefs or feelings; instead, it has to do with the isomorphism between how the physical environment is configured in relation to the in-game environment. The typical line-up at a tournament consists of five players sitting in a row next to each other. Players can thus make use of “neighbors” screens as well as their own; instead of asking for others’ in-game locations and actions, they can simply glance sideways. This is also the reason why the virtual line-up of a clan inside the game to large extent mirrors the line-up in front of the computer and how in- game roles and positions to some extent become visible in the clan’s physical line-up. This clearly shows how players escape their virtual confines and take cognitive advantage of the surrounding game environment The two dominant discourses of identity in the community forum are those of professionalism and athleticism. The professional identity is expressed in the concern of the community to come off as serious, dedicated and mature with a clear goal and vision: to turn CS into an accepted sport with chances for practitioners to make a living from playing the game. Appeal to excellence, physical fitness, endurance, practice and hard work constitutes the basis for a discourse of athleticism. Falstein, N. (2008) Design Language: The Portal Paradoxes Gamasutra (3616) Retrieved June 6th, 2008 from http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3616/design_language_the_portal_.php The basic gameplay elements are also quite minimal, a true mark of excellent game design. I often quote Einstein, who said, “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler” as guidance in game design, yet it is rare that a game follows that precept as well as Portal. The initial levels are perfectly tuned to just fly by, giving the player a sense of mastery and competence. In fact, when I listened to the level design commentary after completing levels I was struck by how nearly all the changes and tuning seemed to involve adjusting the learning curve of the game; making things clear, introducing some elements more gradually in order to let players grasp them fully, reminding them with a simple challenge of game mechanisms introduced earlier on just before they are needed again. <SCRIPT LANGUAGE=”Javascript1.1″ SRC=”http://as.cmpnet.com/js.ng/Params.richmedia=yes&site=game&affiliate=gamasutra&pagepos=jumbobox&target=&ord=92300185959995340?”></SCRIPT> It’s also worth noting how the simple icons at the start and at key points of each level give you the hints necessary to understand what you need to do without dialog or even text labels — yet another minimalist touch. Likewise, the type of enemies is severely limited compared to most first person shooters. I love the fact that they resisted the opportunity to add various types of guns and tools and powerups or complex double-jumps or climbing mechanisms that clutter so many examples of the genre. Ultimately, one clearly positive lesson they followed is one I’ve heard echoed by such luminaries as Sid Meier and Will Wright; to iterate the design frequently and test it with fresh players over and over again. This is an important way to keep from tweaking a game to be gradually harder and harder as the same testers grow bored and keep requesting tougher challenges. Project Leader Kim Swift has mentioned how they constantly adjusted the game to make it understandable to beginners. This is a supremely accessible game — you may feel challenged at times (I know as a fairly basic action player I had trouble mastering some of the timing required at higher levels) but it was always clear what I had to do, and it never felt far out of my reach. Conversely, it felt tough enough that I had a very strong sense of accomplishment and victory — what Nicole Lazzaro refers to as Fiero — when I came up with ways to get through the levels.
Harris, J. (2007) Game Design Essentials: 20 Unusual Control Schemes Gamasutra (1937) Retrieved June 6th, 2008 from http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/2844/game_design_essentials_20_unusual_.php There is a theory that the controls of a video game should do their best to get out of the player’s way. The interaction between the player’s mind and the game world should be as simple as possible… In the absence of such technology, controls should be standardized so a player can move from one game to another easily. They seek to develop a shared control language that applies across games: left stick moves, right controls camera, the major action button shoots, a secondary one jumps, shoulder buttons flip between weapons — that kind of thing.
Bogost, I. (2007) Persuasive Games: Casual as in sex, not casual as in Friday Gamasutra (2844) Retrieved June 6th, 2008 fromhttp://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/1937/persuasive_games_casual_as_in_.php Proponents argue that casual games both open up new audiences for games and make new styles of games possible, but the genre has largely floundered in copycat titles. According to the IGDA Casual Games white paper, casual games are “games that generally involve less complicated game controls and overall complexity in terms of gameplay or investment required to get through game.” The group contrasts casual games with “hardcore” or “core” or “traditional” games — games “developed for and delivered on a dedicated game console” that “involve more complicated game controls and overall complexity in terms of gameplay or investment required to get through game.” We might summarize the industry’s conception of casual games along two axes: design considerations and player resources. Because casual gamers don’t play many games, or don’t play them very often, they are unfamiliar with the complex conventions that might feel second nature to hardcore gamers. These games attempt to minimize complexity and investment in player time, money, and control mastery. Casual games sport designs and controls of reduced complexity that take little time to learn and to play, that come at modest cost and are easy to purchase. Casual games typically offer short gameplay sessions, come at a lower cost than hardcore games, and allow play on more ordinary devices like personal computers and mobile phones. The typical design values of casual games strongly resemble the early coin-op industry. Consider controls. Nolan Bushnell’s cabinet version Spacewar!, which he called Computer Space didn’t sell well. One reason for its failure was complexity. As Bushnell explains, “You had to read the instructions before you could play, people didn’t want to read instructions.”1 Pong fixed the problem. Bushnell: “To be successful, I had to come up with a game people already knew how to play; something so simple that any drunk in any bar could play.” The Pong cabinet features one instruction: “Avoid missing ball for high score.”
One can easily draw a connection between the taverngoing Pong player and the after-bedtime Bejeweled player. The IGDA SIG explicitly recommends mouse-only control for casual games (“The interaction between the user and the game should be limited to the computer mouse”). A mouse is something every computer user owns and knows how to use. Simple controls on existing equipment seem to be well-addressed design strategies in casual games.
A common design philosophy for casual games is “easy to learn, hard to master.” Casual games are supposed respect the value of their players’ time, making it easier to learn to play the game. But the notion of mastery raises doubt about low commitment in casual games. Individual casual game sessions often do require only short amounts of time: a round of Solitaire or Tetris or Bejeweled might take less than five minutes. But the maxim “easy to learn, hard to master” reveals that casual games actually demand significant total play time. Players are expected to string short game sessions together, either at once or over long periods, to maximize performance. A casual games proponent might argue that the player might choose not to master the game, but rather just to play short sessions early in the title’s progression (“games you can play for five minutes or five hours”). But the business of casual games belies such argument: for one part, the typical cost of a downloadable game suggests that medium- to long-term player commitment is required to get value from a purchase; and for another part, downloadable games’ 1-2% conversion on try-before-you-buy purchases suggests that the vast majority of players are satisfied with the gameplay experience of the trial anyway. Mastery demands high, not low, commitment. I’d suggest that the genre’s current conception of “casualness” suggests informality. If core or hardcore games are “formal” in the sense that they require adherence to complex gameplay and social conventions, then casual games are “informal” in the sense that they do not require such strict adherence. Informality is a kind of “dressing down” of an otherwise more “proper” gaming practice. But informality also underscores the likelihood of regular, repetitive engagement with that practice. This is the casual of casual dress or casual Friday, both of which articulate a respite from the formality of business or social attire and mannerisms. Casual Friday is a repetitive, habitual casualness: come as you are, but expect to do it every week. Applied to games, casual as informality characterizes the notions of pick-up play common in casual games while still calling for repetition and mastery. This is why casual games can value both short session duration and high replayability or addictiveness. Casual games may allow short session play time, but they demand high total playtime, and therefore high total time commitment on the part of the player. Low commitment represents the primary unexplored design space in the casual games market.
Most game developers are “core gamers”, well versed in the complex logics of resource allocation. We tend to privilege simplicity and emergence in games, favoring sophisticated experiences that create new challenges each time we play. And perhaps one well-balanced, mastery-style casual game is less financially risky than many throwaway experiences. But such an attitude ignores the pleasures of the fleeting, the transitory, the impermanent. Casual games, perhaps, can do more by doing less.
Ghozland, D. (2007) Designing for Motivation Gamasutra (1419) Retrieved June 6th, 2008 from http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/1419/designing_for_motivation.php The player has to “believe” in the game, identify himself with something and quickly get one’s bearings. The tutorial is essential to guide the player in this development. This is an interactive part where the player becomes acquainted with the game. In general, the tutorial should be the first level(s) where the basics are taught; however, this should not be apparent. Motivated by his need to learn and to understand, the player will be even more receptive if the tutorial seems to be a “natural way to go”. A tutorial that only enumerates rules and controls is absolutely anti-immersive and not very motivating.
We have to offer challenges to the player in order to entertain him and test him along with rewards that would motivate him to continue playing. Motivating the player is also to understand his needs with the purpose of fulfilling them. It is thus to know but also “to control” the progress of his needs in order to increase them, vary them and modify them from the beginning till the end of the game. A reward can take several forms but it must be in correlation with the universe and with the player’s expectations. A reward is related to a challenge, a test or an effort, and thus must be proportional to the difficulty to obtain it.
In general, shoot’em up and beat’em up style games are based on the player state P. The player’s characteristics (character, ship, etc.) are upgradeable but are not permanent. Everything the player can acquire is temporary. He can lose his bonuses at the end of the level or when he dies. The player’s objective is to keep his strength as high and as long as possible to defeat the final boss. The need N of the player is high, and he has to increase his strength P through bonuses and upgrades. Challenge expectation C is directly linked to P: weak when the player has no upgrade and strong when he acquires enough bonuses. The reward R is represented by a consequent increase of fire power and hence by the decrease of the difficulty. Here are 3 examples of the management of the motivation commonly used that will well illustrate the PNRC mechanic and its advantages. Score system:The score system is a good way of how to manage the motivation. It is an integral part of a reward system, which allows both rewarding and confirming the success of the player (R). This goes from encouragement to applause, from score bonuses to experience points.
