RJ Layton

Let's Stop Talking About Girls in Gaming

2008-08-30T06:01:37Z

Yes, it appears my hypocrisy knows no bounds. I'm going to talk about why we should stop talking about girls in gaming, or at least why I'm tired of it. a post summarizing a lot of the points made at the panel. Now, every time I hear about these panels or discussions, my eyes start to roll involuntarily in the same way they do when I hear about the next World War 2 shooter. We've heard the story so many times before: "How do we get girls into gaming? What about the girls who already play games? Who will tell their story?" Lots more girls are playing games right now, and from everything I've seen the number is increasing, especially on the PC, mobile phones, Nintendo DS and Wii. Is the conversation supposed to continue in the same fashion every year until the topic becomes ridiculous? As time passes, more girls are playing games just as they become more socially acceptable. As such, I'm tired of the discussion because it's at the point where it's exacerbating the problem rather than solving it. Though more girls are gaming, by repeatedly asking the question we imply that no progress is being made. Guys still act stunned when a girl shows up in a Halo match with them, or they're shocked when they find out a person they've been raiding with in World of Warcraft has been a girl the entire time. Of course, male players are going to be shocked when the media around them insists that girls don't play games and they find real evidence to the contrary. But hey, their stories are just anecdotal, girls don't really play games like Halo, right? What's worse is that girls invite this reaction. Some, like the PMS Clan, even make a living off of it. Maybe this conversation has been happening at every panel lately (I've been tuning them out), but what was refreshing about the PAX panel was the recognition that girls are doing this for attention. That girls are reveling in being the only girl in the "Boys' Club." And why shouldn't they? The industry and related media would have you think that a girl playing a game is like finding a goddamn unicorn. As such, guys throw themselves at the girl, giving her what lots of humans crave -- attention (and also lots of free money/loot, right female WoW players?) The saddest part of this behavior is that girls are actively keeping other girls from playing games. Having other females around means competition for male attention, and being taken down from the pedestal. I've seen girls argue about who is more of a "true" gamer, accusing other girls of only playing "stupid casual crap" as though those games weren't legitimate, and in doing so turning off other players from trying other games let alone continuing to play the ones they already enjoy. Finally, we come to the last consequence of this repeated implication that its rare for a girl to enjoy games or that they're hard to come by -- the industry ends up settling for less. As AJ (not me) points out in the Kotaku article linked above, "I know I’m still getting paid less than my male counterparts, most of the time. I know I got my QA testing jobs not because I was qualified but because I had a rack." Both of these things are linked to the same problem. By treating women as a rare occurrence in gaming and continuing to insist its the case (despite evidence that the tides are shifting), we objectify women as a "resource" (like precious stones) in the industry. Women can be hired into the industry simply for being women, and the industry will expect less of them because they are eternally the new hire at the office who is allowed a pass because it's their first day. Some smart women will get into the industry based on their gender and they'll know it -- and while some will use that to their advantage to get ahead, others will question their own worth and value, and their colleagues will question it too. Why try to excel when others think you're there due to your gender and not your skills? Why try when you're worried they're right? Hopefully, instead of revisiting this topic in five months we can come back to it in five years and see where we stand. Until then, let's stop acting like a girl playing a videogame is a novelty. I really think we'll make more progress that way. ]]>

CTIN548: Planned Schedule

2008-03-29T21:45:15Z

Following is my planned schedule for the remainder of the semester. 04.03.08 - Complete preliminary design document - Have one simple working prototype of a fundamental game mechanic - Send out emails/make calls to faculty regarding being a thesis advisor - Feedback session in class 04.10.08 - Continue modifying design document - Research tech, how to accomplish project goals - Create second prototype for fundamental game mechanic - Refine first prototype - Solidify thesis advisor positions 04.17.08 - Draft thesis proposal - Create third prototype for fundamental game mechanic - Continue refining previous prototypes and design documents 04.24.07 - Prepare thesis presentation]]>

