Students Blog

In Halo 2, my first person shooter of choice, flow is a very prominent and important part of gameplay. Unlike some games, for example strategy or role-playing games (which I love, don’t get me wrong), FPS games must have constant flow because there is no later, delayed payoff. You will not gain items, levels, units, or territory. Any part of the game that feels like work is utterly futile, because it means you are not enjoying the game now, and it will do nothing to make you enjoy the game more later.

Flow being so critical, it is important to continue to come up with ways to maintain it. I had to do this twice while playing Halo 2.

First, I played one on one with my roommate Steve, and since we were about even in terms of skill, we could maintain a flow, at least under certain conditions. I am better at aiming and combat maneuvering (hopping around like a drunk rabbit and being hard to shoot) than he is, and especially better at using grenades; however, he is a much better sniper, and has better timing when it comes to certain weapons, plus he is amazingly better at tactics and maneuvering around the maps. Sometimes he would sneak up and kill me from behind when I could have sworn he was still on the other side of the map. Because we were each better at certain things, we still had places where we could feel the rush of achievement at having out-played each other, but neither of us had enough of a total advantage over the other that the game became too easy or too hard for either of us. As long as we played on maps where both of use could use out talents, it worked out well. Flow was created and maintained, and we had fun.

Secondly, when my roommate David joined us, it presented us with a problem. With only 3 people, normal team games like capture the flag would be utterly unfair, because of the unbalance due to the number of people. But the normal 3-player option, free for all, or as the game calls it, “Slayer,” would have been unfair as well because David is not as skilled at the game as myself or Steve. So he would have been killed rather often, and not gotten many kills, and it would have been frustrating for him. And Steve and I would have had too easy a time killing him, which would be boring, but at the same time we would be frustrated that each other was getting easier kills off of hunting David. So both of these scenarios would have ruined the Flow. Doing capture the flag would be too easy and thus boring for one team, and too hard and thus frustrating for the other. And doing normal Slayer would have been both boring and frustrating for all involved. We had to come up with a solution to the situation.

To solve the Problem, we decided to do a team game of sorts. Because Steve and I are both good enough with the weapons that we can get off kills rather quickly given the right situations, killing two people at once was not an impossibility. And because David is still rather good at the game, working as a team with him was completely doable, using flanking and other tactics to hunt down prey. The game play we devised was this: we would play team slayer, 2 on 1, in maps where there were plenty of opportunities for both long and short range kills, and the possibilities of retreating and running from a fight as well. It ended up working out very well. David would team up with either Steve or myself, and the pair would hunt down the solo player. This was surprisingly balanced. Because the solo player knew that the pair was looking for him, he could hide and set up ambushes. He could backtrack, circle around, catch one of them alone or looking the other way. Kills were obtainable, especially since David served as the weaker link for the duo; if the solo player could take out David quickly and then retreat, he could earn himself a point that way. However, it was almost impossible to kill both of the duo at once, and if the duo ever found the solo player in the open, he had almost no chance at all. This is part of the flip side. As the pair of hunters, once you located your prey via sight or the motion tracking radar that the game includes, you could work together to take them down. Flanking them worked sometimes, or sending one person in as bait to draw the solo player to a place where the second member of the pair could take him out often proved successful. Also successful techniques included; charging in and attacking both at once when the solo player had no easy advantages such as a hiding spot, superior weapons, or a bottleneck, and also; sending one player in to damage the prey and then quickly withdrawing, while the other player went in for the kill, facing an opponent with severely lower shields.

By playing this way, both the pair and the solo player had the ability to gain kills and the opportunity to win. Neither side had it easy, and neither side had it so hard that it became unwinnable. None of us were bored, and any frustration was very short lived, coming from something trivial like a mistakenly thrown grenade or a missed shot or something, and not from the gameplay itself. We managed to maintain Flow, by using our own devised form of gameplay, which I suppose could fall under the umbrella of Emergent Authorship, and it was a way of making uneven skill levels cease to be a hindrance, much as De Koven and his friend Bill did in ping-pong, which I guess makes what we did a sort of CoLiberation as well.

Posted by Nathan McNamara at 11:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Adopting Bartle's 4 types of players to MMORPGS Ragnarok online and Shattered Galaxies

Surprizingly, Bartle's four categories of players fits well with Ragnarok Online. This may be because Ragnarok Online offers players many social and competitive options, such as belonging to a guild, getting access to guild dungeons (whereby only guild members can enter), and fighting in pvp or WOE (War of Emperium, aka Guild Wars). Ragnarok helps solidify socialization by allowing players to form guilds of their friends. Once in a guild, players can turn on guild chat and easily speak to their guildies anytime, unlike "pming," which is equivalent to whispering to one person at a time. Guilds are often composed of people who share the same ideology, or characteristic, such as Bartle's 4 types; explorer, socializer, killer and achiever. Certain guilds become famous often times for this generalization. For instance, a guild called CowBoysFromHell have been known as the killer guild; haughty, rude people who enjoy mocking others by owning them in battle or "ksing" people. There are also other guilds known for it's achiever ideology; guilds that threaten to expell a member if they're not active enough, or if they don't gain enough levels. And of course, pure social guilds, who do not WOE at all.