The player is rewarded by points and/or by ranking. The score determines the progression, and the bonus rewards the performance. The player creates a logical system where the game universe is organized and structured in form of point values. The difficulty of the challenge is measured by the number of points it brings and vice-versa. The player is then pushed to bigger and bigger challenges (C) in order to gain more points. Key system:The system is an additional layer of the challenge/reward mechanic. Challenges (C) are trials where in order to progress the player must first successfully finish previous trials. The principle is that the player is in front of a locked door and he needs a key to open it. In order to succeed in this challenge he needs first to find this key (N) which, however, is a reward (R) in a different challenge. The key then becomes both the need and the reward and thus increases the motivation to gain it. Multi-choice:Giving a choice to the player increases the possibilities of both the game and gameplay. Motivating is also used to increase the player’s chances to find what he is looking for (N). Being able to apprehend the challenge before the confrontation is an enormous advantage. The fact that the player can prepare himself for the confrontation (C) is in itself a very motivating element. Also, having even a partial knowledge of the reward before the challenge is quite interesting. The player can avoid the frustration of discovering a non satisfying reward or he can strive to gain a reward (R) that motivates him. I am talking about positive motivation that pushes the player forward to a feeling of accomplishment. However, there are opposite motivations based on negative characteristics as well, such as addiction, alienation, anger, frustration, etc. It can be interesting to exploit these feelings sometimes, for deeper needs, but to build a complete system based on this would be destructive. At the end, the player would be left feeling bitter and would be repelled by the game. With score system, key system and multi-choice, the motivation loop is a loop of positive reinforcement that feeds itself. The player is immersed in the game and pushed forward. He will live through a motivating experience. Duffy, J. (2006) GDC: Top 10 Video Game Research Findings Gamasutra (2645) Retrieved June 6th, 2008 from http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/2645/gdc_top_10_video_game_research_.php 10. How does music impact a player’s effectiveness? Cassidy, Gianna, et al. The Effects of Aggressive and Relaxing Popular Music on Driving 9. What do players really think about voice chat and its usefulness in gameplay? Number 9, by K. Hew, M. R. Gibbs, and G. Wadley of The University of Melbourne, uncovered aural feedback that players actually found disruptive, such as noise, speech not intended for them, and trash talk. Poor voice chat usability, in other words, hinders the players’ attempts to be social, subverting the very goal of voice chat. Consalvo explains that the research participants slowly could adapt to the ambient and distracting noises, but usually removed their headsets when the sounds became “too troublesome.” If developers choose to use voice chat, she advises it be targeted in a way that’s very specific to the game. Hew, Kevin, Gibbs, Martin and Wadley, Greg. Usability and sociability of the Xbox Live voice 7. Does the presence of other players make an online game more or less immersive? Campanella Bracken, Cheryl, et al. Online video games and gamers’ sensations of spatial, 4. What strategies do gamers invent to communicate to other players in online games, and can games be better designed to support these strategies? T. Manninen and T. Kujanpaa of University of Oulu, Finland, in the number 4 study looked at Battlefield 1942. McGonigal, strongly suggesting that developers read Manninen and Kujanpaa’s work in its entirety, is particularly fascinated by their area of research. This ethnographic study compiled data on how players gave cues to one another in the game and found players wanted to communicate in ways that the game did not support. Players wanted to coordinate with their teammates in ways that were not supported by the game mechanics. For example, players were unable to gesture to one another or make other non-verbal cues. They also could not interact with other players without violent physical contact. McGonigal notes that the workaround strategies players invent, such as pointing with weapons instead of pointing with hands or arms, are still limiting. Because players are already inventing ways to communicate in these alternative ways, McGonigal says developers need to seriously explore these possibilities to better meet their needs. Manninen, Tony and Kujanpää, Tomi. The Hunt for Collaborative War Gaming – CASE: 3. Can alternative controllers, like eye tracking devices, offer a PC gaming experience that is more fun and involving than mouse control? Number 3, conducted by Erika Jonsson at the Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden, found players enjoyed playing Half-Life more when they used an eye-tracking device combined with their mouse control. “Use of eye-tracking could be a successful addition to your game, provided it has a useful function and is properly play-tested,” says Consalvo. Participants in the study actually earned higher scores in the game when they used the eye-tracking device. Jönsson, Erika. If looks could kill: An evaluation of eye tracking in computer games. Master’s 1. How do game events marking success versus failure affect a player’s level of engagement? Failure is remarkably important to game players. That’s what Niklas Ravaj et al. from the Helsinki School of Economics found when they compiled their research. Using the game Super Monkey Ball 2 for GameCube, they examined how player success and failure affected the player’s level of engagement. McGonigal calls their findings “counter-intuitive,” noting the participants felt more pleasure and excitement in active failure than in success. Passive failures, on the other hand, leave players feeling less engaged. So the ways in which developers make failure possible—either active or passive—will have a significant effect on how players receive the game. “It didn’t matter that within the game [the players] were doing really terribly,” says McGonigal. “There’s a certain satisfaction of sending a monkey into space.” Ravaja, Niklas, et al. The Psychophysiology of Video Gaming: Phasic Emotional Responses Wilson, G. (2006) Off with their HUDs!: Rethinking the Heads-Up Display in Console game design Gamasutra (2538) Retrieved June 7th, 2008 from http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/2538/off_with_their_huds_rethinking_.php “What is a HUD?” A HUD is simply a collection of persistent onscreen elements whose purpose is to indicate player status. HUD elements can be used to show, among many other things, how much health the player has, in which direction the player is heading, or where the player ranks in a race. This makes the HUD an invaluable method of conveying information to the player during a game. It is an accepted shorthand, a direct pipeline from the developer to the end-user. However, millions of high-definition televisions have an Achilles heel that can hinder developers as well: burn-in. Burn-in can occur on different types of phosphor-based HDTVs, including plasma and traditional rear-projection units; it is caused by persistent onscreen elements that, over time, create a ghost image on the screen even after they are no longer shown. Hmm… persistent onscreen elements? Like a HUD? The short answer is yes—traditional HUDs can pose a risk to many who play console games for extended periods of time on their HDTVs. Increasingly sophisticated home theater systems have helped create a sense of immersion for those that have them. More detailed graphics and more refined storytelling techniques can also draw a player into a rich and complex game world. However, nothing screams “this is just a game” louder than an old-fashioned HUD. It is not a part of the game world; it is an artificial overlay that is efficient, but often distracts the player from the environment in which he or she is immersed. As video games attempt to reach new audiences beyond the core gamer market, developers are realizing the need to simplify interface design. While hardcore gamers might not be intimidated by numerous status bars and gauges onscreen, a casual gamer is much more likely to feel overwhelmed. Gamers looking for a “pick up and play” experience are not inclined to spend time figuring out what all those bars and gauges are for. The simpler and more intuitive the interface, the more accessible the game can be to non-traditional gamers. So how do you replace the information provided in the HUD (in an FPL) (well presumably the article goes on to discuss this but my immediate reaction is to either have the player being able to pull out a PDA which provides this information or display it more subtly in images/clocks?/screens on walls in the space they are in – these wouldn’t be everywhere but frequent enough to keep them up dated. Another option would simply be to be able to turn the HUD on and off with an assigned keystroke. Many elements found on a typical HUD are there not out of necessity, but out of convention; they represent a sort of “info overkill” that, for the vast majority of players, has no impact on gameplay at all. For every piece of information you offer the player, ask, “Is this information essential to the game experience?” Call of Duty 2 (Xbox 360) provides a good example of eliminating one type of unnecessary information. Although the game does feature some elaborate HUD elements, it’s also notable for what it doesn’t feature: a visible health meter. It seems illogical for a first-person shooter to not include a health meter of some sort; and yet, the game plays beautifully, relying on a very simple and intuitive visual cue that warns the player when health is dangerously low: the screen periphery turns red and pulses. In a racing game such as Project Gotham Racing 3 (Xbox 360), the “in-car” view during a race allows for an entirely immersive experience that also incorporates player information (such as speed) directly into the environment via the car dashboard.
In Doom 3 (Xbox), while a player’s weapon ammunition count generally shows up as an overlay in the lower right corner of the screen, weapons like the chaingun include the ammunition count as a readout directly on the weapon model. When designing a futuristic FPS, there’s no reason why a developer couldn’t just put an ammo count display directly on every weapon model from the get-go. In a third-person game, player health and/or damage indication can be shown in ways other than through a health meter. In many survival horror games like Eternal Darkness (Gamecube), player health—both physical and mental—is clearly reflected in the player-character model’s onscreen appearance and movements. This can be accomplished through texture, animation, and even camera work. These indicators may not seem initially to be as precise as a counter or bar, but if players are given enough distinctive indicators, the process can become intuitive very quickly. Another way to convey player status info is through audio cues. This is an often underutilized method that can either reinforce a visual cue or offer a unique message that is not easily shown visually. For example, in Halo (Xbox), when a player’s armor loses shield protection, an audio warning reinforces the flashing visual cue of the health status bar. This allows a player to know he or she is in imminent danger without having to refer to the HUD. In Project: Snowblind (PlayStation 2), if a player dawdles instead of advancing toward the location of an objective, non-player characters offer spoken dialogue that encourages the player toward the objective. Since HUD elements are meant to convey player status information, one simple solution is to only show an element when the player status changes. For example, a health indicator does not generally need to be shown unless the player is either gaining or losing health. The Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay (Xbox) uses just such a health meter, to great effect. By the same token, God of War (PlayStation 2) features a HUD that disappears when the player is not near an enemy or performing an attack move. The HUD elements that pose the most risk of burn-in are those that seldom change, such as graphical borders. These static elements also offer the least benefit to the player, since they are generally decorative and do not contain information relevant to the game. Gee, J. (2004) Learning by Design: Games as learning machines Gamasutra (2056) Retrieved June 7th, 2008 from http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/2056/learning_by_design_games_as_.php So the question is: How do good game designers manage to get new players to learn long, complex, and difficult games? Another answer that is not interesting, at least initially, is that some good games appear to be made only for people who are already adept game players. These games can be uninviting or frustrating for newcomers. The answer that is interesting is this: the designers of many good games have hit on profoundly good methods of getting people to learn and to enjoy learning. Furthermore, it turns out that these methods are similar in many respects to cutting-edge principles being discovered in research on human learning In the end, I have to admit, though, that I believe game designers can make worlds where people can have meaningful new experiences, experiences that their places