Journal: Additions to the course reflection

After I wrote and clicked post on my previous entry to this blog, 1230 AM Wednesday morning, I went outside and sat in the hot tub. I thought I needed to relax after a long days work, I like to do so by sitting in the hot tub. Anyway, while I was out there I started thinking about my entry a lot more. Its funny how people, well me at least I'm sure most other people do this too, tend to think of good things to say after the situation has ended. I find myself doing this a lot, saying things like ohhh I should have said this or that. Its not often that we can go back and make a correction without anyone noticing. For instance if I were talking to someone in person and after the chat was done I thought of another point to say I can't just call the person up and say hey I thought of something else! Unless its really important. But with journal writing, especially on the internet, you can go back and add in your additional thought, sometimes without people even noticing you've done so. There's edit buttons! Its kind of scary really. We're entering a society based around technology. With it comes no errors. A perfect society, so to speak. Just look at it. Most work processors have a spell checker in them. My web browser has a built in spell checker so when I'm writing on the internet I know when I've made a mistake. The pictures I may include in my post can all be edited to the way I like them in a few minutes using photoshop. If I don't understand something I can look it up on wikipedia, if I don't know what a word means I can Dictionary.com it, even if I need additional points for my article I could Google some. Once my article is published, if, by chance, my entry had an error in it I may receive tweets and emails from readers notifying me of the error which I could go change right away using that edit button.

This new wave of technology is really putting the blindfold over the rest of us readers. I'm sure more and more writers are seemingly more and more brilliant because of this technology. We're getting into an era where we're afraid to make mistakes. Not only because we rarely see mistakes (Think back when newspapers were the only form of news, even magazines still do this today. I used to like reading that little box of text found near the front stating all the errors that the journalists did in the previous edition.) but because everything we do is becoming published and viewed by other people. Its no big deal to make a mistake on something you've written for yourself, but to make a mistake in something being published online which can potentially be viewed by many people. Its frightening for some.

For me I don't care if I'm right or wrong, if my opinion matters, etc. Online you're as anonymous as you'd like to be. But I was talking to someone in class 3 weeks ago who asked me what I was doing my learning log and journal on and I told him on twitter and blogger. He almost cringed at the idea and asked me how I felt about the ability of other people to read the posts. Apparently he did not want any of his thought, opinions, and ideas on the internet, he did not want the ability for someone else to read them. He figured at the rare chance someone made the connection between his online identity and him he may be embarrassed. This thought had never occurred to me before, I didn't think there were people like him out there. But it could be that he is afraid of making a mistake, be it in his writing or opinion, and having a wrath of online personas go after him for that mistake.

Anyway I've gone way off track again. This post was going to be short but I ended up typing a lot more than expected. Again, its interesting how the mind wanders. What I thought about last night in the hot tub was something else I took from this course. It has made me more aware of my scheduling and my task list. Because I always knew I had something to do in this course, yet it was not due, I was forced to think about when I was going to do it. Doing so lead me to realize the other tasks that I needed to do. I started making task lists for the work that was required of me. This helped me substantially throughout the term as I never found myself in a state of panic because I had just realized something was due. Every piece of homework that I had was completed and handed in in a timely fashion because this class forced me to think about everything going on.

Journal: Self-Evaluation and Reflection

This is my self-evaluation and reflection on the course itself.

I came into this course expecting it to be about gaming, gaming ethics, and thinking I would learn a thing or two about one of my favourite activities. That was four months ago. I leave this class with some knowledge about video games but with a lot of knowledge about some things I did not expect to learn from an English class on games and gaming.

One of the things I learned is how to critique. How to look at something and ask why or what. The course helped me learned how to evaluate things better. How to look at something and see both sides of the picture. Before I came into this class I didn't even know how to properly critique. I know feel like I have a better understanding of how to do so. Even looking back at some of my earlier journal entries I see where I could have added to my thoughts and trailed off in an infinite amount of directions with what I was saying. Its kind of interesting to see where the though pattern goes when someone writes whatever they're thinking at the time. Its interesting to see how the topics change in the writing which correspond to how the writer is thinking. This is what journalling is all about, and its another thing I learned how to do better in this class.

Before this class I didn't journal because I never had to. From now on I think I may keep a journal of my thoughts from time to time. I find it helps me think better. To just let the thought process flow as you're writing, typing out whatever comes to mind, its relaxing and soothing. It makes for an interesting read for your future self. Months down the road when you return to your journal entry to read you find yourself somewhat changed from when you wrote the entry. Either your opinions have changed, or your thoughts, perhaps you have become wiser and can answer some of your own past self's questions. Like I was saying before, I've read some of my entries from this course and am finding myself in the situation I just described. A person wouldn't think they've changed in the matter of months, but I notice it in myself. What I mean by this is that before I was almost critical toward my writing. It had to be professional, it had to have a certain format, it had to impress others. I was trying to make my journal entries appear like those critiques found on gaming review sites like IGN. I don't know why I was doing this. I think its because I like that style of writing. But that writing style is made for the public, not for myself. I may be critiquing a game or a genre, but I wasn't digging deep into myself. I wasn't questioning what I do. I wasn't self critiquing. I now feel my writing style for journaling (this word keeps being marked as incorrect in my spell checker and its driving me nuts! Is it is word? Who cares if it is, it makes sense to me! Journaling - the art of writing a journal. There I made up a word and have now added to my spell check dictionary) anyway... I now feel as if my writing style in my journaling better reflects myself and how I feel. It is more about me as opposed to something else.

The course also allowed me to meet some different types of people. Some people who seem to play every game released, some people who stick to only one or to games, and some people who don't even play video games. One thing that I noticed about a month in (there I go not being direct about dates again errr) is that it seemed like the avid gamers, who you think would totally be into this class, were the ones having a hard time grasping the concept of the class. Those who weren't as much into games were the ones exploring new ideas on gaming and seemed to be taking to the course rather well. I don't know if this is true or not but it did seem this way from those that I talked to. Perhaps those avid gamers expected a class where we discussed video games and even played video game most of the time. They weren't expecting some unguided course on ethics and game theory and board games and critique. Maybe they were mad about this. Maybe they didn't know what to do. You think that their interest in games would lead them to exploring new things about a hobby that they love so much? And like I said, those people who aren't into games very much (as in they don't play games everyday, or even every week) were the ones who seemed to do well. Perhaps because they didn't know too much about games that they took on the interest of video games and were able to guide themselves through the course?

I think the self directed and inquiry based learning style of the course had a lot of people confused as well. Like Aruna was saying, and another thing that I learned in the course and now look at differently, is people are addicted to a system and guideline. I never quite looked at addiction in terms of not attaching something negative to the word. But its true, people are addicted to agendas, schedules, itineraries, and outlines. When the structure is removed people panic, which is the symptom. The withdrawal consequence. I was lucky to have been introduced to inquiry based learning in a few of my other classes in which I kind of knew what was expected of this course. Granted I also had a strong interested in a lot of the components covered in this class, which is a huge determining factor of success in the learning style. But I kind of knew what to expect in some ways when I found out about that this was going to be an inquiry based class. I've also been in university for six years now which also helped in a way. I think that because I've been in university so long I've grown accustom to working by myself and finding my own topics of research. I think that some of the student in earlier years of university are still very much addicted to the structure imposed by public schooling, where everything is handed to you. (By this I mean everything you learn and all the assignments and homework you do is provided and scheduled. very rarely is work done in high school that is not assigned.) Even most first and second year classes at university is done by a very precise and scheduled outline. So it would be reasonable to assume that these students may have a harder time understanding the goal and objective of the course, which is to branch out and work independently on whatever interests you.