On an individual basis, Bartle's 4 personalities are still strong in Ragnarok Online. There are some socializers who almost camp out at towns and can always be found there chatting to friends. There are other hard-core achievers who are always found on the hardest maps everyday, leveling non-stop. The only times they come to town is to restock, and soon after they leave to level again. Ragnarok Online has such a big world with so many maps and hidden dungeons its a lot of fun for explorers. In addiction, there are many quests players can engage in for entertainment. Lastly, the killers of RO hardly go unnoticed. Many players gain reputations for being the best fighters, which includes both the respectful, nice players, and the disgustingly debasing players. Since RO offers WOE and pvp, many players have become addicted killer machines who gloat over every victory. Bartle mentions that increasing killers tends to decrease achievers; this predicted trend is quite easily seen in Ragnarok Online and yet it also further motivates some achievers. They become enraged at disrespectful killers and level even harder to get stronger and save money to buy pvp specific gear.

Overall however, the killers greatly dampen the achiever's motivation to fight in pvp or WOE. Some players even refuse to pvp or WOE at all, and because pvp and WOE is an available option that players choose, the socializers are spared being killed by the bloodthirsty killers. Killers in RO then, can only directly fight those who chose to fight in pvp or WOE. However, there are ways for killers to mass murder people. In the past, an item called a "dead branch" could be used in towns to summon a random enemy, anything from a simple bug to a mini boss. Killers used to release as many as over a thousand dead branches in towns to destroy everyone. The GMs have restricted this ability, so killers can now only dead branch outside of towns. Still, they often mass murder mobs of people that enjoy socializing right outside towns, espeically where the popular leveling places for nubs are. One more way that killers can harm others indirectly is by mob training aggro enemies and leading them onto other players. In general, since the establishment of WOE (where as many as a hundred players will fight each other in one area) the nonkiller players have become fustrated and annoyed, especially the achievers who specialize in fighting well against boss and regular monsters and not pvp. In terms of play production, Ragnarok Online has more capacity for creativity since the entire game is about avatar customization. Players cannot create new items within Ragnarok online, but they can create hundreds of gear items and form strong ties to their guilds.

Shattered Galaxies does show a high correspondance to Bartle's 4 types of players but not as well as Ragnarok Online. Being a real time strategy MMOG already constrains the limits of socialization in Shattered Galaxies. Players have a small avatar that doesn't fight; they use small units for fighting squads which really fails to personalize the player within the avatar. In addition, battles rage constantly in real time so many players only stop in town to resupply before going off to kill again. This game offers three factions to join, so the loyalty is not as strong as when players can form their own groups, further dampening the socialization factor. Not all players in this game were killers however, some were happy to help lost players. In addition, the three nations that players choose to belong to help promote unity since players cannot win battles by themselves.

Posted by Joni Cheng at 1:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

By playing World of Warcraft and EverQuest I realized that although the games have many differences, they are similar in regards to Bartle’s player types. Both of these games emphasize the “players” through the vast communication and ability for simultaneous players. For instance World of Warcraft attracted over 5 million players and EverQUest attracted 700,000. These games stimulate character interaction and they allow players’ avatars to affect those of others. When playing, I enjoyed the open communication, but found the class system to be restricting. Therefore I would consider myself a socializer in the sense that enjoy communiccating with other players. In addition, as a new player to these games, it was difficult to find a social niche and learn the rules. As a magician, I could exhibit certain powers, but also had limitations. The strike in World of Warcraft is a prime example of the influence the players have on the game and one another. World of Warcraft is great for the killer type due to the competition and combat that violence/war create. In addition, these games emphasize “acting” through the importance of the class system. The class system is extensive as well as the race factor. In addition to class and race, skills and powers of the avatars affect their status within the community. Therefore my achiever side is timulated through these games because their are "rewards" for exceling within the community and I can gain various abilities and accesories/weapons. “World” emphasis is apparent only through its largely developed community within EverQuest, but on the contrary, interaction is common and stimulated. In EverQuest, my ability was rated by endurance, levels achieved, societal status, etc, which sets restraints, but also allows me freedom in my attempt to climb the social status. I believe that Bartle is through in his examination of player types and has not overlooked any. I feel that as I become more experienced in online games, I may be able to better identify other types.

