Final Project

I have often heard the phrase “Life is what you make it.”  This is based on the idea that life will not simply hand you the things you want and/or need, even if you ask nicely.  There are always limitations that exist, whether it be in the amount of money or material possessions you possess, the talents you have, or the time you have to do something.  These limits have, and always will, exist; it’s part of being human.  However, another part of being human is overcoming these limitations.  We are constantly striving to overcome our limitation, even from a very young age.  From our first steps and words, to pursuing a college degree, to climbing the corporate ladder, every major point in a life are marked by the overcoming of limitations.  Games are a prime location to look to see this human drive; you, as a player, are constantly striving to overcome the limitations played on you by the game.  This thought brought up a couple of important questions to look at when it comes to games.  What effect does limiting a player’s options have in a game, and how do players overcome/surpass these limitations?  How do these limitations effect the player’s experience of the game?

To attempt to answer these questions, I set up an experiment using Portal, a puzzle-solving game published by Valve.  I had the players play the first two levels of the game as a introduction/refresher to the controls and basic puzzle solving concepts of the game.  I then had them play the actual test level (Test Chamber 13) and limited them based on whether they had played before or not.  I imposed a time limit of three and six minutes, respectively, and then had them play through the level with the goal of finishing within the time limit.  After they played for the time limit assigned to them, I had them answer a questionnaire, in order to obtain participant opinions.  This questionnaire included questions about whether they had played Portal before, how often they played video games, how difficult they felt the limitations made the game, and how much fun they had playing the level.  Only four of my participants finished the level within the time limit assigned to them, three of which had played before and one of which had not.  However, all four of these participants ranked themselves five out of five on how often they played video games and ranked the difficulty of the limitations a two or below on a scale of five.  Those who did not finish within the limitations set ranked the difficulty somewhere between two and four, regardless of whether they had played before or not; only one person ranked the difficulty as a five out of five.  The most important result that I drew from the participants is that no participant ranked the fun they had while playing to be less than a three out of five, with the majority of my participants (13/15) ranking fun a four or five.  

When comparing my results and the questions I was asking, a few patterns emerged.  The most obvious result answered my first question: The setting of a time limit resulted in the majority of the participants not finishing the level.  However, while the limitations placed prevented the majority of the participants from completing the level, each participant strived to advance as far as possible.  No one gave up, and if they became stumped by some particular ‘puzzle piece’, they would experiment with their environment to figure it out.  To that effect, my second question was answered: no matter what limitations are placed on a player, they will strive to succeed and complete the tasks assigned to them.  This was most obvious in the participants who completed the level within the time limit, all of whom are avid gamers.  The problem-solving skills they had learned from other games carried over into Portal and helped them to overcome the limits imposed.  Even the participants who did not finish strove to overcome these limitations.  My third question had the most evidence supporting it: despite additional limitations  like time limits, players will still have fun playing the game.  Overcoming the additional limitations was just another part of the fun.  

On a side note, because many of my participants had not played Portal before, or video games on a more general scale, many had a steep learning curve on the test level.  They had to learn how utilize portals while under an additional limitation.  I feel that had they had a chance to learn to effective use portals, many more of my participants would have succeed in overcoming the limitations placed upon them.  

Problem-solving is a crucial skill to have and be able to utilize effectively, be it in a video game, advancing from one level to another, or in real life, advancing up the corporate ladder.  As Koster states, “Games are puzzles to solve, just like everything else we encounter if life.” (34)  He believes the puzzle solving aspect is crucial to games and to the amount of fun we have.  As he says, “Fun from games arises out of mastery. It arises out of comprehension. It is the act of solving puzzles that makes games fun.” (40)  I saw this in my participants, especially in those who had never played before.  There was always a sense of accomplishment, of pride, when they figured out how to solve a portion of the puzzle.  Even with the participants who had played before, something about overcoming the limitations set upon them, either by me or the game itself, gave them a sense of satisfaction.  They enjoyed themselves because they were constantly being pushed to solve some portion of a puzzle, to go beyond the limits set.

This sense of accomplishment was present in all of my participants at some point or another, and is a indication of why problem solving is so important.  We need problem solving skills not only so that we can succeed, but so that we can experience that thrill achieved by overcoming a limitation or obstacle.  We enjoy being able to boast and show off when we have succeeded.  As McMahan states, “Many users appreciate games at a nondiegetic level- at the level of gaining points, devising a winning (or at least a spectacular) strategy, and showing off their prowess to other players during the game and afterwards, during replay.” (69).  That drive to succeed, to overcome, is crucial to puzzle-solving, and all of my participants displayed it; not one of them gave up at any point, even if they were killed. 

Puzzle-solving itself is all about examining the limitations placed on the player by the game and figuring out how to overcome said limitations.  We explore all the possibilities until we find out what works, never stopping or hesitating in our pursuit of the answers.  As Bogost states, “This is what we really do when we play video games: we explore the possibility space its rules afford by manipulating the symbolic systems the game provides.  The rules do not merely create the experience of play- they also construct the meaning of the game.”  (121)  This idea was reaffirmed by the results of my test.  While the majority of my participants did not actually finish during the time limit assigned, they all pushed to overcome the limitations set by both the game and myself.

Limitations are a crucial part of any game, no matter what they control.  Overcoming these limitations is what drives players to succeed, and they can find unique ways of doing it every time.  The surpassing of these limitations is crucial to the fun that a player can experience.  In short, while limitations do exist, they exist to challenge the player to rise about them, and the result of this is fun.

Works Cited:

Bogost, Ian. “The Rhetoric of Video Games." The Ecology of Games: Connecting Youth, Games, and Learning. Edited by Katie Salen. The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2008. 117–140.

McMahan, Alison. “Immersion, Engagement, and Presence.” The Video Game, Theory Reader. Mark J.P. Wolf and Bernard Perron, eds. New York, NY: Routledge (2003)

Koster, Ralph. A Theory of Fun for Game Design. Phoenix: Paraglyph Press, 2004. 34-98. Print.

Survey Questionnaire:

Name of participant:

Have you played this game before?:  Yes     No

If you have not played this game before, 

have you seen this level played before?   Yes      No

How often do you play video games? (1-never, 5-all the time):  1   2   3   4   5

Did you finish the level within the set time limit:   Yes      No

If not, why do you think this was?

If you have played this game before, how much did the added limitations increased the challenge for you? (1-not much, 5- very much):  1   2   3   4   5

Why was this challenging for you?

If you have not played this game before, how difficult was this game for you? (1- not very difficult,  5-very difficult):  1   2   3   4   5

Why was this challenging for you?

How much fun did you have playing this game? (1- Not much fun, 5- lots of fun):  

1   2   3   4   5

Why was this game fun (or not) for you?

Procedure Run Down:

How I identified participants:

• I choose my participants from my group of friends.  

Why I felt they were appropriate:

• The reason for this is, while not all of them where avid gamers, I know them and I knew they would give me honest opinions.

Where, when, and how I conducted my research:

• I had the participants come in on their own time over the course of a week and a half.  I had them sit down and play the first two levels of the game as an introduction to the controls of the mechanics.  I then loaded Test Chamber 13 and had them play through it.  After they played for their allotted time, I had them fill out the survey.  I analyzed the answers later for use in my paper.