Thesis Philosophy Series Pt. 3

2008-03-27T20:57:18Z

This is Part 3 of a series of posts dedicated to covering topics of interest to me in videogames, and will be instrumental in the foundation of my thesis project. As always, comments are appreciated. Part 3 covers some economic concepts, mostly focusing on rarity of commodities and items and how they impact the narrative of a massively-multiplayer online game. Rare Legends This leads to the point of rarity and individuality in games. Before delving into this discussion, I want to list two main assumptions that I am making. I am making these assumptions based on my economic studies and personal leanings on economic issues. The first assumption is that when something is rare, it generally holds more value (this isn’t considering the utility or usefulness of the item in question). This doesn’t hold true for all things, obviously – being the sole owner of a telephone isn’t helpful if there isn’t anybody to call. The second assumption is that the concept of diminishing marginal utility is accurate. This concept basically says that the more you have of some commodity, the less valuable each additional piece or unit of the commodity is to you. Just to clarify, if you’ve got one hamburger, a second hamburger has a marginal utility of X. If you have twenty hamburgers, the marginal utility you have for the twenty-first hamburger is going to be less than X. I feel that a rare item is a greater motivator and reward for a player rather than one that is easily found or acquired. It cheapens the experience of having a flaming dragon-shaped sword when somebody else has one, and it really cheapens it when a thousand people have one or even several. This rarity can happen naturally through the game’s design simply by making specific items appear less frequently than others, or putting them in difficult to find locations. These methods are useful for many things, but are still problematic when dealing with “epic” items. If an item can always be acquired in a particular method and the item is desired enough, then other players will perform the tasks required to acquire the item. In my opinion, this removes the significance of the item overall. The item may serve as proof of a quest’s completion, but its narrative meaning is destroyed. Additionally its significance to the player diminishes over time as more players acquire the item. What this causes is a never-ending search for the new “rarest” item. This is a cycle that obviously works well for companies like Blizzard, but perhaps not for the players themselves. Imagine something unique and with a lot of history, like Excalibur. Stories can be written about Excalibur because it’s a unique item, sought after and used by many. It can be passed down through the ages. Most importantly, its narrative goes beyond its attributes and into the people that used it, where it is located, at what time, and so on. These qualities are attractive to me. I’d prefer to have a single item that is fought over, passed down over time, broken and remade, and creates a history behind it rather than one that is effectively meaningless because of its widespread ownership. This quality ties in to my previous post on player-generated narrative. While the item itself may be the center of its own narrative, it is the interaction of the community that generates the narrative itself. The obvious criticism of this is that if you don’t have the item, you’ll feel discouraged because you can’t obtain it. This suggests that a system with frequent item turnover is ideal. Luckily, my project has one, and it’s a big one. Sure, that’s mysterious, but I’ll get into it later. I recently had a discussion with “Big” John Brennan, who brought up the point that MMO games are about items and additional content because they “have to be.” I thought that was a great point and a fantastic driver for design: how would you make a MMO where items and content are fairly static, but still generate the same kind of obsession that has drives current MMOs? That’s a good indicator as to the direction of my project, so I’ll be sure to talk about it sometime soon. ]]>

One Week Project Fun

2008-03-25T22:40:15Z

Some fun photos from the one week project! Bolas looking like a kid in a candy store. Why? It's for Andrea's bling machine! Jack's project was fun, too. Perry seems especially thrilled. Everyone loves beach balls. Ethan gave the room a good time. Some projects, like John's, were fun for ... almost everyone. Here's Peggy's hand, on a knob. John's having a love affair with this knob. This really speaks for itself. Here's Jamie standing by the ocean. Or some other guy. Here's mine. It tortures meter maids, for obvious reasons. Jamie really liked it. ]]>

GDC 2008: Adult Games vs. Games for Adults

2008-02-29T00:10:37Z

Last week at GDC 2008, I was able to sit in on the Game Designer's Rant. Much of the theme related to what is quickly turning into a dead-horse topic: "Making games with more mature/adult content." Many of these designers imply that it's somehow a big change from what has been going on all along. I disagree. I think designers are arguing a silly point and that they want to keep doing the same thing they've been doing all along, which is making games for themselves. weren't talking about making more complex games with mature themes. We get plenty of them, including the oft-discussed BioShock released this year. It seems that we're always on the verge of the next game to push big emotional content or address complex issues, or the one that is going to push the medium forward in whatever "cinematic" context, etc. And yet constantly we get complaints that the medium doesn't mean anything, that we're not making meaningful games, that we need to make games for adults who don't have a lot of time on their hands anymore. Hocking suggested that Halo's sales are practically nothing in the face of movie ticket sales of Lord of the Rings. I thought this was a great point, but the frustrating thing is that he actually missed the solution. Hocking argued that people cared about Sam and Frodo's relationship, and that's why they went to see the film. I can't agree -- people who hadn't seen the film already or read the books would know little to nothing about their relationship other than what they'd heard from friends or seen in trailers. Perhaps the most important aspect of film's success is its accessibility. Anybody can watch a film, all it requires you to do is sit down and watch. This is crucial to the success of cinema as well as other passive media such as music. They're easy to enjoy. Videogames, however, require more of the user. They need the user to get engaged and control or interact with the experience, to take part in the system. A game with no player fails, whereas a film can theoretically run on its own, even if nobody is watching it. My question is why these developers insist on sabotaging themselves. The ability for games to sell to the millions that a film sells to is opening up, it's just that developers don't want to grab the opportunity. What am I talking about, specifically? The Wii and the DS. These two systems have made their success appealing to wider audiences and people that don't play the traditional games that these designers make. They're systems based on accessibility and opening up the experience to everyone in an intuitive manner. Here I want to make a distinction between "adult games" and "games for adults." What Hocking, Levine, Chen, etc. are talking about is making "adult games." These are games that basically fit into the traditional mold but feature more mature themes or (arguably) more artistic themes. On the other hand, "games for adults" like Nintendogs, Brain Age, Wii Fit, or even Wii Sports, appeal to adults because they're accessible. It has been argued that everyone is a potential gamer, and I believe this to be true. Human beings generally enjoy playing games, so why do videogames have a difficult time appealing to all human beings? Accessibility, accessibility, accessibility. Jamie made a great point while I was discussing the subject of this post, which was to say that games like Myst were successful in attracting adults and specifically people who don't typically play games. Sure, some of that involved people wanting to get use out of the new and wonderful CD-ROM technology they found on their PCs, but other games using the technology didn't take off in the same way due to accessibility. Myst is a point-and-click puzzle game that is extremely simple to interact with, even if the puzzles themselves can be challenging. Myst was a game for adults. Following this, adults play games on the Wii and DS because interacting with them is simple, fun, and non-threatening. It doesn't require a great deal of new knowledge or expertise to join in. When you explain Wii Bowling to somebody, you tell them, "Just pretend you're actually bowling," and that's just about enough. Naturally, these designers are talking about dealing with more complex themes than just bowling. That's understandable, but my point is that there is no way in hell you're going to get a great number of adults to play BioShock because it's too complicated to control. I don't care how powerful your narrative is, if it's too difficult to interact with your game then it won't be played. Like it or not, videogames (like film and music) are a recreational medium. If the greatest band of all time only released their music on vinyl, a large number of people would take a pass on it because it requires too much out of them. There's something else I could be doing. Lost is on in 5 minutes and all that's required of me is to turn to the right channel. If you want to make a mature game that appeals to a broad base, you still have to make it accessible. If the designers at the rant really cared about the audience widening and including more adults, especially older ones, they would look to development on the Wii and DS as a solution. These are the platforms adults are using and they're the platforms that feature accessible controls. But we all know why they won't use these platforms - they're not sexy to develop for. If Levine wants my parents to play BioShock, he's sabotaged himself with the control scheme and platform. If Jenova wants adults to play Flow, that's a shame because it's on the PS3 and the cross-section of adults who bought a PS3 to play games and the number of PS3 owners who download games on PSN is miniscule compared to something like ticket sales of Lord of the Rings. So what I'm hearing is a bunch of whining that the average adult in the mass market won't play their games. Making adult games is appealing because the developers have gotten older, so naturally they want to make something that speaks to them and what they're interested in. The joke is to pretend that anything has changed. They're continuing to do the same thing they've always done, which is just make games for themselves and wish that more people would play them. ]]>