Posted by Devon Johnson at 12:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Fight robotic cogs with gag weapons in Toon Town. Disney's version of the multiplayer 3-D environment closely follows the conventions of an RPG. The style of attack uses role-playing game turns instead of real time fighting. Also there's no way to speed up the gameplay. Your skill level is increased with killings. If you win the battle, your character does a celebratory dance. To help connect the real world with the virtual, the login for Toon Town takes place on its web site where users can see news and forums. The music is happy and upbeat. To teleport between the playground or your house you throw a hole in the ground, which is eerily similar to Mario. After reading Bartles “Hearts, Clubs, Spades, and Diamonds From Space: Players Suit MUDs,” I assumed that I would be an explorer. After all, I've never seen Disney's online multiplayer game tune town before. After walking around the map for 30 minutes I realized that there was a very clear goal: destroy robot cogs. That was a very obvious goal as the game keeps pointing out, however there are other portions of the game that I could not understand at first. For example you are given a house. Also you can give gifts, such as furniture, to your online friends.

Why would a child playing this videogame want to clean up or decorate their room when that is the very thing they are supposed to be escaping by playing the game? The answer is that by buying more items for your house, your happiness points increase. When happiness points increase, you can fight more cogs. To fight more cogs you need jelly beans. So after exploring downtown Toon Town in a few avenues of robot comics I made my goal to collect jelly beans to buy gags and furniture by playing games or fishing. The games are fun, but they take time. And, they don't get you as many jelly beans as fishing. I didn't think I’d like fishing, but because there is some skill and hitting a fish, I was able to collect jelly beans much faster. Oddly, I felt like I was in a rush even though there's no clock or timer except in the games or fishing. While the web site for Toon Town says that I must play immediately to stop the invading robot cogs, they did not appear to have a threat of immediacy. My major complaint was that you could not increase the speed of the gameplay or fight in real time. Beating more cogs also increased my happiness points and my ability to wield more gags.

I transformed from being an explorer to being an achiever as time became an issue. In fact I became so motivated to collect jelly beans that when other players would say hi to me I was worried they would stop me and try to chat. I really did not have time for it. When Mickey talked about how he wanted to go fishing later in the day, I worried that I’d have to fish with him and wait for him to get his catch. (I also had no desire to make a well decorated room, but this is partially because I think that making my room is secondary to achieving currency in real life as well). Also, in the real world if I want to achieve something and someone else comes along and distracts me from that goal, for example reading an interesting nonfiction book, I might also try to avoid that person. I was fortunate enough not to run into any killers even though I'm not sure that option is available in Toon Town.

Finally I admire how the Disney animation team has a constant theme of attacking corporate Dilbert-style managers. For example, Cold calling sales robots wag their finger, put you on hold, erase you with their pencil and choke you with a clip on tie.

Posted by Ezekial Slotsky at 12:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

The first mmorpg I played was World of Warcraft, where my main player type was that of an Achiever. Throughout my history of playing games, especially any type of RPG, I have always been an achiever where level rising and point-gathering have been my main goals. I will initiate battles early in the game in order to gain experience points, look for the best items and weapons early to help advance my level raising. I will usually only associate with players if they have something to offer me whether it is a new item or new information. I like the idea of competition in the newly created online world, and I play to become a master of the game.
World of Warcraft exemplified my role as an achiever. At the start I began my campaign with the mage character. I like magic in games and mages/wizard characters usually level up the quickest. So I began the game at level 1 with a hearthstone, a few waters, and a couple pieces of food. I was anxious to up my level quickly to gain an upper hand on the game so I searched for the starter quest givers. These givers were marked with a large yellow "!" over their heads. Any and all NPCs you need to worry about in the game will be in close proximity to where you begin life in Azeroth. I soon found out I could work on up to 20 quests at a time. I worked especially diligently at the start of the game to reach level 10 and gain my first talent point. I used it in order to gain “improved fireball” as this teqnique would help tremendously in my goal of overall advancement in the game. I avoided the help of others because they would only hinder my ability to progress, and I did not want others progressing at the same rate as me. At times, I grew very restless with explorers who seemed to get in my way at every junction. They would ask questions that were not relevant to my development as a player. I displayed some signs of a socialiser when I would chat with others about the world and their experiences. While the majority of my interactions were initiated to gain information, I sometimes found myself going off on tangents, only to soon realize what my real mission was. The worst of the group were killers. Killers would always seem to find a way to hinder my progress in the game for their own personal enjoyment. While this wasn’t as pertinent in World of Warcraft, it was especially true in Star Wars Galaxies.
In Galaxies, I was particularly concerned on becoming a Jedi or bounty hunter. Yet it seemed that whenever I was about to receive a great weapon or item, a killer would come from the shadows to ruin my succession. It was engaging when I could defeat the killer as I would gain experience points, but most times, there was a group of 3 or 4 killers. In Galaxies, the same was true for socialisers, who seemed to hound me with useless questions and information at every junction or space station. Explorers were not as bad in Galaxies because they were very limited. When I did see an explorer, they were very helpful with their information and experiences. One even informed me of a planet were I could gain quick experience points ahead of everyone else. While the glitch was taken out of the game, it was especially beneficial for the time that I was there. So for the majority of mmorpgs, Bartle’s player models worked for me with the exception of some deviations. In most games, I am strictly an achiever, yet I will sometimes show signs of a socialiser. I will never show signs of an explorer, yet they are helpful sometimes. Lastly, I despise killers and their objectives to interrupt the game for achievers such as myself.