Some of these people were upset about taking the class and felt poorly of it. I would always tell them I wish I would have taken it earlier in my university career. I would have liked to have known most of the things this course taught me in some of my other classes. Then again had I taken it some years ago I may not have understood it either.

That being said I think I did well in this course. I had a good time with my learning log and journal entries. (Which is another thing. I really enjoyed my learning log! I think its a great idea. I think I may start keeping one for other things too. Its great for keeping track of thoughts, which often times I'll think of something say 'Hey! That's a great idea' then later forget it when I need to use the idea. I found with the learning log, which was linked to my phone, I could jot down my thoughts and retrieve them easily later on. Even relevant links I could just copy and paste for later use. it was very helpful and fun to keep maintained.) I think I was a little lacking in my work sometimes, as in I could have done some more entries in my Journal, especially in terms of the weekly reflective journals and some LOIs. Its tough though because a decision has to be made, especially when the work is not required and there is no deadline. I found myself putting the work of my other classes ahead of the work in this class. Even social activities ahead of the work in this class. Why? Because I could. It was tough not to procrastinate in this class. I do admit though that not everything that was brought up interested me, which is why I may have not done some things, but for the most part I may have just ended up skipping some things due to circumstance. A week would go by and I would want to write my weekly reflection but something else would come up so I'd put it off then next thing I know the next week has gone by and I'm now two journal entries behind.

This being said though I do think I did a fair amount of work in this class in term of Journal and Portfolio. I did try and write a few significant blog entries every month and analyze some things that interest me. I know there were some people in the class who left everything up until the last week of school or even worse, took a deferral and planned to do the work over the holidays, so in that case I don't feel so bad as I know I was consistently doing work in the class over the term and even though I had to take an extension, I think I could have got everything done by the dead line I just would have been very stressed to get it all done with all the work I had going on in other classes too. I sure didn't leave everything until the last moment (Would this be another idiom used in society 'until the last moment'. I think it has connotations referring to leaving all work until the last possible moment when you think you can get it all done. Such as if you have a 2 hour assignment due at 4PM you would wait until 2 PM to start it. To me the phrase also infers stress and panic.) so this I feel good about. I stayed on top (another idiom meaning completed the tasks assigned, or the tasks that I wanted, in a timely fashion such that I was not put into a state of panic) of the class work and was able to finish. I am happy with the results I've obtained from the course.

Its funny how ideas change. When I walked into the class at the start of the semester I wanted to learn more about game theory - and which I did I am now able to make better decisions every day because of the material I learned in game theory. I often apply the methods of gaming theory to decisions I make and actions I make. - such that my final project was going to be about game theory. I found that once I learned more about game theory that I found some of it really confusing so I decided to change my final project (portfolio) goal to achievement systems in gaming. This quickly changed to a topic of much interest to me - video game addiction - to which I did some research and journaling about in the term. I was focused on this for a month until one day I was sitting in the library with nothing to do when I thought of an idea about a game. I don't know where it came from, it just popped into my head. So I started writing down my ideas, and this is where the learning log helped as I started writing down ALL my ideas for the game, no matter if they were going to be used or not. I just started thinking of of ideas and writing those down too. over the next couple weeks I continued to do this. These ideas I wrote down enabled me to think better about the game I was going to make and helped me choose what would work best. Its a good thing I wrote all my ideas down as I pulled ideas from several different 'thinking sessions' to create the final project. If I hadn't wrote out my thoughts like this I may have forgotten ideas. I just thought it would be a good idea to look at how thought processes change.

The only thing I'm disappointed about for this class is the group work. I feel there was total chaos within our group and I should have asserted myself as more of a leader to straighten things out. Thought it is not purely my fault for the blatant train wreck of a project, I think a strong group leader would have helped. But like I said I had never asserted myself as a leader before this and I am happy that I was able to do so, if even just a little. But I mentioned all this in a previous journal entry.

So in close I really enjoyed this class this term. I find myself a better thinker and more in tuned with myself and my surroundings. I think I got a little more out of this class than I anticipated.

LOI – Stereotypes of Drug Addiciton - 15 November 2011

LOI – Stereotypes of Drug Addiciton - 15 November 2011

Aruna asked us in class today to do a short LOI on her comment that she used to do drugs and how there is stereotypes around people who do drugs. I can admit that I found myself wondering about the addiction she had. Mostly what drugs she took. I am also guilty of thinking yeah right she wasn’t a druggie, there’s no way!

Why did I think these things? I don’t have anything against people who do drugs, some of my good friends do drugs on a regular basis, including some of the drugs that institutions label as hard drugs. I have no problem with them doing these drugs so long as they don’t push them on me. So why, when Aruna says she used to do drugs, did I start making assumptions in my head, start wondering about the addiction. Because society put an emphasis on its drug problem, and has stereotypes placed on those who use drugs, I did this almost subconsciously.

Why couldn’t I see Aruna taking drugs in her past? Maybe because society does have such stereotypes of drug users. These stereotypes include being poor, not being successful, not being able to hold a job, etc. I don’t think Aruna follows any of these typical stereotypes, nor do I think every person who uses drugs follows the stereotypes. Yet they’re still embedded in my mind.

No doubt some people develop a drug addiction that end up ruining their life but that’s certainly just a small percentage of drug users. I think the government and popular media outlets like to make a big deal about drugs and imbed such stereotypes in society such to deter people from developing an addiction to the illegal substances.

I didn’t like that I started thinking the way I did when Aruna told the class about the drugs she used to take. Like I said, I have no problem with people who use illegal substances for any reason. It could be that because Aruna is in a leadership position, an authoritative figure, and is successful that these feelings and thoughts crept up. I guess her sharing this information was something I had never thought before. Sure some of my friends use drugs, and some other people I know do as well, but never has someone in the position as Aruna told me that they have done drugs. Maybe my ideology is that people in the teaching position are goody goods so to speak. I remember in Junior High when I first found out that some of my teachers were going out for beers I was shocked because I didn’t think teachers did that. From Aruna sharing this information I have changed my perspective a little and made me think of why I think the way I do.

Portfolio: Game Idea – On the Go – 13 October 2011

Game Idea – On the Go – 13 October 2011

I thought of an interesting idea for a game today, one that uses mobile technology and GPS locations. It would be somewhat of a sandbox game that could be downloaded onto a smart phone. People would log in to play it at certain locations on interest or other popular locations, bus stops, pubs, doctors office, etc. The idea is sort of like a canvas. As people log in to play the game they add stuff to the map; such as buildings, artwork, vehicles, roads, etc. as well as explore other peoples work on the map, or canvas is you will. The thing is that each location of interest would have its own unique map, or world, where people build and develop. This would add mystery. Who constructed this building, who painted this wall? Who built this road and why? Where does it lead? The additions to the world would be anonymous such to add to the mystery. As time goes on the world expands and becomes more vast, more unique and more mysterious.

A good idea would be to allow for design of objects anywhere. At any time a player could log into the game and start creating. There would be no limit to creativity. Once the player is happy with the masterpiece he/she could start placing it in worlds visited. This would almost be like a tag. If a person logged in to a bunch of worlds and placed it the object would start getting recognized by other avid players which would add to the mystery as well. Who is this person who keeps adding this luxurious hotel to all the maps in NW Calgary?

A pretty neat idea for sure.

Journal: Final Group Work

Group work, some people hate it, others love it. I enjoy group work. It allows for me to meet new people, gain new friends, and gain new insight on topics. Working with others is a core part of any science, and geophysics is no exception. Nearly every class I have taken since second year has involved some sort of group work or working with others. There is no way around it. Anyone who is in the program must learn how to work well with others or they will not succeed. The science require a team to group thoughts together and share work loads. In my years of study (6 now) I have never had any problem working in a group. Everyone has gotten along fine, everyone is able to make some sort of commitment to the work, people are usually understanding and willing to conform with group ideas, and the work gets finished on time and is handed in complete.