Repetition within MMOs

For one of our recent play sessions, we played WOW as a class.  We all started up a trial account, joined the same server, and created new characters of varying classes, all Tauren.  Many people had never played WOW before, as spent a good deal of the time adjusting the game world and the controls.  However, I had recently been playing on a trial account and had already played as a Tauren, so I had already done all of the quests available to my beginning character.  As such, I found myself becoming quickly bored, despite playing as a different class than I had the first time.

This is an issue that I believe most MMOs have.  From both my experiences on WOW and Guild Wars, it is fun to create a new character so that you can experiment with the different class types, but you always dread grinding through the same introductory quests.  There is no variety, so you must always grind through the same quests.  And MMOs lack the strong presence of an obvious, directing storyline that many other games have.  In that sense, it is much harder to start over.

Grabbing my attention

In a post, Josh Bycer discusses something he calls the "Fifteen Minutes of Game".  He talks about the "elevator pitch", in which novices in the game industry must distill the central ideas of their game down to fifteen seconds, in order to focus their thoughts and core concepts.  He then applies it to himself and games, stating that "A game has about 15 minutes for me to get into it, or the chance of me finishing the game is lessen."  His reason for this is you can usually see any major technical issues within the first 15 minutes of the game.  If they exist, they're bound to be a major issue throughout the game, thus ruining the experience.  

I find myself agreeing with parts of this.  If there is a technical issue that is obvious that early on, I find myself getting discouraged.  If the story intrigues me, I might try to fight past the issues, but otherwise I'll just pass on the game.  Another  point for me is that the story can often save a game for me.  Resonance of Fate, a JRPG I played over the summer, had a storyline that quickly captured my attention; however, the battle system within the game had an extremely steep learning curve.  Either you got it or you didn't. There was no middle ground. In my case, the interest I had in the plot drove me to push past the curve and advance through the game.

Social Gaming- FIFA

In the last of our play sessions this semester, one of the games we played was FIFA 12(?).  We played in groups, 2 on 1 due to the limited number of controllers available.  Despite not being much a sports-game gamer, I found myself enjoying the game and interactions I was having with my classmates.  We kept a friendly banter throughout the game, cheering on our teammate and trash-talking the opponent.  I think the reason that I found myself enjoying FIFA was due to this social interaction with my classmates.  Social interaction is a integral part of being human, and games that address this point are often some of the most enjoyable.  However, this social interaction is a crucial part of the game; without it, I doubt I would have enjoyed it as much.

This goes back to the 7 points we discussed in McGonigal's article:

Sharing:  Sharing is a crucial part of the game, especially in regards to social gaming.  Teammates must constantly share the ball in order to effective on offense, else they have the ball stolen before they can go five feet.  It is important for teammates to share responsibility on defense, protect the goal and going after the ball.

Communicating:  This one is obvious.  Players have to communicate if they are to be effective on the field.  The more effective you are, the more fun you are going to have, because your team will be able to execute offense and defense better.

Interaction:  The entire game is interaction in a sense. Wether it be between the user and the player he is controlling at the time or between opponents on the field, interaction is involved in someway.

Competing:  This is especially important, considering it is a sports game.  A sport is, at its heart, a competition, and this carries over the digital platform.

Coordinating/Collaborating:  Players have to work together if they are going to be successful.  If one player is just messing around, running in circle, the team is going to be far less effective, and the team will most likely lose, which is no fun at all.

Negotiating:  Teammates must negotiate constantly, deciding how long to have a person control the ball before passing it on, or whose going to predominately defense and whose going after the goal.

Filler in Games- Skyrim

One of the pro-bloggers I have been following, Josh Bycer, recently made a post about filler in video games and how it can be deadly for a game.  He started off his argument by discussing the concept of filler arcs in anime, points where the show is transitioning from one major story arc to another, or when the writers have run out of ideas, and how pointless they are.  No character development really takes place, and you could completely skip the filler arc and miss practically nothing of importance.  He then applies this to games, especially games designed to be longer, like RPGs and open-world games.  He closes his argument with this:  "While the thought of having 100+ hours of game is an appealing one, the question however, is how many of those hours are actually meaningful?"

One of my recent favorites, The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim, is a game that could fall into this trap.  Before it was released, one of the biggest advertising points for the game was the huge amount of gameplay the player would have.  "Over 300 hours of gameplay!"  However, since it has been released, it has been criticized for this fact, with some saying much of this time can be spent getting from one point to another.

For me, this journey from one point to another is just another great point of the game.  There are a huge amount of locations to explore, from murky caves to dark, dusty ruins, from large cities, bustling with commerce, to tiny settlements of just a few houses.  Traveling from one to another was a crucial part of the game for me, because you were constantly exploring, seeing new sights and meeting new people.  Very rarely would you meet the same person on the road.  For me, every hour I put into the game, even the ones spent traveling from destination to destination, was meaningful.  It was not filler at all.

Thinking outside the box

For my final project, I have been having my participants play a level in Portal; as such, I have had a chance to analyze the level for possible solutions.  At the point in the game in which the level takes place, many of the puzzle-solving components have been introduced, including the crucial ones to this particular level: the Weighted Companion Cube, the Button, the High Energy Pellet, and the Unstationary Scaffold.

http://theportalwiki.com/wiki/Portal_Test_Chamber_13

Prior to starting the play sessions themselves, I played through the level myself many times, as well as looked up information about the level, in order to figure out as many of the possible solutions as I could.  I had my method figured out and I was ready to go.  Many players followed the general path that I had; however, some players kept surprising me, coming up with ways I had not thought of.  One completely skipped the first puzzle, simply stepping on the first button and shooting a portal through.  Another skipped most of the puzzle-solving in the second chamber by taking the cube from the first room with her and using it to weigh down one button while she weighed down another and then shooting a portal through the open door.  By doing this, she skipped most of the puzzle-solving in the second room.

This was both surprising and enjoyable for me, because I was able to see the puzzles solved from a perspective I had not before.  I learned a new strategy or two to an older puzzle, and took more from the game.  I was one step closer to grokking the game.

Immersion within Heavy Rain

McMahon defines three conditions that are necessary for immersion to truly occur in a game: "(1) the user’s expectations of the game or environment must match the environment’s conventions fairly closely; (2) the user’s actions must have a non-trivial impact on the environment; and (3) the conventions of the world must be consistent”  (pg. 68-69) Thinking about Heavy Rain, I have to agree.

In Heavy Rain, the game is set in a modern-day city, where the weather tends to be dreary.  While the exact location is never mentioned, possibly somewhere in the East Coast  (Philadelphia?), the expectation is that it is very similar to a real-life city.  To back up that point, you see cars moving about, people dancing in nightclubs, and officers working away, all of which are common occurrences in everyday life.  So when, for example, when Ethan's son Jason disappears at the mall, Ethan freaks out, just like we would.  This meets the first point.  

For the second point, Heavy Rain is realistic in that your actions can directly affect the game environment.  The characters you play as can actually die, something that is not a common occurrence in games.  

Finally, on the third point, the conventions of the game world remain consistent throughout the entire game.  Your character doesn't suddenly gain superpowers to fight to crime, or telepathic abilities to help him find his son.  You remain just a normal human being, searching desperately for his son, trying to keep him from being killed. 

