This article, while probably interesting for the time, was not new to me. Having followed my family’s ups and downs regarding video games for the kids in the family, I’ve heard all these arguments and done some of the research.

The article basically debunks some (eight) of the popularly held beliefs of the effects of violent games on children such as rise in youth violence, youth aggression, turning kids into soldiers, lack of meaningful expression, social isolation and desensitization. It is interesting that the of the eight, six focus on violence and negative behavior outcomes while only 2 – “children are the primary market for video games” and “almost no girls play video games” are non-behavioral in their focus.

It is nice that the author lays out the myth and debunks it with research – especially pointing out that studies that support these myths are often carried out in clinical settings that are not reflective of real-life situations. I think he also brings up an important point that is often overlooked by over-zealous critics of anything – no ONE element can be the cause of all these behavioral outcomes. Behavior, more than anything else, is a direct outcome of multiple causes – the most important, as supported by research, being “mental stability and quality of home life.” Video games are not the bad guy, and never were.

I would, however, like to see studies on the effects of video games on behavior. It is unlikely that video games along cause any problems, but, in conjunction with elements that lead to behavioral problems, do video games exacerbate the situation?

GDC: Top 10 Video Game Research Findings, summary of Bogost, Consalvo, and McGonical’s presentation at the 2006 Game Developer’s Conference

This is a really nice article summarizing some important research for the game industry. It is important to note that this came out in 2006 – not that long ago, but still it seems like it was a big deal at the time. It also indicates how young the whole approach of serious academic research on and with games is.

To summarize, the top 10 research findings that affect gameplay are:

1. music: a player’s own soundtrack improves gameplay.
2. aural feedback: voice chat should be focussed and devoid of distracting ‘noise’
3. physical interfaces: are good only if they reflect actual gestures in the game. otherwise regular controllers are best for abstracting complex actions.
4. collaboration: aids the allure of a game a great deal.
5. perception: controlling the perception of a situation can affect the gamer’s reaction to the situation dramatically.
6. POV: different points of view for different types of games increase the meaningfulness of play within those games.
7. non-verbal communication: in games is important for players of MPGs. this reflects real life behavior but is not found in many collaborative games.
8. eye-tracking: could be a useful tool, as shown in research on Half-Life.
9. facial expressions: to show emotions in game characters are important for player engagement.
10. failure: is very important for engagement – developers need to build in active or passive failure.

Will Wright makes toys that make worlds: TED Talk by Will Wright

This was a really cool video – Will Wright talking about the influences that make him a game designer, or, as he likes to call himself, a toy designer. Here he talks about Maria Montessori’s influence on how he viewed learning – very much a constructivist approach. This thought-process led to the development of Sims, and, for the this talk, Spore. He talks about how he likes the idea of people creating their own worlds and controlling them and causing things to happen, etc. And he does a walk-through of Spore, not yet released. It’s really cool that each ‘spore’ that a player has can be modified in so many different ways – multiple legs, mouths at the end of hands – and that these elements are animated in the game as they elements they are. I really like that a mouth behaves like a mouth, no matter where it’s put!

An interesting thing he said towards the end:

But basically, the reason why I make toys like this is because I think if there’s one difference I could possibly make in the world, that I would choose to make, it’s that I would like to somehow give people just a little bit better calibration on long-term thinking. Because I think most of the problems that our world is facing right now is the result of short-term thinking, and the fact that it is so hard for us to think 50, 100 years, or 1000 years out. And I think by giving kids toys like this and letting them replay dynamics, you know, very long-term dynamics over the short term, and getting some sense of what we’re doing now, what it’s going to be like in 100 years, I think probably is the most effective thing I can be doing, probably, to help the world.

I really like this idea of letting people understand their own reality by letting them control another reality. This is what we hope to achieve in our game as well!

Bringing emotions to video games, Tom Loftus

It’s weird to be reading an article about emotions in games that was written in 2005 (possibly because of the weird outdated reference to Gigli), but I see the point. I’ve always loved the emotional roller coaster ride that I got from watching people play games, and sometimes play them myself. I always found that the emotions that come with starting out are way more different after one is familiar with controls and such. That’s when the real emotions come into play.

The article talks about a few games that cover ‘emotional’ states of being as part of the gaming experience. The notions of make a character relate-able and someone that players ‘root’ for, is not new. As is noted in the article, this is a formula that the movie industry has perfected (and, in my opinion, needs to revisit now), so it was only a matter of time before games focussed on this aspect of gaming. I also think that the technology allows for game designers and developers to focus on this because it is more possible to show ‘emotion’ and animate physical mannerisms and cues.

I’d LOVE to see and play Ico – it sounds amazing! The narrative lends itself to a really interesting situation that I’m eager to explore.

I’ve played Facade – and it was fun, up to a point. I have to say that at first one has to get the need to mess with the characters out of the way before you can ‘get into’ the whole situations. Yes, I inappropriately kissed a character over and over, and used bad language all the time – just to see what would happen. You get kicked out, obviously! I don’t know if the game has evolved since I last played it, but at the time there seemed to still be limited reactions to situations and I felt like there were some cues missing. What did help, though, is that you know what the situation/narrative is, so they’ve already set up your perception. What you do in that situation and what exactly your role is, is something you have to discover. I still think it is a really cool take on what can happen and pushes the genre of ‘simulation’ or multiple choice interaction.