Maybe group work is not normal for every program, as this was by far the worst group experience I have ever had. For one it was extremely hard to get everyone together to meet up. I don't know why. Usually when I have something due to work on I will make the time to meet up and work on the project. Unless, of course, I have something that I absolutely need to go to. I did have something more important during one group meeting, which was a Christmas party at an oil company. I thought it would be a great experience for me to go to this dinner, and it proved valuable as I met someone who is willing to train me on a major geophysical processing program. I made time to attend every other group meeting throughout the course though, which I don't think anyone else can say except Brock. It wasn't just one person missing per meeting, it was usually two and sometimes three or four who didn't show up. To me its hard to believe that three people are unable to attend at the same time on more than one occasion. Maybe these people didn't think the class was too important, as it is only an option. Maybe they didn't understand the work. Maybe they just didn't care, I don't know. I know its easy to put a task behind other seemingly more important tasks, especially when there is no solid due date on the work needing to be done, but its different when other people are counting on you to be at a place to help.

Secondly, this group was extremely hard to work with because it was so hard for everyone to agree upon something. Four weeks ago the majority of the group, including myself, decided and outlined what we would like to work on, the -isms of gaming, with much resentment from some members. We drew up a plan and decided roughly how we were going to go about it. We also set the next meeting date such that everyone could attend. The next meeting proved a waste of time since there was still resentment about the topic we agreed upon. There was also a member who seemed like they wanted to do their own project and got quite angry, even to a point of being childish, when the rest of us disagreed with what they were saying. I might expect this kind of behaviour from a spoiled kid in grade 1, but at the university level it was embarrassing. It was almost like the person expected us to do everything their way. It took almost 20 minutes to calm the person down during this incident and get them back on track to figure out what their problem is. The meeting was also difficult as not everyone showed up and there was only 2 of us left after only an hour. We had agreed to work on the project as long as it took to figure something out but members of the group ended up leaving early.

In this meeting I took a leadership roll in saying what needs to be done, by what date, and how we're going to do it. I've never had to assert myself as being a leader before in a situation like this, maybe that's because I never had to before, but it felt pretty good. The members at the meeting seemed ok with everything I was saying, except the one person who wanted to change the project, and I thought I had everything under control. I made sure to reiterate what I had said on Facebook during the meeting to make it clear what was expected. Perhaps the next time I find myself in a leadership position I need to be more clear about things and explain everything in detail. I figured it would be fairly common knowledge that when you post a link somewhere to also include a brief summary of the link with the post so people know what the link is about. I figured this was common sense as it seems to be the normal practice across the internet and in the blogging world. Needless to say it seems like only one other person posted relevant information along with their link. Who knows if the others even read the links they posted. I also need to learn to set consequences for actions not met too and actions not performed properly. Again, maybe people didn't care what or how they posted since there was no negative retribution for their actions.

I honestly don't know what happened during this group project. I thought it was a pretty simple idea and a fun way to close out the semester of a great course. Other groups look like they had a good time working on this project. Ours was far from fun, which was too bad because I really enjoyed this class. It seemed like we could only agree on something for 5 minutes before someone got sidetracked or had a problem with something.

There could have been an ideological conflict between two members as well. One person seemed strongly opinionated about a topic and the other member felt as equally as strong but in the opposite side of the argument. This created a lot of argument between the two people. I got the feeling that the two individuals resented each other, almost as if they strongly didn't like one another. It also seemed like they would go against each other on any issue just annoy one another. Even on something as simple as colour choice in the slideshow, one of the two people who conflicted with each other would pick design 2 for the theme of the slides and right away the other person in the conflict would say 'no i don't like that, that's horrible'. Yet another display of a totally unexpected immature outburst. Maybe these students learned that if they act this way that they could get what they want. The situation truly made me feel uncomfortable. There was many times when me, or another member of the group, had to intervene and get matters back on track.

Maybe individuals in other faculties don't partake in any form of group work in school, or haven't yet, so they don't know how to do it? Maybe this project was one of those things that seems too simple to be true? Perhaps my ideologies of something being easy to do differ from what others consider easy? Perhaps these outlandish and complex ideas being introduced by Keith aren't so complex to him. I'm sure if I pitched an analysis on gaming physics and computer code then the other members of the group would think I'm nuts too, but that stuff I find relatively straight forward. There were some members who insisted we needed to keep adding more and more, perhaps this is what they're used to? Continuous expansion of ideas... But at the same time maybe this is where the focus was lost. It could have been that the personalities of the people in the group clashed so much that we weren't able to work together. I haven't heard of such a thing though in a professional type setting. Like I said most people are usually pretty willing to work on a task to achieve a common goal even if they don't like it. But that's just my viewpoint.

The entire mishap of this project could have been some people's lack of understanding of independent learning too. Some people in this class are still used to being guided through school, which includes being handed an outline, the instructor scheduling deadlines, telling what is expected, everything being set clearly. It was quite interesting to see how some people were almost panicking during parts of the course because they had no idea what to do. It goes back to the addiction discussions and the symptoms of breaking an addiction. The structure is the addiction and the panic and stress is the symptom of breaking that addiction. This class forced people to think for themselves, gain an interest in what they were learning by themselves, and schedule their own time to participate in and out of class as nothing was required and nothing was due until the end of the term.

With all that being said I don't think we achieved our goal of examining sexism in games, we didn't do a valuable critique on the subject. I don't think we did this because we had trouble working together and agreeing upon things. I honestly did not feel like our final outcome was ready but it was at the point where I felt defeated. I feel that if we took the extension on the project the outcome would have been the same, it would have just prolonged the stress.

At least I can say I tried my best on this work and I asserted myself as a leader, which was something new for me. I can take away some skills and team work knowledge from this otherwise frustrating experience.

I don't even think the work was that difficult to complete. What we had to do was outlined and there was enough time given to work on this project.

Journal: Dec 2 - Thoughts on the Past week

Today is Sunday which means this is officially the last week of school for the Fall 2011 term, which is potentially my second last term of my schooling career. I can't believe it is already here, the term has gone so fast. Probably because I have been so busy with school work, networking, and applying for jobs the time has gone by so fast.

Although I'm excited to be done this term, getting a little closer to being a graduate of University, I feel a little disappointed in myself, mostly for some of the work I neglected in this class. Not to say that I don't think I did well in this class and learned a lot about ethics of video gaming, I did learn a bunch, however I did not keep up with my Journal entries as much as it was requested. I did, however, try to post at least one significant post a week in the lair, on my blog, or in my learning log, but still I feel disappointed in myself. I think I may have not done the weekly self evaluation because I got side tracked with other work and sometimes forgot. Sometimes when something isn't mandatory I have a hard time making time to complete the task. This isn't only for school work but for my chores in my personal life too. It is something I need to work on in my life I suppose. I have been thinking of why I get like this when other people don't have a problem with remembering stuff to do, even remembering things in general. I think that it is because I get distracted easily and I always have something on my mind. I have trouble focusing, as I mentioned in the 100 things about me project that we did earlier this term. I think if I can learn to relax and focus my thoughts on one thing at a time then move on to the next item I will be more productive. So I've started given this a try and it seems to be helping.