Monday discussion

What’s the big issue going into the future?

I believe the issue of games as media will be a big issue going into the future.  Media is used most often to portray a point or multiple points, and I believe that actually experiencing something is the best way to learn about it.  This is were games thrive and exceed all other forms of media, because they allow the player to actually experience the lesson.  With things like movies, music, and books, you are almost always a spectator.  With games, you can actually participate.

What’s an issue you want to talk more about?

I would have liked to talk about players and choice within a game.  I believe the amount of choice a player is given within a game is directly related to the level of immersion the player achieves.  If a player is limited in the amount of choice that they have, they can only engage with the game environment to a certain degree.  If a player has too much choice, they will have little to no indication of where they are supposed to go and what they are supposed to do.  The developer has to find the right balance to fit their game.

What game do you wish we had played?

The game I wish that we had played is Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time.  The reasons for this:  Ocarina is a rockstar in the gaming world.  It was wildly successful and has a huge following even today.  Its blend of puzzle-solving, exploration, and fluid combat, along with great graphics for its time, allowed for a large level of immersion by the player.  The player could truly emphasize with the hero and wanted him to succeed.  You could explore a huge world and interact with a large number of people, each of whom were unique and often offer side quests or unique dialogue. 

Blog Update #2

For this blog post, I will start by looking at some of Josh Bycer’s more recent blog posts and how they might be connected.  In these posts, Bycer addresses a number of concepts, such as the “anti-achievement” and filler in games.

Using the Left for Dead series to argue his case, Bycer discusses the idea of an “anti-achievement”.  Based as an opposite to the standard achievement for in most games these days, Bycer proposes the “anti-achievement”, which could be “used to tell someone they are playing the game wrong”.  He references experiences he has had playing L4D, when new players do the wrong thing and still managed to kill the survivors.  Calling it “one of the worst learning experiences I have seen in games”, he notes that despite doing the wrong thing, the novice player is rewarded for the their actions (killing the survivors), and as such will continue to do the same thing, aiming to replicate their previous result.  

It’s at this point that Bycer discusses the concept of an “anti-achievement” system more fully.  Amending the name to ‘denouncements’, he raising the possibility of using such a system as a learning tool.  Having the game give you a denouncement would be a pretty good indication that something you’re doing is wrong.  Another positive point he raises would to be to use denouncements as a form of ‘anti-griefing’, in which denouncements would be viewable on a person’s profile.  If someone has a large number of denouncements, it would be a good indication that you would want to steer clear of them. 

He does, however, raise two negative points about an denouncement system. 

1. How effective is the learning system?

2. How long should the denouncements stay active on a person’s profile?

With point one, Bycer is concerned that the player will only learn that the action is wrong, but not get the correct mechanic.  On point two, Bycer raises the possibility that a new player might pick up the game, have a hard time learning the mechanics of the game, and choose to abandon the game before they get too many marks on their profile.

In another of his posts, Bycer discusses the use of filler in games and how it can be avoided.  As he defines it, “filler in game design can be anything that adds tedium to the game”.  One of the examples he offers to start is when, in RPGs, the player is forced to stop and heal after every battle and must go through a complicated inventory screen to get there.  However, what might combat filler in a game in one genre doesn’t necessarily work for another.  If the game is an RPG with a focus on turn-based combat and exploration, then anything that keeps the player from this can cause tedium for the player.  To combat this, he suggests the idea of an ‘hotkey’ of some sort for quick healing, or even having the system auto-heal the party after every battle.  However, he cautions that “there is a line to watch out for when reducing tedium.  Too much automation in the pursuit of reduced tedium can lead to another problem entirely: the game can play itself.  Bycer argues this point with examples from Dungeon Siege, in which the player could preset the actions of their allies and their character, and Prince of Persia, in which it was literally impossible for the player could not fail any jumps or platforming maneuvers because the partner AI would always save them.  He agrees that some tedium in a game can be a good thing, but it isn’t always the best idea.  As he states, “more gameplay mechanics doesn’t always make the game better, as hiding gameplay under tedium is never a good thing.”

In regards to the first post, I honestly love the idea of a ‘denouncement system’.  While there are definitely kinks to work out of the system before it can be used in any major way, I think that it shows promise, because sometimes you just don’t know if you are doing thing the wrong way.  It also would be a great warning system for online gamers so that they can avoid griefers.  

With the second post, I immediately thought of Final Fantasy 12 when Bycer discussed automation within a game and how it can be a bad thing.  The gambit system in the game allows for more effective management of you allies during battle; however, in the right circumstances and with the proper management of the gambits, the game can be left running and allow the player to continually level up their characters.  While this might be considered cheating by some gamers, it creates a loophole that allows for gamers to avoid some of the grind that is a huge part of Final Fantasy games.  Refer to the ‘auto-leveling’ section here for an example: http://finalfantasy.wikia.com/wiki/Negalmuur

Onto the Critical Gaming Project blog.  

In a post by Alenda Chang, she discusses the scientific puzzle game Foldit, which has recently rose to fame and is something of a media darling.  Foldit is a recent attempt to “to join human cognition to overworked computer programs in a computational approach to basic biology and disease treatment.  This is significant because Foldit is a great example of intellectually crowdsourcing gamer communities, “moving beyond the harnessing of game software’s hefty processing power to actually tapping the spatial reasoning and problem-solving drive of gamers themselves.”  However, Chang raises a concern that this might turn the Noble Prize into just another achievement in the current craze for achievement systems in games.  But as she says, “Perhaps friendly rivalry prevent the game from becoming merely unpaid labor, because as with many other “serious” games, Foldit also dramatizes the increasingly fine line between work and play.”  She also notes that Foldit, with its complex, 3-D puzzles, is quick to produce “flow”: focused engagement with a challenge during which external considerations fall away.

In another post by Terry, he discusses the relationship between gamification and players.  As he states at the beginning of his post, “Gamers are basically rats.  At least, that seems to be the central design principle informing gamification.”  He defines gamification as “the infusion of game design techniques, game mechanics, and/or game style into anything”; however, he states that an implicit goal is to transform the attitudes and behavior of users into “happy, engaged gamers.”  He then introduces the term ‘rattomorphism’, which is based on Skinner’s work with rats, in which the stimulus comes after the desired response as a reward and ultimately functions as an incentive.  He notes that, while operant conditioning is extremely effective, in the long run it will ultimately backfire.  The reason for this is that people will eventually grow to hate and resent the activities and their creativity and productivity will decrease.  As one researcher cited stated, “people offered rewards tend to ‘choose easier tasks, are less efficient in using information available to solve novel problems, and tend to be answer oriented and more illogical in their problem-solving strategies.  They work harder and produce more activity, but the activity is over lower quality, contains more errors, and is more stereotyped and less creative than the work of comparable non-rewarded subjects  working on the same problems.’  This is not much of an issue if the goal is simply to get gamers to do something, but if quality of action, emotional engagement, and development over time matter at all, then he states that these issues must be kept in mind.  

In regards to the first post here, I like the idea of uniting the focus and determination of the large gaming community in order to solve problems.  Human ingenuity is something that has yet to be matched by computers, and focusing a large amount of that can solve some of the greatest problems, so long as the focus of the group can be maintained.  Foldit achieves that by turning a sometimes boring biological concept into a competitive game.  