in life would never allow them to have or even experiences no human being has ever had before. These experiences have the potential to make people smarter and more thoughtful. Learning in Good Games There are many good principles of learning built into good computer and video games. I list a baker’s dozen below. EMPOWERED LEARNERS Co-Design Principle: Good learning requires that learners feel like active agents (producers) not just passive recipients (consumers). Games: In good games, players feel that their actions and decisions-and not just or primarily the designers’ actions and decisions-are co-creating the world they are in and the experiences they are having. Customize Principle: Different styles of learning work better for different people. People cannot be agents of their own learning if they cannot make decisions about how their learning will work. At the same time, they should be able (and encouraged) to try new styles. Games: Good games achieve this goal in one (or both) of two ways. In some games, players are able to customize the game play to fit their learning and playing styles. In others, the game is designed to allow different styles of learning and playing to work. Identity Principle: Deep learning requires an extended commitment and such a commitment is powerfully recruited when people take on a new identity they value and in which they become heavily invested-whether this be a child “being a scientist doing science” in a classroom or an adult taking on a new role at work. Games: Good games offer players identities that trigger a deep investment on the part of the player. They achieve this goal in one of two ways. Some games offer a character so intriguing that players want to inhabit the character and can readily project their own fantasies, desires, and pleasures onto the character. Other games offer a relatively empty character whose traits the player must determine, but in such a way that the player can create a deep and consequential life history in the game world for the character. Manipulation Principle: Cognitive research suggests that for humans perception and action are deeply inter-connected. Thus, fine-grained action at a distance-for example, when a person is manipulating a robot at a distance or watering a garden via a web cam on the Internet-causes humans to feel as if their bodies and minds have stretched into a new space. More generally, humans feel expanded and empowered when then can manipulate powerful tools in intricate ways that extend their area of effectiveness. Games: Computer and video games inherently involve action at a (albeit virtual) distance. The more and better a player can manipulate a character, the more the player invests in the game world. Good games offer characters that the player can move intricately, effectively, and easily through the world. Beyond characters, good games offer the player intricate, effective, and easy manipulation of the world’s objects, objects which become tools for carrying out the player’s goals. PROBLEM SOLVING Well-Order Problems Principle: Given human creativity, if learners face problems early on that are too free-form or too complex, they often form creative hypotheses about how to solve these problems, but hypotheses that don’t work well for later problems (even for simpler ones, let alone harder ones). They have been sent down a “garden path”. The problems learners face early on are crucial and should be well-designed to lead them to solutions that work well, not just on these problems, but as aspects of the solutions to later, harder problems. Games: Problems in good games are well ordered. In particular, early problems are designed to lead players to form good guesses about how to proceed when they face harder problems later on in the game. In this sense, earlier parts of a good game are always looking forward to later parts. Pleasantly Frustrating Principle: Learning works best when new challenges are pleasantly frustrating in the sense of being felt by learners to be at the outer edge of, but within, their “regime of competence”. That is, these challenges feel hard, but doable. Furthermore, learners feel-and get evidence-that their effort is paying off in the sense that they can see, even when they fail, how and if they are making progress. Games: Good games adjust challenges and give feedback in such a way that different players feel the game is challenging but doable and that their effort is paying off. Players get feedback that indicates whether they are on the right road for success later on and at the end of the game. When players lose to a boss, perhaps multiple times, they get feedback about the sort of progress they are making so that at least they know if and how they are moving in the right direction towards success. Cycles of Expertise Principle: Expertise is formed in any area by repeated cycles of learners practicing skills until they are nearly automatic, then having those skills fail in ways that cause the learners to have to think again and learn anew. Then they practice this new skill set to an automatic level of mastery only to see it, too, eventually be challenged. Games: Good games create and support the cycle of expertise, with cycles of extended practice, tests of mastery of that practice, then a new challenge, and then new extended practice. This is, in fact, part of what constitutes good pacing in a game. Information “On Demand” and “Just in Time” Principle: Human beings are quite poor at using verbal information (i.e., words) when given lots of it out of context and before that can see how it applies in actual situations. They use verbal information best when it is given “just in time” (when they can put it to use) and “on demand” (when they feel they need it). Games: Good games give verbal information-for example, the sorts of information that is often in a manual-”just in time” and “on demand” in a game. Players don’t need to read a manual to start, but can use the manual as a reference after they have played a while and the game has already made much of the verbal information in the manual concrete through the player’s experiences in the game. Example: System Shock 2 spreads its manual out over the first few levels in little green kiosks that give players-if they want it-brief pieces of information that will soon thereafter be visually instantiated or put to use by the player. Fish Tanks Principle: In the real world, a fish tank can be a little simplified eco-system that clearly displays some critical variables and their interactions that are otherwise obscured in the highly complex eco-system in the real world. Using the term metaphorically, fish tanks are good for learning: if we create simplified systems, stressing a few key variables and their interactions, learners who would otherwise be overwhelmed by a complex system (e.g., Newton’s Laws of Motion operating in the real world) get to see some basic relationships at work and take the first steps towards their eventual mastery of the real system (e.g., they begin to know what to pay attention to). Games: Fish tanks are stripped down versions of the game. Good games offer players fish tanks, either as tutorials or as their first level or two. Otherwise it can be difficult for newcomers to understand the game as a whole system, since the often can’t see the forest because of the trees. Example: Rise of Nations‘ tutorial scenarios (like “Alfred the Great” or “The 100 Years War”) are wonderful fish tanks, allowing the player to play scaled down versions of the game that render key elements and relationships salient. Sandboxes Principle: Sandboxes in the real world are safe havens for children that still look and feel like the real world. Using the term metaphorically, sandboxes are good for learning: if learners are put into a situation that feels like the real thing, but with risks and dangers greatly mitigated, they can learn well and still feel a sense of authenticity and accomplishment. Games: Sandboxes are game play much like the real game, but where things cannot go too wrong too quickly or, perhaps, even at all. Good games offer players, either as tutorials or as their first level or two, sandboxes. You can’t expect newcomers to learn if they feel too much pressure, understand too little, and feel like failures. Skills as Strategies Principle: There is a paradox involving skills: People don’t like practicing skills out of context over and over again, since they find such skill practice meaningless, but, without lots of skill practice, they cannot really get any good at what they are trying to learn. People learn and practice skills best when they see a set of related skills as a strategy to accomplish goals they want to accomplish. Games: In good games, players learn and practice skill packages as part and parcel of accomplishing things they need and want to accomplish. They see the skills first and foremost as a strategy for accomplishing a goal and only secondarily as a set of discrete skills. Example: Games like Rise of Nations, Goblin Commander: Unleash the Hoard, and Pikmin all do a good job at getting players to learn skills while paying attention to the strategies these skills are used to pull off. Rise of Nations even has skill tests that package certain skills that go together, show clearly how they enact a strategy, and allow the player to practice them as a functional set.
UNDERSTANDING System Thinking Principle: People learn skills, strategies, and ideas best when they see how they fit into an overall larger system to which they give meaning. In fact, any experience is enhanced when we understand how it fits into a larger meaningful whole. Games: Good games help players see and understand how each of the elements in the game fit into the overall system of the game and its genre (type). Players get a feel for the “rules of the game”-that is, what works and what doesn’t, how things go or don’t go in this type of world. Meaning As Action Image Principle: Humans do not usually think through general definitions and logical principles. Rather, they think through experiences they have had. You don’t think and reason about weddings on the basis of generalities, but in terms of the wedding you have been to and head about. It’s your experiences that give weddings and the word “wedding’ meaning(s). Furthermore, for humans, words and concepts have their deepest meanings when they are clearly tied to action in the world. Games: This is, of course, the heart and soul of computer and video games (though it is amazing how many educational games violate this principle). Even barely adequate games make the meanings of words and concepts clear through experiences the player has and activities the player carries out, not through lectures, talking heads, or generalities. Good games can achieve marvelous effects here, making even philosophical points concretely realized in image and action.
When we think of games, we think of fun. When we think of learning we think of work. Games show us this is wrong. They trigger deep learning that is itself part and parcel of the fun. It is what makes good games deep. If games are to stay complex and yet sell to more and more people, then learning as a lens for game designers may be significant.
Kent, S. (2004) Manhunt to Mortal Kombat: The use and future use of violence in games Gamasutra (2056) Retrieved June 7th, 2008 from http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/2056/learning_by_design_games_as_.php
For people to get into the games, they need to be aroused,” says Dr. David Walsh, president of the National Institute on Media and the Family. “People might not get aroused watching a boring basketball game; but if the game is back-and-forth, seesawing into the last minute, then there is all kinds of interest in that game. I think that arousal and engagement go together.”
Walsh, whose organization creates an annual videogame report card monitoring the progress and enforcement of the ESRB rating system, sees violence as one of the most potent ways to immerse players in games. “I believe that is why there is so much of it. I think that the thing that is lacking is the creativity that is needed to engage the player without resorting to the tried-and-true recipe of violence.”
When discussing violence in games, terms like “comic” and “cartoon” come up often. According to Vance, the violence in many of the T-rated games is cartoon-like. “I think of it as being like punctuation, like an exclamation point,” says Boon. “It’s not necessary for getting your point across, but it heightens things.”
Sylvester, T. (2005) Decision-based gameplay design Gamasutra (2264) Retrieved June 7th, 2008 from http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/2264/decisionbased_gameplay_design.php
Decisions are ultimately what make a game. The only thing that separates gaming from books, movies, plays, and music is the element of decision-making.
Analysis of the best decision-making games reveals some interesting correlations between game fun and the type of decisions presented to the player. These correlations are:
2. Tangible and Obvious Results The process of designing a decision opportunity is not all a designer needs to do. The aftermath of a decision-making event is important as well. A player’s enjoyment of a game can be enhanced greatly by the amount and type of feedback that they receive from the game as a result of their decisions. This is why impressive explosion, gunfire and blood effects are important in FPS games, or why good puzzle games often include flashy effects to mark important events. Seeing an enemy die spectacularly is a reward for a decision well made, as is hearing the trumpet call at the end of a puzzle game well won.
