September 2006 Archives

For New Media Projects, we have completed our Interactive Fiction games, and are moving on to a book by Jason Darby called Make Amazing Games in Minutes. So far, the first four chapters have been a quick and fun read for me. I think this is perhaps the first time I've learned, from a beginners standpoint, about a subject (games) that I already know so much about. It's interesting for me, because I'm learning a different side of the genre. I condiser myself an above average gamer, but I know little to none about designing games.

This class has been exciting, and challenging, for me because I'm engaging in creating something that I would love to play myself. Which is one of the reasons Darby says that people create games in the first place. It is challenging because I have very high expectations when I sit down to play any game, 2D, 3D, platform, or retro- therefore I want the game I make to satisfy my expectations.

The entire way through the first four chapters, I couldn't help but relate what Darby was saying to our recent experience creating Interactive Fiction with Inform 7. On page 5, Darby says, "If you are struggling for ideas early in you game creation, it may be better to pick another game type-- you can always come back to your original game idea later if you have some more ideas to add to it."

With that quote, I feel he was describing the experience Leslie and I had making our game exactly.

When I found out our first assignment was Interactive Fiction, I though to myself, "no problem! I did this two years ago in EL236." I didn't realize we had to make the game ourselves. I had a bit of trouble even playing IF games, and when I sat down in my room with Leslie to start making ours, I was worried.

Once we got the idea, a spoof on a mystery story I wrote last semester for Publications Workshop, it was smooth sailing(almost) from there.

Darby stresses the need for a good idea, one you will want to continue building upon to make the perfect game. Although Leslie and I were panicking at the start, once we had our idea our baby grew into what we like to think is a hilariously fun IF game.

My conclusion: In short, Darby speaks the truth. I can't wait to continue learning from this book, more sure to follow...

This semester for Media Lab, we are reading Going Live by Philip Seib, a former television and print journalist turned professor at Marquette University.

Going Live covers the possible changes in journalism we will see in the 21st century. The book really isn't about writing style- it's about the ethical choices journalists make, and the unethical choices journalists have made in the past.

When discussing the book in class, I raised a point about the web being the tool people go to first for the news. In Going Live, Seib discusses the fact that people often overlook or denounce the web as an important medium for news.

In all reality, I think the internet has become one of the primary sources for news, second to television. I would like to think that even print journalism has taken a backseat to the internet. The web is more acessible, it's "free" in most cases, unless you're the homeowner who pays the dreaded AOL bill, and it's fast. By accessing sites such as CNN.com, we can be sure the news we recieve is accurate and up to date as well.

The internet is an amazing meduim for news because it allows for almost automatic updates. This point, however, makes for ethical conflict. The more rapidly the news can be updated, the greater the margin of content error.

The internet is a use at your own risk tool. One can publish anything on the internet, but will it be factual? The world has no way of knowing if the information coming from a weblog or a wiki, or even a reputable news source online is accurate.

I don't think that print journalism will ever completely fade out, but I do think it's getting shoved aside to make way for online journalism. At Seton Hill, there is a Writing for the Internet course

"Mere entertainment becomes art when the communicative element in the work is either novel or exceptionally well done." -Koster

In finishing Koster's book, A Theory of Fun for Game Design, I found this to be one of his most interesting points. I myself have never thought to look at video games as an art form, so I began searching to see if others shared Koster's view.

Chris Crawford presents his own definition of art in his the preface to his work, The Art of Computer Game Design. For Crawford, art is "something designed to provoke emotion through fantasy."

When applying this definition of art to video games, it is undoubtedly true that games are then an art form. Koster views video games, as "having the power to alter how people perceive the world around them." Both Crawford's definition of art and Koster's take on video games as art go hand in hand. As a gamer, I know no emotion quite like that of losing or beating a game. It's almost self inflicted emotion because I am choosing to pick up the controller in the first place, knowing I'm either going to be good or bad at the game. I take my chances, as all gamers do. Isn't art the same? We walk into art galleries not knowing if we will like the pieces displayed inside or not; there is no way of knowing what emotions the art will bring out in us, but it is certain that emotions will flow.