Posted by Chris Gangitano at 11:57 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

I live in Fluor Tower and every night there are video game marathons. The guys on my floor always play and some of their favorites include Smash, Halo 2, and the new addition, Dead or Alive. I have played each of these games a couple of times in the past, but I am least experienced in Halo 2. Halo 2 has been difficult for me, but my skills are progressively improving. Although I am new to the game, I have experienced flow at certain times. I become engulfed in the virtual world because I have to fulfill my responsibilities and duties as a member of a team. Halo 2 is fast-paced because I must constantly move and be aware of my surroundings. This is my means of protecting myself from the other team because I would become an easy target as a stagnant and predictable player. The competition is at the forefront. For instance, I play Capture the Flag and Team Slayer. The goal of capture the flag is to capture the opposing team’s flag and return it safely to the base. In Team Slayer, the goal is to kill the avatars from the other team as quickly as possible because the first team to obtain 50 kills is the winner. Halo 2 is so intense and stimulates my senses. At times, I have played for hours. Sometimes I have felt flow, but my frustration and outside elements have become distractions. In my attempt to master the game, I am acknowledging that I am playing a game. On rare occasions, I forget external elements as means of more efficiently communicating with my teammates and excelling within the game. When playing Halo 2 “time becomes distorted” because my reality becomes the game. As a first person shooter I experience, the first person point-of-view. This realistic perception of the virtual world allows me to experience flow because the tv screen serves as my eyes. Sometimes I become anxious and nervous when playing because I anticipate the attacks. This obstructs flow because my focus and concentration are disrupted in my attempt to improve my gaming abilities. In regards to achieving flow I need a lot of improvement, which will develop as I become more confident I my skill and more comfortable with the game, my surroundings, and my emotions.

Posted by Devon Johnson at 11:19 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Although I have never played the Traveler, based on the reading, I believe that the Traveler is a better representation of reality. Although the Avatars in the Traveler are only heads, the avatars in Puzzle Pirates seem so far from reality because their physical appearances are fashioned after pirates. Although the Puzzle Pirates’ Avatars are human figures, the facial features and bodies are simplified. Even though pirates exist, I view them as being part of a fantasy world. Therefore as a player it was difficult to engulf myself in the virtual environment. As a social metaphor, Puzzle Pirates creates a community that correlates to the theme of the game. For instance, pirates travel on boats, and therefore there are gatherings at the dock. I was asked by a pirate to make a trade. On the dock, as a new player I felt like an outcast. The other avatars were not friendly. I clicked within a circle of pirates to join the conversations, but I was told that there was no room for me to join the chat. I spoke to one avatar named Louina who was friendly. Based on this experience, I believe that the avatars mimic real life in their acceptance of other characters. In real life, people may exclude those who are unfamiliar and need time to become acquainted. Similar to life, avatars form peer groups in Puzzle Pirates. As a player in the game, it is interesting because each player has an “omnipotent” in the sense that he or she can see his or her own avatar as well as those of others. In real life, we are not able to step outside of ourselves and observe our behavior. In addition, when I was standing on the dock speaking to Louina, I could not see her facial expressions or my own. I did not feel a personal connection. This is different from the Traveler because a sense of intimacy is not created through text communication. There is a lack of voice-synchronization and facial expressions. In reference to Lazzaro’s 4 keys, Puzzle Pirates allows the players to experience “hard fun” by including puzzle challenges. There is strategy involved and it creates direct competition between characters. When winning a puzzle challenge, I felt “Fiero” due to my accomplishment. Players can experience “Easy Fun” by doing activities such as furnishing your avatar’s home or going to the store. I am assuming that some players experience “altered states”, but when I played Puzzle Pirates I became bored due to the lack of complexity and realism. This game is not “therapeutic” nor did I get mentally lost in the virtual world created by Puzzle Pirates. In regards to the “People Factor”, I believe that as an avatar of Puzzle Pirates I could form relationships through interaction with other players if I were to play more often. Overall Puzzle Players was not that interesting and as a novice, I found it a bit difficult to navigate and learn the rules of the game.