Thesis Philosophy Series Pt. 2

2008-02-13T06:03:30Z

This is Part 2 of a series of posts dedicated to covering topics of interest to me in videogames, and will be instrumental in the foundation of my thesis project. As always, comments are appreciated. In this post, I'll be covering massively-multiplayer online roleplaying games (MMORPGs or simply MMOs). More specifically, I'll be looking at the immensely popular World of Warcraft and the less popular and arguably more "hardcore" EVE Online. (now crossposted at Peggy's request) A Look at Player-Generated Narrative Structures in MMOs To start off with, I'm specifically not talking about roleplaying in the sense of players talking to each other "in character." While I think this is a fascinating and oftentimes crucial part of a game's enjoyment, this is something that can be done in a basic chatroom with no game attached. For this segment I am more interested in the structure of WoW and EVE and how they lead to different types of player-generated narratives. World of Warcraft is a game everyone is familiar with, so I’m not going to explain it in great detail. Of note, however, is that the world in World of Warcraft is generally static, and player actions have little effect. Also, story elements have the ability to be experienced by any player as long as certain preconditions are met. These preconditions could conceivably be met by any player that puts in the time required. EVE Online is a different sort of beast. To quickly summarize the game, players control spaceships in a futuristic world, and player-run guilds called “corporations” are basically the law of the land. The game story is generated more by the players and their actions. While the galaxy itself does not change much, the contents can and do. Ships can be created and destroyed. In short, EVE Online is more of a “free” world than World of Warcraft. To make a possibly controversial point, it’s akin to the difference between (an idealized) socialism (World of Warcraft) and capitalism (EVE Online). WoW allows resources for everyone and tries to equalize the game for everyone as much as possible to ensure that everyone has fun. EVE has more limited resources and encourages meaningful competition between players. The result is that like socialism, WoW makes everyone as equal as possible, but this equality comes at the price of true excellence. EVE, like capitalism, allows for truly great experiences, but with the caveat that not everyone will have them. I am arguing that WoW is watered-down. Nothing you do is of real significance. You killed some giant boss… so what? Tens of thousands of other people have as well. Your armor isn’t unique, and you only got it because you were lucky enough to have it drop. That raid you did on Stormwind doesn’t matter, because the guards kept respawning, and Stormwind still stands for the Alliance. So why raid it in the first place? EVE offers better stories. One such story I keep coming backis covered in the following magazine scans. It involves bounty hunters, mega-corporations, betrayals and intrigue. Read them and be inspired: Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3 | Page 4 The reason stories like these are possible is because the game doesn’t take measures to equalize everyone. Some get richer than others will ever get because they’re simply better at the game. Their status has to do with their performance, and their experiences generally won’t be duplicated. If you manage to take down a huge corporation in the game, that action persists – that corporation doesn’t respawn so that another person can take it down. Furthermore, it was you who did it – nobody else. Let’s look at the other side of the coin; what if you’re not the person who took down the corporation? What if, while this epic corporate takeover is occurring, you’re mining common ore in high-security space? (For non-EVE players, this means you’re gathering a common resource at little risk for consequently little reward). Don’t you feel left out? Maybe. But again, let’s compare to WoW. Personally, I’ve never been to the Burning Steppes. I’ve heard about people taking down some monsters that I’ve heard are pretty tough. I’ve also heard that you should be over level 50 before going to the Burning Steppes. This information gives us all we need to know about why WoW is not satisfying from a narrative perspective. There are hundreds of people boasting about their experiences not only in the same place, but against the same enemies! They try and one-up each other by saying they beat the same exact creature at a lower level, or without using this item, or some other qualification. This alone can be a rewarding structure, but in terms of narrative it isn’t satisfying because anyone can do it – felling a massive creature that is supposed to inspire fear or courage instead becomes something commonplace, like fishing. In this world, grandfathers would look back fondly on slaying the evil demon overlord in the same way that the real world’s grandfathers look back on riding their bicycles over small ramps they’d constructed. Beating the boss doesn’t really require skill, courage, luck, or anything of the sort – it just requires that you put in the time to hit a certain level. In EVE, people become famous (or infamous) for their deeds. Players talk about the time one player set up an in-game bank and months later disappeared with billions of other players’ ISK (EVE’s currency). In this case, however, it inspires the audience. Just think, one player is setting up banks and stealing away with billions of ISK, another player is building up a massive corporation, and another is taking one down. One player is the most wanted pirate in the galaxy, and another player is known as the best when it comes to shipbuilding. This is inspiring because you can be unique, you can be an individual, and you can make a difference. Your play is actually, authentically meaningful to other players. Being able to make yourself famous or have experiences that are meaningful not just to you but to the entire community of players in a MMO requires two things: an emphasis on individuality, and rarity in both resource and experience. I’ve touched on these topics here, but I’ll be covering these topics in a little more detail in my next post. Here I want to touch on a point that colleague Alfred Yangsley brought up to me. He argued that the items you get in WoW act as “proof” of your deeds, and speak for you. This is because many items come from certain bosses, or certain locations. Still, my point stands – when there are hundreds of “Evil Overlord’s Sword of Smiting” around, it makes the item less significant. Sure, it’s good for Blizzard because it makes players go run the instance dozens of times over in hopes that the dice roll their way (an obsessive loop akin to gambling). Actually acquiring the item is really about luck, but player actions work to limit this – by doing the instance as many times as possible, your chances for the item to drop increase – making the game about hours put in, rather than skill or singular actions of importance. The issue of rarity and individuality in games is an interesting one, and I’ll be covering that in my next post. ]]>