Recently I found that one way to overcome this task neglect/forgetfulness is to keep a schedule and a task list. I have been making sure to write all appointments, meetings, dates, etc in my phone's calendar, which is also synced to my Google calendar on the computer. This way I am reminded about what I have to do. The task list I have has also been helping a great deal as I write all things I have to do, when they need to be done, and order the list by importance. I found this helps me focus my time on one project at a time, instead of jumping around from task to task.

I am wondering if playing games caused me to develop this multitasking ADD as I like to call it. If my difficulty focusing on one thing at a time has been influenced from playing MMO style video games. The reason I think this is because in these games there is several skills to work on, several things to do, and lots going on. To make the most of my time in games like that I try to find the most efficient ways to do things, which usually has me working on 3 or 4 things at one. For example I may be walking from point a to point b. Along the way is a monster I can kill, a treasure chest I can loot, and maybe a tree I can cut. So right there is 4 tasks at hand; travel, kill, loot, chop. My mind isn't focused on one direct thing, I'm thinking of four things at once. Also during this I may be getting private chat messages from friends, and other people may be talking in the public chat, all of which I'm trying to pay attention to as well. While playing I'd usually have music playing on my computer which is another thing I'm trying to focus on. My mind is constantly racing and changing subjects when playing these games. It may be possible that this constant change in thought pattern developed some form of ADD such that I need to multitask.

I know I've read in a few places that the internet is rewiring our brains because of the constant bombardment of snippets of information and constant redirection of though. Could this not be applied to games as well? I wonder if there has been any research done on the matter and if so what kind of results were found.

This week, for fun, I search some more writings on self critique and found this one of some interest. I especially like the quote "No one is ever going to care as much about your story as you do" What I like most about this quote is that it pretty much say no one is going to care about you as much as you do. I think we are all guilty several times in our lives about being selfish or self centered. The most important person in our lives should be yourself. However this fact sometime causes people to be arrogant or needy towards others. In other words we like to brag about ourselves or expect others to help us out in times we need them. In most cases people are happy to hear about our accomplishments and help us out, but we cannot expect this kind treatment. I am the kind of person who will almost always help someone out when they need me, and in turn I expect the same treatment back. This usually doesn't work out as, like the quote suggests, no one is going to care as much as me as I do. I've realized that I can't expect people to always help me out when I need them to. They have things to do too. And, although they care about me, I'm not the most important person to them so they are going to help themself before helping me. Because of this I am going to be more self reliant and not expect things from others.

Portfolio: Cribbage Casino Game

Casino Cribbage

The idea of a Cribbage based casino game came about after a fun night of playing the board game at home. Because I have played many casino based games, I have an idea about what kind of games are played in a casino. I believe that a cribbage type card game would be a fun and fast paced game that casinos would welcome, given it has a house edge.

The idea of the casino game would be as follows:

• The game does not use the standard crib board
• The game is played using a deck of card and standard crib hands are dealt out
• Points are given out according to the normal cribbage scoring system (See Fig 1)
• To give the house an edge the house is dealt 5 cards while the players are dealt 4*
• A crib card is played in the middle of the table after all players are dealt 4 cards and the dealer dealt 5 cards
• Before the cards are dealt a blind ante is wagered such as to get the players into the action
• Once the players see their cards they may choose to bet more. This extra bet is placed beside their original ante and can be equal to or double in size to their initial bet. **
• Players can touch and see their cards once all cards have been dealt and the crib card is revealed.
• Players then tally up their total points ***
• The dealer then flips over his/her 5 cards, selecting the best 4 card combination and thus discarding the fifth card
• Whoever has the most points in total wins the game
• If a Jack is pulled as the crib card then everyone wins a bonus equal to their ante which is to be paid out before the rest of the game continues.
• In the event of a draw (both the player and the dealer getting the same points) the player is paid out an amount equal to their ante and the additional bet is pushed.

Fig 1: Point scoring system

Bonus Game

Fig 2: Bonus game payouts

• An additional bonus game can also be in action and be entered as a side bet for as little as $1 on a $5 minimum bet table.
• This game would only be in action when a bet is placed on the corresponding betting circle and would work in conjunction with the current game.
• The game would pay out based on certain hand combinations and would pay out more favourably for card combinations using only cards in a players hand vs combinations using the crib card.
• Hand combinations would include Jack draw, small straight (3 cards), Medium straight (4 cards), Large straight (5 cards), Flush, 3 of a kind, 4 of a kind, over 10 points hand, over 20 points hand, Perfect hand.
• The payouts on these hands would be respectful based on the odds of receiving such hand.
• Players are only paid out for the best combination of cards made. ex: players can not be paid out for both a small straight of 10-J-Q and the Jack draw.
• A progressive style jackpot could be used in the bonus game for players who get a perfect hand since the odds of getting a perfect hand are about 1:650000, perhaps greater in a multiplayer casino based game.

* More testing is required in order to determine if this method of dealing cards is fair for both sides

** Testing runs should show if a multiplying factor should be put on either of the two separate bets. eg: Ante pays out 2x pay scale while increased bet slot pays out 1x pay scale.

*** It is suggested that a small computer device sit at each players playing spot. Such device could accept the players 4 card + 1 crib card combination and give a value, in points, of the hand's value.

Journal: 100 things about me

1. My name is Kurt
2. I am going to school for a BSc in Geophysics
3. I drive a Red car
4. I live in NE Calgary
5. I like to bowl
6. I like to play tennis
7. I like pretty much all racquet sports really
8. Baseball is a sport I enjoy watching, but not playing
9. I like watching football also
10. Sundays I rarely get anything productive done
11. I think this is because I used to work 8 hours every Sunday, now I just use them to rest and play
12. I like to mix and produce electronic music
13. I prefer progressive beats in music, something with a chilled vibe
14. I would rather go out with friends to a pub then a bar/club
15. I would rather hang out at a friend's house and play games/chill than go out
16. I don't particularly enjoy watching movies unless they make me think.
17. The movies I like are Dramas I guess. They leave me with an idea or in thought at the end
18. I used to enjoy playing MMOs now I think they take up too much time to enjoy
19. I used to play a lot of multiplayer games too, now I do not
20. I now prefer single player games that I can relax while playing
21. Like movies, I like games that make me think
22. I don't like games which used large hordes of enemies as its difficulty factor
23. I consider Bioshock to be my favourite game
24. Repetition in games annoys me
25. It never used to so I don't know why it does now
26. I like games with a respawn point such that you don't backtrack yourself very far, or at all
27. I think the game Prey does a great job of this
28. My internet connection frustrates me, even though its one of the fastest available.
29. I don't like lag, it makes me mad
30. I have one of the oldest running xbox consoles that I know of, most other peoples' have died and required repair by now. It has been going for about 4 years now
31. I recently won a new customized xbox
32. I also own a Playstation 3
33. I don't like playing games that don't have some sort of an achievement system (ie: PS3 trophies, Xbox gamerscore)
34. I also don't like games that have high RPG elements (ie: levelling system, rewards)
35. I used to prefer games on computers now I like playing them on consoles better
36. I find it difficult to get into a game
37. I feel guilty when I play games for too long
38. I would like to go watch a baseball game in every MLB stadium
39. Next year I'd like to go to Boston and New York to watch baseball
40. I have no been to a live NFL game but I would like to sometime.
41. Basketball does not interest me
42. I get distracted easily
43. I enjoy reading
44. I don't watch a lot of TV programs
45. When I do watch TV I watch sports or Dramas
46. I am working on becoming fluent in Spanish
47. I use Twitter more than I use Facebook
48. Some people think I use Facebook too much still
49. I usually post random funnies and jokes I make up to Twitter and Facebook
50. Stand up comedy interests me
51. My second favourite type of music is Rap/Hip Hop
52. Top 40 music annoys me
53. People who lack common sense frustrate me
54. People think I'm a nice guy but not too nice
55. In high school people though I looked like Ben Affleck
56. I am a casual smoker
57. I don't like water at night
58. I don't like deep water
59. Despite these I would love to own a yaught and boat around on the ocean
60. I am also scared of spiders but I don't know why
61. I am really good working with computers and other tech
62. I used to dirt jump BMX bicycles, it is something I would like to get back into
63. people think I'm too quiet sometimes
64. I find it hard coming up with discussion
65. I think I need more excitement in my life
66. My dad is a Refrigeration mechanic and my mom is a sales rep
67. I like hiking
68. I really like camping
69. I just like getting out in nature
70. When I'm down I like to go for a cruise in my car
71. I don't show excitement too well and I find that odd. I don't know why I don't.
72. I would describe my style as skater casual
73. I like to cook
74. If I could choose to live anywhere in the world it would be Seattle
75. I caught a baseball at a Seattle Mariners game
76. I enjoy travelling to Cuba and Las Vegas
77. I once won $800 in one sitting playing craps
78. I got offered three nights of free rooms to come back and play at the Wynn
79. I went back and won another $2500
80. They did not invite me back
81. I don't like playing VLTs as I think they're a waste of money
82. I don't like when I don't feel in control
83. I wouldn't consider myself a control freak however
84. I fidget a lot when I'm supposed to be sitting still
85. My learning style is on the Audactic and visual side, i have trouble learning new things through reading
86. I have a bad habit of not looking at a person when they're talking. I think Its because I get distracted
87. I think I have a really great personality
88. I don't like when people listen to their MP3 player when talking to others
89. I don't like people who are on their phone when talking to others
90. I get very competitive when playing sports or video games
91. I get mad at myself when I make a mistake while playing games
92. I need to be able to focus my time on one thing at a time
93. Some people don't think I'm polite because I don't always say sorry, please or thank you. I'm not being ruse, I just don't think they're always appropriate
94. I think most people are too polite such that the words have become meaningless
95. I am told I have a great smile
96. I used to be more of a computer geek than I am now
97. I like to make sure facts are correct before I believe them or retell them
98. I'm not a very trusting person.
99. Some people think I'm arrogant when I'm not meaning to be
100. I didn't think I would make it to 100 items.

