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.

Week 3 review

ENGL 388 – Week 3 Overview

This week made me realise how much games are in my life. Even when I’m not actively playing games I may be watching other people play, or discussing games with friends, even thinking about games myself. The week started Sunday with NFL gameday. I made my bet selection in the morning after analysing the teams and matchups. It’s quite unreal how much insight goes into staking money on football. There is countless websites out there with every stat and piece of information on each game. I’m sure a person could spend hours selecting which teams they think are going to win games. However, it turns out that no matter how long you spend researching the matchups, the games are statistically a unique experience. For instance, one game saw the New England Patriots match up against the Buffalo Bills. From my knowledge, and the gathered knowledge from the internet, the game was thought to be a sure win for the Patriots. However the quarterback for the Patriots, Tom Brady, was having his worst game in years and threw an unusual number of interceptions. This gave Buffalo the advantage during the game, so much so that Buffalo won the game. Games like this are called an upset, because the team which no one expects to win goes against the odds and succeeds, and they happen all the time in football and other sports. It goes to show that anyone can win a game, no matter their skill level and previous record, against any opponent. Maybe this is one of the reasons we find games so entertaining, because the outcome is unpredictable. If, for example, the outcome for every football game each week could be predicted the Friday before the gameday then the sport would not be entertaining to watch; Similarly to knowing the ending to a good psychological thriller movie. It may be good to watch for the content, but knowing the end makes it less exciting. Games must have the unpredictable component to them to remain exciting and entertaining.

This week I also finished a game on the Playstation 3 called ‘Dante’s Inferno’, an action style game based on the 14th-century epic poem Divine Comedy by Dante Alighieri's. It was quite entertaining to learn about the poem through game play, as well as all the levels of hell. The game was on the easy side and didn’t have too many enemy encounters. I think the publisher of the game wanted the player to experience the story instead of have the player constantly battling enemies. I enjoy games like these which focus on the story instead of the battle. I find them more enjoyable than games that offer mindless killing and have a weak story line.

DEC 1 - I've been thinking about this, and maybe its because I don't know what I want anymore as I don't play games as often as I used to, but I used to enjoy games that we just about killing. I used to not care much for a story line. I used to play games that had me doing a lot of repetitive playing in the games, or even found myself playing over the same part of a game multiple times in order to get a certain item. Its funny how my playing style has changed because these days (meaning at present, the current me as of today, Dec 1. Another idiom that has infiltrated our language.) I don't like repetition in games. Its almost as if I've done a complete 360 (again, idiom! Meaning I'm now interested in the opposite) with my gaming style. I prefer story line with minimum repetition. This could be because I'm a little older and am busy a lot and value my time. If a game has me doing the same part over and over again then I find it a waste of my time to play. Then I start thinking aren't all games a waste of time? At any given moment I'm sure there's something more important to be doing in my life than to be playing a game. Especially a game that's purely for entertainment value, which most single player video games are. But society needs its entertainment, so is gaming really a waste of time? After all, all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy... So maybe gaming isn't a waste of time, and maybe I'm just being too serious in my life. I need to learn to play games for fun and not rush through them. I should be trying to play the game as much as I can to get the most value out of it. But once again, with so many new games coming out that look so good its hard to find the right one to play, and there's always a new and seemingly better game being released soon so its hard not to play a game really fast. Perhaps I just need to quit buying new games. I do have quite a few, more than I even have time to play (once again an emphasis on time). There's games sitting on my shelf right now that I couldn't wait to buy and play, yet are still in the packaging on my shelf.

Monday night I went out curling, as I am a spare for a team in a league. I haven’t done much curling in my life so I am still a beginner and learning the fine points of making a good shot. The people I play with have been curling for years so they were able to teach me some of the strategy of the game as well as proper shot technique, which I think I learned a good understanding of after our two hour match. I obtained a greater respect for curling after playing Monday night as it was my first serious game in a league with players well above my skill level. I found that curling requires a good level of finesse, athleticism, and strategy; all qualities of a great game. Our team ending up losing the match 7-2 due to the other team gaining four points in the fourth end. I found curling to be very exciting as the difference between a winning an end or losing it by four points can be a matter of millimetres.

This week I also chose my avatar for the class. I picked the Little Big Planet character as the game is fun, exciting, creative, unpredictable, and interesting. I think these characteristics are representative of my personality so the avatar is a good fit.

In class on Thursday we were to bring in a game and play with our group during the first part of the period. Our group brought cards and we played a game called ‘Bullshit’. The objective of this game is to try and cheat and go against the rules without anyone noticing and/or suspecting you. If another player suspects you of cheating they may call bullshit. At this point you flip over the cards that you played and if you’re right the accuser receive the played pile of cards, if you were cheating you receive the pile of cards. The objective of the game is to play your entire hand of cards. The first person to do this is the winner. I found, however, that this is a hard to do, because as the game goes on cards tend to become grouped together in players’ hands. When this happens it is easy to call bullshit on other players since people can control a set of cards. I think it may be better to play with multiple decks of cards, maybe 4-6 decks, only distribute a certain amount of cards to each player then have a pick up pile where a player picks up a new card on their turn before playing the desired cards. This may make it harder for people to know if a person is cheating or not. The game did seem to get more fun although as it went on and once players did start controlling cards. It was quite cool how everyone seemed to be having fun playing the game even if they were losing. It’s definitely a great social game.

This week was a busy one with school and outside of school. Job posting deadlines forced me to miss Tuesday’s class due to the fact that I was writing cover letters to potential employers. I only played one new game this week, a browser flash game called Truck Loader 2. The game requires the user to control a small forklift kind of machine, pick up containers then place them in the container of a cube van hauler. It is a lot harder than it seems. The levels increase in difficulty with obstacles, switches, levers, and fragile crates. It made me wonder why these simple browser games are so addicting. I found myself playing the game for 30 mins yet I wasn’t really enjoying myself. I just wanted to conquer the levels! Something to look into though and write about.