Each decision can thus be evaluated not only on its difficulty and uniqueness, but by the power of the feedback that results from it. The same difficult, unique choice can be gratifying and interesting, or rather pedestrian based on the strength and tangibility of the feedback it produces. There are many ways of delivering feedback to the player: visual, auditory, narrative, constructive, and so on. Some simple examples of feedback are the flashy effects that appear in puzzle games when the player makes points, the blood sprays in FPS games (though there is also a strong element of role-playing here), the accumulation of wealth or valuable items or character traits, the forward movement of a story or formation of an alliance, and so on. Feedback design is a well-developed and generally well-understood field of game design. Multiplayer games, interestingly, have an inherent advantage when it comes to rewarding a player’s good decision. When someone else is on the other end of the line, winning a conflict comes with automatic positive feedback. Defeating a real live human being in any kind of contest, even anonymously over the internet, is a reward in itself. Good feelings associated with beating human opponents are a well-developed part of human biology. This, in addition to the uniqueness of human opponents, is one of the things that have made multiplayer gaming so compelling. Decision Recognition, Evaluation, and Design Game designers need to not only understand how decisions create a computer gaming experience, but also need to be able to create an experience that includes lots of unique, difficult decisions with strong feedback. Creating good decision-based games requires three abilities: The ability to recognize a decision point, the ability to evaluate how fun a decision is, and the ability to design fun decision-making play without compromising other aspects of the game (i.e. without requiring lots of new assets or making the game too complex and difficult to learn). 1. Recognition The first step is to recognize all the decision points. This is not as easy as it sounds, especially in a well-designed game which presents decisions very frequently. When reading a design document, try to imagine playing the game. You are essentially emulating the gameplay in a very inaccurate way using your brain. Think about what’s going on, what you know, what you don’t know, the challenges being presented, and the rewards sought. Go through the gameplay, step-by-step, instead of imagining the gameplay in an abstract way, or only considering the most interesting parts. Skip nothing; what you skip will most likely be a boring decision void. Get a feel for how much real time everything is taking. Finally, while doing all of this, you must recognize the decision points as the design presents them. Develop a feel for how often decision points come up. If your game is based on gameplay, but isn’t presenting a lot of decisions, you have a problem and you need to re-evaluate some aspects of your design. 2. Evaluation Once you have an idea of how many decisions the player is making, and what they are, you can begin by evaluating those decisions. Consider each decision point separately, and determine how difficult each decision is, and how likely it is to recur. If the decision is easy it is worth little. If it recurs a lot, it becomes easy and thus is worth little. Each decision must also be evaluated in terms of cost of implementation. To implement a decision system takes a certain amount of time spent by members of the development team. Many decision-creating systems also suck up CPU cycles. Another very important cost that can be associated with a decision system is the complexity that it adds to the game. A game element that requires the player to know something, or have some skill, or at worst, bind and memorize a key or virtual button, is a game element that is costing something. 3. Design Designing decisions is the trickiest part of the process, because the very nature of good decisions is that they cannot be directly defined. Decisions placed directly in the game will either recur too often and become non-decisions, or will only be seen a small number of times. An example of a directly-placed decision would be a situation where a player is presented with two separate attack routes which were both explicitly designed. One route will inevitably be more advantageous for any given player’s playing style. Once the player tries both routes, he learns which route is better. Thus, if the exact same routes are presented to him again, this becomes a non-decision, and the player’s brain becomes disengaged. All explicitly-designed decision points have this problem of staticity. The solution, of course, is to create a gameplay system that dynamically generates emergent decision points. The goal with emergent decisions is to avoid explicitly defined decisions, and instead create a set of rules, characters, elements, and interaction rules, with a defined goal, such that interesting decisions will emerge from the system. Let me make this very clear: Game designers should rarely be designing decisions directly. The job of the game designer is to develop gameplay systems that present emergent decisions. Only emergent decisions can be unique over a long period of time. Static decisions cannot be relied on to provide gameplay interest, though it should be noted that they cannot be eliminated altogether. If decisions aren’t part of your game, you should be making a movie. Michael, D. and Chen, S. (2005) Proof of Learning: Assessment in Serious Games Gamasutra (2433) Retrieved June 7th, 2008 from http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/2433/proof_of_learning_assessment_in_.php (Multiple choice questions) MCQs are not always the best choice, though. While MCQs can accurately gauge memorization and retention of a set of facts, they are hardly the best way to gauge whether the student is following a process correctly. This is a notable shortcoming because some disciplines, such as advanced math, are more about the processes used to reach the answer and less about the answer itself. Multiple choice math tests can only provide a list of possible answers and have no easy mechanism for determining whether the student figured the answer out properly or merely guessed well. While a review of any collection of edutainment software reveals that MCQs can be easily tacked on to a video game, doing so does not take advantage of any of the features that make serious games compelling: engagement of the player, self-motivated progress through the material, and fun. Serious games represent an opportunity to move past this simplistic, narrowly focused type of testing. In fact, they can do so by combining other forms of traditional assessment with methods modern video games now use on a regular basis. …even video games designed for nothing more serious than hour upon hour of mindless entertainment have a learning objective, at least at the beginning: teach the player how to play the game. These games also employ pass/fail mechanisms no less rigorous than many college entrance exams. Tutorials present the player with the basics of how to control and interact with the game and then test the player on this information with a series of levels or missions. Tutorial missions often introduce only a few new game features or play elements at a time to avoid overwhelming the player. By the time the player has completed these first few missions, he or she has “learned” the essentials of the game and can be bombarded with ever greater in-game challenges. This process even continues past the tutorial, as later levels and missions in the game become more and more difficult. Another form of assessment in entertainment games is scoring. Many games even offer comparisons between players with high score lists. These high scores can be a source of bragging rights for the player, but, more importantly, the scoring system teaches the player what is important within the game. A positive score indicates a good choice, a negative score a bad choice, and no score at all indicates that the attached action is probably unimportant. Though few classrooms stress the level of competition seen in most video games, the similarity to the posted test grades is unmistakable. In the same way, the education strategy of “teaching to the test” clearly identifies to the student what is important to learn and what can be ignored just like in-game scores do in entertainment games. Both the medium of serious games itself and its newness create certain challenges that can make assessment difficult:
According to Ferguson, too many people assume that any game will teach and be helpful regardless of the software’s actual capability. The core questions to ponder, he says, are:
Because serious games have such challenges, serious game developers have turned to more sophisticated assessment methods. Of note, there are three main types of assessment used in serious games:
Unfortunately, the mere criterion of successfully completing the game falls short on a number of fronts. Besides the possibility of students cheating or exploiting holes in the system (a time-honored tradition in video games, but considered in a less positive light in classroom settings), it’s important to know whether the student learned the material in the game, or just learned the game and how to beat it.
In-process assessment is analogous to teacher observations of the student as the student performs the task or takes the test. In advanced math and science courses, for example, students are required to write out each step of the process they followed. Erasures are often disallowed in favor of drawing a line through incorrect steps and conclusions so that errors in the process can be more easily seen by the teachers. This is because the errors and corrections can be valuable indicators, sometimes more so than just giving the correct answer. Serious games, or more specifically serious video games, offer logging and tracking potential that has seldom been available or even possible in traditional classrooms. Video games have long had logging features that allow players to replay their performance in the games. Modern games have even begun to learn from the player’s actions within the game, adjusting storylines, strategies, monster strength, and other variables to adjust to what the player has done and is doing. Serious games can take advantage of these features. For instance, Offshore Safety Initiative, located in Houston, Texas, performs detailed logging in its safety simulation software, tracking such data as:
Teacher evaluation is a combination of both completion assessment and in-process assessment. Despite the predictions (or fears) of some, serious games aren’t going to be replacing teachers anytime soon, and probably never. To that end, serious games should include tools to assist teachers in their evaluation of students. Such tools can include homework and assignment controls, grade tracking, reporting, and more. Like the process notes mentioned above, with detailed logging, properly presented, teachers can evaluate their students’ mastery of the material. The more data that is available, the less subjective that evaluation needs to be.
An important feature of this built-in assessment is the way the game adapts to the player’s behavior and gives the player the appropriate feedback. Players come to understand the connection between their in-game actions and the outcomes. Meanwhile, the teacher receives detailed assessment results to properly gauge the student’s progress. In addition, the assessment engine leads the student through a series of qualitative questions such as “You just choose to do X. What was your basis for this decision? Why did you not choose Y?” Thus, the teacher has a lot of information available to judge how well the student really does understand the material being taught.All of this creates what Corti calls “authentic learning.” Since the learning in the game is personally meaningful and relevant, the serious game provides the student with the opportunity to practice and apply skills needed in the real world.
Kane, B. (2003) 34 Ways to put emotion into games Gamasutra (2884) Retrieved June 7th, 2008 from http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/2884/34_ways_to_put_emotions_into_games.php The key, says Freeman, is to recognize that emotional power is not simply a matter of writing good dialogue, but comes from integrating emotional content throughout the structure of a game Emotioneering involves what he phrased “the artful application of exact techniques,” and said that being aware of these techniques early in the development process would enable writers, producers, and game designers alike to inveigh their games with the emotional complexity that is currently missing in the industry. 1. NPC Interesting Techniques. These are techniques which make (major) NPCs dimensional and fresh, and thus interesting. The key here is to give each major NPC between three and five distinguishing inner traits which define the ways in which they see, speak, think, or act. 2. NPC Deepening Techniques. These are techniques that give major NPCs emotional depth and complexity. Many of Freeman’s techniques are divided along this Interesting/Deepening dichotomy – a split that Freeman basically equated to “breadth vs. depth.” Breadth comes from having a diversity of traits; depth comes from the degree to which those traits are emotionally penetrating. Examples for this category included deep regret, hidden secrets, and inner wisdom. 7. NPC to NPC Chemistry Techniques. Techniques which, with very little reliance on dialogue, make it feel like two NPCs have “chemistry” – that is, that they belong together as friends or lovers. For instance, two characters might think the same way, get into little spats, or talk about each other fondly when the other isn’t around. 10. NPC Rooting Interest Techniques. These are techniques which make us “root for,” or identify with, a given character. Examples: NPCs that find themselves in danger, that perform acts of self-sacrifice, or that are members of the player’s own group, team, or party. 15. Emotionally Complex Moments and Situations. Ways to put the player in the middle of situations that are emotionally complex. (Example: you’ve created an outlawed robot killing machine, knowing you may have to fight your own creation later in the game.) 21. First-Person Deepening Techniques. Techniques which actually give the player more emotional depth by the end of the game. Branching pathways and multiple viewpoints have this effect. Freeman, D. (2002) Four ways to use symbols to add emotional depth to games Gamasutra (20020724) Retrieved June 7th, 2008 from http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20020724/freeman_01.htm Remember in Braveheart when Mel Gibson charged into battle holding a handkerchief his wife gave him before she was murdered? That handkerchief is a symbol. This article will explore four different ways to use symbols to evoke emotional response from an audience. A big part of successful communication between a writer and his or her audience is writing outside of the audience’s conscious awareness. No one expects the game player to pick out every sound used in a game’s sound design, nor every instrument utilized in a piece of music, nor every tiny shadow. So too, an extraordinary amount of what a writer does is designed to affect a game player emotionally but not be consciously noticed. This article will focus on the use of symbols, which are almost always employed in a way so that they’re just on the edge, or preferably just outside, of a game player’s conscious awareness. A workable rule of thumb is that no more than 25 percent of the players who come upon a symbol should be consciously aware that it actually is a symbol. Symbol Type #1: Symbol of a Character ’s Condition or Change in Condition This use of symbols is what I call a scene-deepening technique, because you use it in a specific scene and might never use the same symbol again. Its use can be either visual or verbal, meaning that there must be either something visual on screen or something said by one of the characters that reflects what an on-screen character is going through emotionally. Hypothetical game example #1 Hypothetical game example #2
After great effort and many struggles and bat-tles, you have attained the highest rank a warrior can attain. At that moment, an eagle flies diagonally overhead in the sky. It’s a symbol of your lofty achievement. It’s important to reiterate here that it doesn’t matter if no one consciously notices the impact of these symbols. They deepen the experience nonetheless. Symbol Type #2: Symbolic SubplotUsually at least one of the characters (although sometimes more) in a story has what I call an emotional fear, limitation, block, or wound. Quite often, this person is the lead character, although not necessarily. In the first Star Wars movie, Luke Skywalker had to learn who he was (a Jedi knight), Han Solo had to learn responsibility and how to act as a member of a group (instead of operating solo), Princess Leia had to learn to be vulnerable in love, Obi-Wan had to learn he could still make a difference, and C-3PO had to learn courage. Each of these characters was forced to confront their respective fears, limitations, blocks, and wounds (FLBWs, for short).
