Ironically I saw a mention of this game first when I saw Quad post one of its things to his wall. Then I read this article and realized it was Ian Bogost’s game, which in retrospect makes everything make a whole lot more sense.
Video Games and Learning.
Not a bad video. But I admit… I didn’t know “Sephiroth” was a reference at all. O.o
Read this piece over at Kotaku and was, in a word, appalled. Instead Of Laughing At “Casual” Gamers, Try Helping Them! As if the title wasn’t insulting enough, the author has to write things like this:
If you know someone hooked on Farmville, someone you previously thought could or would not play video games, have a chat with them! Ask them what they like about it, why they keep playing, what compels them to log in day in, day out and…water a plant. What they tell you could reveal someone that’s in dire need of an introduction to something a little deeper, like the Football Manager series. Or Animal Crossing. Or maybe ease them in with The Sims. And from there, who knows where they could end up.
I guess I shouldn’t be too strident. Before I studied the mechanics and the market, maybe I would have said the same things. As it is, I’ve had my definition of a “good game” tried and tested and warped more times than I can count in the past year.
Don’t get me wrong, I still think the vast majority of Facebook games are not genuinely engaging. And I think there are a lot of tactics Facebook game developers should be using to craft more meaningful experiences, once they finish running their various cash cows into the ground. But I think it’s a horrible thing to say that Facebook game players, casual or not, are in “need” of something better.
The author also doesn’t seem to realize the importance of casual games’ simplified mechanics and reduced time commitment (per session). Some people genuinely don’t have the time or energy (or… money) to dig into a heavier game with leveling-questing-crafting-equipment-gathering-auctioning-dungeoncrawling-raiding-looting. And having a game that gives you the emergent narrative you’re seeking without all the excess time sink is going to be a godsend for these players.
Hell, these days I frequently have a hard time reading a 800 page novel over a short story anthology, because I don’t feel like investing the energy to understand an epic over a vignette.
The story in a nutshell:
Girl gives talk. (Kellee Santiago, of thatgamescompany, of USC IMD no less.)
Boy responds to talk, negatively. (Roger Ebert. You know, the film dude.)
The worlds of video game discussion explode in controversy.
Me, I quite like Penny Arcade’s stance, crude as it is.
But I must admit there must be something deeper going on, especially considering the fact that Ebert actually reviewed a video game for WIRED back in 1994… and gave it a fairly positive review.
Huh. >_>
If you let a player level up their character, Eskil told me, “then people start caring about themselves.” But if you have them build something for the community then you have something that makes people respect you and from which everyone benefits.
—
“Love” Is The Game That Earns You Respect.
Nothing like finding an article and a game that ties into your thesis in such a way that it needs to be mentioned as a prior art example… THE DAY BEFORE YOUR DEFENSE.
Also annoying that someone else is releasing a game that primes on this concept before me, but oh well. >_>
Moderately sized article. I was less interested in the actual predictions than I was about the efficient summation of what’s been happening.
Simplified examples, but general idea is worth keeping in mind.
It doesn’t strike me as ethical to train a player to want to do something that they wouldn’t want to do in the absence of an external reward.
One particular example that always sticks with me is how closely the reward system of item drops in most modern roguelike games closely mirrors psychological research on the most effective methods to encourage repeated human (and animal) behaviour. By which I mean they could train mice to hit buttons over and over again by rewarding them in a certain way for this behaviour, even though the mouse would never normally perform that action.
[Schnell] rightly points out that actual game designers have the power and skill to make sure the future external reward systems that will permeate our lives will actually improve our lives also. These systems could cause us to read more and better books, to brush our teeth as much as we should, and so on. Yes, that could happen. DanC of lostgarden.com made that exact point as well, and we’ve already seen the benefits of it in exercise games like Wii Fit.
I’m with Schell every step of the way in his lecture, except for that last bit though. While it’s true that skilled designers could use all this for good once sensors and points take over our real lives, it seems almost certain that they generally won’t. If Facebook is any indication, they will simply create the most effective mental viruses that drive whatever commercial behavior they want, with little regard to the victims (consumers).
Powered by the I Could Live In Hope Tumblr theme by Nonimage.