Posted by Devon Johnson at 11:18 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Many gamers like myself at times love mmorpgs and at times also hate it at the same time. The traditional online game has changed into either addictive first person shooter games or mmorpgs that take countless hours to complete and to perfect even as the game is constantly changing with new patches and expansions. In play testing many mmorpgs until I found one that I liked, I realized that in many instances my player type changes depending on each mission and each character that I have. My style of play also depends a lot on which one of the mmorpgs I am playing and how their system is set up.
In the game Guild Wars, the overall interface is relatively easy to understand and to play. I started playing as an elementalist because I wanted to first explore and to achieve at around the same level. Overall, my player type would probably be of the achiever type according to Bartle in that I try to complete the game as much as I can so that I can see the whole storyline. While a warrior or ranger might have been a better choice for just that as an explorer, I also wanted to be able to do well later on in the game and to eventually play more competitively as both a killer in pvp and an achiever in being able to finish the storyline of the game. The storyline and game play in Guild Wars also helps contribute and foster an environment for socializers in that a lot of the missions require groups. In many of these missions, it often takes some time to form groups and to have a certain amount of trust in the abilities of the other people on your team and should the team be successful in beating the especially tough missions, then there is a common bond that is essentially formed even if the other players are from different guilds. The guild factor of the game also plays a major role in the way that the game has towards socializers because the recruitment of the members is not just skills but also communications with even some guilds that are often just groups of friends meeting up online and playing. In playing through most of the games and spending several hundred hours in only a few months, I eventually achieved two characters at the max level of 20 and two more in the process of getting there. For the killers in the game, the pvp segment strongly appeals to them. The pvp world is a playground for both killers and other groups alike. The option to choose a pre-built max level character or to use your own character from the pve world is significant in that it allows a completely different game play and style that has a balance in some of the explorers going to the pvp area and the killers with a certain amount of prey at all times. On my pvp only character, I found that I was very excited when killing other people and this was very exciting to me in playing in the role more of a killer.
In World of Warcraft, the game seems to be slightly less complicated in the way that the system is set up. I chose to be a mage simply because that was what I started off with in Guild Wars so I assumed that it would be a similar style of play. However, because the area and world is so vast, I changed my style from achiever to explorer. The constant need to run back and forth and random drop quests was just very tedious to me making me not want to achieve and diverting my attention. In the process of exploring, I realized that there were a lot of areas where my level was simply not high enough and I was killed instantly. In other cases, I was killed when I accidentally hit attack on someone from the Alliance. I realized that WOW encourages more of killers on certain servers like the pvp ones and encourages other development on other servers. It is also pretty interesting trying to socialize in the game because I became a little worn from trying to level up so much. In this sense, I was also slightly discouraged in becoming an achiever and in turn simply became more of an explorer and socializer where I even tried communicating with someone from the Alliance to see what their reaction would be because I found that they could not understand across the two sides. I also met several other people like that in which they were just playing around and dancing a lot of times at random areas and became quite fun.
In changing to a different game type from Guild Wars to World of Warcraft, I found that my playing style also changed due to the different environment and the way that the balance between the systems was set up. This was cool in seeing how each player may have a main style but will switch with minor changes in the environment. While World of Warcraft was intriguing and entertaining, I found that it was a little weird transitioning and only temporarily playing on a borrowed account so I did not get as submerged into the game play as I could have otherwise. Had I invested more time and effort into the game, I may have changed my style back to the achiever and gotten a better glimpse of the game.

Posted by Roy Sher at 9:58 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

I remember standing outside EB Games on November 9th, 2004. It was only minutes before I would have the coveted copy of Halo 2 in my hands. Having been a tremendous fan of the first Halo installment, I had been anxiously awaiting Halo 2 for months. So when the morning finally came that I got to play my copy on my Xbox, I became lost in the game and its environment.
For me, Halo 2 produced an automatic world of flow. This is mainly because I enjoy First person shooters and had played the original Halo more than any game in my lifetime. I think the online portion of the game puts the player in the highest state of flow because it pits you against leveled and organized competition. You are able to talk to your opponent and harass them through a voice-activated system. You can encourage your teammates when they do something productive and chastise them when they make a mistake. When I fist put the game in, my friends and I created a clan that to battle online against as a team. Once Team Slayer on Lockout popped up, I was thrown into a new reality. My reality was no longer confined to the parameters of my room, but extended to the snowy walls of lockout. This was it; it was what we had been waiting for. Red Team, that was us, vs. the blue team. I had been researching the game for quite some time, so I knew where every nook and cranny was. I quickly grabbed the plasma sword and a battle rifle and met up with my team above the sniper tower. I handled some enemies on the way and before I knew it, it was tied 45-45. At this point, I was totally enthralled in the game and its environment. I sniped a member of the red team at the portal but was assassinated in the back. Three kills later, it was 49-49. We bombarded the shotgun room with grenades and fired one final pistol shot. Game, 50-49, red team. As we entered the post-game lobby, we shouted taunts to celebrate the epic victory. After hours of playing I turned the game off and suddenly, I was back in my room, away from the confinements of the Halo world. I had experienced a flow like none other. I was so totally engrossed in the game of Halo, that I had completely lost track of time, area, and self. I had achieved an ordered state of mind in the game that was particularly enjoyable.
The game resembles much of an Agon class of flow because it boasts competition as its main feature through games of slayer, king of the hill, assault, and capture the flag. In the game, I felt that I was indeed part of an actual team and that winning solidified our survival in this new universe. When the game was on the line, I was pushed to a higher level of performance, and led to “previously undreamed-of states of consciousness.” As I advanced my online ranking in the game, I was forced to push myself even more to battle and keep up with those around me. Thne game basically felt like a seperate world i would go to battle in and then come back to my world that I call reality. I think my level of flow was so high because I had played the original Halo, so I was already familiar with the environment. I have friends who do not experience such flow because it is their first time playing and they do not have the skills to compete and have fun. After playing sometime though, people will develop an obsession with the level of competition and want to keep getting better and better.