In response to the second post, I agree with the opinion that I drew from it, that gamification can pose a threat to gaming and fun.  Being trained to do certain things in exchange for rewards can make games monotonous.  Designers might find a favorite strategy for designing their games, that gamers love at first.  However, over time, gamers will grow bored with this design style and demand something else.

http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/JoshBycer/20111030/8762/Denouncements_A_Concept_of_the_quotAntiAchievementquot.php

http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/JoshBycer/20111109/8859/Avoiding_Filler_in_Game_Design.php

https://depts.washington.edu/critgame/wordpress/2011/10/when-a-problem-comes-along-you-must-fold-it/#more-1856

https://depts.washington.edu/critgame/wordpress/2011/11/the-rattomorphism-of-gamification/#more-1880

Blog post- Class makeup Wednesday 11-9-11

This is makeup for me missing class on Wednesday.

The first article focused on the crazy working conditions faced by developers in video game studios.  Sometimes they are forced to work up to 85 hours a week, with multiple 60-hour work weeks a possibility in today's studios when it's 'crunch time'.  The article also referenced a recent poll that showed that 98% of those employees did not receive compensation for their extra hours.  However, employees are afraid to fight against this system because they feel they are easily replaceable and could easily lose their jobs.  This is despite studies going back as far as 1909 that show that the 40-hour workweek is more efficient and produces better results over time than forced overtime and extended hours.  According to the article, "studies show that regularly being awake for more than 21 hours impairs the mind as much as having a blood-alcohol concentration of 0.08... that's also the point where it becomes illegal to drive a car." The main fear pointed out by the article is that these types of hours can and will force out potential greats from the industry because they will burnout too soon.


The second article focuses on the world of indie games.  The article defines indie games as understood by most not as being separate from a large publisher, but a recognition of creativity and inventiveness which pushes back against the grain of current gameplay trends."  I completely agree with this definition; just because a studio has a great deal of moie doesn't mean that the game with follow the plan of those who came before in any particular genre.  Likewise, just because a company doesn't have a great deal of money doesn't mean they can't totally defy the conventions of a genre.

Blog post- Class makeup Monday 11-7-11

Ok so this is a post to makeup for being out of class this Monday.

To start off,  I found the reference to Donald Norman's work to be interesting.  In a culture where implementation of the newest technology is widely promoted, the concept that the technology 'under the hood' is "wholly redundant" and "may be dismissed as nothing more than a smoke and mirrors marketing routine" caught my attention.  I have always enjoyed seeing what new technology can add to the gaming world, but the idea that it has no real effect on anything other than marketing was unsettling.  While I do agree that technology itself has no real effect on the way a narrative is told, it does enable the designers to create new, incredible environments and game spaces.

This reference to technology is continued in the chapter's discussion of game spaces.  The limitations of technology have always controlled the size of a game's environment, such as the single-screen environment of Asteroids.  This then expands into the much larger, explorable world of Legend of Zelda and Super Mario 64.  For me, technology has played a huge factor in enhancing my gameplay experience due to this fact.  I love being able to explore my environment in a game, and the larger and more detailed the better.  Better technology makes this possible.

After that the chapter discusses the evolution from single man projects to game design teams.  When videogames first started to rise, many were the projects of a single person working by themselves on a pet project.  However, as time has passed and technology and gamer tastes have evolved, it has become nearly impossible for a single man to develop a game on their own; as such, the development team has risen.  Each development team has certain components: management and design, programming, art, music and miscellaneous, and quality assurance.  Each of these parts a major part in the development game.

Also coming about with the evolution of technology was the transition from single-game systems, such as Pong or Pacman, to the multi-purpose console, like the XBox or the PSone.

Sweatshop

Today in class we had the option to play one of three games- Karma Tycoon, the McDonald's video game, and Sweatshop.  Developed by Channel Four and Littleloud, Sweatshop is in all appearances a very lighthearted game; however, it was designed to address the very real issues that many workers around the world deal with every day.  The developers also worked with experts on sweatshops to integrate as many of these realities as possible into the game, as well as spread numerous fact and figures throughout the game.

After playing about 10 levels or so into the game, I had had a chance to gain a understanding for the mechanics of the game.  Thinking about it now, I believe these mechanics play a huge role in helping the player understand at a deeper level the plight faced by sweatshop workers.  In other words, I believe the developers did an excellent job using the game mechanics to convey their point.  For example, the use of water coolers to restore your workers' energy- if your workers get dehydrated, they stop working, and can even die.  This connects the game to the reality of the sweatshop- for example, in one Mexican sweatshop, "workers are expected to meet a quota of 1000 pieces a day".  This means making more than one piece a minute, making the quota "so high that the worker are unable to have a drink or go to the toilet all day."

The game also employs a karma system, in which treating your workers right gains you karma, while ignoring or mistreating them loses you karma.  This is based on the huge amount of abuse workers face.  For example:
"In 2005 the building of the Spectrum/Shahriyar Sweater factory in Bangledesh collapsed killing 64 workers and injuring 80. These deaths were entirely preventable. The building collapsed as a result of factory owners violating building codes and health and safety regulations".


These two points are just a few of the examples that show the connection between the game mechanics and the realities of the sweatshop workers.


http://www.playsweatshop.com/sweatshop.html

Game Design Analysis: "Vigilante"

“Vigilante”

“Defending the planet, one target at a time”

Summary:

This game is meant to be very open, meant to be explored by the player, with various factions that you can interact with.  The main story of the game will revolve around a secret alliance of guardians, tasked with the protection of the world, and their struggles against the corrupt, militaristic coalition of governments that now rules the planet.  The core verbs that will define this game are exploration (due to the openness of the game environment), combating (referring to both the drive of the storyline and to the primary system of action (fighting)), and creation (as an item creation system will exist, both for single use items and for equipment).  The game will use a class (specialization) and leveling system, in which the character can be any number of classes and increases their abilities by devoting points towards certain ability trees.  It will fall under the adventure RPG genre, with a sub-genre of fantasy, is set in a medieval time period,  and will address a more adult audience (being rated M most likely). 

Theory Research:

Salen and Zimmerman

In one of our past collaborations, Rules of Play, we addressed various concepts, such as meaningful play, design, and systems, each of which have a large role to play in games and game design.  We devoted a chapter to each of these concepts, focusing on the nuances of each and defining the various parts.  

We recently had the opportunity to read over a proposed game by the name of  “Vigilante”, which is a open-world adventure RPG.  The story centered around a secret alliance of guardians, tasked with the protection of the world, and their struggles against the corrupt, militaristic coalition of governments that now rules the planet. There would be some of the key aspects of the game would be exploration, combat, and an item creation system.  The game uses a class system in which the player will choose a character with a preset list of possible abilities, which would then be unlocked by leveling up and spending skill points.  