A character’s path of growth through his or her FLBW is a rocky one; quite often the character resists growing. A character’s path of growth through the FLBW is called a character arc. Some writers insert a symbol into the story that represents the character’s arc. That is, as the character changes and grows, the symbol changes right along with the character. Therefore, a symbolic subplot is a plot-deepening technique because it continues throughout all or most of the plot (unlike the symbol of the character’s condition or change in condition, which occurs in a single scene or a small part of the plot). Using this Technique in Games This question takes us right to the cut-ting edge of story-based games. To explore all the ways in which game designers are tackling or could tackle this problem would be an article in itself, if not several. Furthermore, it opens up another problem. On one hand, how do you tempt players into seeing themselves in a role and making decisions appropri-ate to that role? On the other hand, how do you allow players to play the game the way they want to play? Symbol Type #4: A Symbol That Takes on More and More Emotional Associations This is another plot-deepening technique, as it too tends to extend throughout an entire plot. It can be either a visual object or a verbal phrase. One symbol of this type is a very familiar one: the American flag. What does the flag mean? It means a lot of things: democracy; courage; the right to live the life you choose; freedom of speech and religion; a nation ruled by law; Yankee ingenuity; and more. Yet when we look at the flag, we don’t consciously think of all these things, we just experience the emotions that these associations evoke in us. When a symbol reappears over and over again during emotionally charged moments, some of the emotion rubs off on the symbol, and the symbol thus takes on more and more emotional associations as the plot advances. Johnson, B. (2001) Great Expectations: Building a player vocabulary Gamasutra (3052) Retrieved June 7th, 2008 from http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3052/great_expectations_building_a_.php
At the start of a game, we can make some basic assumptions about what the player knows. These assumptions can be based on everything from movies, books, and other games, to the way things work in reality. When a player hits a button to call an elevator, they expect the elevator to come to them so they can get on. If they jump off a high building they may take damage or die. If they stay underwater too long they may drown. The player comes to your game with a vast amount of knowledge that you can use. As designers, we can carefully build a vocabulary of game mechanics and shape what the player knows about the environment, and when they know it. For example, when the player pushes a button to call an elevator, they simply expect the elevator to come to them so they can get on. This would be normal. However, you could imagine their surprise when the elevator suddenly comes crashing down with a group of screaming scientists on board. We get the element of surprise mixed in with a bit of humor creating a memorable experience for the player. More importantly, we’ve expanded the player’s understanding of what can happen in this environment. Think of this little scenario: In one part of the game we introduce a simple hallway. In a section just after the hallway, we introduce monsters that drop down from certain types of ceiling tiles. Later, we introduce monsters that can break through closed doors. Now, can you imagine the feeling the player will have when they arrive at a long hallway that has the same grates on the floor, the same ceiling tiles that monsters have been known to drop from, and some doors where monster may be waiting to bash through? Think of the suspense that can be created in the player’s every step. This ability to manage and manipulate the player’s expectations is a powerful tool for a designer. NPCs can commonly be used to provide player direction/goals, open doors, provide clues, develop the story, heal the player, serve as a hostage or an escort, join the player in combat, and even, at times, provide a good bit of comic relief. Each of these examples can be used on its own or in combination with other functionality to create interesting game scenarios. Resolution Establishing numerous forms of resolution can also be a valuable part of the player’s vocabulary. Resolution can provide a sense of closure that can be used to let the player know when they are ready to move forward or when they’ve accomplished a certain goal. If we place a complete set of objects (let’s use a set of armor as an example) in each thematic region of a level or game, the player will feel as though they have achieved a certain sense of resolution when they find each part of the set. Not only can this be used as a way of rewarding the player for exploring the areas thoroughly, but it also implies that they are ready to progress forward. The player has been taught that if they are missing a certain part of a set, there may be other parts of the world that they have not explored. We can further elaborate on the player’s expectations by providing some extra bonus that comes with having a complete set. It could be a good thing, a bad thing, or perhaps even a humorous thing. It’s up to the designer to make the choice and carefully craft the experience.
IGDA (2006) International Game Developers Association 2006 Casual Games White Paper retrieved June 8th, 2008 from http://www.igda.org/casual/IGDA_CasualGames_Whitepaper_2006.pdf Casual Games: Games that generally involve less complicated game controls and overall complexity in Hardcore, Core (Traditiona) Games: Games developed for and delivered on a dedicated game console When you are in the business of casual games, you are reaching virtually all demographic The term “casual games” is used to describe games that are easy to learn, utilize simple Demographics
Typical Gaming Patterns Pick up and drop games multiple times per day. Favorite Genres
Keeping the play and consumption patterns of this worldwide mass audience in mind,
3. Characteristics of Successful Games
1. Key Design Elements of Casual Games 1.3 Depth & Complexity 1.4 Rewarding Players Of course, the casual game designer shouldn’t confuse rewards with simplicity of play. The 1.5 Showing Progress .6 Forgiving Game Play Many downloadable, single-player games take the path of a “realistic” look. But some have The question is, where do Casual Games fit into this larger polemic? Do we operate under • Artistic merit. If video game-making is an artistic medium, we should be able to use Casual Gamers love Aztec themes, right? iii Rules for creating a compelling story Page 51 of 116 you convey it within a dialogue as the players are scaling a wall, or climbing a tree 2006 Casual Games White Paper Page 62 of 116 constraints provided by a casual audience for new play styles, both as modifications of tried- Page 61 of 116 2.9 Other Arcade Variants Description: This genre includes a variety of traditional arcade-style gameplay. • Cosmic Bugs (Retro64) Gold Miner Vegas Edition (Intermix Media) Cosmic Bugs (Retro64) While this list is by no means exhaustive, even a glance at the games available in the casual games Page 60 of 116 Popular Examples of Card & Parlor Games: Ancient TriPeaks (ToyBox Games) Mahjong Garden to Go (Pogo) 2006 Casual Games White Paper Page 59 of 116 2.7 Casual Sports Games Description: Simple sports games that are very forgiving and generally accessible to the widest Examples: • Backspin Billiards (Pixelstorm) Redline Rumble 2: Detonator (Atom Entertainment/Richard Description: This genre includes a variety of traditional playing-card games and parlor game Examples: • Ancient TriPeaks (ToyBox Games) Page 58 of 116 Popular Examples of System Management: Cake Mania (Sandlot Games) Fish Tycoon (Big Fish Games) Description: The player controls a paddle, and uses the paddle to ricochet a ball into a set of Examples: • Bricks of Atlantis (ArcadeLab) Bricks of Atlantis (ArcadeLab) Shattera (Alexey Saenko) 2006 Casual Games White Paper Page 57 of 116 2.4 Shape Manipulation Description: Players are presented with a empty container divided into different shapes, and a Examples: • Mosaic: Tomb of Mystery (Reflexive) Mosaic Tomb of Mystery (Reflexive) Runic One (Puzzle Lab) Description: The player is put in charge of a small ecosystem of objects that interact in a variety Examples: • Cake Mania (Sandlot Games) Page 56 of 116 Magic Match (Codeminion/Oberon) QBeez 2 (Skunk Studios) Description: A notable specific case in this genre is the word game. In this case, the rules of the Examples: • Acropolis (Gamehouse) Acropolis (Gamehouse) Babel Deluxe (Zylom) 2006 Casual Games White Paper Page 55 of 116 • Shape Manipulation Description: Players are faced with a grid of a limited variety of objects. The objective of the game • Chuzzle (PopCap Games) • The Da Vinci Code (Sony) Popular Examples of Matching Games: Chuzzle (PopCap Games) The Davinci Code (Sony) 2.2 Finding Subsets I (Puzzle Games) Description: Players are given a number of objects, a timed end point manifested as a clock, and Examples: • 10 Talismans (NevoSoft) Page 54 of 116 Additive and Luxor: Amun Rising (MumboJumbo) uses a musical Page 53 of 116 The following table illustrates the many areas where sound adds value to a game. User Interface Typically these are just simple rollover, navigation, and click Easter Eggs and
31
05
2008
Thoughts on: Kearney, P. (2005) Cognitive Callisthenics: Do FPS computer games enhance the player’s cognitive abilities?Posted by: colinsimpson in Uncategorized, first person shooter, fps, multitasking, research, tags: cognitive, counter-strike, fps, multitasking, researchKearney, P. (2005) Cognitive Callisthenics: Do FPS computer games enhance the player’s cognitive abilities? Proceedings of DiGRA 2005 Conference: Changing Views – Worlds in Play . Vancouver, BC: DiGRA
Kearney developed a highly quantified method for analysing the cognitive abiliities of subjects before and after they played the FPS game Counterstrike. This focussed primarily on multitasking. He used a “neuro-psychological assessment software package titled SynWin” test participant’s “ability to function in a synthetic work environment. Scores were recorded and after playing computer games for specified lengths of time, the participants were tested again.” He cites a number of studies as the basis for this research:
(He doesn’t mention however whether these improved skills were retained by the people in the study or just encountered after playing the games. Presumably the studies themselves answer this question) He draws on his own prior research to identify ways in which the players have to multitask during the game itself: “A typical first-person shooter involves controlling the player movement, aiming and firing the chosen weapon, evading being a target for other players, monitoring health status and ammunition supplies, and devising a seek and destroy strategy in order to complete the level. All this done in unison, in a pressure situation” A control group took the SynWin test 3 times over a 2 hour period, the test group took the test at the beginning and end and played CounterStrike in between. “The data from the output files also enabled the composite scores for the control group to be broken down into memory, mathematics, visual and auditory tasks. ” They showed small improvements between the three tests (except in auditory tasks) but “overall, the improvement over the three tests presented a P-value of > 0.3 , making the increases statistically insignificant”. For the subjects that played CounterStrike, “the output in table shows statistical significance with P < 0.05.” I don’t understand statistics but I’m will to take this guy at his word that the difference is significant and that “based on the recorded figures, the hypothesis that playing action computer games improves multitasking capabilities within the player is proven to be true”. He only briefly refers to whether the players are experienced gamers, which would be helpful, mentioning that “all groups showed significant increases with the exception of those who play 13 to 16 hours per week” It would be nice to know for these players whether they had higher than average multitasking abilities from the outset or whether there is a point at which gaming might decrease a player’s ability to improve this skill. Other general observations (and perhaps speculations) that Kearney makes -
Kearney recommends the development of software to test whether hand-eye coordination and attention span are also enhanced by gameplay. This is a mildly interesting paper I wouldn’t say it’s overly thorough and I’d like to get into why cognitive skills are enhanced and particularly whether this is just a temporary effect.
