Course

The Loofa Mafia is:
Shon-Ting Fu
Tomer Mor-Barak
Lara Durant
Daniel Andersen
Peter Van Dyke

I. High Concept

The Mango Club is the cool place to be. You can find most of the cool people there. At the Mango Club you can just chill and do whatever and totally relax. "Take it easy" is the Mango Club motto, for example, that's how laid back it is there. Show up if you want to have a good time. Another good reason to show up is if you want to hang out with friends.

Cold War Confusion
Team Deviants

◙ High Concept:

It is the height of the Cold War, set in a secret government facility. Security has been breached by an unknown assailant, and the building is under lockdown. Four agents are trapped inside and need to override the base’s self-destruct sequence. They will need to work together – but could one of them betray the others to save his own skin?

Click here to download a copy of my Powerpoint from today's presentation in 309.

Here is the Loofa Mafia's original powerpoint.

And here is our revised powerpoint.

The Game Deveopers Conference has added a game modification category to its Independent Game Festival. For more information for how to enter, see:
http://www.igf.com/mod_overview.htm

Project proposal for Team Deviants. Enjoy!

For those of you in business and marketing, I thought this would be particularly interesting.

http://news.com.com/Wells+Fargo+launches+game+inside+Second+Life/2100-1043_3-5868030.html

Second Life
Upon first impression, Second Life seems like the perfect play world. It has several fun things to do, manipulating objects, creating objects, and interacting with others. And it just so happens that the vast possibilities when it comes to item creation and interaction come together to create a strong level of emergence. The description of the game alone satisfies the definition of emergence. As the writing by Salen and Zimmerman include, and what is a perfect definition of second life "A modest number of rules appleid again and again to a limited collection of objects leads to variety, novelty, and surprise..." I think a perfect example of this in Second Life is the limited rules of...

Me and my new friend with his snazzy gear

Second Life, the game that can easily be described as a “second life,” that’s for sure.
Without a doubt, Second Life is certainly one of the most creative and emergent environments in the market. Noticed the word “environment” instead of the word “game” that is mentioned, that is because of the impression that Second Life has given me is a nearly complete player created content. The game world itself simply offers the background and space for the players to extend and create. I find this not only interesting, but a prelude of the future digital systems.

I will address three emergent game plays that I have experienced, player avatar, player created objects, and the world of second life overall.

Avatars have become an important element in the online community that addresses the player identity as well as connecting the play with the character. In Second life, the customization goes quite a distance allowing dramatic differences and emergent characters. This includes the pokemon character that I met while shopping at Dwellget.

As mentioned, Second Life is a collection of player created content, in which the buildings, transportation, terrain, and objects are all part of the emergent creation. I have came across, let’s say, many “unexpected” objects, from take home dolls

to multifunctional weaponry
.
This provides the players to express their passion and interest in a creative environment where it can be shared and recognized, which is pretty awesome.

This is a picture of me playing slots at a player created casino, burned some time there... and L$.


Second Life, the world itself is undefined, divided simply by land, space, property(user created content). As Salen and Zimmerman mentioned in the article “Rules of Play”, this is part of creating a complex system that drives meaningful play experience. The way I see it, is that Second Life is a second world in development, in other words, the beginning of a civilization. As a starter in Second Life, I feel that the world is slightly choatic, not well organized and structured as a whole. WorldMap Various parts of the player content is well displayed and introduced, however, there is a wide range of objects and land that is not formalized to fit in the overall picture. Not that this is a bad thing, it is simply the start of a revolution in the realm of player created world content and emergent game play.

The second life world is a very diverse one, and there are a couple of things that stood out to me as I traveled around. The first was a complete lack of meaningful play within the gameworld. This change my opinion of second life from “game” to “world,” and I believe that once this happens one can more accurately judge the system itself...

One aspect of emergence that I noticed immediately when I started playing was that the character goals and my goals are the same. The game provides no story or goals, only the structure for players to make their own. For my play style, there is no overarching story, just the story I make through the look of my character and what I want to do with him. I did very little on the line of exploration and chatting, one of the greatest and most unique aspects of the game, yet I still managed to play for many hours. What compelled me for so long, was the look of my character. I went through a few different outfits, a few different faces, a few different hairstyles, and at no point was I bored or not enjoying myself.

Second Life is one of the most open ended games I have ever seen. Unlike games, it does not contain any fundamental and universal game mechanics. There is no clear goal in Second Life either. From some aspect, Second Life is a sand box, or an empty island where people meet and try to figure out some thing to do. Of course the first reaction most people want to do is game.

Emergent is a word used to describe a phenomenon that simple rules creates complex and unpredictable result. It is one of those words everybody is after in the game design world. However emergent is not the elixir for video game when player is not sure what to do.

Like There.com is a virtual cocktail party, Second Life is not a game either. To me, it is an online authorization environment where users use Second Life to create their own properties and trade to each other.

In video game, emergent is very precious due to all the established rules and constrains for the world. So when people still can do lots of things out of their expectation, they will feel like they just found a treasure and fun. However, in Second Life most of the emergent events are there because there was nothing there. As a player I don’t appreciate the total open world, it is not the kind of emergent I want. I felt lost, both the sense of control and the sense of value. Although as a human I can adapt, but I would rather play something else, that is simpler to adapt.

Is Second Life emergent? Yes, you can never predict what people will make in that world. Is it fun? Not being a part of the creator in that world, I’ll say “No~~”. I would rather go to play tennis than standing on the field waiting people to come up some thing similar to ping pong……

I wonder if the creators of Second Life anticipated that the online virtual world they created would turn into a fun-house mirror representation of reality. The game world most likely resembles how Earth would be if everyone had amorphous identities with the ability to fly, teleport, and instantly create objects from thin air. There are familiar representations from our experience – theme parks, casinos, malls – but the interesting thing is how they dominate the landscape, and how alien they feel, as if the Internet were turned into a three-dimensional space and unleashed upon us all.

Then there are the Furries.

Second life is by far the most user influenced game that I have played as of yet. It is essentially an area ripe for user based input. One of the most fundamental defining feature of a game is its architecture. As Second Life is almost entirely built by the players themselves, there is a lot to be seen.

Second Life is by far the most emergence-heavy MMORPG I have ever played. Through my brief explorations into the world, I have discovered a richness and variety of areas and places that games like World of Warcraft and City of Heroes can only dream about.

As Salen and Zimmerman point out, almost all games are complex and emergent. But what happens when a game allows the players to create their own content, make their own rules, and overall become designers themselves? What arises is emergence in an emergent game, which is the case in Second Life (SL). Not only is the game emergent in its surface qualities, such as character design, but while playing the game, the player encounters user created content to play a game in a game.

Here are some good resources for developing and scripting in Second Life.