To begin with, we found the open-world design for the game environment to be engaging.  The plan is for the player to be able to go anywhere and interact with almost anyone from nearly the beginning of the game.  The idea was to draw the player into the game-world as much as possible.  We found this to be a compelling idea because it engages the concept of the magic circle, creating a unique environment for the player to explore as they wish, with unique interactions with various NPCs and locations.  Put simply, “the magic circle of a game is where the game takes place”, and the environment of Vigilante draws in the player as it should. (pg. 95)

We also found the leveling system, while nothing new, to be fitting.  The ‘system’ of devoting points to unlock new skills limits the player at the beginning, but allows higher level players to use the most powerful abilities.  In this ‘open system’, which “has an exchange of some sort with its environment”,  the player levels up, gaining access to better abilities, and as such can better face the challenges posed by the environment.

We would warn the developers that the interactions that the player has with the game environment should always have some sort of immediate effect and some sort of effect on gameplay later in the game.  For example, if a player takes a item from a container, there should be the immediate effect the player gaining the weapon, but there should also be the later-game effect of the player not getting a better weapon from that chest.  This helps to create the sense of meaningful play, in that “the action a player takes not only has immediate significance in the game, but also affects the play experience at a later point in the game”. (pg. 35)

In regards to criticism, we would point out that game itself is one big system, and each of the individual parts, such as the leveling/class system, the game environment, and the creation system, need to fit together in such a way that they serve unique purposes, but also have a direct influence on each other. 

Games and Gameplay Research:

Similarities:

• Oblivion/ Fallout 3

I have always loved the open-world environment that Bethesda created in Oblivion and Fallout 3.  Being able to go where you wish and do what you want from nearly the beginning of the game is some much more fun to me than being told to go from point A to point B and only have a select few ways to get there, if any options at all. 

• World of Warcraft

I have recently picked up WOW through the trial account feature and one of the things that I have loved most about the game is the class system.  Choosing a class, and then being able to specialize in a particular talent tree, is fun for me because you get to focus on a particular type of skill tree and learn all of the nuances of that tree.  It allows for a unique play through with every branch and class.

• Fallout 3/ WOW

I enjoyed the item creation systems that existed within these games because the allow the player to gain unique items for their characters.  With Fallout 3, you had the unique weapons, such as the Rock-It Launcher and the deathclaw gauntlet.  With WOW, you can create gear that can be better than the gear available at that point in the game.

Differences:

• WOW

In regards to the race/class system, each race had access to only certain classes. However, in Vigilante the player will be able to play as any of the classes.  This way the player can experience the game in a unique way each time.  

Narrative Research:

The player’s experience of the story will be a large part in their total experience of the game.  While the openness of the world will allow for exploration and does not force the player to engage in the main story, the game world itself will change based on the player’s progression through the story.  

Stories that are similar- Assassin’s Creed, Rage

Assassin’s Creed- The Brotherhood and the Guardians both fight from the shadows to combat injustice.  However, the Brotherhood fights to keep those who do good in power at times.  In Vigilante, the entire government is corrupt.  Brotherhood members also hold positions of power in public life.

Rage- In Rage, the Authority is the dominant force in the Wasteland, with various bandit groups holding power at the local level. In Vigilante, the entire world is under the control of one central government.  

Aesthetic Research:

I envision this game with detailed, realistic graphics.  Not ‘cartoony’ but as real looking as possible.  Attention to detail, even with the background and things like water and shadows.  Based on the mood of the game, the color scheme will change.  Darker schemes for more somber moods (http://media29.onsugar.com/files/2011/09/36/0/3/36065/608b5d12c39a272e_Priest-movie-poster11.preview.jpg) and lighter schemes for the general play (http://pcmedia.ign.com/pc/image/article/101/1013607/rage-20090813004135780.jpg).  

Graphics: (http://dottech.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/20091003_rage_01.jpg)

Realistic sounds as well.  The music would be neutral most of the time, changing based on the situation.

Standard: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRee6NoN-c0&feature=results_main&playnext=1&list=PL5CE87E95F23D7938

Battle music:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-BVXRpIZbs

Creepy, set-your-nerves-on-end music:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMWzr6vhhDk

The game itself will take place in a urban landscape. Clothing will be set to period.

Portal Analysis Revision

Rules.  What are rules?  Are they just guidelines we operate and live by?  Are they a crucial part of our everyday lives?  Or are they unnecessary?  Do we have to have rules for everything?  The answer is: yes.  Rules are a crucial part of the way our society work and how we live day to day.  Rules set limits, and we follow those limits.  If we chose to ignore those limits, then there are consequences.  Such is life.

Rules are also a crucial part of many games.  Rules define the limitations of the game, what a player can and cannot do, and what the consequences are for breaking the rules, much like real life.  While the number of rules a game has can vary, as seen in the piadia-ludus spectrum, they play a crucial role in defining the player’s actions.  Ranging from something as simple as establishing the number of “lives” a player has to complex set of rules that define a player’s interactions with other characters and the environment, the rules of a game define it. 

I believe that the rules of Portal are one of its most defining features, having a direct influence on the level of engagement a player has with the game and how much fun the game can be.  From the very beginning of the game, the rules define the player’s actions.  After waking up, GLaDOS addresses the player for the first time, establishing a relationship that will last the entire game.  She gives the player a list of instructions and warnings about the upcoming test, then opens up the first portal of the game.  Right away you are taught that your character has a limited jumping ability.  Shortly thereafter, you are taught how to pick up a cube and place it on a “Heavy Duty Super Colliding Super Button”. By this point you know of six very simple rules:

1. My character can jump.
2. My character’s jumping ability is limited.
3. My character can pick up cubes.
4. These cubes can be used to hold down buttons.
5. My player can crouch.
6. The “Material Emancipation Grill” at the end of the level prevents me from taking anything from the level with me.

Simple rules, but ones that define the player’s engagement with the game from that point on.  

In the next Test Chamber (01), you am introduced to portals for the first time.  At this point you have no control over the portals, but in order to finish the test, you must interact with them.  You quickly learn that there are two colors of portals, orange and blue, and that these portals connect with each other. You learn that there can only be one of each portal color active at one time.  You also learn that you can carry cubes through the portals.  Again, simple rules, but ones that define the rest of your gameplay experience.  

In Test Chamber 02, you receive your first portal gun.  You learn that you can shoot the portal gun at the wall or the floor to create a portal.  However, you discover that you are limited to shooting blue portals, meaning that you are limited to how you interact with the environment around you.  You also discover that there are certain surfaces which you can create portals on, and certain ones which you cannot.

Based on the rules and story you have received so far, you can start to interact with the game environment more successfully.  You learn where to place your portals and how to use the objects within the game (cubes, buttons, pre-placed portals) in order to solve the puzzles.  You become more immersed in the game, due to your knowledge of the rules and the interaction between you and GLaDOS, and you are able to have more agency over the game environment.

As you progress, the relationship between you, as Chell, and GLaDOS continues to gain more depth.  GLaDOS is a constant companion, offering advice multiple times; however, her comments and actions, as well as the malfunctions that she seems to be having at various points, hint at a insincerity for the player’s wellbeing.  This evolving relationship, as well as the environment that it takes place in (the testing facility), immerse the player more fully into the storyline, following one of McMahan’s guidelines for immersion: “the user’s expectations of the game or environment must match the environment’s conventions fairly closely.” (Immersion, Engagement, and Presence, pg. 68-69)  

Once you reach Test Chamber 06, you are introduced to introduced to High Energy Pellets, which add another level to the puzzle-solving aspect of the game.  Now you have the rules for the pellets to consider:

1. The pellet comes out of the launcher.
2. The pellet needs to go into the catcher.
3. Activating the catcher with a pellet advances the test.
4. The pellet can kill you if it touches you.