Thesis Philosophy Series Pt. 1

2008-02-10T07:14:31Z

This is the Part 1 of a series of posts I will be making, called my "Thesis Philosophy Series." In these posts I will be covering various aspects of game design and philosophy in efforts to define my upcoming thesis project. Comments are not only welcome but encouraged! (now crossposted at Peggy's request) Creating Meaningful Community-Generated Stories I believe the best stories are about people, and that people write the best stories. However, the best stories are not authored by one person. The best stories are authored when groups of people all contributing and yet are often unaware of the collaboration. My favorite subjects in school have always been based on history. I loved reading about the history of this country or how Europe changed over the centuries. I enjoyed hearing about how technology evolved and affected everything, and I often wondered to myself about the people living in those times who would have no idea about how their actions would affect the course of civilization. One of my favorite stories is the tale of Aaron Burr’s life, a deeply fascinating person. In his wikipedia article, he is described as an American politician, Revolutionary War hero and adventurer. Yes, an adventurer. How cool is that? But seriously, read this introductory description, lifted from wikipedia, that I feel describes my point fairly well:

A formative member of the Democratic-Republican Party with a political base in New York, Burr served in the New York State Assembly (1784–1785, 1798–1801), as New York State Attorney General (1789–1791), United States Senator (1791-1797), and for one term as Vice President of the United States (1801–1805) under President Thomas Jefferson. A candidate for President in 1800, Burr tied Jefferson with 73 electoral votes, making him eligible for one of the Nation's two highest offices and sending the election into the U.S. House of Representatives. After 36 ballots, Jefferson was elected President and Burr elected Vice President. As Vice President, Burr was President of the Senate, and in such role, presided over the impeachment trial of Samuel Chase. During an unsuccessful campaign for election to Governor of New York in 1804, Burr was often referred to in published articles written by Alexander Hamilton (1755-1804), a long-time political rival and son-in-law of Philip Schuyler, the first U.S. Senator from New York who Burr defeated in his bid for re-election in 1791. Taking umbrage at remarks made by Hamilton at a dinner party and Hamilton's subsequent failure to account for the remarks, Burr challenged Hamilton to a duel on 11 July 1804, at the Heights of Weehawken in New Jersey at which he mortally wounded Hamilton. Arguably the most famous duel in U.S. history, it had immense political ramifications. Burr, who survived the duel, was indicted for murder in both New York and New Jersey (though these charges were either later dismissed or resulted in acquittal), and the harsh criticism and animosity directed towards him brought about an end to his political career in the East, though he remained a popular figure in the West and South. Further, Hamilton's untimely death would fatally weaken the fledging remnants of the Federalist Party, which, combined with the death of George Washington (1732-1799) five years earlier, was left without a strong leader. After Burr left the Vice Presidency at the end of his term in 1805, he journeyed into what was then the U.S. West, particularly the Ohio River Valley area and the lands acquired in the Louisiana Purchase. While historians are uncertain as to Burr's particular activities, he was accused in turns of having committed treason, of a conspiracy to steal Louisiana Purchase lands away from the United States and crown himself a King or Emperor, or of an attempt to declare an illegal war against Spanish possessions in Mexico (a process known then as filibustering). Burr was arrested in 1807 and brought to trial on charges of treason, for which he was acquitted. After several years in self-imposed exile in Europe, Burr returned to practicing law in New York City and lived a largely reclusive existence until his death. -- from wikipedia, 02.09.08