Journal: First time playing squash

This past Saturday I took part in a Geoscience group squash tournament. I had never played squash before so I took the opportunity to learn how to play by signing up for the tournament. Usually when people hear the word tournament they think serious and competitive, and likewise I thought the same, but I was reassured that the tournament was just for fun and a good way to meet new people and learn the game, or get some additional practice. I think I would have took part in the tournament either way, for fun or not, as I've been wanting to learn how to play squash since I started school as it looked like a fun winter sport to play. Another reason I wanted to play is that I had picked up a squash racquet from a thrift store in the summer, which I hadn't used yet.

When I got to the squash courts area at the University of Calgary and met up with my friends I was given a run down of the rules. My friend RJ and I went into a court so he could teach me the game and I could get used to the rules. To my surprise the game is quite simple, in a way that there is not many rules and the game is an easy one to learn how to play. What's not easy is getting used to the pace of the game. From watching other people play the game doesn't look to physically demanding, the court is small and the ball moves slowly, or seems to. Once I started playing the game it became obvious that I was wrong and that Squash is a game that demands a high level of finesse and agility to play.

Addition - DEC 13 - Just wanted to clarify what I meant by the rules being simple here. I meant it in the way that the rules are easy to understand/comprehend. I'm a visual learner and don't learn well through text. I took a learning style quiz in a previous English class which confirmed this for me. Sometime I find it hard to read a set of rules or instructions and then apply them and comprehend them. I much prefer someone to demonstrate the system to me, or speak the instructions to me. I don't think its because I have some sort of reading problem, although it could be related to my attention problem that I think I have. Anyway, I'm sure that if I read the rules to squash prior to playing I would have been able to follow them. This is what I meant by simple. Also I guess this is a lesson that looks can be deceiving. A person can never be sure about something until they try it. People like to assume too much and judge things simply by the looks. I do this occasionally, I don't like assuming, but I guess even if I don't like to I sometimes assume without even knowing it. I guess this tells me that I have to be more aware of my thoughts.



The rules of the game are as such. On the serve, whilst standing in a boxed service area on one side of the court, the ball must be hit against the front wall above the line at such a force that the ball can bounce off the front wall and land in your opponent's back side court. If the ball fails to hit the boxed area of the wall or land in your opponents area the point and next serve goes to them. Your opponent, the receiver of the serve, must hit the ball back at the front wall before the ball bounces twice on the ground. If a successful serve and return is made then the rally is on. After this happens the ball can be hit anywhere in the court as long as the ball is hit, on the receiving end, before the ball bounces twice on the ground, and the ball hits the front wall, on the return end, before bouncing, after being hit. The ball cannot hit a small lower section of the front wall, nor bounce on either wall above the out of bounds lines. The rally ends once any of the rules is violated, a person is struck with the ball, or a 'let' occurs (when a person purposefully gets in the way and blocks their opponent from getting to the ball). A let is settled by a re-serve.

A point can be scored on any rally, no matter who serves. Service is determined by who got the last point. The first serve of a match is usually determined by the flip of a coin or who won the last match. A match goes up to 11 points and the match must be won be 2 points or more, such that a game cannot be won with a score of 11-10.

One of the aspects of the game that I like the most is that there's never a dull moment in the game, its always exciting. The player is always moving around the court while the rally is happening, going after the ball to hit it or moving back into the centre of the court to get ready for the opponent to hit the ball. The pace of the game requires swift and critical thinking about where and when to hit the ball such that you make the next shot unplayable to your opponent, which results in a point for you. You must also be able to position yourself in the correct location that your opponent will hit the ball such that you don't lose the point.

The game is a great way to get in shape and exercise. I played for about 4 hours, or 5 games of squash, on Saturday and was feeling stiff in my muscles for 2 days after I played. This really made me realize that I may need to get into better shape, but it could just be because I'm not in shape for such a highly physically demanding sport yet. As a personal goal I would like to play more of this sport and get into better shape to play the game such that I don't feel sore after. I do think that it was quite good of me to be able to play for four hours as I didn't think I would be able to do that even. I suppose I'm in better physical shape than I thought.

Addition Dec 13 - I read the start of this paragraph and started to question, what is 'in shape'? What does it mean? To most it means to be physically strong and able. Perhaps for some people it means to look good. I think the term is a relative one. To use the term 'in shape' on must assign it to an activity. One cannot just be 'in shape' just because, they have to be in shape for something... For example, 2 different people can be 'in shape' but have 2 very different body types, levels of physicality, body mass index, whatever... One person may be a bowler while the other is an Olympic speed skater. Both sports require different levels of physical endurance, with speed skating requiring a higher level of athleticism, however I think both people can be 'in shape' if they can perform at their sport without becoming exhausted, if they can be competitive, and if they don't feeling pain for days afterwards due to fatigue. I think I used the term 'in shape' here incorrectly and against how I feel about the term.

Another thing I noticed about myself while playing Squash is that I didn't get so competitive while playing it, as I usually do. I think it was because I may have taken the games I played as a learning experience and sort of known beforehand that my competition is better than me, as I had not played before. Despite not playing before I was told numerous times by different people that they could not believe it was my first time playing the game. I looked as if I had played several times before. I noticed it myself as I was moved up from beginners division to Intermediate after my first game. I was also giving experienced players a challenge. This made me feel good about myself.