Dark Age of Camelot, an MMORPG, came out around the same era as EverQuest. Unlike EverQuest, however, DAoC focuses more on the player versus player, more in depth, realm versus realm (faction based war) aspect. For those whom are interested in playing a team oriented PvP MMO, this would be a good one to start with. Coming back to the subject, though, DAoC introduced a great breakthrough of user customization during its time. In specific, player crafting and personal housing are the two categories that I will go in depth regarding its game play value as well as the social dynamics (player types) associated with them.

Player crafting in DAoC is a very specialization and dedication based mechanic. There are weapon, armor, tailor, leather crafters as well as alchemists, enchanters in which they all have to work with each other to produce the most effective product. The crafting process involves a selection of the equipment type, looks as well as a quality of the according item. Essentially, legendary level crafters as a team with the proper knowledge can create customized end game equipment just like equipment obtainable from raid bosses. This introduces a level of personal touch to the game play that allows a more immersive and engaging experience. As an example, a legendary crafter can become very famous throughout the world and gets credited for his creations.

Personal housing is another important customization breakthrough that has not been introduced in other MMORPGs for a long time. DAoC offers a housing system where players can purchase lots and build houses of their creation based on the build in engine. A vast variety of houses and interior/exterior decorations for players to create the house that they are proud of and can show to their in game folks. Moreover, housing includes setting up personal merchants and NPCs that creates the immersive player built community within the context of the game world.

Like many other games in general, but MMORPG in specific, players are categorized into four different types as Richard Bartle describes in his article, which are the achievers, explores, socialisers and killers. In DAoC, these player types are each distinctively represented in its social dynamic environment.

Achievers in this case would represent gamers that not only reach the level cap, but doing raid group events to obtain artifact level equipment. These artifacts can then be leveled up and develop into a more effective item that has abilities associated with them. Achievers takes a great amount of devotion as well as playing a good leadership role to overcome the challenging encounters. Ultimately, an achiever always has a personal house that stores a great collection of trophies and rewards for the rest of the players to look up to.

Explorers are brought in a dynamically themed based world that reveals a great variety of environments to be amused and discover. Examples such as the ancient underwater cities and temples, the pyramids of ancient Egypt and more in addition to the three realms (factions), each having their own entirely unique world.

Socialisers are often a mix of crafters and explorers in DAoC. A lot of the game play in DAoC as a socialiser comes from talking and advertising as a crafter in either cities or their personal houses. Or traveling around the game world with groups to explore the edge of the worlds. Both crafters and explorers at the end enjoy displaying their discovery or creations in their personal houses. It just so happens to be one of the greatest ways to save and show your work.

Killers, last of all, would make the soldiers of each of the three realms. PvP in DAoC is a war the three realms, Albion, Hiberia and Midgard opposing each other to conquer more of one another’s land (pvp zones). DAoC offers killer type players to engage in team based pvp action that involves field battles, sieges, and assassinations. The overall experience is very much like being a knight or a commander to help defend and expand your country.

In conclusion, Dark Age of Camelot has a very deep meaning and positive play experience for me. The customization implementations created a more user based community and attracted a higher maturity level of players. Even though the subscription based community was not ever like other popular MMOs such as World of Warcraft, Dark Age of Camelot is still an innovative game for future game designers such as myself to look upon.

First of all, my visit to Whyville was a very unique experience. That place is quirky and very weird. But I think that has to do with the target audience being about ten years younger than I am.

Another interesting thing that I discovered was while the population meter read a steady 1.35 million people, I only ran into someone else once outside of the checker tables. It’s too bad too because I wanted to play an interactive 8 or 10 person game that looked like a lot of fun.

For this weeks assignment, I decided to look at the dynamic of player types and how they apply to Dark Age of Camelot. From my perspective, this game is great for all the player types in different ways. As an explorer, you have three completely different factions that each have a different continent to explore. The reward of exploration is to see some pretty beautiful terrain and interesting themes based on the faction. Explore the Norse themed continent and you see unique monsters found in Norse mythology and enemy factions that are based on real factions found in the Norse time period. The terrain itself varies from desert, to lakeside, to mystical looking forest. And best of all, there are quests that send you through the vast continent to see some of these wonderful sites and gain experience or items. The expansion packs even send you through deep and dark catacombs or even to Atlantis. DAOC is an amazing environment for an explorer.

For this week, I decided to pay Disney's Toon Town a visit. Before this, I had heard once that Disney had planned on making a MMORPG type of world. The only thing I knew before signing up was that it'd likely avoid pie throwing. Turns out this was, indeed, the case.

For this assignment I was drawn to the game that was the easiest to get started at. After checking out a few web sites I found myself playing sissy fight. Believe it or not, winning at this game requires employing the best strategy. Another aspect of this game that I liked was that communication with the other players was crucial to winning. Even if you have a great idea, without convincing the other players to go along with it (in the beginning) you cannot guarantee victory. As I played this game, I noticed a few distinct play methods. Because of the limited strategies of the game, its relatively easily to discern a players play style...

In trying to analyze the social dynamics of Sissy Fight through the lens of Bartle types, one runs into a fundamental problem – Sissy Fight is not really a MMO/MUD by most definitions of the term, mostly because it lacks several critical features that allow players to interact with the world and each other, thus limiting possibilities for players to differentiate themselves from one another.

If one were to look at Sissy Fight in MMO “virtual-world” terms, it would seem to be an anomic wasteland of brigands, where Killing is the only viable option available to players.

In Sissy Fight players can interact with each other two main ways: by which actions they take during the game and by and chatting with one another. Different player types tend to gravitate towards one type of interaction or another.

Now, being an avid Disney fan, I was extremely excited when I realized what Toon Town was: you play as a toon in Mickey’s Toon Town and run around, defeating evil cogs that are trying to bring it down. The premise is about what I would expect from a game aimed at a younger audience, but I was disappointed with the game overall. Now, one can argue that this was because it was a child’s game, and that is why I didn’t like it, but I believe that the flaws with it are much deeper. In fact, there are several children’s games that I love. However, my biggest complaint is in the world design because of the lack of real multiplayer aspects of socialization.

For the MMORPG, I played Lineage 2. For Lineage 2, it is clear that my player type is that of the achiever. The only reason I play the game is to have a powerful character. I absolutely enjoy making my character powerful as quickly as I can. The specific server I am on makes it even easier to achieve since Experience and money are dropped at 25X and 35X retail rates respectively. I also marvel at the new and high end equipment that my achievement allows me to buy.

I chose to play the very popular World of Warcraft and the much lesser known Medievia. I can’t speak in great detail about World of Warcraft, as it’s not a game I’ve spent months playing. Every now and then I’ll try out an MMO at a friend’s house, be it World of Warcraft, EQ, City of Heroes, etc. I enjoy trying them, but a lack of time and the willingness to commit to a monthly fee drive me away from buying them myself.