29
05
2008
Thoughts on: Authentic Learning Experiences Through Play: Games, Simulations and the Construction of Knowledge – Lisa GalarneauPosted by: colinsimpson in Uncategorized, VET, activities, activity, education, elearning, experience, first person learner, game design, information, simulation, tags: authentic learning, galarneau, game design, pedagogy, simulations, VETGalarneau, L. (2005) Authentic Learning Experiences Through Play: Games, Simulations and the Construction of Knowledge. Proceedings of DiGRA 2005 Conference: Changing Views – Worlds in Play . Vancouver, BC: DiGRA I think I might have me a little gamelearner crush here – Lisa Galarneau has managed to make coherent all of the little half-finished thoughts and ideas that I’ve had fluttering around my mind and make a compelling argument not only that games are good for learning but also that you need to apply a sensible pedagogical approach if you want to make them work. (Yeah well duh perhaps I guess to the second part but she offers up a few pretty good ideas as to directions to take and gaming aspects to focus on in the process which gave me a few a-ha moments (a-ha eureka, not a-ha take on me) The focus of the paper is slightly more skewed towards simulations than the FPS genre (though these aren’t mutually exclusive) but it still seems rather helpful, given that it “examines the design of authentic learning experiences as a way of thinking about the appropriateness and unique potential of games and simulations in a range of educational and training settings.” She gets that “Games and simulations are only as effective as the pedagogical approach that is employed in their design and development. Furthermore, their effectiveness must be measured against their learning objectives and methods selected vis a vis the needs of the resources learners. Unfortunately, this is not often the case”. Galarneau sees drill-and-practice type games as having their place – “Wrapping “boring” content in a trivia or shoot-em-up game format might make materials that need to be memorized a bit easier to “swallow”. Likewise, repeated engagement with interactive drill-and-practice environments provides the repetition that may be needed for learners to memorize and retain certain types of content. Just as I have argued previously, “the first step towards constructing one’s one knowledge is being open to the experience of learning. An unmotivated learner is simply incapable of taking enough interest in something to engage in the process of construction” She does feel generally however that games taking a more constructivist or connectivist approach to learning by providing authentic game/simulations which offer richer emotional experiences. “So while part of the motivation may stem from novelty effects, competitive enjoyment or the stimulation younger generations have grown accustomed to, the best types of engagement stem from the learner’s enjoyment of a more effective learning experience, one that puts them in control and encourages active participation, exploration, reflection and the individual construction of meaning.” Galarneau recognises that forming knowledge consists of more than the simple ability to recall facts, it’s about being able to apply those facts to new situations. I devised a slightly dorky formula to express my understanding of the knowledge creation process a while back – {context (information + relevance) activity} + (past experiences) => meaning + reflection => knowledge. => should be taken there to mean leads to. “A learner who can recite every bone in the human body cannot necessarily diagnose a problem with a given bone, nor know how to splint one in an accident occurred. Even if taken through a number of steps necessary in splinting a bone, it’s unlikely that a person would do it correctly without having experienced it either first-hand or vicariously, by observing another person in the learning process Lave and Wenger refer to a ‘legitimate peripheral participation’ . “ I’m not 100% clear on whether seeing someone performing this task a few times on video would count or not – or perhaps even better as a 3d animation which they can rotate their view around – but this does suggest to me that using video cut scenes in a game (particularly the FPL could be an option – the 3d animation idea would be great but far beyond my current capabilities) I’m also thinking (still) that an OHS game could be a good option for the second FPL prototype. (The first being based around language). It has simulation qualities including the ability to be hurt by workplace hazards although I’m not sure how to get the player to fix hazards (maybe they have an OHS magic wand?). A game focussed on fire drill / evacuation procedures might be another idea worth contemplating. Galarneau takes a relatively connectivist view of learning, which is an area that I’ve been interested in but haven’t found a lot out to date. She makes a pretty good fist of defining it. “Emerging ideas about learning are beginning to suggest that learning is the act of making knowledge tangible through action, or what George Siemens refers to as ‘forming connections’ between islands of knowledge Given this definition of learning as connection-forming, then all learning must result from experience, for experience underlies the process of forming said connections. In this regard therefore, effective learning is a redundant statement. If one has learned, the experience has been effective. The question therefore becomes, how can we design experiences that allow learners to experiment with knowledge in context, encouraging them to form connections by experiencing a wide range of experiential possibilities around any given piece of information?” I like virtually all of this but don’t accept that ALL learning would result from experience – if for no other reason than my personal dislike of blanket statements. There is no way that I can experience the First Fleet landing but I know they did it in 1788 (as far as it is possible to know these things) I think that emphasising the importance of providing learners with experiences related to the content is a big thing though. Galarneau suggests a general structure for such games: “Place the learner firmly at the centre of the learning experience, encourage him or her to take an active role and make sure that the learning situation is not abstracted from reality, but is placed directly in a real-world context, either physically or virtually. This environment may or may not include other learners, or it may simulate the responses and behaviours of other individuals. Though some structure will be in place, the learner will not progress entirely linearly, as with traditional content, but will play in this environment, encountering both success and failure along the way. Failure may, in fact, be the most critical aspect of this play” (my emphasis) The importance of failure is something I haven’t considered enough but I can see instantly how important it is – I hadn’t factored it into the Exploring the CEE game I’ve been designing (forever), which means that the the player’s options are limited to do it right or do nothing. I wonder how far we can take failure – in an FPL context it suggests that the character/player dies and has to begin again, if it was a third person perspective game this could be made quite spectacular but trickier perhaps for fpp – unless we used a cutscene animation which shifts to 3pp to show the player dying. (Or we could take a lighter, more humourous approach with a waaaap waaap waaaap waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah type sound effect. ) Galarneau discusses the value of failure further: “Roger Schank, among others, has championed the idea that failure is a critical component of learning. This is an area where games and simulations shine, affording a wide range of possibilities, or failure-states, given a wide range of player actions… The simulation is only limited by its designer’s intent or resources to play out a wide range of possibilities that contribute to a learner’s ability to recognise the patterns that emerge from his or her actions. As Schank explains, these failures can offer unexpected benefits when it comes to learning. ‘Simulations that evoke real emotions become real memories. A failure is a failure and whether in a simulation or a work experience, if it feels real, it helps us learn’ “ She identifies three important elements to any learning game – pedagogical elements, simulation elements and game elements. “Pedagogical elements wrap the other elements in a directed learning context, providing a theoretical basis, assessment and opportunities for reflection. Simulation elements refer to the components that make the simulation executable, be it a simple branching simulation or more complex game-like simulation. Game elements, on the other hand, refer to the aspects that are simply there to make a game fun: competition, reward, discovery etc.” Finding the balance between these three elements is the key. Galarneau values the simulation elements highly, believing that they offer learners opportunities to “flex their capabilities. And in the process, they may also learn to be more flexible, handle greater ambiguity, manage resources and solve problems, all difficult to measure but easily recognisable abilities afforded us by play in physical and virtual environments”. The discussion about experience and authenticity has given me half a thought about another potential game subject – still only half a thought mind you – which is for the building materials subject within the building design area over here. Making use of different materials in the buildings (wood/concrete/steel/etc) and putting them in different environments – the students need to discuss which materials are best suited to which spaces, perhaps through a multiplayer representation of the teacher who acts as some sort of gatekeeper?. We could also make use of soundeffects to represent walking through the respective spaces. Something to chat to the teacher about anyways. Galarneau finishes with a brief discussion of two simulation products that she was involved in producing – one for building/carpentry students Christchurch Polytechnic (and it’s so good to see a paper that includes VET) and one for mental health professionals. Both emphasise relevance to the learners day to day activities and having them actively involved in the decision making process of the activity. Galarneau does appear to support video/animation as a means of “legitimate peripheral participation”. She also developed a branching simulation for the mental health professionals providing feedback on the outcomes of different techniques for scenarios with patients. She took on board the thoughts of George Siemens in this instance: “Connectivism is driven by the understanding that decisions are based on rapidly altering foundations. New information is continually being acquired. The ability to draw distinctions between important and unimportant information is vital. The ability to recognize when new information alters the landscape based on decisions made yesterday is also critical [12]“ How to put that in a game I’m not so sure but I agree with the concept. “One hugely significant benefit of both of these solutions is that they allow assessment to be built right into the experience. Educators and trainers can log learner progress though the resources in order to see what decisions they make, whether they improve over time and how long they take to achieve the tasks. This type of assessment is much more capable of evaluating learning than traditional summative assessment that generally only tests the ability to regurgitate information, often well out of context. “ She finishes with an observation that I feel is highly relevant to learning in a VET sector. “Authentic learning experiences of the sort described in this paper are most relevant to situations where the learner needs not only to learn something, but also needs to learn to what contexts the information or knowledge is most relevant.” Awesome, awesome paper.
26
05
2008
Thoughts on: The things we learned on Liberty Island – Oliver and Pelletier.Posted by: colinsimpson in Uncategorized, activities, controllers, experience, first person learner, first person perspective, first person shooter, game design, tags: activity theory, challenge, obstacles, training levelsOliver, M. and Pelletier, C. (2005) The things we learned on Liberty Island: designing games to help people become competent game players. Proceedings of DiGRA 2005 Conference: Changing Views – Worlds in Play . Vancouver, BC: DiGRA This paper discusses a fairly detailed methodology developed by Oliver and Pelletier for analysing how people learn from particular instances of game play. It draws fairly heavily on Activity Theory as far as I can see, which while worthy, might be trying too hard to apply greater usability to something that doesn’t necessarily need it. (Of course, my understanding of Activity Theory is very shallow and wikipedia bound but I think I have the gist of it) According to Wikipedia, Activity theory theorizes that when individuals engage and interact with their environment, production of tools are resulted. These tools are “exteriorized” forms of mental processes, and as these mental processes are manifested in tools, they become more readily accessible and communicable to other people, thereafter becoming useful for social interaction… In the study of Human-Computer Interaction and cognitive science, activity theory can be used to provide a framework for evaluating design. In a framework derived from activity theory, any task, or activity, can be broken down into actions, which are further subdivided into operations. In a design context, using these categories can provide the designer with an understanding of the steps necessary for a user to carry out a task. Anyway, hopefully this will make more sense as I move on. (The reason I ask whether games need to be made more usable is that this says “easier” to me and a large part of the appeal of games is the challenge of them. Of course, there’s good challenge and bad challenge, generally borne of bad design) Overall though, the methodology that Oliver and Pelletier propose seems pretty useful in the Evaluation phase of the ADDIE process in terms of usability testing and understanding how people learn while playing games. (Primarily how they learn to play the game rather than learning anything from the game) As they put it: “What is missing is a method that looks at the process and outcomes of play and how this relates to the design of the game text as well as the social and cultural aspect of play” They develop this by examining:
They note that “with any area of expertise, it is rare (if not impossible) to find individuals who can perform skillfully and provide coherent accounts of their practice, simply because much of skilled performance is tacit – the practitioner remains unaware of what it is that enables them to be successful” They then worked with 2 gamers (a fairly small sample really) and have them both play a level of Deus Ex, a first person shooter with stealth elements. One of the gamers also plays the training level for this game beforehand, which is made up of a series of scaffolded skill development tasks. Unsurprisingly, this player made it through the actual game level faster and more effectively than the player who didn’t. There were a number of interesting observations nonetheless. “Analysis involved the creation of transcripts that recorded interaction with the game at the level of aim, strategy used in support of that aim and the detailed tactics or instances of interactions that made up each strategy. (In the terminology of Activity Theory, on which this analysis draws, these three levels are referred to as activity, action and operation.) Neither of the gamers had really played FPS games before and so while they were familiar with conventions from other game genres, there were a number of FPS conventions that they weren’t able to quickly transfer to their Deus Ex experience. The training level player was aware that she could save the game on demand and so was able to experiment with trial-and-error based solutions to problems/obstacles encountered in the game to a greater degree than her counterpart. “When a player resolved a problem (and there was no reason to believe this was not just luck), this is noted as an example of learning. Finally, any things that the player was able to do without needing to learn anything new – i.e anything they had already mastered – was noted as an example of transfer. These included both simple things (like saving the game from the menu) as well as more complext things, including styles of play (such as approaching particular areas as if they were part of a platform game)” One of the areas that I’m most interested in in the FPL project is using more structured instruction in the game environment and so their description of the training level is somewhat useful. “The training level here served to provide a structured curriculum to introduce new players to the game. Twenty five separate activities were introduced and applied; for example, learning how to access goals, how to use items (including weapons), how to move in particular ways (steathily, how to jump), as well as conventions such as information being stored in data cubes. In addition, eight separate tasks were learned that were not specified by the instructions within the game, such as the fact that the avatar cannot die in the training level and guards can hear you.” I think it might be in the training levels of games that I can find the type of learning that is most useful in a VET context. (Need to try to remember that this is the focus of the project) The ability to save on demand has interesting implications for the way a learner approaches the game. “In part, progress was driven by recent failure. The tendency to save after each obstacle is overcome meant that attention was focused on solving one problem at a time. Each failed attempt to overcome the obstacle was taken into account in new attempts to progress. This meant that play was experimental, because the consequence of failure is minimized” The second player, who hadn’t done the training level and learnt about the ability to save on demand however was hampered in using a trial and error approach to problems by the fact that they would have to go back to the start of the level if they failed which made the risk taking a more costly option. Oliver and Pelletier compare and contrast the knowledge that the players developed (or didn’t) in the training level as well as prior knowledge and how these transferred to their playing of the same level. They identify that “two problem areas are the strategies which could be transferred but are not and the ones which are transferred and which appear to be helpful but actually impede progress (because they are being applied in an inappropriate context, for example) They go on to discuss the ways the players learn to play. Given the small size of the study, two players, it begs the question of whether this was influenced by the general personalities of the players themselves, however, it does still raise some interesting points. “There are marked differences in the ways the players learn to play. The strategies developed and the reasons for this, related to their previous experiences and knowledge. In case study one, the player changed their approach when encountering new problems in a fairly sequential manner; in the second case, however, after two hours of play the strategies still failed to prepare the player for new encounters. This tells us two things:
The paper concludes with the following observations: “The analysis of play, above, demonstrates the value of the training level in preparing players for the main game. However it also reveals a number of shortcomings with this particular design (such as the unintended learning that took place) and that it is only a partial support, since many of the strategies that could usefully have transferred, didn’t. What was learnt in the training level was only part of what was required by the player; these experiences were combined with strategies learnt from other games in order to create a repertoire of approaches to play that led to success. Indeed, this transferred experience is probably the most significant component, since player two was able to progress through the game without training… What this suggests for designers is:
Hmm, I would have thought the the widespread use of difficulty levels in games as well as adaptive difficulty (if the game senses you are struggling it makes life easier) would address the first point fairly well already. “The study also highlights the importance of establishing what the conventions that hold in this particular game are (such as cues from non-player characters that particular strategies – such as direct assault, here – are appropriate in response to behaviour rather than in anticipation of it) This is an interesting suggestion – in game advice – you just want to avoid it being “Clippy” style annoying. Oliver and Pelletier offer an interesting model for qualifying the experience of playing a game and examining how people learn as they play – I just worry that they might miss the point that we don’t want to make games too easy and to hold players hands all the way through. The challenge is the thing. I had one more thought prompted by this paper – Do gamers have a more developed sense of trial-and-error problem solving than non-gamers based on their experiences that even though an obstacle may appear to be impassable, the point of the game is that there is always a way forward? Can this be taught? I think the question of how players learn to use the controller is another question that needs serious consideration – I think controller fear is something that turns off a lot of non-gamers.