Saying things like ‘biofeedback’ may still resonate uncomfortably with people. I personally feel a little queasy about my bodily reactions feeding into a game system and responding to it. Although, I have to admit, there is a part of me that’s really interested to see how my possibly unconscious bodily reactions can be interpreted and manipulated by a game. Of course, I will be in control all the time… right?

This article talks about building conceptual play spaces, specifically in the context of the virtual online game Quest Atlantis. The authors talk about four primary elements to balance in the design of conceptual play: academic content, legitimate participation, a framing narrative, and game rules. The balance between these four elements and how users reacted to them were examined in two settings of the game, The Black Rhino Unit which connected gameplay to real life locations and situations dealing with a game reserve in Tanzania, and The Anytown Unit which was more fantastical and about a fictitious town and its problems. There were also four types of ‘embodiment scaffolds’ that the authors talk about: narrative, perceptual, social, and interactive.

Both environments had different degrees of these embodiments as well. The main difference between the two settings, as I understood it, was that Rhino Unit basically had a set narrative and path that students had to follow, and Anytown changed based on student input. Both environments showed great results, but the authors seem to prefer Anytown, possibly because of the higher embodiment scaffolds that it seems to offer and the fact that students craft (to some degree) their own paths through the game.

I like the idea of using virtual environments to get kids to be more involved in their own learning process, but I am still skeptical of the way in which students need to show that they have learned – it is still by way of a regular writing assignment or something similar. I suppose at the time that was the easiest way to assess, but I’m sure that a system built into the game mechanism itself would make the assessment not only more meaningful, but would provide a deeper look into the students progress and path through the game.

Gee, J.P. (2006). Learning and Games. In K. Salen (Ed.), The Ecology of Games, pp. 21–40. Cambridge, MIT Press.

This was an interesting chapter, not just the content, but also because I think Gee writes well, using examples that situate his arguments and points pretty well. This article lays out, in quite a lot of detail, how games and learning are connected and how learning theories are reflected in the game environment. Gee also illustrates how to achieve deep learning, there needs to be really good game design.

Gee offers the Situated Learning Matrix as a guideline to connect game design to learning. Using multiple examples, Gee illustrates how different learning goals are and can be achieved through complex game environments. Of course, he focuses on the more recent concepts of what aids learning, things like situated learning, problem solving, distributed learning, motivation, emotion, etc. He is definitely of the belief that learning and game design not only complement each other, but will at some point, if not already, become more integrated.

Squire, K. (2008). Open-Ended Video Games: A Model for Developing Learning for the Interactive Age. In K. Salen (Ed.), The Ecology of Games, pp. 167–198. Cambridge, MIT Press.

[coming soon]

Rules of Play, Katie Salen and Eric Zimmerman

Chapter 3

I love the concept of ‘meaningful play’… I do feel, however that the two ways of looking at this concept are within the realm and control of the game designer alone. Can there be an additional way to think about this? Maybe the authors have said this already, but I think it could be more apparent. Can meaningful play also be defined as the meaning that each player makes for himself or herself? This would be something that is not in the control of the game designer because it is the meaning that is derived from the game within the context of only the player. It is the player’s feelings and emotions and perception of meaningful play. Of course, this is designed by the game designer and is therefore controlled by him/her, but it is ultimately the experience of the game player.

Chapter 7

Noting all the different definitions of ‘game’ is really helpful in building a more cohesive understanding of games. While the chart took away some of the nuances of the many definitions, it also provided a great way to see ALL the terms that are linked to the definition of games, and hence what games are made of. I like Salen and Zimmerman’s definition. While reading this, I started thinking of all the things that games are NOT, which is the same as saying what they are, but is just a different way to look at games. A few examples – random (if there is no point to a game, it is boring), rule-less ( without rules, players cannot interact effectively and cheaters are appreciated!), and engaging (the game must engage players, not just entertain or involve, but ‘engage’). This doesn’t necessarily help in understanding what games are, but it did help to further internalize my understanding of games.

Chapter 8

I am happy that the authors talk about taking the system into account before designing something – what can it do? I think it is important to understand the platform before knowing how to build the game that sits on the platform.

Reading the four traits, I feel like adding ‘Rich Multimedia Experience’. I’m not sure if this can count as a trait, but I feel that the graphic quality and the ability to manipulate and enhance this graphics of digital games is also an important feature that sets it apart from non-digital games.

Chapter 9

Calling games open and closed systems is a great way to talk about the world of games. And seeing the closedness or openness of a game depends on the schema used to examine them, as the authors note. I feel that deeming a game open or closed or both is definitely in the purview of the designer of the game, but it’s nice if the game is designed in a way that allows a player to make it as open or closed as s/he would like.