For many years, I didn’t like the FPS genre. Not only did I live on a dial-up connection until college (which hardly supported networked FPS play), but I wasn’t a skilled twitch gamer either. Though I’d tried an occasional FPS at a friend’s house, I owned none and found the style of game play to be very frustrating. Without the skills to play the genre well, and hating the panicked feeling of anxiety enough not to want to learn, I chose to ignore the genre for the most part. Lacking both the entertainment and social motivations to explore the realm of FPS games, I’d always preferred and turned to more story-driven ‘intellectual’ games – and for that matter, I still do. Yet I’ve grown to appreciate the FPS in a social setting.

A few really good points were brought up Assignment 4 that I’d like to call to everyone’s attention.

Oscar probably hit on it most astutely in noting that there are a couple of players types Bartle doesn’t cover. Oscar points out the group of Collectors (people who just like to collect stuff for the sake of collection). Also, there seem to be two kinds of Explorers emerging…some of you pointed out that you didn’t exactly fit his definition, which is more of a cartographer or someone who analyzes the property of the world, as opposed to someone who is more interested in sightseeing and discovering new places. Another category that came up and which we discussed at length on Monday is the Helper type. Lara and others have also made comments that suggest we may want to think about different categories of Socializers-the ones who, who like Shon, think of this in terms of status, respect, loyalty, etc, and those who, as Lara puts it “just want to hang out.” These are very distinct social styles. She also makes an excellent point supported by others that many games tend to favor a certain play style, and that it’s better if the design weights each play style equally.

Let’s think about possibly breaking down Bartle’s definitions into more refined sub-sets, but I think in particular looking at a range of Socializer types would be particularly useful as you move forward on your game designs.

I remember almost two years ago when I first started reading about World of Warcraft. Of course I applied for the Closed Beta, did the Stress Test and eventually playerd the Open Beta as well. Due to previous experience playing Everquest, I had an idea of how MMOs worked. Applying this experience to World of Warcraft, it was easy to see what Blizzard achieved where Sony had come short. And what it comes down to is the world setting and how it relates to player type on a server.

So it was no surprise to me when World of Warcraft passed the 1 million subscriber mark. Then 2 million. Now 4 million. There is a reason for this.

The Lineage Franchise is made in Korea. Consequently, the gaming content is primarily aimed towards the “games-are-sports” market in Korea. Both Lineage I & II are considered as very hardcore MMOG, and that is because the game involves a significant time investment as well as a conflict-heavy originated game world. In specific, to reach the level cap in lineage 2 takes somewhere between 4000 and 6000 hours of game play. This would be considered as the “Hard fun” element of lineage 2, as Nicole Lazzaro described it.

In addition to that leveling cap, Lineage 2 is a massive conflict-based (player vs. player) game. In which the game mechanics motivates players to split into different clans and alliances that are ultimately opposing each other to achieve domination of some degree in the game world. By domination, the world consists of several different castles, along with associated towns that are controlled by these castles. Player formed clans and alliances are, at a given point, a chance to siege (challenge) other clans or NPC controlled castles. Castle owners at the end are not only famous for their proven strength, but also able to gain access to high end content as well as collecting taxes from the associated town merchants. This is a direct reflection of “The People Factor” that Nicole Lazzaro described, as part of the experience in competition, teamwork, and the opportunity for social bonding while playing with the other players.

Speaking of player vs. player content, there is another important hard core element in Lineage 2, which is the risk, involved in these confliction-based player interactions. The game world itself is an open PvP field, except for towns. Thus, any player can attack or attempt to kill another player at almost any given point. Death in Lineage 2 not only penalties your leveling experience, but also includes the chance of dropping any equipment or item on that according character. This element of risk involved in the game gives players including myself the intensive “heartbeating” effect, and is rarely found on the other MMOGs up to date.

Even in a hard core game like Lineage 2, there is still a consistent break down of player types, which are the achievers, explorers, socialisers and killers. Although with the given game mechanic that lineage 2 has to offer, the killers are more easily stood out compare to other player versus player MMOs. Achievers, in this case would certainly try to reach the level cap while gaining the best equipment in the game. Killers are usually derived from achievers when they get bored or seeking for a chance to show their superior power. Explorers and Socialisers in Lineage 2 do a pretty good job staying together, the game engine and development offers a large world with beautiful graphics and a stunning environment. Allowing more casual players to achieve the element of “Easy Fun” –by Nicole Lazzaro

I play on a faster pacing private server along with some friends. Allowing me to skip through the hard fun leveling part of the game and enjoy the end game content and player vs. player part of the game more quickly. The reason why I enjoy playing Lineage 2 is that it offers me the tension, risk, and the “heartbeating” effect along with them. It is almost too frustrating sometimes when I am in a disadvantaged position, however, facing these frustrations became the motivation for me to overcome the challenge and strengthen my mental power.

View image
-This is a picture of me attacking a group of 7 people, victory, and understanding that most players can't react fast enough to the fast paced and "heartbeating" PvP content.

For this week, I decided to compare the games EverQuest and Medievia. To begin with, I have a small history with both of these games, Medievia less so than EverQuest. I played EverQuest for the first time around 3 years ago. My very first character was a dark elf magician named Jibrienne. In Medievia, I played a thief by the name of Saeren. When reading through the article "Players who suit MUDs" as well as "Why We Play", I found that the player type I related the most to is the Explorer player type.

World of Warcraft has done an excellent job of creating a world in which I enjoy spending time. Between professions, quests, instances, guilds, participation in the economy, and regular socializing, it takes on many roles and satisfies many of your desires. If you consider each play style, each will find world of warcraft rewarding. This varies greatly from my play in lambdamoo, which satisfied mostly my explorer playing style, which was the only to emerge within that kind of gameplay. World of Warcraft on the other hand has a differant way of satisfying each play style.

Achiever Style - World of Warcraft offers nearly unlimited goals for the achieving player to accomplish, and this is probably my most common play style. I have never played a game with as many possible goals as world of warcraft. There are a dozen sources of endless goals, some examples are, leveling a character to the maximum level, leveling a level of each class to the maximum level, level a character of each class of each skill tree to the maximum level.. and so on. There are a variety of in game professions to become proficient at, and you have a respect rating within each town that affects how you are treated and what items you can access. In addition to traditional leveling, one could aim to complete every possible quest, although that might be more of an explorers liking. In my play as an achiever I really enjoy the variety of options for accomplishing things...

For this week’s assignment, we were asked to play a MMORPG and a MUD; I chose to play City of Heroes and SlothMUDIII respectively. I never really thought about how I play games, but I must say that I played the two games completely differently even though the concepts seem to be similar: both are set in a massive world where you kill things for experience and interact with other players.

This week’s reading for CTIN 482 designing online multiplayer game environments is an interesting one. It uses MUD as a test bed to analyze the player type and social dynamics in the online games. Although this article is done years ago, it still applies to today's online game, especially MMO game.