Now that is a hell of a tale. I remember reading about Burr during middle school for a class assignment, and I was captivated. In short, he’s a well-known politician who challenges another to a huge duel, and one with huge controversy behind it (did Hamilton use a hair-trigger and try to cheat?), and later has to flee, where he’s accused of treasonous plots. This is a man defined by his actions – and we need games that do the same. Why is it in World of Warcraft, you are defined more by the stuff you have, rather than your deeds? Why is it that nobody cares about the things you do? Why don’t we have games where, through the course of play, we have Aaron Burrs and Alexander Hamiltons emerge due to their actions in the game? The main reason is because player actions in most games don’t have meaningful, lasting effects on the game itself. In my next post I’ll be covering a couple games and comparing how they generate narratives, and gauging their success at doing so. ]]>

548: Mad Libs

2008-02-07T12:11:38Z

And out it comes... I am exploring player investment into fantasy worlds and characters because I want to know what makes a player feel they have as meaningful impact on a fantasy environment, in order to make a game where players feel deeply emotionally connected to their experience. I am developing ways to make death a more meaningful occurrence in videogames, because I feel that death being a minor setback devalues the weight of death. I am doing this in order to amplify a player's connection with game events and the well-being of their characters/avatars. I am researching economic models in games and how they can convey a political message or provide social commentary to players. This is interesting because these topics can be confusing and complex in real-world terms and offering a way to interact with them in a simplified and fun setting may offer and enhance political or social discussion. I am exploring romantic love in videogames, because I feel that it is fairly unexplored territory and can provide a strong emotional impact and connection between the player and the game. Successfully eliciting romantic feelings from a player toward another player or NPC would be a great method to significantly enhance a player's connection with the game world. ]]>

Three objects, part two

2008-01-31T12:15:45Z

Part two of the analysis... 1. An area of interest you've identified. The use of fantasy to captivate the player and his/her imagination to the point where a strong emotional response is elicited. 2. A couple of questions (stated in the form of a question) and opportunities suggested by your area of interest. What do you (or a potential viewer) want or need to know about this area? - What are the aspects of fantasy that separate it from other genres? What are it's particular strengths and weaknesses? - How can I captivate a player to the point where he/she keeps thinking about it while not playing? What can make my game immersive and addictive? - What do I need to do to make my game have a deep personal impact on a wide audience? What can I do to make the player feel invested in their experience? 3. Identify a method or process that can be used to explore your question. - Collecting a large sample of works I find effective and doing in-depth compare/contrast analysis of them. - Creating various prototypes and testing them on a wide audience to gauge reaction. 4. One to three actual topics or subjects that address your interests/questions. (Not ‘a game’ or ‘experience’ or ‘interactive film,’ find a subject/setting/character/narrative. - user-generated or modified player avatars - role-playing - fanfiction/fandom 5. Pair your topics with a genre and an audience: Not just "a game" but the type of game and the type of player you envision. (Expert? General? Student? Adult? Child? Casual? Obsessed? Fan? Animal, Mineral, Vegetable?) A fantasy game for an obsessive and dedicated group. Probably teenagers to young adults. Ideally not only for people who feel they're part of the "hardcore gamer" group. 6. Commit to a term (participant, viewer, player, reader, user, audience) that you will use throughout the project. (If you feel this is restrictive, or want more than one term, this is the place to state your view, the important part is to begin to define, and address, your reader.) I think player is probably most accurate, but participant fits as well.]]>