230px-Energy_Pellet.png

128px-Combine_Ball_launcher.png

126px-Combine_Ball_catcher.png

Test Chamber 08 introduces Goo, which kills you if you fall in it.  This forces the player to think through their actions, for one wrong move can mean Game Over.  This creates a sort of bond between the avatar and the player, immersing the player further into the game.

300px-Portal_Test_Chamber_08.png

Test Chamber 10 introduces one of the most important concepts of the game, that of “Flinging”.  “Flinging” is based on physics in that you use increasing speed to launch yourself to higher or farther places than you could reach before.  As GLaDOS says “Momentum, a function of mass and velocity, is conserved between portals. In layman's terms: speedy thing goes in, speedy thing comes out.” (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Portal_(game))

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inbh_3u-3xM

http://pad1.whstatic.com/images/thumb/7/72/Undefined_8530.png/220px-Undefined_8530.png

Having made it to Test Chamber 11, you are trying to make your way to the portal gun upgrade.  Once you have it, you gain the ability to shoot orange portals in addition to blue portals, greatly expanding the possible ways for the player to solve puzzles.  This new piece of equipment, like every expansion, comes with some new rules, as well as the expansion of some others:

1. You can only have one blue portal and one orange portal open at any time.
2. If you have both portals open, and you shoot another one (like a blue one), it will replace the blue portal that previously existed.  The orange one will be unaffected until another orange portal is shot.
3. You cannot shoot one portal through another (say a blue portal through a orange one).

The expanded possibilities lead to further immersion into the game’s environment, as “the user’s actions have a non-trivial impact on the environment” (Immersion, Engagement, and Presence, pg. 69).

Part of the new possibilities that are opened up to the player with the ability to shoot orange portals is a more advanced version or slinging, which requires the player to use both types of portals instead of just one.  This forces the player to “grok” the rules, or display a complete understanding of the rules, at least in part.  This is especially important from Test Chamber 15 and on, where most the rules of the game have been established and the puzzles begin to drastically increase in difficult.  

As the player progresses through the test chambers, the comments made by GLaDOS become more sarcastic and snarky, and at some points shows an almost complete lack of concern for the player’s wellbeing.  She has almost been malfunctioning multiple times, and the player begins to wonder whether something is wrong with her.  By never really revealing that anything is wrong, but instead hinting at the possibility, the story immerses the player further (at the diegitic level).

The last hazard introduced in the game are Turrets, one of the deadliest obstacles encounter in the game.  Turrets come with their own set of rules, regarding how they operate and how they target you: 

1. Turrets project a easily visible laser beam directly in front of them at all times.
2. Turrets take a moment to draw their weapons.
3. Turrets can kill the player with a few seconds of continuous fire.
4. Turrets can be disintegrated with the Material Emancipation Grill. (MEG)
5. Other than the MEG, the only way to disable the turrets is by knocking them over.  This can be done multiple ways, including using cubes or other turrets to knock them over, picking them up and dropping them off a ledge, or shooting a portal beneath them.

The callousness shown by GLaDOS reaches its peak when the player clears through the last test chamber and GLaDOS maneuvers them into a pit of fire.  The nagging sense of something not being right with GLaDOS is finally confirmed, and the player must think quickly to avoid being burned alive.  Once the player escapes her trap, GLaDos panics and claims the trap was just part of testing, then telling the player to assume the “party escort submission position” so that a “party associate” can take her to her reward.  However, having just been nearly thrown into a pit of fire, the player ignores her and continues on.  

At this point, the player leaves the testing chambers behind, and progress through the maintenance sections.  The player is forced to demonstrate an understanding of the rules established in the test chambers, such as “flinging” and portalable and non-portalable surface, in order to continue forward.  As the player advances forward, GLaDOS continues to communicate with the player, and it becomes clear that GLaDOS is corrupt and probably killed everyone else in the facility.  Eventually the player reaches a large chamber where GLaDOS’s hardware hangs from the ceiling.  After a battle against time and GLaDOS herself, the player manages to finally destroy GLaDOS, being transported to the surface in the process.

The rules discussed so far play a crucial part in Portal, both in defining the player’s experience and the game world itself.  The limitations set by these rules are extremely important, sometimes directing the player through a level by defining what can be done, such as with the first portal gun, and at other times limiting the player’s choices and forcing them to think outside the box into order to solve the puzzles within each Test Chamber.  The relationship between the player (Chell) and GLaDOS also does a great deal to immerse the player into the game world.  However, despite the limitations defined by the rules, the player always has a sense of agency within the game, creating a greater sense of immersion.  As McMahon stated “immersion mean the player is caught up in the world of the game’s story, but it also refers to the player’s love of the game and the strategy that goes into it.” (Immersion, Engagement, and Presence, pg. 68).  As such, the rules of Portal limit the player, while engaging the player with the story, in such a way that it allows for a greater sense of immersion, agency within the game world, and a larger sense of enjoyment and fun.

Social interactions through MMORPGs

Online gaming is on the rise.  For many types of games (especially shooters), the success of the online aspect is just as important as the success of the single player.  Gamers want to be able to interact with their friends, whether it is to team up to kill zombies in Left for Dead, to facing off in a death match on Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2.  As McGonigal puts it, "social network games make it both easier and more fun to maintain strong, active connections with the people we care about but who we don't see or speak to enough in our daily lives." (Reality is Broken, pg. 79-80)  This craving for increased social interaction, and the technology capable of supporting it, has lead to a boom period for online gaming.

Due to this vastly increased demand for online gaming and social interaction, the genre of MMORPGs, otherwise known as Massive Multiplayer Online Role Playing Games, has grown dramatically, with some of the larger, more popular ones like World of Warcraft and Runescape claiming millions of players each.  Within these games, players create their own character and embark on their quest, leveling up, questing, treasure hunting along the way.  However, one other major thing happens during their adventure: they make friends.  One of the major draw points for such games is that at any point in time you can team up with anyone on your server, to do anything from questing together, to treasure hunting, to simply exploring the game world of Azeroth.  Over time, players can develop huge social networks through various social skills.  As McGonigal states "Games build stronger social bonds and lead to more active social networks." (Reality is Broken, pg. 82)  This concept is expanded even further through guilds, in which groups of players team up together to accomplish various tasks, establishing a identity over time.

On the flipside, players are not required to be a part of these social interactions at all.  Many, many players chose to play the game by themselves, with little to no interaction with the other players occupying the world.  These players "enjoyed sharing the virtual environment, even if there was little to no direct interaction" with other players. (Reality is Broken, pg. 89)  For the players, the fact that they were just one of thousands of players on that server was enough of a multiplayer aspect.  I am one of these players; I feel no need to search out groups to go raiding with.  I am perfectly happy just exploring the world around me, doing quests as I find them and seeing the sights.

This expansive social network is seen as one of the biggest positive points of MMOs by critics, and is no doubt a defining feature of the genre.  But the social networking aspect that exists within the game has effects that goes beyond the confines of the game world.  Many of the same skills needed to build networks within the game, necessary for growing guilds and raiding dungeons, are applicable in real life. 