In the article, it divides players into four stereotypes on 2 dimension map:

The four types are pretty self-explanatory. However, it is really hard to say some one like myself to be one of the stereotypes. Most of us are some where on the graph. But more important, our location on the graph will change based on the game experience.

I’ll use World of Warcraft as an example:

The first time I played this game, I was very curious about this immense game world. How do I play this game? What will happen if I do this? What does it look like behind that little hill? During this period, I’m somewhere between the achiever and explorer.

After I hit level 10 I realized that I can’t get to see the entire picture in one day. So I went bed and planed to level up little by little. Between level 10 to level 30, I was a pure achiever, finished all the quests and leveled up my crafting skills.

At level 30 I began to feel bored with the repetitive grinding and questing. The nice thing about the design of World of Warcraft is every time you feel bored about questing alone there will be a group quest. The game forces people gather together to deal with the quest. And I started making friends list of the people that I trust. Very soon, the game play experience migrates to a socialiser.

Although there were some PVP happening, I was not very into killing until level 40. Plus all the battlegrounds Blizzard added in recently, players who are into killing can enjoy it at any level.

When I reached 60 as the current level cap, I started to manage my game flow, shuffle between the four modes to keep myself motivated. The game itself offers plenty of content for all these four stereotypes, and keeps adding new content, which is one of the reason that keeps me playing it after two years.

A good online game can satisfy players’ needs in all these roles.

This week I’ve been playing City of Heroes. I also tried out Revenge of the Jedi, a MUD set in the Star Wars universe. In each of them I experienced multiple play styles, and my experience with each of the games varied depending how I chose to play, though in very different ways.

For this assignment, I played both City of Heroes (www.cityofheroes.com) and the MUD Revenge of the Jedi (http://jedi.betterbox.net/). In both games, I primarily grouped with Michael Wolfe, who is also taking CTIN 482.

City of Heroes just recently released a new large content update, Issue 5, which introduced new areas, character classes, and abilities; seeing as I already had an account, and had just received a Labor Day promotional code so that Michael could make a 14-day trial account, we decided to play this MMORPG. If one were to adhere strictly to Bartle’s four player types, City of Heroes is a game designed primarily for achievers, and since nominally I would be considered an achiever, I feel quite comfortable with it.

Day of Defeat is a FPS game that has its background set in World War II. Like all other half life mods, DoD is also a game where you move around and gun down your opponent. You play a soldier on either axis or allies in different battlefields (maps). The background settings of the game attract world war fan players like me, with the addition of its team based and realistic combat system, leads me to my flow experience in DoD.

The Flow chart from the reading “The Conditions of Flow” demonstrates that the flow experience requires a balanced amount of player skills and challenge throughout the game play. Day of Defeat, in my opinion, extended the experience of realism compare to the most played FPS, Counter Strike. The breathing, jumping and realistic movements give me a more engaging experience as I am able to relate myself to the character. Because of those realistic, moreover, restricted conditions, it requires more caution and teamwork. This is where the individual ability meets the challenge. The two opposite sides often change their strategies throughout the course of a battle, and those team wide strategic changes bring out the dynamic game play experience (flow).

DoD requires more team cooperation to complete the winning conditions. That, allows me to engage and position myself as the actual character in game. And through realistic character movements and damage calculations, my flow experience with DoD can last for hours during each session.

I have limited experience with first person shooters. That being said, the game that I decided to dig up was an old one that I have not played for several years. That game hails by the name of Soldier of Fortune. My high school friend Jennifer introduced me to this awhile back. As it was multiplayer, we were able to play together. We used to challenge each other to one-on-one matches, one of us hosting the games. This was a nice feature of the game as we didn't have to immediately involve ourselves with the other Soldier of Fortune populus.

DiPaola's "A Social Metaphor-based 3D Virtual Environment" brings up some interesting points in regards to social interaction and the ways that games can help fascilitate this. For DiPaola, the main goal of any multi-player game seems to be the social interaction first, all else second. Traveler has been built for this exact purpose. From what I've gathered about Traveler, it appears to have limited in-game entertainment except that which has been player created or which can be gained from interacting with other players. This rings true from my general experience with most browser based games.

Lambda MOO and playing games face-to-face is somewhat similar. Although there are some minor differences, such as Lambda MOO not officially qualifying for the title of "game", there are also a large number of similar problems that must be addressed. For one thing, both in real life and in the MOO requires time. Both are forms of entertainment, both can be somewhat addicting. In each of them, there are have different levels of experience seperating newbies and older players. Generally speaking, people who are new at a game will have different views than someone who might play everyday. There also exist some ways to welcome these new people into the game. There are also lists of rules and conduct for both types. Social interaction and the written word play a large part in both. The main differences are the surroundings and the way through which you communicate with others.

Sometimes, when playing Battlefield 2, it’s just really annoying. You’ll spawn, and die almost immediately from an artillery strike you had no idea was coming, and try to spawn somewhere else to defend your flag only to find that 1 second before you can spawn your team loses control of that point, so you have to spawn on the other side of the map and take 3 minutes to get to the field of battle, only to get blown up by that artillery again. That happens.

But sometimes, it’s just really good. And I don’t just mean when I do well.

To start, I'd like to say that I thought the readings for today were excellent. I could immediately understand the concept of flow after glancing at the graph of difficulty/skill. And knowing these readings are so that we can refer to flow in first person shooters, I could recall many situations in which I experienced flow in such games. Before I discuss my flow-conscious gameplay, I would like to mention a few of the situations the readings made me think of. As far as first person shooters go, Doom and Wolfenstein were great, but the difficulty levels were relatively linear, not allowing for long term flow for me. Not until Goldeneye for Nintendo 64 do I remember experiencing flow in a first person shooter. This is true partially for the single player experience, because of the depth of game play, but especially for the multiplayer game. During my junior high days Goldeneye ruled the video game world, and the best part of all was having a couple of friends over for some four player Goldeneye. Since it was such a popular game, all players were experienced in it, even if they didnt own the game or system, and the challenge was always there and strong. In my recent ventures into the world of counter-strike, I have experienced many moments that reminded me of those happy days of my youth.

After playing YoHoHo! Puzzle Pirates, the term “corporate pirate” acquires an entirely new meaning, as the game mechanics and social dynamics of this virtual world seem to replicate the workings of high-stakes corporate finance.

I’ve played many different types of games, and still do. Of these games, I find it on average most difficult to achieve flow in first-person-shooters. Generally I will enjoy turn-based or strategy-based games more than shoot-‘em-ups. Counterstrike, however, is a glaring exception.