548: The Meaningful Trio

2008-01-24T09:13:05Z

Peggy: "Pick for me these objects three..." Part 1: Pick 3 objects a) Something significant from your childhood, something important to you - a toy, a talisman a memento. I chose Lord of the Rings, still my favorite book (or series of books, if you must). b) An inspiration - a quote, a song, a book, a lyric, a piece of art, an experience, a philosopher, a scientist, just ONE. I chose Legend of Zelda, the original for NES. c) Something you've done or pursued on your own initiative (scholarly or otherwise) that is deeply interesting/satisfying to you. I chose Guy vs. Girl, a quick game I made during my undergraduate studies. Part 2: Questions a) Why this item is interesting/meaningful/important to you (or universally)? Lord of the Rings: This book sparked my imagination in a way that few books did, and it was the first fictional world that I really remember falling in love with. It was also the first book I read that had a deep emotional impact on me, so much that I was upset when completing it. The themes of brotherly love, honor, sacrifice, etc. were presented in an amazing world that was beautiful and terrifying at the same time. The books captivated me so entirely that I couldn’t stop thinking about them until long after I had finished them. The ability for a work of art to completely absorb and captivate the audience at that moment seemed very powerful to me, and it was an ability I wanted to explore further. Legend of Zelda: This was much like Lord of the Rings, but in game form. It was the first game I became so engaged in that I found it difficult to sleep. Stepping into each dungeon filled me with excitement and tension, and the images on screen filled me with a sense of wonder. I wanted to explore every inch of the game, to learn all of its secrets. Looking back on this paragraph now it seems almost sexual, but I guess it was this game that really revealed my passion for videogames. Guy vs. Girl: This was a project that I completed in three days, heading up to the “deadline” for Valentine’s Day. It’s meaningful to me because for one, it proved to myself that if I was determined enough, I could actually create something in a short amount of time. Furthermore, it proved to me that although my work was not perfect, I could still be pleased with the end result. I think the project itself is interesting because it says a lot about me. It’s got a cynical sense of humor to it but also an irreverent style, and I couldn’t help but include what amounts to videogame fan-service into the game. Recognizing what each part of the game is referencing becomes a little game by itself. b) What are the issues, concerns, principles, processes or attributes that surround each item? Lord of the Rings: Deals with a range of topics, from personal sacrifice to the nature of humanity. Always suggested is a sort of greater purpose, such as a destiny. The book contrasts a large, rich environment with a deeply personal look at the characters. Obviously the core of the story is fantasy. Legend of Zelda: One of the key principles of the game is that exploration and curiosity is rewarded, and simultaneously courage is valuable. Overcoming obstacles feels like a personal triumph. Guy vs. Girl: A cynical yet humorous piece that makes a social statement while still being enjoyable. Even if you haven’t been in the exact situation yourself, the scenario is universal enough to the point where everyone can empathize with it. c) How is each item relevant: socially, technically, politically, phenomenologically? Lord of the Rings: This is the book that practically defined high-fantasy for the generations to come. Nearly every work of fantasy in recent times, including that of the Legend of Zelda, probably owes part of its inspiration to these books. The basic good vs. evil struggle is universal to the point where the story is truly timeless. Legend of Zelda: Still a must-play title for any aspiring game designer. The structure and lessons taught by this game’s design are valuable to this day. It was also one of the first truly epic videogames, one that insisted you play for months instead of in a day or two. It was also one of, if not the first console games to be backed up by a battery save, allowing for the aforementioned months of gameplay. Guy vs. Girl: The statement is that Valentine’s Day is a sham and that any relationship that requires gift-giving to maintain happiness or even a neutral level of peace is doomed. Technically it’s very outdated. d) What do you not know about the item, and would like to investigate? Lord of the Rings: There is still some back-story I am not familiar with, such as what can be found in The Silmarillion. I’d also like to know more about Tolkien’s writing methods and the amount of time taken to develop the world of Middle-earth. Legend of Zelda: I’d like to know more about the development process as well as more of Shigeru Miyamoto’s inspiration for the title. Guy vs. Girl: I suppose I’d like some feedback on the game. I never really shared it with people, so seeing what people thought of it after playing would be interesting. Part 3: Step Back a) Look at your three items as a whole and see if you can discover similarities (literal or abstract), are there intersections? All of these items use fantasy as a method of conveying a message. All of them are designed to entertain, and work as a means of communication between the author/designer and the player. They invite the user to let their imagination run wild. The Lord of the Rings and Legend of Zelda especially are connected in their use of a fantasy world and medieval setting, as well as the creation of a vast, rich, and inviting world as a setting for their adventures. All of the items feature the protagonist striving on heroically in the face of seemingly insurmountable odds. Each represents a journey with a lot of personal meaning for both the characters as well as the audience. Also, they all feature at least one monster. b) Does your analysis suggest an area of interest, or (series of) questions? The clear suggestion is that I am interested in fantasy and using imaginative worlds to capture my audience. I do wonder if I am too engaged in fantasy worlds, however, and what would happen if I tried to make something in a more realistic setting. I do realize that I feel less interested if the subject in question is a real-world or “mundane” piece. ]]>

The Tower: Final Atlas

2007-12-06T11:29:46Z

Attached is the final atlas for the Tower as well as a few photos of the final model. Download the final atlas here. Of course, any comments on it are more than welcome! I tried to make it as easy to read as possible. Almost majestic... The electrical wiring runs along the outside of the Tower The humble entrance to the Tower An observatory looks to the skies for the departed humans. Will they ever find them? If you fall, it's a long way down... Enjoy! While I enjoyed working on the world and the model, I have to admit I'm glad to have a break from it as well.]]>

Model progress pictures for the Tower

2007-11-27T03:20:36Z

Below are some photos of my current model for the Tower. Still a bit of work to do. Image #1Image #2 Image #3 So far the blocks are staying pretty well, and those wooden pieces you see are going to be walkways to the external domes that surround the Tower. ]]>