1.  Raids:  Most dungeon raids in WOW have 40 people involved.  Building a social network, then being able to use the lines of communication that have developed, is a crucial part of organizing a raid.  Setting a time for the raid, tracking down all of the players who will be a part of it, and informing them is not easy task.  Many of the same skills needed to organize a raid are directly transferable to real world applications such as social media.  

2.  Strategy:  Wow is a strategy-heavy game.  You as a player are more than welcome to wander the countryside dancing and goofing off, but most people will ignore you and move on to find people who know what they want and what they're doing.  This is true in the real world as well.  In the business world, if a company does not define an objective and build a strategy to help them reach their goals, they will quickly be left behind.  

3.  Guilds-  Guilds are a crucial part of the game, based on the concept of the more powerful your guild is, the more powerful you can become.  If you as a player put your effort into growing the guild and helping it to prosper, then you in return will reap the rewards from it.  This is true in real life as well.  Within any organization, the more effort you puts into a organization, the more you will benefit from it.  

In closing, the social networks that are built through the playing MMOs such as World of Warcraft have an effect beyond just the in-game perks.  The players themselves are developing the skills needed to have success in real life.

Blog Update #1

Games Blog Update #1: Josh Bycer’s Blog (Gamasutra) and CGP

First time back in a while, but I plan to be updating with more frequency from this point on.

The two blogs that I have been following this semester are one of the professional blogs on Gamasutra, written by Josh Bycer, and the blog on the Critical Gaming Project (CGP) site.  For the most part, I have enjoyed following these blogs, and I have found that I agree with many points raised by them and disagree with others.

Of the two blogs that I have followed, Josh Bycer has posted the most articles and has covered a range of ideas.  While he has critiqued individual games, his posts focus on things such as what makes horror games successful, replayability, and randomization.

In his post about horror games, Bycer cross-examines what makes the horror genre successful, and what fails to fulfill that legacy.  He uses games such as Amnesia, Space Hulk: Vengeance of the Blood Angels, Alan Wake, F.E.A.R., and Dead Space, as well as concepts like the human fight-or-flight reflex to prove his points.  He argues five main points:

1. The player has to fight back at all times.
2. enemies have to fight at a different level than the player
3. linearity should be avoided,
4. if the player evolves, so must the enemies
5. give the player downtime.  

These “guidelines” that Bycer lays out could in fact drastically improve the horror genre.  Random encounters, enemies with increasing difficultly, and facing the choice of fight-or-flight would create a greater sense of engagement for the player, mainly due to the fact that they would be facing a greater challenge.  They would have no way to predict when they would encounter an enemy, what that enemy could be, and if they should fight or run.

In his two posts about replayability and randomization, Bycer critiques these two aspects of gameplay, looking at how they apply to games such as Din’s Curse, Deus Ex: Human Revolution, Alpha Protocol, and World of Warcraft.  

When talking about replayability, he references an earlier post he had made in which he lays out five tenets that he believes guides replayability:

1. Escalation
2. Competition
3. Cooperation
4. The Experience
5. Randomization

He later edits this to include customization as well. Then in the primary article he chooses to focus on the difference between and impact of customization and personalization.  He defines customization as “Giving players gameplay choices and allowing them control over what to use” and personalization as “Allowing players to modify choices by the designer to suit their preferences and stand out from other players.”  He states that personalization is a step from customization and that the difference between the two is crucial to determining the replayability of a game.

He expands his thoughts on randomization in another post, using games such as X-Com and Diablo 2 to back up his points.  He defines three levels of randomization: Low, Medium, and High.  Low randomization mainly has to do with the placement of equipment and how often you can find them.  Medium randomization expands this to include the placement of enemies, as well as the types of enemies faced.  Finally, there is high randomization, which includes everything up to this point, as well as randomization of the world environment itself.  He then addresses the pros and cons of randomizations.

Pros: greater replayability and a possible difficulty modifier.

Cons: The level can be stacked against the player (i.e. enemies, items, the map itself), the quality of the game environment.

He then finishes off by stating that “A well designed randomization system can be the cherry on top for your game design, giving players added value. However, like all good mechanics, it must be properly designed and implemented.”  

The points raised in these articles could definitely be used to improve the replayability of games.  I would love to be able to play a game like Final Fantasy and have a completely customizable character and randomized gameworld. However, the way that the story defines the characters and the world limit this.  Randomization can add a great deal to replayability, but only if the limitations of the story and character development allow for it.

Onto the Critical Gaming Project, which addresses agonistic (competitive) play and choice in games.

In the first post, the idea of agonistic play is the primary focus.  Referencing a recent Canadian study which concluded that competition, rather than violent content, raised aggression in players, the post talks about how attention is shifting from the representational content of a game to its primary form of play.  As the post states “The new potential focus of popular moral concern is competitive multiplayer games, or games that facilitate Agon as the primary form of play”, referencing Caillois’ Man, Play and Games (1958).  It then laments that agon is a form reinforced in many different aspects of daily life, such as economics, politics, and popular media.

The second post focuses on the effect choice has on gameplay.  The post notes how, for many years, players have been craving more choice within their games; however, the author feels that having more choice does not necessarily guarantee a more meaningful or complete experience.  They argue that games that pursue a morals system often suffer from poor design or ‘overchoice’, and argue that, in this day and age, limitation would be the radical choice: having fewer choices with more in-depth consequences.

The argument raised in this post raises some good points.  Too much choice can be a bad thing, sometimes resulting in buggy programming, lack of direction, etc.  However, too little choice does have its drawbacks.  Replayability is greatly increased when there is a greater number of options to choose from.  Too little choice can also result in linearity, which is extremely frustrating at times.  In order for open-choice games to flourish, a balance must be found between too many choices and too little choice.  If this can be successfully achieved, it would vastly increase the replayability of many games.

http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/JoshBycer/20110922/8496/The_Interplay_of_Fear_and_Power_In_Horror_Games_Or_How_To_Make_Manly_Men_Cry.php

http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/JoshBycer/20110907/8385/Reexamining_Replayability.php

http://chronicgamedesigner.blogspot.com/2009/06/tenets-of-replayability.html

http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/JoshBycer/20110912/8424/Random_Thoughts_on_Randomization_in_Game_Design.php

https://depts.washington.edu/critgame/wordpress/2011/09/agonism-and-agression/#more-1707

https://depts.washington.edu/critgame/wordpress/2011/09/gaming-in-the-era-of-overchoice/#more-1744

Pankinecticon?

After reading changed's article "Much Ado About No Controller, Or, Further Meditations on Immersion/Interactivity",  I found my attention grabbed by one of the points he had made about the possibility of a "pankinecticon". Based on the concept of a panopticon, which is a closed-circuit network that allows supervisors to view employees or citizens without their realization, changed adapted the concept to include devices such as the Kinect, a "controller-free" technology recently released for the Xbox 360.  He makes a joke about how there would soon be amazing news on how some major criminal or would-be terrorist was nabbed thanks to the Kinect and then comments on how people have paid to have what amount to surveillance technology in their homes, all so that they can interact in a new way with their games.