One thing I need to work on is returning serves as I usually waited too long to hit the ball back such that the ball goes into the corner and is hard to return in that location. I noticed other players would face into the corner when receiving a serve such that they are ready to hit the ball. I found myself getting frustrated at times because I wouldn't be able to hit the ball back a few times in a row after a serve. I also felt very amateur when I wasn't able to return the serve, which is something I shouldn't feel. I should realize that I'm an amateur at the game and no one starts something new very well. I should also realize that my opponent knows this and is not judging me, which is how I feel sometimes. My opponents is probably just happy to be getting points and be winning because of my mistakes.

Although I didn't not advance far into the tournament, and didn't win too many games (but they were close!) I felt happy with the way I played and am glad to know a new sport! I hope to be able to do better in the next tournament through practice.

Future of Everything? Turn it into a game...

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/jesse_schell_when_games_invade_real_life.html

I just got finished watching this great video that's found on the TED website. It is called 'When games invade real life' and the talk is given by Jesse Schell who is an employee at DICE and has worked on games at other studios.

The main point of the talk is how obscure style games, and odd ideas, are having huge success in the gaming industry right now. Such is seen with games like Club Penguin (Purchased by Disney for $350M), and Mafia Wars (A text based game found on Facebook which has generated hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue). Also included in Schell's list of highly successful games is Wii Fit, Rockband, and even the xbox live achievement system. Games and ideas like these are seen as odd because when these ideas were first announced, or the games first launched, the anticipation for success was low. I mean how many people would have though Farmville could generate hundreds of millions of dollars?

Schell speculates that the huge success that these games have seen comes from their involvement of reality. With some games this involvement is obvious, as in it is easy to see how they touch on reality. Such is with Rockband where the player is moving around and playing a plastic replica of an instrument. Some games it is less obvious to see what is going on, such as with Mafia Wars. Schell drives a good point here by saying the reality lies in the players determination to be better than his or her friends list. The game encourages players to play because if they don't their friends will become better. If their friends are better they can pay some money to rank up faster.

The real opportunity for this lies in the advancement of technology and the implementation of technology into every day things. It seems like a marketer's dream. Turn everything into a game. This encourages people to use items more, and in turn shop more. It also encourages people to try new things. What if the first 50 people to review a new restaurant were given 100 Kudos on Facebook? The person also had a Pepsi with their dinner which, because the can has a thumb print reader embedded in it and a wifi connection, and Facebook knows your thumb print, the person also gets kudos for drinking his/her 10th Pepsi in the month. These Kudos can be used for movie passes, or flights, or money off at the super market. Would a person be more willing to drink more Pepsi in a month? Wouldn't they be more likely to try and review new places to eat? How many people would rush out to XYZ Indian Restaurant to eat just so they could earn the points for the review?

Would people even care? Sure they would. There's systems like this in place right now. An Airmiles card earns points every time a person shops a certain locations. There bonus levels as well, just like in a game; If you purchase 10 cans of Campbell's Soup you earn 50 bonus miles. It is obvious that these systems work when you go to a store well after a promotion started and the soup aisle is looking under stocked.

But will people feel comfortable using these systems? This question is a little more subjective. Do people want to be constantly monitored. Their every purchase stored in a database. Their eating habits recorded, the amount of chips the person eats tallied permanently... In my opinion this is way too close to big brother. One of Schell's concluding statements was along the lines of - You don't know what books your grandparents read 50 years ago, but someday our grandkids may be able to know what books we read. This is of course if Kindle started keeping track of every book we read, and rewarding us points for book reviews done, and series finished, books bought, etc.

I can see how making everything a game encourages people to do things they normally would not, but would a total flood of games be annoying? What would the psychological consequences be once everyone is literally ranked against their friends? How fast would the constant bombardment of points get annoying? And how boring would we all get if we all became a slave to a points system?

For a marketer there is huge potential in turning everything into a game. The future is bright. For society, I'm arguing not so much.

Games and Addiction

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgysroPFZ1M

-A video I made about my experience with a video game addiction made before I started researching.

When people think addiction they think tobacco, drugs, alcohol, gaming. These are the main forms of addiction which hit first world society hard. One form of addiction that isn't on the minds of many people is video games addiction. Video game addiction is a relatively new idea, so new that it doesn't even have an official diagnosis and researchers are just starting to address such problems as what makes a video game more addicting? and do video games cause attention problems in children?

Historically, addiction has been defined as physical and psychological dependence on psychoactive substances. A psychoactive substance being something ingested or inhaled such as marijuana, tobacco, alcohol, etc. Another definition is

"A primary, chronic disease, characterized by impaired control over the use of a psychoactive substance and/or behavior. Clinically, the manifestations occur along biological, psychological, sociological and spiritual dimensions (2)." (Schlimme 2008)

The term may also be applied to anything which may be done so often it interferes with someone's life. More precicely the important things in life such as school, work, friends, family. There is even cases when a person begins neglecting personal needs such as hygiene and food for long periods of time. Once an individuals begins denying these 'shoulds and musts' in life it can be said that they are addicted.

But why are games addicting? Why do people get addicted to them? It has been suggested that certain game types can be more addicting than others. Games such as MMORPGs where social interaction, communicating with others and playing with others, have one of the highest addiction rates. Another aspect noticeable in these games is much of it is team based where players must form up into teams, clans, or guilds for a task to be accomplished. In Guild Wars, for example, an area called the Fissure of Woe requires a team of 8 players constantly playing for 3 hours to clear and get an exceptional reward. Players are expected to sit at their computer for 3 hours to help their team finish all the quests within the area. Once the quests are done a chest appears which can be opened by each member of the team for a reward. Such is the basis for many of the MMORPG style reward systems. Spend some amount of time doing a task and be rewarded. It seems that the more time spent on a certain task, the better the reward. This means that if a player wants one of the best items in the game they must spend the time to obtain it. People who join guilds are always under pressure to participate or risk being eliminated from the group, or risk falling behind in skill and prestige as everyone else. I know this first hand from my experiences with MMOs.

This form of gaming addiction may stem from the human psyche. People enjoy the feeling they get when they are rewarded for their actions. Such is the feeling people get when they do something nice for others, like mow their neighbour's lawn for free, or volunteer. MMOs are designed such that quests are constantly being completed, levels are constantly being gained, and items are constantly being rewarded. This gives constant joyful and positive feedback to the brain which can make a person feel like they're doing something incredible, when really what they are doing is meaningless in the real world. Such is the same with drugs which trick your brain into thinking everything is alright, MMO style games do the same. They stimulate the positive receptors in the brain, controlled by dopamine (which also dishes out pleasure when being adventurous) which give a feeling of joy and accomplishment, all of which can be easily be obtained in video games (This is your Brain on Video Games). This is another reason why people get addicted; the games they play take them to a better place where they can feel good all the time. They can forget about their troubles at work, forget their bill problems, etc.

Another way people get addicted to a game is that they begin playing for some time then feel as if they need to carry on playing because their previous efforts would be a waste of time otherwise.

• Even famous psychological effects such as the sunk cost fallacy can influence the addictive cycle. This fallacy occurs when a person feels compelled to continue performing a certain behavior because he has previously invested time in the behavior and does not want to feel as though his investment was wasted. Similarly, Dr. Timothy Miller, a clinical psychologist, states that many video game players may feel that they have wasted their efforts if they do not reach the next goal in a game, which may lead to additional time spent playing the game that the person otherwise would have spent in a more constructive task.