There are several more minimal reasons for this within the context of Counterstrike, namely the ebb and flow of the round-to-round team-based tactics and the ability to take a break after every round in which you’re killed to cool down. The reason that I believe this game captures my interest so effectively is the dynamic challenges presented within the gameplay. Within this broad heading there are several aspects of Counterstrike that have an effect: maps, weapons, and most importantly, players.

As I wasn’t able to play the board games in class, I’ll rely on my recollection of previous board game experiences in relating how their social dynamics compare to the mediated online experience of LambdaMOO.

An interesting characteristic of good board games are their mutability as a result of their rules really being defined by a shared agreement between the players. LambdaMOO, although constructed entirely on computer networks, shows evidence of being able to serve the same functions but with persistent effects.

When I see this assignment I felt very exciting because my thesis is about implementing mechanics to help more player get into flow in the game. I've read Mihaly Czicksentmihayi's book last spring. And pretty familiar about flow theory and all that.

So I want to talk about Battle Field 2 again which I gave a game deconstruction presentation before. To make this short. I'll give out my version of most important three elements in flow experience instead of the eight in Dr. Czicksentmihayi's book:

1) The player must have the active attitude to enter the flow. If he is sensitive about him being in flow or not, it will not reach him. If he look at games with negative bias, it probably won't catch his flow either.
2) The player has to be totally involved in his action so that he loses track of time and even space.
3) The player should feel in the control, a feeling makes you believe you are on the right track towards the positive goal in your mind

So let's look at Battlefield 2 game play experience among us:

I believe most of us can reach flow in this game especially when we played it before we were assigned this assignments. Although some people may argue, I believe I didn't realize the same flow I had before due to the negative entropy of being conscious about whether am I in the flow or not, itself broke the fundamental rule of total involvement. Yet I reached flow here and there during the player, during those moments I totally forgot about the assignment but concentrated on the game play.

Battlefield 2 is a very mature and polished game. The "polished" here means the gaming experience is not too hard or too easy. It's fair and the player won't complain about the rules, settings or graphic qualities. They barely have any psychic entropy during the game play. This keeps a player in the flow zone.

In terms of lose track of time and space. Nearly all video game today can do that due to the fact when player start playing video game they concern themselves inside the game world. And most video games have fairly enough cognitive loads. In Battlefield 2, player has to pay fully attention to the environment, other players, vehicles, game interfaces, voice and sound effects. They don't have any other time spare to think about their rent or unfinished homework.

Most people will fall in flow when they are winning in the game, but rarely in a losing team. When a player fights his best but still losing, he will feel out of control, and anxious. The normal positive goal between players is to win the game. That's why most people feel frustrated when they are losing. However if the player set his goal to something else for example, team kill or doing stunt. They will not feel bad at all when their team is losing, and they can still fall in to flow in killing their own teammates or doing crazy stunt.

The fully simulated world in Battlefield 2 supports all kinds of possibilities and free spaces for player to define their own goal which helps a lot in terms of getting people in the flow.

Of all the multiplayer games on the market, Counter-Strike has to be the game that is most likely to cause moments of Flow for me. The way the game is paced makes it inevitable. You spawn in your base with the rest of your team. You all move out as a group and tension builds as you approach the opposing team. You know that you can only take 2 or 3 bullets before dieing so you focus your hands and eyes for the coming battle. The first enemy comes into view. All hell breaks loose as you attempt to be the first one to pull the trigger while both allies and enemies try to do the same. During these moments, nothing else matters but the game. You try to aim for the head and hope that you do not run out of bullets. You glance at the radar to see how the rest of your team is doing while pushing forward or falling back accordingly. In an instant, it can be over and you could be dead wondering how your opponent managed to outshoot you. At this point, all tension washes out of your body as you watch the rest of the round unfold and soon you will find yourself starting the cycle again.

Now, I must admit that FPS’s are my favorite genre of videogames. I can literally spend hours lost in just about any one, and I will enjoy every minute of it. Now, that is not to say that I do not distinguish between different FPS’s nor that I do not have my favorite ones. Instead, it is easy for me to find flow in a FPS upon first trying it. After playing it for a long time though, only a few great ones keep my full attention. That is why I chose to play Battlefield 1942 for this assignment because it is a game that I have been playing for years, and I still find perfect flow in it with great player interaction.

I experienced flow frequently while playing Battlefield 2. One of the biggest tools the game uses to promote flow is the inclusion of a wide variety of vehicles in the game. These serve two purposes. First, they make it easier to travel across the maps and between flags, which cuts down on having to trudge along on foot. The vehicles also vary widely in their speed, weaponry and the skill required to pilot them. For example, a buggy is fast, maneuverable and easy to drive, but is lightly armored and equipped with only a light machine gun. In contrast, an attack helicopter can fly and has a much more powerful armament. However, when neophytes jump in a copter for the first time, they will almost always immediately crash and kill themselves. By making the powerful and fun vehicles more difficult to drive, the game promotes flow by allowing players to set reasonable goals for how improve their skills.

As I have a friend who works for Neopets, I chose that gaming community to examine for this week's assignment. Neopets is, as the name suggests, a game wherein the player creates a virtual pet (or several) to take care of. The player can travel throughout the world of Neopia, exploring various areas and playing dozens of mini-games. These mini-games are typically clones of other games (most card games, old arcade games, more recent popular internet games, etc.), with the dramatic elements changed to match the new world. Upon playing these games, players are rewarded with Neopoints, which can be used to purchase items, strengthen a Neopet, or play other gambling-style games.

Though ostensibly the social metaphor for this game would be caretaking, there really isn't enough of a caretaking game mechanic to be compelling in and of itself. The Neopets are cute, but very difficult to customize beyond the initial choice of race and a few basic colors. To transform a Neopet into a pirate, fairy, merfolk, etc. or - even just to change color - requires very expensive and very rare items. As far as the literal caretaking options, beyond feeding the Neopets and playing with them (mind you, 'play' consists of clicking the "play" command on a toy and merits only a one-line response), there is little ability to interact with the Neopets and even less satifaction to be gained from doing so. Although I do like my pirate Kougra -- and the art is good -- the caretaking aspect would be insufficient to fully hold my attention.

Exploring might be another possible social metaphor. Rather than just provide the ability to create a virtual pet, Neopets allows for player and pet to explore the world of Neopia. The world is divided into various regions -- a desert land reminiscent of ancient Egypt, the stone ages, a space station, a medieval realm, an underwater city, a floating faerie castle in the clouds, etc. With each area, NPCs live and fight, creating plotlines and histories for each area. For the most part, however, players cannot influence or interact with these stories, thus limiting the sense of player agency.