I find the concept to be both extremely intriguing and disturbing.  On one hand, technology such as the Kinect could be a huge help to law enforcement agents.  Using free surveillance provided by consumers to track the movement of dangerous targets, they could gain access to potentially case-making evidence.  The technology of Kinect could also help combat crimes such as domestic violence and drug-trafficing (ok, maybe that's a stretch, but still, the possibility is intriguing).  


However, the pros of this technology in the home and readily available to the government comes at a huge cost to the personal privacy of the Kinect users.  Imagine that, at any moment in time, a government agent could be watching your every move, looking for evidence that a law has been broken.  It's not hard to envision the uproar that this would cause.  The use of such technology for crime fighting, or for anything other than its intended purpose, would have to be heavily regulated, protected by laws just like any other form of personal privacy.


The idea of a gaming accessory being used for something like crime fighting, while not necessarily a new concept, shatters the concept of the magic circle.  The Kinect is meant to allow the player to immerse themselves even fuller into the game that they are playing by removing the controller and letting the player controller the actions onscreen with their bodies; instead, it can be used for real world applications such as security and law enforcement.  While the Kinect's intended use does coexist extremely well with the concept of the magic circle, the possibility of its technology being used for other things make it hard for the magic circle to truly coexist with a technology like the Kinect.

Portal: How rules define a game

Rules.  What are rules?  Are they just guidelines we operate and live by?  Are they a crucial part of our everyday lives?  Or are they unnecessary?  Do we have to have rules for everything?  The answer is: yes.  Rules are a crucial part of the way our society work and how we live day to day.  Rules set limits, and we follow those limits.  If we chose to ignore those limits, then there are consequences.  Such is life.

Rules are also a crucial part of many games.  Rules define the limitations of the game, what a player can and cannot do, and what the consequences are for breaking the rules, much like real life.  While the number of rules a game has can vary, as seen in the piadia-ludus spectrum, they play a crucial role in defining the player’s actions.  Ranging from something as simple as establishing the number of “lives” a player has to complex set of rules that define a player’s interactions with other characters and the environment, the rules of a game define it. 

I believe that the rules of Portal are one of its most defining features, having a direct influence on the level of immersion a player has with the game and how much fun the game can be.  From the very beginning of the game, the rules define the player’s actions.  After you wake up, you are taught the controls and then begin the testing.  Right away you are taught that your character has a limited jumping ability.  Shortly thereafter, you are taught how to pick up a cube and place it on a “Heavy Duty Super Colliding Super Button”. By this point you know of six very simple rules:

1. My character can jump.
2. My character’s jumping ability is limited.
3. My character can pick up cubes.
4. These cubes can be used to hold down buttons.
5. My player can crouch.
6. The “Material Emancipation Grill” at the end of the level prevents me from taking anything from the level with me.

Simple rules, but ones that define the player’s immersion with the game from that point on.  

In the next Test Chamber (01), you am introduced to portals for the first time.  At this point you have no control over the portals, but in order to finish the test, you must interact with them.  You quickly learn that there are two colors of portals, orange and blue, and that these portals connect with each other. You learn that there can only be one of each portal color active at one time.  You also learn that you can carry cubes through the portals.  Again, simple rules, but ones that define the rest of your gameplay experience.  

In Test Chamber 02, you receive your first portal gun.  You learn that you can shoot the portal gun at the wall or the floor to create a portal.  However, you also learn that you are limited to shooting blue portals, meaning that you are limited to how you interact with the environment around you.  You also discover that there are certain surfaces which you can create portals on, and certain ones which you cannot.

Based on the rules you have received so far, you can start to interact with the game environment more successfully.  You learn where to place your portals and how to use the objects within the game (cubes, buttons, pre-placed portals) in order to solve the puzzles.  You become more immersed in the game, due to your knowledge of the rules, and you are able to have more agency over the game environment.

Once you reach Test Chamber 06, you are introduced to introduced to High Energy Pellets, which add another level to the puzzle-solving aspect of the game.  Now you have the rules for the pellets to consider:

1. The pellet comes out of the launcher.
2. The pellet needs to go into the catcher.
3. Activating the catcher with a pellet advances the test.
4. The pellet can kill you if it touches you.

230px-Energy_Pellet.png

128px-Combine_Ball_launcher.png

126px-Combine_Ball_catcher.png

Test Chamber 08 introduces Goo, which kills you if you fall in it.  This forces the player to think through their actions, for one wrong move can mean Game Over.  This creates a sort of bond between the avatar and the player, immersing the player further into the game.

300px-Portal_Test_Chamber_08.png

Test Chamber 10 introduces one of the most important concepts of the game, that of “Flinging”.  “Flinging” is based on physics in that you use increasing speed to launch yourself to higher or farther places than you could reach before.  As GLaDOS says “Momentum, a function of mass and velocity, is conserved between portals. In layman's terms: speedy thing goes in, speedy thing comes out.” (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Portal_(game))

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inbh_3u-3xM

http://pad1.whstatic.com/images/thumb/7/72/Undefined_8530.png/220px-Undefined_8530.png

Having made it to Test Chamber 11, you are trying to make your way to the portal gun upgrade.  Once you have it, you gain the ability to shoot orange portals in addition to blue portals, greatly expanding the possible ways for the player to solve puzzles.  This new piece of equipment, like every expansion, comes with some new rules, as well as the expansion of some others:

1. You can only have one blue portal and one orange portal open at any time.
2. If you have both portals open, and you shoot another one (like a blue one), it will replace the blue portal that previously existed.  The orange one will be unaffected until another orange portal is shot.
3. You cannot shoot one portal through another (say a blue portal through a orange one).

Part of the new possibilities that are opened up to the player with the ability to shoot orange portals is a more advanced version or slinging, which requires the player to use both types of portals instead of just one.  This forces the player to “grok” the rules, or display a complete understanding of the rules, at least in part.  This is especially important from Test Chamber 15 and on, where most the rules of the game have been established and the puzzles begin to drastically increase in difficult.  

The last hazard introduced in the game are Turrets, one of the deadliest obstacles encounter in the game.  Turrets come with their own set of rules, regarding how they operate and how they target you: 

1. Turrets project a easily visible laser beam directly in front of them at all times.
2. Turrets take a moment to draw their weapons.
3. Turrets can kill the player with a few seconds of continuous fire.
4. Turrets can be disintegrated with the Material Emancipation Grill. (MEG)
5. Other than the MEG, the only way to disable the turrets is by knocking them over.  This can be done multiple ways, including using cubes or other turrets to knock them over, picking them up and dropping them off a ledge, or shooting a portal beneath them.

The rules discussed so far play a crucial part in Portal, both in defining the player’s experience and the game world itself.  The limitations set by these rules are extremely important, sometimes directing the player through a level by defining what can be done, such as with the first portal gun, and at other times limiting the player’s choices and forcing them to think outside the box into order to solve the puzzles within each Test Chamber.  However, despite these limitation, the player always has a sense of agency within the game, creating a greater sense of immersion.  As McMahon stated “immersion mean the player is caught up in the world of the game’s story, but it also refers to the player’s love of the game and the strategy that goes into it.” (Immersion, Engagement, and Presence, pg. 68).  As such, the rules of Portal limit the player in such a way that it allows for a greater sense of immersion, agency within the game world, and a larger sense of enjoyment and fun.