I love the term lusory attitude! It’s nice to find terms that clearly state what I usually take like three sentences to describe =) Each player’s lusory attitude towards a particular game and the level of this attitude is definitely important in how a player approaches a game. Can the lusory attitude of players be manipulated by the game designer? Or does marketing and advertising already do some of that?

Chapter 11

Applying the concepts in this chapter to digital games – I feel that rules, while being the backbone of the formal structure for games, also play into the information manipulation trait of digital games. Setting rules for gameplay informs the design of the game and also provides guidelines for manipulating the flow of the game and how to handle the information in the game vis-a-vis the player. I think that rules also provide a usefully limiting framework and guideline within which to create a game.

Chapter 12

It is very interesting to read that rules of a game also define the game or identify the game as different from other games. And that this can be achieved not just by the name of the game. It is also apparent that for the game to be identified as that particular game, the rules have to be pretty clear and that the constituative and operational rules are what makes a game unique.

I have to say, though, that I started to think of the different ways in which I’ve heard people try to differentiate one shoot ‘em up game from another, and I find that often, it is the narrative that differentiates these games. At a basic level, the player has weapons and has to kill as many of the ‘enemy’ as possible to rack up as many points as possible. That sentence can describe many games, but adding narrative elements to definitions can make all the difference.

Chapter 13

It’s nice to see my comments on chapter 11 regarding rules and digital games addressed here.

I’m sure that this will be addressed later in the book (and the authors mention that it will) but from what I understand, it seems that when designing digital games, one has to set a process of rule development. First, it would make sense to set a list of over-arching rules of play, then look at the rules of the system and how these apply to the game itself. Does this make sense? I feel like they are separate layers of rules – one purely of the game and then one in which the digital elements have an effect on the play and hence graduate to the level of ‘rule’.

What is a Game? Salen, K., & Zimmerman, E. (2005). In The Game Design Reader, pp. 77–81.

This chapter is an introductory chapter to the section on definitions of games. The authors consider the approaches that the authors of the four articles in this section have taken to the definition of games:

• Roger Caillois presents a taxonomy based on characteristics of different types of game pursuits.

• Bernard Suits provides a definition based on the “state of mind of the game player” (pg 78).

• Greg Costikyan defines a game from his perspective of game design naming the “game design ingredients: players, decisions, resources, tokens, and a goal.” And he refers to games as an artform.

• Staffan Bjork and Jussi Holopainen seem to refuse to ‘define’ games because they claim that a definition “… does not help us make design decisions…” but the authors note that they do end up providing a definition – a bottom-up approach with flexible concepts.

Salen and Zimmerman conclude that definitions are helpful depending on why you need them – design tool (Bjork and Holopainen), philosophical tool (Suits), justifying a creative practice (Costikyan), identifying a field of study (Caillois and Juul) – and ultimately, are an important way to look at games and our thoughts and analysis of them.

Nature and Significance of Play as Cultural Phenomenon. Huizinga, J. (1955). In The Game Design Reader, pp. 96–120.

This article nicely ties in what ‘play’ means for us as a people and how we enact these activities in modern-day games. Huizinga lays out the characteristics of play as “… a free activity standing quite consciously outside “ordinary” life as being “not serious,” but at the same time absorbing the player intensely and utterly. It is an activity connected with no material interest, and no profit can by gained by it. It proceeds within its own proper boundaries of time and space according to fixed rules and in an orderly manner. It promotes the formation on social groupings which tend to surround themselves with secrecy and to stress their difference from the common world by disguise or other means”. This long and somewhat wordy description is surprisingly accurate and made me think of play from a more observational point of view – something I have not really done before this. It reminds me of sociology and anthropology in the analysis and it is nice to see that the author acknowledges the roles of these disciplines.

One of the ideas that caught my attention most was the fact that play is ‘secretive’. This makes me think of ‘gamer culture’ and ‘gamer codes’ and how many of these are exclusive only to those who either play particular games or create them. Outsiders rarely get a glimpse into this world – only if they become part of the culture are they allowed to participate. While this is certainly understandable, I still feel that allowing ‘outsiders’ such as ethnographers, anthropologists, psychologists, sociologists, etc. to observe and conduct research is a good thing because gaming has become such an integral part of human life now. The author’s article talks about play from an anthropologist’s perspective and we should continue to use this perspective in our study of modern games.

The rest of the chapter deals with a comparison between games and rites and rituals, mainly religious in nature. This is an interesting concept, one that I have not thought of before, but, after reading this, one that makes sense in a way. I don’t think I agree with all of Huizinga’s comparisons (and this might be due to my lack of exposure to many rites and rituals) but I see the parallels and the place from which human being feel the need to do those things. Yes, games and play seem to be ritualistic in nature – there are certain things that need to be done before other things can be done, there are rules and regulations to follow, there is respect to be paid in certain ways within and outside the game itself, and there are punishments to not ‘adhering’ to the rituals of a game.

This article rightly takes us outside of ourselves as game designers to think of the larger context of human beings and the games we play. Definitely a must-read for anyone interested in games, playing games, or aspiring to be a game designer.