The true social metaphor seems to be collecting. Whether the players chooses to collect rare (limited edition) Neopets, items to showcase, items that increase a Neopets various statistics, game high scores, number of different games played, money, awards, or anything else of similar nature, the intent in clear -- to have the most, the highest, the best. Or, at the very least, to get more out of playing the games than the satifaction of having done so. When players explore the right areas or complete games, they earn points, items and rewards. Though these rewards have little real value outside of the Neopets site, it still documents achievements in a way that other casual game sites (Yahoo! Games and the like) cannot match. Add to that good art and the dramatic elements of a cohesive world along with social opportunities for comparing collections and a trading structure... the site's success is not inexplicable. Neopets is what you make of it, and you may fully eschew most aspects of the game with no real loss. It all depends on which game you want to play.

Gaming face-to-face and gaming in the relative anonymity of the internet provide very different player experiences -- and elicit very different player styles and responses. Board games provide a great method of social interaction, but they cannot provide the same level of escapism and immersion that online gaming allows.

In class, I played both Set and Scrabble. Neither is a game that forces direct social interaction -- no trading, no bargaining, no bluffing. Yet by virtue of shared presence and a common interest (the game), social interaction is inevitable. The rounds of Set we played were somewhat slow and stilted, as all of us were somewhat new to the game. Social interaction was particularly low for that game, as most were frustrated by the somewhat steep learning curve. Other times I've played Set, or seen it played, it has typically been a much more quickly-paced game, with the greatest frustration being a cheery one levelled at the player who just disrupted your next set. Scrabble provided a much more entertaining experience, as the sole rules question was quickly referenced in the rules and gameplay continued. Clever placing of words and unique words were commended by the group, and discussions over acceptable words (could 'damn' be legitimately extended to 'goddamn'?) caused everyone to dissolve into laughter. (As a sidenote: Thinking back on some of the words we created, it would be interesting to see the players create a story out of the words on the board at the end of a game.)

I logged into LambdaMOO and found a very different experience. Silence. I wandered around the area for over an hour, tried talking to the very few people I ran across, but found nearly no social interaction. Tried creating objects and manipulating them, but quickly grew bored there as well. With that in mind, I'll speak generally of MUDS. MUDS rarely have goals in the sense that board games do. MUDS involve player interaction, often the creation of a community with its own history and drama. MUDS allow players to take on any number of personas and try different styles of social interaction with no direct repercussions. In the relative anonymity of online gameplay (anonymous typically to other users, at least), any irredeemable social mistakes can be corrected by a simple change of user name. This allows for a freedom of expression that there is no real parallel to outside of the game. In standard social interactions, there are consequences for behaving badly or strangely. Unless a player has invested a good deal into creating those same types of relationships online, the player would not need to feel bound by those societal expectations online. This freedom can result in good or ill, depending on the player. Either way, the overall social experience in an online setting has the potential to be (and usually is) radically difficult from dealing with people face-to-face.

Assignment 2:
Puzzle Pirates- life of a pirate in the realm of economics

Puzzle Pirates is an introductory to the realm of economics, as a pirate. Just like most massively online games, there is no winning condition. The catch of the game, however, is that player earn in game currency through a huge selection of tasks, in the form of puzzle-like games (Jobs). With experience and currency in game, players can take on more advanced jobs and earn more rewards. Ultimately, the later game play comes down to making good
investments on material gain, shipments, and purchase properties. Just like in real life, learning how to reduce risk by investing your money in various sources and making use of the investments to earn more rewards. In addition, players are able to outfit them selves with weapons and armor creating a customizable avatar representation.

Another key element of the game is the cooperative game mechanic. In most puzzle games, players are given the choice to work together and progress in whatever field more effectively. As a result of cooperative team play, the communications and social aspect of the games kicks in.

My overall experience with the game was quite positive, I saw some really good concepts and implementations of the investment-based economy. The puzzle games were generally eye-catching and intellectual. I did come across a couple players with disturbing arrogant attitudes because they had more experience with the mini games, in which in some cases it was quite pleasurable to watch them fall.

All and all, I think this game has some good educational and social value it. Through puzzle solving, players can develop their thinking and problem solving ability. The investment and economics system allows players to get a head start on understanding what is out there in the real world economy. Lastly, the cooperative team dynamics allows socialization and communication building. I would say that this game is worth while for any players to have a fun time while building up some valuable real world concepts.

The social metaphor in Puzzle Pirates is a school yard at recess. This is because the emphasis is on cooperative and competitive multiplayer games that can be played in teams or in a free for all.

Wall ball, four square, tether ball and hop scotch are all games I remember playing when I was in grade school. Though the game play in each of these is varied, they all have one factor in common. You can’t play them anywhere on the playground. They’re not like Magic: The Gathering or POGS. If you want to play wall ball you have to find a good wall, if four square’s your game you have to head over the court outlined on the asphalt.

Puzzle pirates contains a similar dynamic. The card games, Spades and Hearts, and The Drinking Game can only be played in an Inn. If you want to work in a distillery or a tailoring shop, you have to move your character into those shops to do the job. And players can only practice seafaring skills, like sailing or navigation, while on a ship. The only game that you can play pretty much anywhere is sword fighting, and for that you need at least one other person to challenge to a duel. Consequently the topography of the game world and your location in it has a real effect upon game play. Unfortunately the integrity of this construct is muddled slightly by the ability of any character to teleport anywhere within an island or from a sailing ship to their home island, where many of the shops and inns required for the games are located. But like in Traveler, certain concessions have to be made for the sake of keeping the game fun.

Another game play element that reflects the school yard metaphor is the way chatting is set up. In some MMOs like World of Warcraft a player type a message into their chat box and everyone in their area or zone of game will be able to read it. In Puzzle Pirates, however, your character must be physically close to the people they want to chat with. In fact there’s a little circle around each player and in order to talk to that player, your character must be within that circle. The exception to this is chatting with people whom you have designated your friends. Friends still whisper each other from across the game world.

Playing Scrabble was a very different experience from the other two games. Having played it before, I knew what the rules were ahead of time so I didn’t have to concentrate too much on the game and could interact fully with the other players. I wasn’t terribly concerned with winning the game since the atmosphere was good-natured and fun. Whenever someone would come up with a particularly clever word, the rest of us would be impressed and offer congratulations, or sometimes give mock cries of dismay at having our carefully laid plans thrown off track. All in all it was a light-hearted and relaxing game.

Set definitely a learning experience for me. I played with five or six other people and only one person had played before, so a lot of the game was spent clarifying exactly what a set was or was not. It was challenging, but with the help of other players I eventually began to get the hang of it. Most of my interaction with other players had to do with asking if anyone else could see the sets that I couldn’t. Since I had never played set before I spent much more concentration looking at the game board and less on chatting, but there still was a sense of camaraderie with the other players.

Exploring Lambda MOO was completely different from playing with people face to face. As with Set, I had never played it before, but unlike Set I had to navigate a complete foreign user interface. With the card game, though it was hard to grasp at first, I could at least ask a more experience player to show me what I should do. Unfortunately it was difficult for me to find any players at all in the MOO world. The MOO is massive and when I logged on there were scarcely one hundred other people there. I tried using the in game search engine find people, but the player I came across seemed to be either logged off or “staring off into space”, as the game put it.