Posted by Chris Gangitano at 2:36 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I identify with Bartle’s player types in World of Warcraft and Guild Wars.

In World of Warcraft, I find myself to be predominately an achiever. From the day World of Warcraft came out (I skipped school on this day) to the day I canceled my account a few months ago, my primary goal in World of Warcraft was to create a powerful character by doing quests, killing monsters, and collecting all types of “godly” treasures. When I cancelled my account in September, I had maxed out two characters at level 60, and had another at level 50. One key component of creating a powerful character is, of course, leveling. I wanted to make sure that I gained levels in the most efficient way possible. I greatly preferred to do quests and kill mobiles on my own rather than in a group. Whenever I grouped with another player, I always felt like he or she was slowing me down, getting in the way, or “stealing” my experience and items. Many players (particularly socialisers) often were puzzled at my desire to work alone rather than in a

team. I only found working in a team to be beneficial if it led to completing a difficult or tedious quest, whose completion would advance me further toward my goals. As an achiever, world of warcraft did a great job at creating a world in which achievers could “immerse themselves and find compelling.”

But just as Bartle points out numerous times, no player is only one player type: I also display vestiges of explorer, socialiser, and killer. I typically tend to be more of an explorer in most other games, but I believe that the cartoony graphics and feel of World of Warcraft made in difficult for me to really get that sense of wonder about the unfamiliar world that explorers crave. I found the social aspect of the game to be rewarding as well. My brother and I did some research and joined on of the top guilds on the server, which turned out to be a very beneficial move. Joining this network of great players allowed me to find skilled players with which to preform the most difficult tasks with (some of which required as many as 40 people!) I would guess that the guild I joined was also predominately achievers, we all enjoyed progressing our characters and watching each other become more powerful. However, I did feel the social allure as well. At times I joined a group of guild-mates to tackle a challenge that would benefit them, but not me. This must have been because I knew them pretty well and wanted to help them out. I am least of a killer. Although there are long term benefits to killing other players (the “honor” system), it takes such a long time of killing to achieve them. I saw killing as pretty much a waste of time. The times that I did kill other players, my motive was to ensure that they didn’t interrupt me as I kill mobiles and move toward completing quests.

I find Bartle’s views on player interactions to be very true. For example, as an achiever, I didn’t really understand or respect explorers, I was befuddled by socialisers who seemed to waste a lot of time doing nothing of merit, and I despised killers who interrupted my progress toward power and riches.

My experience with Guild Wars was very similar. Rather than choose a predetermined level 20 character and jump right into PvP, I wanted to create my own character and develop his skills and abilities myself. I enjoyed the fact that I could log on for even a short amount of time and make a great deal of progress toward the next level. When I encountered mobiles that I was unable to defeat myself, I always enlisted the help of NPC mercenaries rather than other players who would get a share of the experience and treasure. Graphically, I found guild wars to be superior to World of Warcraft. This made my explorer side come out a bit more. Many times I enjoyed just wandering off killing whatever I would find (I didn’t feel like this was a waste of time in terms of character development). However, I was extremely antisocial in Guild Wars. I almost never chatted with or played alongside other players. My killer side was all but snubbed out because there are no enemy players in the campaign. The game does a have a tremendous appeal to killers however, because there is an entirely different PvP mode that is very popular.

Posted by David Neumann at 9:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

For the first blog entry, I sat down and played the browser-based mmog Puzzle Pirates. To my surprise, I had an enjoyable time playing Puzzle Pirates, and it did a very simple yet efficient job of representing social metaphor and Lazzaro's 4 keys of "Hard fun," "Easy fun," "Altered State," and " The people factor."