25
05
2008
Thoughts on: From “First Person Shooter” to Multi-User knowledge spaces – Mathias Fuchs and Syl EckermannPosted by: colinsimpson in Uncategorized, activity, collaboration, education, elearning, experience, first person learner, first person perspective, first person shooter, game design, tags: expositur, Fuchs and Eckermann, game design, Vienna, virtual world
Fuchs, M. & Eckermann, S. (2001) From “First Person Shooter” to Multi-User Knowledge Spaces. In F. Nack (Ed.) Proceedings COSIGN 2001 – 1st Conference on Computational Semiotics for Games and New Media (pp. 83-87). CWI, Amsterdam.
In 2001, Fuchs and Eckermann developed Expositur – ein virtueller Wissenraum, a game based collaborative project showcasing ten Viennese museums. This first person perspective knowledge space, built using the Unreal FPS game engine, made use of loci, a place based mnemotechnique dating back to the ancient Greeks, to enhance the meaning of its virtual museum exhibits by “connecting seemingly unrelated imagery to gain insight into visual similarities and connotations”(p.84).
From the abstract: The content provided by these museums had to be made accessible and comprehensible to users of different ages, educational backgrounds and computer literacy. We developed a system of connotations amongst the objects, which then was translated into a spatial structure of rooms, corridors and places of different sizes, shapes, remotenesses or proximities. The viewer/listener of our knowledge space explores a semantic structure by navigating virtual spaces with the topics being contained in these rooms. The connecting architecture between these rooms resembles staircases, passages, elevators, hidden doors or portals, each of them referring to the nature of the connotation. Quite contrary to web-based databases and hypertext structures, the links therefore possess a quality of their own, carrying much more information than just “is connected with”.
This paper discusses the ideas underpinning this project – the notion of using virtual spaces and interaction to add meaning to the experience of viewing objects in a museum. Essentially it is about reimagining and redesigning from scratch 10 museums. “We developed a system of connotations amongst the objects, which then was translated into a spatial structure of rooms, corridors and places of different sizes, shapes, remotenesses and proximities… The connecting architecture between these rooms resembles staircases, passages, elevators, hidden doors or portals, each of them referring to the nature of the connotation.” This process was influenced by the Mnemosynic techniques of ancient Greek philosophers and singers in attaching meaning to objects in spaces to assist learning. It also draws from research by Ady Warburg on visual codes in Renaissance art. “Warburg’s scientific method consisted of connecting seemingly unrelated imagery to gain insight into visual similarities and connotations, which he called Pathosformeln. In our knowledge space, the multiple coding of meanings contained with the exhibited objects is made transparent by the spatial relation superimposed upon the objects. (A technical drawing of a prosthesis, e.g., is positioned close to Freud’s Prosthengott quote and therefore connected to Freud’s theory from “Das Unbehagen in der Kultur”. “
Fuchs and Eckermann go on to consider how the ways that the player actually moves through the virtual space affect their experience with in it. “To navigate the spaces of different content the users have to keep moving. They can walk, run, climb, jump, crouch, swim or fly according to the spatial situation. The Frankfurt based cultural scientist Manfred Fassler has mentioned in his recent publication that the etymological root of the German word for experience (Erfahrung) stems from fahren, i.e. “to move”. “ I have to admit that part of me thinks that the impact of different kinds of movement through the space would probably be greater in a 3rd Person Perspective or Virtual world game, where a player controls an avatar. Issues of how obvious these differing forms of movement would actually be to the user come to mind. (Swimming and flying would be relatively obvious – though they would necessitate a different control system which extends the 2 dimensional movement patterns generally used in these games) Freedom of movement also comes back very much to issues of the user/players freedom to choose the content that they are most interested in. (This is probably something I’m less interested in for this particular project, which is focussed more heavily on developing foundation skills and knowledge and thus necessitates learning everything in the space.) “We also consider the freedom of the user to go his or her own way in the virtual environment an an important feature that allows for individually shaped relational networks inside a complex field of knowledge”. Fuchs and Eckermann based their design around several questions which either mirror those I have mentioned in the previous post here or which I shamelessly borrowed for that post. They often dig down into semiotics and signs and meaning, which I have a general grasp of but don’t know a lot about. (Might be time to dip into that Roland Barthes book I was given in 92 but have never quite been able to face reading after cursory dippings.)
They also discuss having to work with the limitations of the game development software – in their case they used the Unreal Engine. This is certainly an issue that I have bumped up against before and not one to which there are any easy answers. Bearing these limitations in mind they decided to do what they could to make it work and emphasise game elements from a hypothetical base to begin with. This included the appearance of the rooms – and they make an interesting point that I’m not entirely sure I support, although I haven’t put it into practice yet. “It seems of extreme importance for the creation of meaning how the environment the information is contained in looks like and sounds… We recognised that the richness of the architectural forms decreases the stress a person feels confronted with when navigating through this space. Former versions of Unreal allowed for just a few hundred polygons and therefore favoured boxy levels creating a higher aggressiveness and a feeling of discomfort for certain users. On the other hand, we recognised that very complex environments often create a feeling of “being lost” and of nausea” While they do recognise the contradictions of level design for different players, I wouldn’t have thought that complex levels (i.e visually “busy” levels) would reduce stress. I can also see though that the use of curved surfaces could create more peaceful or soothing spaces. I’d be interested to know whether playing such a level on a large, smart-board type screen would be more comfortable than on a standard computer monitor.
The role of sound is really something I hadn’t given enough weight to in my thinking about game design – which is a little embarrassing as a wannabe film maker who routinely bangs on about the way that sound is treated as a second class citizen in the film production process. Fuchs and Eckermann draw analogies to the use of sound in film and identify 4 different types of use in their “game” space. :
Sound hey. Got to factor that in better. They also considered the use of linking sections/structures between topics/museums/objects and what added meaning these might bring. “…there are “contour” features of visual objects and of acoustic objects, which are connoted with emotions. A rising line is usually considered to be positive or optimistic; a falling line to be negative, disappointing or dangerous.” This made me think about the use of corridors, stairs, elevators and even having players jump down into pits to progress through a game level and what subtextual messages these convey. Great stuff.
They go on to discuss the use of avatars for the player – something I don’t entirely understand if this is an FPS based game (although it is possible to see another player’s avatar in a multiplayer game I guess) and expand upon the impact different forms and speed of movement have on the players experience of the exhibition. (Which largely comes down to learner choice and learner control – something which is less relevant to the project I’m considering at the moment). The matter of how multiple players might interact in a game space like this comes up and they identified “the possibility for one knowledge seeker to show others their way by guiding them through the rooms. Another useful features is the possibility to exchange messages via written or spoken word… It is essential however to implement individual sets of voices and not to rely on the default voices provided by the manufacturer” While I appreciate the intention here, the practicality of using your own voice sets seems a little tricky and understandably skirted over. Developments in the sophistication of game building systems since this project however suggest to me that in game voice communication isn’t so uncommon any more (and text based has been around for a long time) and could be relatively easily achievable. It did make me think about the options for asynchronous communication between players, with the capacity to leave messages (such as “the cake is a lie”? I also thought more about other options for learner collaboration in these kinds of spaces and thought that you could create a scenario where different players have to explore different spaces to collect different information about a central topic. Only by collaborating and sharing all of the information would the learners be able to progress through the game. Making some of the information contradictory so the learners had to reason out the truth could add a layer of interest to the experience. You might need to add a time-pressure constraint to the exercise to emphasise that the players need to explore their own spaces before coming together rather than collectively exploring all of the passageways/rooms/whatever. This paper ends with some general observations which tie it all together and offer an optimistic view of the future of games in learning. “We think that there games – however simple they still might appear at present – contain possibilities for knowledge spaces of a delicate nature – if they are thoughtfully conceived, carefully designed and joyfully experienced.” Syl Eckermann has more information about this project on her website at http://syl-eckermann.net/expositur/index.html This is also where I have taken the pictures in this blog post from.