Still, it was clear to me from looking around that these players had created a very intricate and expansive universe. Some of the objects were mundane, others were more fantastical. I only wish more people had been there so that I could have a clearer picture of the game’s social dynamic.

Puzzle Pirates was the game that I chose because it was the first one I came across that didn’t require an email address to register or play. Incidentally, it was also the first of the games whose website I visited.

I found the initial environment very engaging for a couple of reasons that I was able to put my finger on: colors and the effect that they had on the environment. All of the colors were bright and strong, and the landscape was interesting and well populated with objects and people.

The metaphor of the game itself is pretty easy to figure out. You take jobs, make money, gain items and status. The game continues. You’re playing a job and in place of work you play little games with or against other players. Essentially this game is designed to resemble in concept the real-world job market. You have to work your way up a ladder, getting better jobs with more pay as you become qualified for them based on experience. You get paid more for working more (not just by a multiplier, you will get paid more for being dedicated). You can play alone or as part of a group (read: corporation/office) of people (this is much easier and more fun and profitable as far as I can tell). The group concept really pushes the community aspect of the game, and in itself makes the game a lot more fun and easier to excel in.

So really, the game itself is fun and relatively simple. However, it requires a commitment of time to actually excel within the game environment (a commitment that I wasn’t willing to put out). As a casual player it’s hard to get a scope of how involved the game play is when you’re more experienced and the games become more difficult and important. You can see people who have all kinds of cool clothes and stuff in their houses, so I think it’s safe to assume that the more you play the more involved you get in your virtual environment, just like any community you're a part of.

Monopoly is definitely one of the first board games that I’ve played. It was one of the games that brought the whole family together on the same table. And believe me, it was not an easy task to get everyone doing the same thing. Monopoly has succeeded because of its easy game mechanic that suits a wide range of age, education and gender. Scrabble, however, attracts a different market being a game that requires a strong verbal background to play the game to its full potential. I was introduced to scrabble a lot later than monopoly, two Christmases ago to be specific. Compare to Monopoly, Scrabble has never drawn my attention due to my poor verbal background, and I would blame that on having a late start on my English verbal practices (started in the states in 10th grade).

The two board games, Monopoly and Scrabble are quite similar in the beginning. While each player in monopoly rolls dices to buy the open board of properties, each player in scrabble plays words on the open board that has less limitations and strategic constraints. Towards half way into both games, however, the social dynamic and the game play changes drastically.

In Monopoly, bargaining and trading becomes a very strategic and important element of the game. Each player is easily put into a situation where the trades are made to balance the monopolies between all the players. At that point, temporary alliances and enemies emerge and the pace of the game increases. Combined with the dice rolls, each turn becomes more risky and the overall energy of the board rises. It is really common that players shout or scream when they land on a hotel during desperate moments =).

In Scrabble, planning and watching for bonuses becomes a huge part of the strategy in the second half of the game play. This is because as the game reaches the edges of the board, the bonuses become more effective and the word choices are limited. While thinking about words that are available to the player himself, another part of the game is to prevent other players obtain the bonuses or convenient letter combinations. The most rewarding part of the game is when a player puts down a very good word, and which other players would usually applause for. As mentioned, the later end of Scrabble is aimed, more than less, for a higher educated group of players.

Lambdamoo, an object oriented environment in which players interact virtually through text. This type of social interaction has a very different take compare to face-to-face interactive games such as Monopoly and Scrabble, most apparent being a “goal” within the context of a game. In both Monopoly and Scrabble, the game has set its parameters and variables for players to achieve a common goal. Within that context, players interact and respond based on the events and interactions in game. Lambdamoo, however, is a virtual community in which there is no final goal that players are trying to achieve but simply interact openly within the environment. To players like me that has only got a chance to scratch the surface of a community based environment, I lacked the experience of the pre-established community. To the existing players in Lambdamoo, I’m no more than a ordinary visitor that left a gentle footprint on the carpet of the moo living room.

In conclusion, Lambdamoo is a community driven environment that opens up an infinite amount of possibilities within the context of the virtual environment. It being goalless allows instances such as the “digital rape” to occur since there is no restricted guideline as to what the players are expecting in this game. Where as, on the other hand, Monopoly and Scrabble these two face-to-face interactive board games have a specific goal and rules that players follow and obey during the play experience. Ultimately, the two face-to-face board games forces live interactions between the players, which is very different than the “player’s choice to interact” digital environment.

For this weeks assignment, I chose to play Puzzle Pirates. As far as social metaphor's go, it felt like playing on a professional sports team where you were always free to choose to play a different position or on a different team . Just like in real life, you were paid to play a position on the team. The better you performed in your position (as part of a crew), the more money you were paid. The better your team as a whole played, the more money everyone would earn.

Monopoly: When we played Monopoly, it was a frantic and fast paced game due to the time constraints. Until most of the properties on the board were purchased, the social dynamic was simple. You rolled the dice and then decided whether you bought the property or not. If you took too long doing either, people would inquire politely ("PASS THE DICE!!!"). After enough of the properties were purchased, vigorous and liberal trading began. If someone had a property you needed for a monopoly, a hasty trade was set up giving both players a monopoly. Little time was available for banter and socializing because of the 20 minute constraint in class.
Normally, Monopolly is a game with a leisurely pace. Players take their time rolling the dice, buying property and trading. Since there is time to consider and offer trades, complex alliances can be formed as well.

Over the past decade I’ve gone through both my Scrabble and Monopoly phases. The Scrabble phase was decidedly later than the Monopoly one, but that’s just logical due to the more extensive education required to play Scrabble well. However, I have to admit that in my years of playing both games, I’ve never debated over (or even really thought about) the different social dynamics for interaction that each games’ rules create in the game play environment.

Towards the beginning of each game, the social dynamics seem to resemble one another. Each player seems to be playing a game of their own, with the only interaction stemming from the direct actions of other players on each respective board. In Scrabble, you have to make due with the plays of your opponents, creating words off of previously established letters. In Monopoly, you essentially buy everything as long as it’s not already owned by another player. Later in the game when the two boards are more obviously developed, the dynamic begins to shift.

Mid- to late-game Scrabble remains (in most ways) the same as early-game Scrabble. Players play off of their opponents’ words, keeping in mind strategic moves that will open up larger point bonuses. Later in the game this becomes even more important as the board begins to creep outwards towards the triple-word score modifiers. The skill level required in Scrabble at the beginning of the game is largely unchanged throughout, requiring the same clever antics to successfully take advantage of the board that the previous player gave you. Within all of this, player interaction is limited basically to simple frustration and expression of that frustration (or excitement if someone opens up a bonus you can take advantage of). There is no true strategic interaction between players: no deals, no trades.