Thanks, Seth Schiesel

2007-11-01T02:40:50Z

Less than 24 hours since I posted my blog post on why movies suck, I find this. It’s an article by Seth Schiesel titled, “A New Video Game Hopes Expressive Characters Lead to Emotional Attachment.” The hidden subtitle is “Proving RJ’s point about why movies suck.” On the surface, it’s an article about the new PS3 videogame, Ratchet & Clank Future: Tools of Destruction. Looking deeper, it’s an article about how videogames are still struggling to catch up to its superiors in the film industry. ]]> watch a film if I wanted that experience? Scheisel continually props up Pixar and DreamWorks as the masters of visual expression, of achieving things videogames never could. Good for them. I enjoy a lot of films from those studios. However, could they make a good videogame? Why don’t we ask that question instead of the other way around? The reason why people like Shiesel don’t ask that question is because the answer to them is so obvious that it’s not even worth asking. Why, Pixar trying to emulate a videogame would be like taking a step back, or limiting itself. But for videogames to emulate film, well that’s a noble feat indeed! Ugh. Ignoring the ignorance about the PlayStation 3 having “more silicon horsepower” than the 360 or his insinuation that neither the Wii nor the 360 may ever “match Ratchet’s overall visual quality,” we move on to developer comments that sting as well. Brian Allgeier, creative director for Ratchet & Clank, comments: “Ultimately we’re trying to create more emotional intimacy,” he said. “That’s one of the things that movies do really well with the close-up, where you can really see the emotions on the character’s face. But in games, so often you’re just seeing the action from a wide shot behind the character you’re controlling and you don’t have that emotional connection. So that’s what we’re going for.” Sigh. If only… well, what if we could make games where the camera is locked onto a character’s face! Or… oh, I’ve got it! What if we had the character automatically move and do things, and we just had it so the camera watched his face or whatever we wanted! And we didn’t worry about what that bothersome player was doing, we just show whatever we want! It’ll be just like a film… or, actually, it is a film. Sarcastic remarks aside, it seems clear that these guys really just want to make films. That’s cool, they should go do that. But if you think you need a close-up to get a player to emotionally connect with their avatar, you’re doing it wrong. Schiesel finishes up with perhaps the worst comment of all, and one that neatly summarizes my frustration with the industry and perceptions in general: “The biggest problem with Ratchet is that at times it is so lushly compelling that you find yourself just staring at the screen, as if it were a movie, rather than actually playing the game. And that, of course, is not a bad problem at all.” Take note, game designers. When you’ve managed to get the player to stop playing your game and just watch the screen, you’ve succeeded. Congratulations.

Movies suck

2007-10-31T11:12:43Z

...A blog post with such a title, coming from a student in USC’s prestigious cinema school? Before accusing me of blasphemy, hear me out. I do not intend to argue that film or cinema itself “sucks.” Certainly there are many great films, cartoons, music videos and so forth that are wonderful, and I do enjoy them. No, what I am referring to is specifically in relation to videogames. While conceptually my disdain for movies could relate to many forms of interactive media, this post will focus on how I find myself growing increasingly weary of movies and their continued effects on and usage in videogames in particular. competing for consumer dollars. People argue that games are making more money than movies, or compare the budgets between the two. The most infuriating argument, however, are the ones that automatically assume that videogames are a somehow “inferior” art form (or not an art form at all!) compared to cinema. You can see these prejudices within the School of Cinematic Arts itself. Obviously film has been around for far longer than videogames, but that should hold no bearing on videogames as their own medium. I’m going to avoid the “what is art?” question here, but the point I am trying to make is that I am frustrated with the idea that we need to compare videogames to art as some sort of measuring stick, as some ridiculous way to validate videogames as a medium. This attitude diminishes videogames but sets the rules that film is something that videogames should aspire to. Even so, as the games industry has grown we’ve seen increasing crossover between the industries. More games are coming out that are based on films, and more films are coming out that are based on games. Acclaimed director Steven Spielberg has teamed up with Electronic Arts to make three games. Clearly the trend is going to continue. The fact that companies are trying to spread their properties over many forms of media doesn’t bother me. What bothers me is that they usually turn out horribly. The reason for this is that at their core, film and videogames are not compatible. Film is a passive medium, and videogames are an active one. In a film, the viewer is told the story, and they are along for the ride. In a good videogame, the player experiences the story in a unique way. Whereas in a film the viewer sees and hears exactly what the director wants them to see and hear, a videogame offers the designer no such control. The player may miss things the designer hoped for them to find, and may find things the designer had thought hidden. This may seem like videogames are at a disadvantage, but this is only so when you consider narrative in films as the gold standard. It isn’t. I find it frustrating when I read a review and see a game described as “cinematic,” especially because it is always in the form of praise. When a game is “cinematic,” it doesn’t mean it’s fun, and it doesn’t mean it’s effective at engaging the player. More often than not it means the game features wide, sweeping camera movement, dramatic camera angles, and lots of non-interactive cutscenes or worse, full-motion video. Hints at “cinematic games” have been around since Super Nintendo, but when it came time for CD-ROM and PlayStation, cinematics were primed to be abused in videogames. I don’t know that there has been a worse offender than Square or any other JRPG makers. Let’s take a look at some commercials for Final Fantasy 7 and Final Fantasy 8. Look carefully for the gameplay footage. Can you see any? Sorry, it was a trick question. There isn’t any gameplay footage in either of those commercials. Hell, the last one ends with “coming to a home theatre near you.” It seems like videogames and designers are almost ashamed of videogames being just that – games. Maybe it’s a desire to feel justified in their profession. Maybe they’re failed film directors. But when I hear an auteur designer going on about the story of a game, or getting players invested “emotionally,” or otherwise focusing on the story they want to tell to the player, the following images come to mind: controllers with no player holding them, some pretty music, and a close-up of the a character’s face. In other words: great for a movie, boring for a game. This mindset has become increasingly prevalent with the “movies as a reward” structure in many videogames, such as the aforementioned Final Fantasy games. How ridiculous is it that in many games the chief reward for playing the game is being able to watch a movie? As an even greater slap in the face to the player, oftentimes the “coolest” moments, the biggest ones, are selfishly taken away by the designer so that they can tell the story rather than let the player experience it. It’s the difference between a game like God of War and Shadow of the Colossus. In God of War, the player feels little accomplishment because they merely pressed some buttons in time to let what amounts to a pre-scripted, choreographed cutscene play out in front of them. In Shadow of the Colossus, the player is responsible for every action from climbing the monster to delivering the final blow. The fact that it’s real gameplay adds to the intensity of the experience. You know the effort it took to climb on top of the colossus, and you know that you could fall off at any moment, that you’re not kept safe from chaos by scripted events. In God of War, you’re safe, removed from the experience. If you got the button presses right, you know everything is going to go perfectly until the game needs you to press more buttons. The player gets to watch some cool stuff happen, instead of the player getting to do the cool stuff. Why do designers feel the need to be greedy? Do they think they can tell the story better than the player can experience it? If so, why not make a film instead, and drop the pretense of making a game? A lot of people seem to be looking for respect as videogame designers and for videogames in general. I think that the only way to accomplish that is for designers to respect videogames first. Instead of trying to make a videogame that accomplishes things that films do, why not make a videogame that accomplishes things films were never able to? For example, no film has ever made me feel as triumphant as the moment when I finally knocked out Mike Tyson/Mr. Dream in the NES title Punchout!! Could any film match the intensity of my sheer desire and will to defeat that final opponent? What film could hope to communicate the feeling of accomplishment that I felt when I had finally won? Videogame history is full of moments that are just as impressive as the biggest moments in film, and they’re impressive in their own right, regardless of comparison to film. It’s the feeling you get when you first hear the roar of the boss monster in the Legend of Zelda or you finally manage to find the last dungeon. Or the feeling of pulling off that awesome riff in Guitar Hero that you’ve been working at for months. Or beating your old fastest time in F-Zero. Or watching your city grow in SimCity. Finally reaching the princess in Super Mario Bros.. The common thread? Not one of them involves a close-up of a character’s face. These moments happen because the games they are in are excellent in their own right. If the goal is to make the player connect with the main character, that’s fine – just remember that the main character is the player himself, not any on-screen avatar. Videogames are not a lesser form of art than film. Videogames are a different form of art. And yes, in many ways, videogames are superior to film. Instead of trying to design videogames to be more cinematic and use the storytelling methods found in films, we should be using the interactive nature of videogames to craft experiences and create new narratives, ones that filmmakers could never tell. ]]>