From the get go, Puzzle Pirates implements an environment that represents social metaphor. The overall game reminded me of a very watered down version of "Star Wars Galaxies," a very popular persistent online RPG. After taking your information to create an account, I was able to create a player that most represented my persona with avatars, clothes, facial hair, hair, skin color, etc. While the selection was somewhat limited, I was able to effectively create a "pirate" that most resembled me. Afterwards, I quickly discovered that I was part of a certain vessel and that I had to work with my respective crew to maintain stability and profits on the vessel. This element added to, in my opinion, the most effective aspect of social metaphor in the game, the community aspect. I felt very much a part of a social community in the game as we worked together to "pillage" and gain positive status for our vessel. My crew was helpful in aiding me with the new aspects of the game that may give a beginner difficulty. This sense of a social community also eliminated any confrontations and competition was constructed between enemy ships and sword duelers. This competition element was carried out with fun and interactive puzzles. Another element that added to the social metaphor and helped it carry forward the game's mechanic was the ability to communicate with other players and NPCs. Communication is executed through a chat system. You simply type what you want to say and press enter. NPCs have automated responses according to what you say or ask. With real players though, you can engage in full conversations. For example, I threw a "party" (which did cost money) at my house and had a few people come over. I got into a conversation with one male player about the research I was doing on the game. He gave me some useful information in the game and how I could "get ahead" as a beginner. His name was "Gilby," and it was apparent he was an advanced player. We engaged in a duel, which he did handle me in. Nonetheless, it was interesting to see how advanced a player could get in the game.
This leads to how the social metaphors of the game relate to Lazzaro's 4 keys. This player I interacted with, Gilby, most closely represented the key of “hard fun.” As he explained it, the puzzles he had advanced to were much more challenging than that of the normal player. He searched for competition and the overall challenge of the game. He was able to fill me in on strategy for the games, puzzles, and in the situation with my crew.
The game can also cater to those who more closely relate to the key of “easy fun.” If you are not looking to get fully engaged in the overall competition and progression system in the game, the adventure of playing games and interacting with other players can fulfill a need for intrigue and curiosity. Though the game’s graphics are not the best, they are detailed enough to aid a player looking for “easy fun.”
For the “Altered States” players, the game offers a variety of endless mini-games and puzzles that one could potentially get “lost in” for internal sensations such as “Excitement or Relief form their thoughts and feelings.”
For someone searching for the “People Factor,” the game offers its central core around interacting with players and NPCs. The game offers competition, social bonding, and teamwork to progress further and advance socially and interactively.

Posted by Chris Gangitano at 6:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

My first encounter with counterstrike began in a LAN café next to a local community college. My friends all got a free pass for two hours playing most high-tech computers. We were going in there to team up and kill everyone else. There was just one major problem: I had never played counterstrike while all of my gamer friends spent their whole lives online. Counterstrike is a first person shooter made as an online modification to Half-Life where one side is terrorist and the other side is counterterrorist. The objective is to either rescue hostages or prevent a bomb from being blown up. The team that successfully meets its objective or kills all players on the other team gets money. Every 30 minutes the map changes.

The first time playing counter strike, I spent more time watching the game and waiting for everyone to die than actually playing it because I was always killed first. That was frustrating. Furthermore I played with a group that had friendly fire on. So, even though it started out being hard to aim and get used to see maps, is even harder telling the difference between your own teammates and the enemy. The terrorists are supposed to have a lighter colored uniform, but when in shadow this detail is hard to see. My friends are very supportive, but the people who didn't know me were sure to yell over the microphone that I was stupid. After all, they had spent half a day and $20 only to have their statistics ruined by a newbie.

Luckily my mouse controlling skills increased, and I learned the nuances of shooting automatic weapons. However it was still hard to maneuver while shooting. I was still never able to get more than one kill for every time that I died. Had my friends not come along with me, I might not have continued playing. But there's a feeling that we were all in this together. Even though I was holding everyone else down, I knew that in areas outside counterstrike I was smarter or better than them: after all I was going to a top university for performing better in high school and they were going to state schools. So, I knew that mastering a mouse hand, quick shooting, and agility in counterstrike was possible.

Bernie DeKoven points out that Coliberation is a state of flow most attainable when others nearby are doing the same action. After the first map rounds, I was less concerned about winning and more concerned how when I went to us very specific corner and crouched behind a certain box with a shotgun I could run out, surprise my victim, and blast them to smithereens. I would then be shot by another player, but it was fun. In a way, it reminded me of the original Doom where you could take a chainsaw to a zombie bull repeatedly and always get the same shock of extreme pixilated gore coming out of a large animal that was about to kill you if you didn't charge at it. Perhaps, this is deep fun. But just as cutting up the last zombie becomes routine, so does shooting a terrorist with a shotgun become monotonous.

To keep our interest, the map changes and new tricks are added. In one level you can fall through ice, and you're so close to your enemy when starting the levels take less than two minutes. Aim comes secondary to being able to crouch or charge without being hit. Then, on the next level everyone only gets a sharpshooter rifle, a knife, and just enough money for a hand gun on a large open field. The challenge changes and our skills must adapt slightly. If the map doesn't change, then we don't experience flow. Instead, we leave the game but not without first deliberately shooting everyone on our team and hoping that they don't know who did it. This offers its own challenge in trying to shoot one team member in hopes that he will then go and shoot another player thinking that that teammate was treasonous.