Monopoly on the other hand changes drastically from the early- to late-game. In the beginning, the game is based on the roll of the dice, which breaks down to luck. Later in the game, once most of the property is bought up and people are thinking about strategic monopolies, trading comes into play. This creates an entirely different dynamic between the players. The goal of the game has changed. Not in the sense that the game itself has, but relating more to the way that the players interact to achieve that goal. People trade, bargain and work towards helping each other in ways that they believe will garner an advantage.

I think this is a good place to segue into a comparison between interacting with people face-to-face and over a text-based consol. I found LambdaMOO in some ways interesting and in some ways very dull. The reason for this is an inherent lack of actual goals for me personally. If I had been a part of the community for longer, probably I would have a different outlook about the game. Things as they are, the most interesting part was actually finding people and seeing how they interacted. Really, it reminded me of a conversation over AIM, but in a text-based simulated world. Because I was not really a part of it, there was a dimension lacking to me that I believe others who were more immersed in the game would understand more. I was not really a part of the game, in my stay I was only a visitor and therefore could not experience what people really enjoy about the virtual world.

I think that the most important differentiation between LambdaMOO and the games that we were playing in class was a lack of restriction on how you interact. With Scrabble and to a slightly lesser extent Monopoly, you’re interacting with people within the context of the game and your specific goals within the game board. In LambdaMOO, there is no previous context for interaction – the entire point of being in the “game” is to interact, and so there is significantly more thought put into your persona and how you act towards others. This opens up significant possibilities for personal interaction that are normally harmless, but can in some cases lead to things such as the “digital rape” situation outlined in the reading last week. And that is the dimension of LambdaMOO that I don’t believe I was able to be a part of as simply a visitor - not immersed in the actual community game play that spawns that type of emotional response. As a contrast, games like Monopoly and Scrabble are single-serving game worlds whereas in LambdaMOO you can actually be a part of a pre-established community where the game revolves around interaction instead of game-based goals. I didn't really have enough time to take it as seriously as would have been required for me to become emotionally involved to a point where I could truly understand the community drama spawned by Jest the reading.

Puzzle Pirates -> Theme Park of Puzzle Games

This is a very casual and welcoming world with all kinds of puzzle game you can play with others. Players travel through the world and take adventures by playing puzzle games. Players do social activity mostly while they are waiting and organizing players and also during the puzzle games. Different from other puzzle games, Puzzle Pirates has a large amount of puzzle games for player to choose. But it is not another Pogo, it imbue each puzzle game into the persistant game world very well, and has the great advantage as an MMO which track player's investments.



Sissy Fight -> Middle School Social Conspiracy

The game itself is a chatting game. It is very social intensive because in order to win the game, you have to get people to support you while you are trying to get rid off them eventually. Lair is the essential elements in playing game like this.



Whyville -> Science Faire

This game is a social space filled with content of middle school educational content. Player can walk around, talk with others and play different science related games. It's very casual, no assignment, no lecture. It's all about active learning which is the soul of it.

Play selected FPS game: Halo, Battlefield 1942, Counter-Strike, etc.
Describe your experience of Flow; if you do not experience Flow, explain why.

Reading: Czikszentmehilya, M. (1990) “The Conditions of Flow.” In Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. New York: HarperCollins

Being both a veteran of VR and RL gaming, I never really paid attention to the differences between the different styles of gameplay. However, after playing Scrabble and then LambdaMOO and paying attention to game dynamics and social interactions, there is a clear difference between VR and RL gameplay interactions.

Scrabble is a board game that was a good icebreaker activity to get to know our new fellow classmates. When we played it in class, there was a lot of laughter and fun competition as each player tried to not only maximize their score but also to out do the other players by creating exciting words. When it was not the players turn, that player would talk to other players and overall the mood was jovial. People were forced to interact with each other and could not escape that aspect if they wished to play the game.

By stark contrast, LambdaMOO was a much different experience where character interaction was much more diverse. First off, it was just that, character interaction and not people interaction. Because we were hiding behind a computer screen miles away from any of the other players, players can take on any persona they wish to portray. While psychologists might argue that any action a player chooses for their character is a reflection of their true personality, the fact remains that anyone can be anyone, or anything. The other main difference was that I simply could not find anyone to talk to. After wandering around the virtual mansion for one and a half hours without running into a single other player, I decided to start sending specific messages to players who were online (paging them). This effort too proved futile, for the few that did respond only wrote a single reply, and then I did not hear from the again.

Thus, two major differences that I saw exist between RL and VR gaming. First, RL gaming forces people to be who they really are whereas in VR, anyone can be anything. Yes, there are some exceptions in RL, such as people who act or pretend to be someone else, but in the games we played, everyone was trying to be who they were and learn about their fellow classmates. In LambdaMOO, I met players who were trying to be tall, mysterious strangers, proud chickens, and other odd personas. Thus, VR has the luxury of not being able to see the other players and thus allows players to exist as they wish to be portrayed.

The other major difference is in the ability to choose your interactions. In the RL gaming, we players could not help but interact with each other. If someone spoke to you, it was difficult to ignore them as they stared at you in anticipation of a response. In the VR gaming, it was easy for the other online gamers to ignore my cries for attention and prodding questions.

While the overall outcomes of both forms of gaming are social interaction, the results are quite different. RL gaming forces players to interact and to be themselves. On the contrary, VR gaming allows players to take on a persona of their choice and choose who they interact with.

For this week’s game, I played “Puzzle Pirates.” The social metaphor for this game seems to be one of an office building or a simulated work environment. The focus is on getting a job, earning money, and socializing with other characters. All of these elements suggest a single, cohesive work environment spread out over a virtual world.

For our next analysis of the multiplayer dynamics of a game, I chose puzzle pirates. This was after a few minutes at each of the games respective homepages, only puzzle pirates was something I really felt I wanted to try. I was surprised with the depth of such a small, unsophisticated looking game. I didn't expect to feel like I was in a different world by looking at these cartoon characters and backgrounds. In the game it is hard to tell much about your fellow pirates without knowing how to operate the menus. This is something I didn't come to a very deep understanding of. While the puzzles had long instruction manuals, the interface seemed quite difficult to read. Perhaps it was because of this that the social interaction in this game appeared limited...

During the first class we all played board games, to get a feeling of the social dynamic of mulitplayer games. I played two player dominoes and five player set. First I played set, which was new to me, so I had to learn to play the game. It isn't a horribly complicated game, however since it is a game of pattern recognition, it takes a while to get the patterns burned into your memory for quick recognition. There was little talking during the game besides set verification and rule discussion. Here, the social dynamic was purely in the competition. We all had our poker faces on when we were playing seriously, however the new players would also frequently smile or joke to excuse their lack of skill in the game.