This excerpt from Schlimme 2008 states this fact that gamers feel they must continue what they started and feel compelled to complete games which they started.
One important thing that I noticed in MMO style games is that people like to flaunt their items and skills. They like to feel important. This can be a direct result of a person who has poor social skills in real life and turns to games to fit in and be part of a group of people. In a social style game you can usually be anyone you want to be. No one knows the real person behind the avatar so when a person starts playing a video game they almost start a new life. It is much easier for social outcasts, people who have trouble making friends and socializing in the real world, to make friends and be popular in games. This is another reason why these games are so addicting. Again, the positive re-enforcement and satisfaction that a person gets from friends online outweighs the misery of being alone in the real world. Players with poor social skills can be noticed as the ones who crave attention in social games by flaunting their items (Orzack 2007) and being awkward. But these socially awkward actions are usually acceptable in these types of games.

Based on this evidence gaming addiction is something that needs to be considered and further researched. Further exploration into how to make a better MMO could be done such that a game of its style is less addicting. A game which is not very addicting from experience is Guild Wars. It has a level cap of 20, which can take 10 hour to get for an experienced player. The weapons in the game are based on common stats such that everyone may be using a similar stat based weapon. The game is heavily based on the physical skill of a player as opposed to the amount of grinding, which bis defined as playing for hours and hours in search of something. The game does this via a 8 slot skill bar. Skills can be captured throughout the worlds, earned in quests, or purchased. It is entirely up to the player which skills to equip, and in what combination. There is no perfect combination of skills to use, but it does take some time to develop a good skill bar, called a build. Most of the time players will search on the internet for a list of a decent builds to use and pick one, go buy the skills, and then play with it. A process that takes 10-15 minutes. The game doesn't have a huge grind to it, nor a stimulating satisfaction of achievement since everyone typically has the same level and same weapons. The gamer is not perfect, however as it is highly team based and does give the feeling of being required on to play and help out your guildmates, but the game is definitive improvement on the standard more addictive MMORPG.

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/1719

http://discovermagazine.com/2007/brain/video-games/article_view?b_start:int=2&-C

http://dmitriwilliams.com/research.html

Have done, Am doing, Will be Doing

• I have
• -Wrote a game critique
• -Posted relevant articles in the Blog
• -Posted small research documents in the blog and in my journal
• -Updated my learning log as often as possible with relevant class items including gaming activity, watching videos, reading articles, pondering
• Maintained a list of all the clues I have found
• read some of the articles posted in the trails area of blackboard, found my own
• Participated in group gaming sessions and discussion
• 
  
• Am Doing
• Trying to work out the rules to a game idea I have
• Thinking of self critique
• Always reading new articles and watching new videos
• following the world series
• playing new games
• Learning Game Theory
• Will be doing
• List of 100 things that shape my ideologies
• Thinking of a Journal project
• 
  

Texting tones and communication

Quick question for everyone...

How do you perceive tone through text? Particularly text messages on mobile devices or in games. Does it depend on the person sending the message? How well you know the person? The conversation at hand? The punctuation being used?

Perhaps it has a lot to deal with your current mood and how you, as the receiver of the text, are feeling at the time.

I find that I can send a neutral message to two different people and get two completely different responses.

This even goes for Facebook/Twitter statuses. Sometimes I'll post a funny or witty comment as a status. A joke I came up with that day lets say, I do this a lot. Some people will know I'm just being silly, others will take it seriously, some people will even ask if I'm angry/depressed/gloomy.

Its odd how there can be such a wide range of interpretations for one simple comment. It makes a person really realize that the majority of the way we communicate is not just words, its body signals, facial expressions, tone of voice. These are very important features being lost in communication with the inventions of text messaging, online chat, even the telephone. Misinterpretation of communication must be at an all time high.

It makes me think that there really isn't any ideologies, or very few anyway, behind text messaging; especially at the 140 characters allowed per text. A person cannot fully explain themself when being restrained by the character limit. There's no general guidelines to show how you're feeling in a text. I find myself sending a smiley face (emoticon) in a lot of messages such that the person on the other end of the transmission doesn't get confused about how I feel. But these text based faces also carry their own ideologies unique to the user and can be misinterpreted. I think that putting a :P kind of emoticon means just kidding, or that I'm playing around. Others may interpret as sexual, or crazy.

I guess the best way to make sure a person knows exactly how you're feeling and what you're talking about is to speak with them face-to-face. Even then there can be miscommunication though. You may think a person is a liar because they won't make eye contact with you when in reality they just don't like making eye contact. I know a lot of people who don't feel comfortable with making eye contact.

Back to the point however, with text messaging, how is a sense of tone gathered for you? What do you look for in a message to signal if a person is happy, sad, joking, serious, or whatever else. What o the emoticons mean to you?

Thoughts on Unfair Advantage

I just wanted some opinions on what people think of game developers implementing an unfair advantage in their games. This can take many forms but I'm particularly concerned with games offering skill boosts, weapons, or in game money for people willing to pay real currency.

For example, for the last few years EA Sports has been offering skill packs and boosts, that you may apply to your 'Pro' sports character, in the marketplace of the respected console. For those people willing to pay a few dollars, usually 2-10 dollars, they can forgo hours of in game time training the actual skills, thus buying their 'talent'. In these games the success of a player greatly depends on how high a character's skills are thus those who can afford to pay are at a greater advantage.

This is also seen in social media games (Facebook games in particular) where users can buy more energy, better items, more land area, etc. Battlefield games (another title published by EA) offers entire class level ups in the marketplace for a price of $5. Users also receive all weapons of the class that come with the levels.

I think this is a poor idea from game designers to allow players to buy ranks, especially for sports games. In fact I'll go as far as saying players should not be able to buy their skills but should have to earn their ranks. Players passionate about the game should be rewarded for their time. A player should not be able to go out, buy the game, buy some additional features, and be as good as someone who has put in a hundred hours.

I think another argument, and a better one, is that in sports games, and perhaps all games, players should have a level playing field (except for ones designed for time played = better character ie: RPGs). The game should be based on how well a person can coordinate their hands, the controller, players in the game, and strategize. I think this RPG element being implemented into almost all games being published in recent times is just a way to make games more 'compulsive' (it would be interesting to know if psychologically does compulsiveness make a game seem more interesting/better?), and more importantly make a way for devs to make some extra money on the game. I can't think of a recent game that has come out that doesn't include the RPG style level up and reward system.

One of the biggest disappointments I faced recently was with the release of NHL 12 in September. I hadn't got an NHL game for the last 2 years and was excited to play. I was intrigued by the EA Sports Hockey League mode in which you play with a team that you create which is made up of random team of players from a range of real leagues. You start off with a bunch of random hockey cards and with these cards you form a team and play against other players who've made other randomly generated teams. As you play games you get points which can be used to buy more packs of hockey cards and gradually improve your team, winning games and scoring goals are ways to earn more points. NHL stars are rarities in the decks of cards as they are normally much better players than those who play in the junior leagues. Decks of cards that may contain an NHL player also also pretty expensive, required a player to play in a few games before being able to afford a pack. Needless to say its a fun mode as you get to play manager of a team and play games. I created my team of mainly junior league players from my assortment of cards and went to play a game. I thought this is going to be really fun until I got in the game and was playing against a player with almost all NHL players... I thought how can this be? The game is not even one day old and this person has a team of all stars... Needless to say my team of rising stars was no match against the team of pros and I lost 7-1.

Later I found out packs of cards can be bought for $2.50 each in the marketplace. The player I was going against must have spent quite a bit of real money creating their team just to have a large edge over other players. This pretty much ruins the game mode for me as I'm not willing to spend a wad of my own cash on improving my virtual team. This makes the game almost useless to me unless I'm ok with losing most of the games I play to players frivolous enough to pay real money for their team. It made me remember why I didn't go out and buy NHL 11 last year, and makes me not want to buy NHL 13 next year.