Koster also makes a great point on this topic by saying there is no right answer to the question, "what do people expect from games?" There are endless amounts of answers that vary from person to person. This got me wondering if video game designers seek out a certain reaction from their players.

In my quest, I found a forum on The Escapist Magazine which was a long discussion on the very question this blog entry is on. Are video games art? Most people agreed they are, but the lingering issue was can't everything classify as art in someway? Man, I hate that question.

Oh! I just found an online article by Koster himself, referring to Crawford, about this very topic. Mind you, I didn't come across this article until about 30 seconds ago. What an awesome coindicence. Must be the journalist in me.

As far as my quest to find the answer to my question, do designers make games hoping to conjur a certain reaction or emotion from their players, I didn't find any reliable information. My educated guess is that the answer is YES, or why would their be schools for and books on video game design? Design isn't simply about the graphics, it's about the story, and the actual gameplay as well-- the whole game environment. If designers didn't have an idea in their head of what they wanted players to take from their games, there really wouldn't be much variation in games. They would be similar because designers would come to expect a set reaction from their players, be it suspense or satisfaction from beating what would be considered a tough game. If this were the case, games would become redundant and mundane. Game designers must strive for different reactions from gamers or else there would be no real market for games in my opinion. Most people play games when they are bored, as Koster mentioned several times in his book. If gamers had the same reaction to every game, the act of gaming would be pointless. Have I made my point?

I still would like to know how designers come up with game concepts and ideas, what is the order of steps in creating a game? Is it environment first, or the storyline? Is desired gamer reaction most important to achieve, or are tricky missions the key to a best selling game? If anybody found anything interesting on how video game designers come up with game concepts, throw a title or link my way.

For New Media Projects, we are reading A Theory of Fun for Game Design by Raplh Koster. As I mentioned in class, I was not able to pick up a copy from the bookstore until about half an hour prior to when class began on Thursday. Luckily, I was able to feverishly read through about 24 pages before our discussion to put me in the right mind-set. Having now finished up to chapter 8, I am glad that I hadn't read much before class because I was able to reflect on our discussion as I was reading.

I feel much of what I read touched on what I subconsiously knew from being a sem-avid gamer myself. This book brought out the intellectual side of gaming for me so much so that when I play games now, I'm not going to feel like I'm wasting time (as much, haha).

I felt one of his basic theories in the first seven chapters was that gaming is a learning tool suitable for all ages, even though we tend to think of games in a childish light. Koster does an excellent job of explaining how gaming skills actually improve our everyday skills in the real world. I began to title this entry "Koster and His Patterns." I decided against that, but it's still a topic prominent in the reading. He writes about the brain and how it recognizes and processes patterns constantly, evening when we're not playing games. All games are based on a pattern (some oubviously more than others) and by playing games we are training our brain to see and master patterns. The act of playing games can only help us. We master the patterns of games more quickly than, say, driving, because it's a fun and harmless way of learning.

This point made me think back to our class discussion about games and their effect on children. I now fully believe it is not the act of gaming that hurt children at all, if that was ever a question. Violent content could be the only real harm; blood spattering on a screen is not exactly what I feel 11 year olds should be seeing.

My brother's preschool teacher had some words with my mother about his frequent playing. My mother simply never saw the harm in video games. She felt if she had done her job as a mother, he wouldn't have the desire to go shoot a person simply because he liked to play shooting games.

He's probably one of the best gamers I know. As I mentioned in class, he can play N64 better with his toes than most people can with their fingers. He's mastered games at any console you could think of, and PC as well. As of late, we beat Mortal Kombat Shaolin Monks in it's entirety in 20 hours of game play. We became the Don of NYC on The Godfather in 16 hours (all businesses extorted). Man, we are dorks.

My brother also had a toy chest full of swords, light-sabers, any plastic object of impalement one could think of. He's played with every toy and game that might be considered risque for a child.

He's now a sophmore in highschool, playing on the Varsity football team, had a 21 in 7 record last year in wrestling (his first year), and makes straight A's. Let the video games reign!

As far as Koster's book is concerned, I really enjoy it. I think it's a great choice for this class because you can gain a lot from it if you love to play games, or if you don't even know where the X button is on a PlaystationII controller.