11
01
2008
Gameplay dilemmas in First Person Shooters without the shootingPosted by: colinsimpson in Uncategorized, education, game design, orientation, promotion, tags: exploring the CEE, first person shooter genre, game design, interactions, limitations
The further into the process of designing the Exploring the CEE (working title) game, an orientation game to our Flexible Learning Solutions team, the more complicated it seems to get. I’m hamstrung by a few aspects but they mostly all come down to my use of FPS Creator. I’m something of a newb in my use of FPS Creator, the game creation software that I’m using for this and my knowledge of the underlying scripting that can be used to create interactions between the player and other characters. I know very little about 3D modelling (although my colleague Bec seems to have worked this out thankfully) and while I’ve played my fair share (perhaps more than my fair share) of games, the principles of game design themselves are relatively new to me. The initial intention of this game was to serve a prototype to get a feel for game design, so I’m regularly having to remind myself that it’s better to do something simple well than to over reach. The game is also intended to act as a promotional tool for our area, a way of showcasing some of our knowledge base, the resources we have available to teachers and the ideas that we can help them with. In my initial design process, I was heavily focussed on the information landscape that I was building – largely influenced by the very interesting writings of Fabice Florin from the early 1990s. It was all about using metaphors and creating virtual spaces with strong logical connections to the information. Using our building and our office seemed pretty sensible in this regard. I was also quite determined to have a very open and democratic information landscape that allowed the user/player to be as free in the way they accessed the information as possible. (Much in the sandpit genre of games – like the Grand Theft Auto series). The player could theoretically choose only the aspects of the game that interested them specifically by moving to that part of the space. (Of course, even in GTA you have to complete certain missions to move the story along). The more I work with FPS Creator however, the more I wonder how much I’m going against the nature of the programme – and the genre. FPS Creator is a very nifty piece of software for what it does – allowing game making novices to build 3D games where they run around in first person perspective, shooting enemies to progress to the end of the game. Taking the shooting out of the game to make Exploring the CEE is slightly subversive as it is, repurposing the whole experience, but I’m just now realising that the First Person Shooter genre is much more geared towards a heavily linear storytelling experience. Some of the limitations of the FPSC software are that it struggles with large rooms with a lot of entities (furniture, characters, objects like cdroms and folders) as it favours a series of smaller rooms with more twists and turns. Interaction is predominately with weapons and enemies, so conversation and collaboration are low on the list of priorities for most users of the software – however this would be the area of the game that would be the most useful for our particular needs. We had been thinking about some scoring systems to help measure player progress – rising student grades and student satisfaction levels – however, again, being designed for FPS’, it’s all about diminishing health and ammunition levels. It allows for players passing over particular parts of the map to trigger audio/video/graphic files and some of the FPSC community (a lively modding scene) have devised basic scripts to enable simple conversations between the player and non-player characters – although these don’t have the depth that we would really want in our game. Players can also trigger audio/video/graphic files by interacting (passing over/close to) game objects such as folders, cdroms and the like. This appears at the moment to be the extent of which we can work with this game. (I may learn more in time but I have to come back to the do something simple well principle). After chats with members of our team, where I laid out the driving game elements that I’ve come up with so far (mentioned previously here) , we’ve come up with some possible models for the game play to follow. None seem perfect but offer some options at least. The background story, of the player being a teacher trying to improve their existing, (boring) course – Theory of Occupational Health and Safety- in pursuit of the coveted Teacher of the Year award. The player is in direct competition with a colleague – the slightly annoying Peta Perfect. The game map is a representation of the campus here at Southside – the FLS team is located in A block which is connected to the players dept in D block by a large corridor. This corridor takes about 40 seconds to cross at present, which could be seen as dragging somewhat, particularly if the player needs to go back and forth. 1. Sandbox style talker: Talking forms the only interaction in this game – there is a relatively large collection of NPCs who just have one conversational audio file associated with them, triggered whenever the player stands next to them. Some (but not all) of these NPCs will have helpful information pertaining to the Flexible Learning Solutions team and when they give this information out, the player’s score is increased. One of the player’s main goals here is 100% completion. The score issue here is a problem as it falls outside the functions of the software – it may be possible to have particular useful objects appear or doors unlock (which the player would need to be made aware of) once the player has spoken to the NPC. What purpose these objects have or where the unlocking doors lead is uncertain. Pluses: Simple goals and activity 2. Two level game: This option breaks the game into two separate activities – the player firstly has to identify all of their teaching needs that can be supported/enhanced by the FLS team by moving around D block only (A block is locked) and talking to their colleagues. Each colleague – six in total – has information that relates to one aspect of FLS team expertise. In the second (A Block) level, the player begins at the entrance to A block and finds the FLS office. They would then interact with the FLS team members in a similar way to the first level. Moving up to the characters would trigger a cut-scene animation which would feature a conversation between the player and the FLS team member about the options that FLS has for supporting them with their relevant issue. It may be that the FLS team member directs the player to access/use an object located in the FLS office. This could include a computer terminal which has a screen-capture video of FLS website, a folder with a text-based list of workshops or how-to guide resources, a cd-rom showcasing previous projects or potentially other objects. The player “wins” by completing these 6/12 interactions, which unlocks a door and gives them access to the Teacher of the Year trophy – awarded to them in another cut-scene animation. Pluses: avoids the A/D block trudge, simplifies the maps, talking to FLS person and interacting with object model is good (could be used in any of these) 3. D block to A block and back again (and again) This is the initial model I had in mind but the drawback is the time that the player needs to spend between missions traversing the corridor between A and D block. The player has full access to the entire building and after the initial cut-scene animation that sets up the story, can either explore D block and interact with (get information from) their colleagues (and perhaps students?) OR go directly to A block and explore the FLS office. They would generally need to activate a mission by speaking to one of their colleagues but it would be nice if they could also do this by speaking directly to the FLS team member. (The gameplay mechanics behind this however make it more complex that I’m currently able to do). There would also be freely accessible FLS resource objects around the FLS office (the cdroms etc mentioned in option 2). There could also be an FLS pamphlet or CD-Rom available in the D block offices of the player in the first place. Given the limitations of the gameplay options, the player would probably have to trigger the mission by speaking to a colleague and then go to A block to complete it. If they speak to the wrong FLS member, it would be nice if they could say (for example) – sorry, I’m Bec and I support graphic design – you’re looking for Colin. (This is more than I can currently do at the moment though.) As speaking to colleagues would be optional in this case, it would only be by interacting with the FLS team members that the player would access special items OR unlock doors to give them access to the winner’s trophy. Pluses: Full sandpit style gameplay 4. The Linear approach. The FPS genre is conventionally a very linear one and this would entail redesigning the whole map so that each task would logically (and physically) come after another. This runs counter to one of the main purposes of the game, which is to provide a relatively realistic orientation to the FLS team and their physical location. On a practical level, it would work similar to option 3 but mean that particular colleagues wouldn’t be available to trigger the next mission until the preceding one had been completed. Likewise, the appropriate FLS team member wouldn’t be available either. (and I’m not overly sure about how to do any of this just yet). The player would need to be made aware upon completion of a task that they now have access to another colleague and task. This would offer a sense of progress but could make the trudging back and forth between A and D block frustrating or contrived. One option for the physical space which could work would be a corridor with doors (see through doors?) which unlock on the completion of tasks and allow progress toward an always visible trophy room. Pluses: More suited to the genre and so presumably to the software General random thoughts and ideas. Maybe one of the FLS team members is actually embedded over in D block in the first part of the game. Can the player “win” the game without having to speak to all of the FLS team – what if they are only interested in two components? I would like to see intermittent cut-scene animations showing that Peta Perfect is making progress, earning points/objects/unlocking doors and gloating to the player. This would be to spice up the sense of competition. We could have a guide/mentor character that offers updated information on visits. (there is a script available in the game that allows for up to 3 sets of conversation files to be played – when the player returns to the character. This isn’t context sensitive however. Guide figure may offer advice on gameplay – eg – by touching the folders/cd-roms/etc, you can access information. The player would have an opportunity for discovery learning in the game space before the opening cutscene animation which sets up the story. They find themselves alone in their office which is shared with three other teachers. They can wander around the office but not leave just yet. Their colleagues’ desks in the office have some interactable objects on them – folders which can be triggered by moving close to them. When they move close enough to the trophy on Peta Perfect’s desk, they trigger the opening, story-establishing animation clip. These are the actions that the player can do:
The player needs to make things happen, not just be caught up in an extended series of movies. Purpose of an Orientation game – to learn about:
There is also an optional level available at the start of the game which offers training in navigating a 3D space in a First Person Perspective game.
08
01
2008
Looking at yourself as a 3D game characterPosted by: colinsimpson in Uncategorized, game design, tags: 3d model, game designIt’s a little odd seeing yourself in a game as a 3D character. Our resident graphic designer and 3D champ Bec has been busily working away on the models of the team for the CEE project (happy Len?) and here’s me. It uses the .x format (which ties in to Microsoft’s Direct X) and uses a .dds file for the texture. It’s set in FPS Creator. (This is around version 12 – there were some odd problems with the model appearing teeny tiny and then being stuck in the floor for a while)
For the sake of comparison, this is a pic of me taken a little while back.
An earlier 3D version made more use of the existing character’s hair and made me look somewhat creepier – so it seemed only right to create a clone army of myself at the time.
11
12
2007
Prometeus – the media revolution & EPIC 2014Posted by: colinsimpson in Uncategorized, experience, information, language, media, virtual worldThis is an interesting video about the possible future of media and experience that I found on Jenny Weight from RMIT’s blog. It looks at where communication has come from, where the Internet is taking it and then goes on to hypothesise about how virtual worlds might be able to represent more and more of reality and what this means for our understanding of it. It also reminds me a little of this movie, though doesn’t get quite so detailed in it’s examination of the possible evolution of the media in general and how information and knowledge might be managed. (Click on image to view video)
07
12
2007
Croquelandia – Uni of Minnesota Spanish language virtual world projectPosted by: colinsimpson in Uncategorized, croquet, language, simulation, virtual world
Croquet is an open source virtual world system (like Second Life) that is rapidly growing in popularity among educators for its extra functionality and ease of use. The Croquet team at the University of Minnesota are currently putting together a very interesting project as a teaching tool for Spanish Language Pragmatics, which they have called Croquelandia. As you can see, it allows learners to explore a space and interact with other students (and native Spanish speakers) in Spanish. The conversational options that are selected (in this case with a non-player character) determine how the conversation proceeds.
Very nifty. |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
The Game Learner
Problem solving, decision making, roleplay, lateral thinking, collaboration – it\’s all in the game
Pay attention to level pacing.
for those who follow. Difficult in this kind of game building environment but more doable in virtual worlds such as Croquet.
Hosted by Edublogs.
Mandigo theme by tom.
Entries (RSS)
and Comments (RSS).