So what is everyone's take on this? Are game devs making a huge mistake in offering virtual skill for real dollars? From a business standpoint its a great move, of course, however from a gaming standpoint it makes the games more of a hobby. One now has to pay $60 for a copy of the game and then however much more to improve their skills just to be able to compete.

I don't like it.

Telephone Gamers: Are We so Different?

Telephone Gamers: Are We so Different?
http://www.platformnation.com/2011/10/11/telephone-gamers-are-we-so-different/

I came across this article and it made me think if the author is putting telephone gamers into a 'lower class' of gaming. The article seems to talk down about people who game on handheld devices, even calling them, roughly put, gamers who haven't reached their true potential. The writer also makes many assumptions in his, or her, article (there is no credit to the submission) which I think is wrong. Simply put, one cannot make the assumption that because an Angry Birds plush toy is hanging in a car mirror the owner only plays Angry Birds/Telephone games and nothing else.

That said, I'm sure there are many people out there who only play telephone games. It is a large market making up over $100M in 2008 in Apple's revenues. It is also stated that Apple has a 10% share in the mobile games market suggesting that the portable games market accounts for over a Billion dollars a year in North American Revenue. Clearly this is a large industry and should not be ignored, or better yet be a downgraded form of gaming compared to the console and PC styles.

I can also detest the claim that the author of the article claims that the people who play mobile games are 'people out there with gamer souls that have never been allowed to fully develop'. Mobile games are great for passing time when situations arise that make one wait. In line at the doctor's office? Angry Birds can help pass that. On the bus? Maybe try doodle jump. It doesn't mean the people playing these games ONLY play these games. But it does make me think if the players of mobile games do so in their free time. As in play them while bored at home, as opposed to playing a console game, watching TV, or going for a jog.

It seems that people do, according to EA/Dice in an article on GamesBeat. Nearly half the time people are playing mobile games while relaxing in their homes. This may come as a little shocking to some of the gamers owning consoles and gaming PCs. Could it be that these people are the gaming type but do not own a console? Could it be that these games are so addicting (Why Angry Birds is so Successful and Popular: ...) that people want to play them? It may also be because these are social games, and are cheap. Groups of friends can download these games for free, or very cheap, and compete against their friends, or compare scores. These reasons may be enough to keep the mobile gaming market booming and even pulling players away from the tradition video game market.

This being said, the author of the original article may not be up with the times. Mobile gaming is not just tetris and bejeweled anymore. Its an expanding industry making a large amount of revenue with a wide variety of games. I think the mobile game type is just another form of game equal to all others and suggest this person should not just limit them-self to one form of game category.

LOI 1 - What is a Game?

Before my studies in this class I didn't pay much attention to what defines a game. I figured a game was something 2 or more people participated in for fun or competition. After reading some of the articles posted on Blackboard and finding some of my own, the idea of a game has become more abstract in my vision.

For one, I never thought of a game as something that may not invoke fun in the participants. I have played games before and have not had fun but I never really put the two together and thought of the competition aspect of games. I also didn't realize how much of a role 'fun' and 'friendly competition' has in our lives to sculpt our personalities, our egos, and our social well being. As it turns out many other species have playtime just for fun; without a purpose. It was surprising to hear in the TED talk how some species would possibly die if fun was taken away from them in their youth.

From my readins I like Chris Crawford's definition of a game the best wherein he gives the following ideas:

Creative expression is art if made for its own beauty, and entertainment if made for money.

A piece of entertainment is a plaything if it is interactive. Movies and books are cited as examples of non-interactive entertainment.

If no goals are associated with a plaything, it is a toy. (Crawford notes that by his definition, (a) a toy can become a game element if the player makes up rules, and (b) The Sims and SimCity are toys, not games.) If it has goals, a plaything is achallenge.

If a challenge has no "active agent against whom you compete," it is a puzzle; if there is one, it is a conflict. (Crawford admits that this is a subjective test. Video games with noticeably algorithmic artificial intelligence can be played as puzzles; these include the patterns used to evade ghosts in Pac-Man.)

Finally, if the player can only outperform the opponent, but not attack them to interfere with their performance, the conflict is a competition. (Competitions include racing and figure skating.) However, if attacks are allowed, then the conflict qualifies as a game.

These definitions made me restructure my ideas of what games are, and made me wonder if there is any fine line type games that may or may not be a game under these rules. 'Games' like Farmville on Facebook may not be at all defined as a game under this set of rules because 1) It has no end goal and 2) It has no way for other opponents, or the game, to hinder your performance. That being said it may be argued that a player strives for the achievements and once a person attains all these then the game is complete. However the game is consistently updated to include more achievements, such that it can be argued there is no end. The game also includes a chance for the players crop to die over time, however there is an option to pay for an item to bring crops back to life. So with this, is there really a mechanism in tact to try and stop, or slow down, a player from succeeding? I'd like to say no. I'd also like to say that I don't think Farmville, or any game of the sort, is a game. I'd classify it as a mere toy or hobby.

Also while on that topic, MMORPG games may be classified instead as a hobby or a toy, depending on how one plays them. There is a story line of quests within these games, but there's also no ultimate means to an end when trying to attain all achievements, items, skills, etc. Such may also be made about the quests in a way that updates continuously add new quests to the game making it impossible to ever find oneself beaten a games of the MMORPG genre.

In one article I found (Towards a Definition of a Computer. Game. Jouni Smed. University of Turku, Department of Information Technology) it suggests that a game is made up of a series of rules player(s) must follow and agree on. This makes sense as a game needs organization to keep it fair and for players to know what is going on. A game must include conflict, some way for opponents to eliminate or hinder other players' performance. This initiates an 'unknowing' aspect of the game such that it makes playing a game challenging, unique, and random. A game must also include a sense of play such that its participants have fun and the game is without any purpose other than to play.

The article goes on to talk about how video games fit the definition of a game. Most video games do have some mechanism to stop a player from advancing, slowing the player down, or eliminating a player. However the playing field is sometimes uneven for the computer generated players due to the limitation of the artificial intelligence. Sometimes computer players are programmed to avoid dangers to themselves all together such that they can never be harmed, whereas a human player must face these dangers. Does this make video games veer away from the true definition of a game? If the playing field is not fair is the game simply be a puzzle? It would make sense that if the playing field largely favours the computer controlled players then it would make it a puzzle.

Video games also give us the allusion of free will, when really we do not have much choice on what path to take. With the advancement of technology games are now able to include more choice, and multiple paths towards the end, but ultimately the story lines are similar. It has been suggested in a couple articles I've found that some Video Games are no more than interactive stories, fiction, art.

It seems that there is a pretty agreeable definition from many sources about what a game is, however the category of Video Games is much of a grey area in the game or not a game definition.

Thus far the definition of Video games has come from single player, story driven, games. When examining multiplayer Video Games the 'game' definition seems to fit Video Games much better. The playing field is level, the amount of choices become limitless, and there is usually a goal (although it some online games such as the arcade shooter series Call of Duty it could be concluded there is no goal besides getting the most kills). With these attributes a multiplayer video game fits the definition.

As it can be seen people may agree about one definition for what is a game, however it is often harder to than to just give a set list of definitions and expect everything to abide by that list. There seems to be a large grey area in which some 'games' fall in which they may lean strongly towards being art, or a story, or a hobby. Does this fact not make them a game? If a game contains all elements of what defines a game, but some aspects of the game definition are found a little thin, does that title still get the definition of a game. It may be that a game is what the player makes of it. After all, in most games the rules are meant to be bent, so why not bend the rules a little for the game definition as well. Seems fitting enough to me.