Yet Another BioShock Rant

2007-10-20T00:14:50Z

First, this rant is obviously going to have spoilers, so avoid it if you haven’t finished it and are planning to. Also, before I get started, let me say that I generally enjoyed BioShock. I actually finished the game, which is either a testament to how good the game is or how short it is. Regardless, I don’t actually finish every game I buy, so this alone is a plus. true form” at some point. And finally, the entire thing culminates in what is perhaps the biggest slap in the face to players that could possibly happen: the pathetic final boss fight. Over the course of the game players are treated to using the environment to figure out interesting ways to kill their attackers, to trap them or use pieces of the environment to their advantage. The end boss battle then throws all of this out the window for a traditional “the boss is super powerful, use your big guns to take him down” approach that isn’t any different from any boss battle before it. Oh, and he’s got multiple attack patterns! Actually, pretty much all of the boss battles are like this. Yeah, you can use the environment to your advantage, but are we still stuck with the whole reason the bosses are threatening is because they’ve got tons of hit points and they hit a little harder? I thought this was supposed to be a thinking-person’s kind of FPS. If it was, the bosses would be trying to outsmart me. We never get that. Instead, we get enemies that are just like the rest of the game, except they take more bullets to bring down. If we wanted something in the spirit of the game, the boss battles would have been more about an intricate level design instead of a super-powered enemy. They’d be about making the player feel like their intellect is what makes them powerful, not their guns. Instead, we’re treated to one of the more forgettable final bosses in videogame history, one that will be remembered most for how much of a letdown it was. Some other comments I will make, but in much shorter fashion. The game was too easy. Letting players die without any consequences is ridiculous. With simple perseverance, the player can kill everything with the wrench and take each death as a setback only in time lost. Enemies maintain damage after you die, so what’s the point in trying to be cautious? I want to finish with the Little Sisters “moral dilemma.” It felt cheap to me. I know most won’t agree with me on that. But what the harvest/rescue mechanic boils down to is just that: a black-or-white, binary choice. For a supposedly deep moral decision, there’s surprisingly little grey area. They don’t let the players do anything to the Little Sisters but make that choice. For example, you can’t bash them with a wrench before or after you’ve done the harvest/rescue interaction. Why not? What if the player decides that he doesn’t want to get involved in collecting Adam for himself because plasmids are turning everyone into psychotic junkies, and they also don’t want the Little Sisters to go around and keep harvesting Adam from the dead? What if the player decides Tenenbaum deserves death for what she did to the Little Sisters? Anyway, that’s it for my rant on BioShock. Feel free to blast me in the comments. ]]>