Posted by Ezekial Slotsky at 11:22 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

It must have been several years since the original release of Half Life and the release of the Counter Strike mod. I still remember running Counter Strike at LAN parties back in elementary school and in middle school off of my insanely slow computer, which would have a 4092 ping even on a LAN server. Back then, the challenge and the flow was very different in that I had to get accustomed to 28.8 k modem lag and eventually to 56 k. By this time I had a slightly better computer although it was not much faster in comparison and would barely cut the minimum specs. However, it was in these dark days that my humble roots as a gamer started and where my friends influenced me into playing. I eventually got pretty decent in that I would get kills even though I would probably be the one lagging servers whenever I joined but it was indeed a challenge. Trying to predict where people were represents not just skill but also luck because it requires either the other player to be bad and not move for a long time or the other player to simply get shot by my bullet.
In Counter Strike, there is agon plays a major role as players compete against one another to get the best scores and best kill to death ratio. Because there are usually players that are better than you, this keeps the level of play constantly competitive and lets the player become more skilled and higher as you try to perfect the use of a specific weapon.
While school and other games have gotten the better of me and caused me to neglect the original Counter Strike, my revisit was very pleasant. I saw many new changes in the game that I had played many years ago. The Flow reading states “Flow is a powerful motivator it does not guarantee virtue in those who experience. Possibility that enjoyment of life is at expense of someone else” definitely applies in competitive games like first person online shooters such as Counter Strike. When I was playing back in the day, the fact that I was using an old computer and using a dial up modem made other people able to capitalize on my disadvantage. However, after I got a newer computer and play on the fast connections at USC, I am now taking the enjoyment of life on the people on slower connections like those still on dial up or even dsl and cable now. While I am a bit rusty after playing other games so much, I was able to quickly pick up from where I left off a couple years ago.
In the same way as the tennis example, Counter Strike definitely creates an experience of flow to the point that I had to stop myself from playing a lot of times because I was so captivated by the game and did not want my grades to suffer as a result. There is so much to do and explore a lot of times. While I was an average player, many of my friends were addicts that would play with me and try to just get me to play at my highest level. It was not because they wanted to see me get killed more but because they wanted an elevated game play. At one point, I was even in a clan where coliberation was pretty high in that we wanted each other to do well because we would play other teams. This improves the experience of flow because it requires another skill set as it is critical to work together in teams and makes one person not enough to save the whole team as random lucky shots can kill people. With this social aspect in the game, it further creates more opportunity to experience flow in the game.
In playing on different servers and clan servers, there are also many modifications from Warcraft 3 mods to low gravity mods to surfing maps. With all the different parts in just the original modification of Half Life, Counter Strike has evolved steadily through the years. While the graphics is starting to become outdated, the impact of the game design and flow has become an integral part of the way most first person shooters are designed today.

Posted by Roy Sher at 11:21 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Since I lack any basic dexterity and skill for first person shooters, I decided to play Counter Strike as a model FPS.

When I first started playing, I did not set any goals for myself other than being able to shoot and move around. As the game progressed, I died in longer intervals and tried watching other people’s strategies while playing. Finally, I was able to kill on person who refused to shoot back and kept dodging. It wasn’t until he died that I realized he was my own teammate. At that point, the player voiced his opinions on my idiocy and left the room. Throughout the rounds of the game, players only spoke to highlight achievements and failures, such as when someone was killed or was able to kill. I also noticed that asking any questions or starting conversations was beyond the focused attentions of the other players. I thought that this might have been due to flow.

Csikszentmihalyi’s flow is described as “being completely involved in an activity for its own sake. The ego falls away. Time flies. Every action, movement, and thought follows inevitably from the previous one, like playing jazz. Your whole being is involved, and you're using your skills to the utmost." Unlike the other players, I was a beginner that had no skill and therefore small goals to accomplish. Since these goals were fairly easy, I soon became bored because the main goal in the game, killing the other team, was too difficult. I almost always died first and I soon ran out of money for buying new guns. I was definitely not experiencing flow, and by Csikszentmihalyi’s flow diagram, I was within the “little skill” and “frustration” areas. The main reason why I did not experience flow was because I was not skilled enough to face the advanced players in the game.

There was one brief period where I did experience flow however. After my teammates booted me out of the room, I joined a room that had several other beginning players. We had low standards for each other so we decided to change the goals to suit our skill. We changed the conditions of the game to knives only, and had fun killing each other, since the only skill you needed was to run up while constantly jabbing the other players. Very soon however, we became bored and the struggle for flow continued. I think that Csikszentmihalyi’s flow diagram is quite practical since I felt in and out of flow in a matter of minutes. If I had been much more skilled at the game I certainly would have been completely absorbed and felt time pass by without me.

Posted by Joni Cheng at 9:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

I have never been a fan of first person shooters for the fact that it takes a large amount of coordination and map knowledge to succeed. However, I really enjoyed my first real experience while playing Halo 2. My friends and I linked up to three X-boxes and played 5 –on- 5 Team Slayer matches. This can be extremely fun, as most flow experiences happen while with friends because of their positive impact on us (Csikszentmihalyi). Our group constantly encourages teamwork and camaraderie to defeat the opposing team. Shouts of “good job” and “way to go!” can be heard down the hall in other rooms.

The game itself definitely produces feelings of flow for me. When I play it seems as though nothing else matters because I am in Lockout trying to defend towers and teammates. Although theoretically as a Spartan I should be more agile, the fact that the game limits some movement adds to the realism. Characters do not perform insane moves to the point where one can get bored. Instead, everyone is limited to the gameplay and thus has to develop their skills. When I first started I kept receiving beat down and assassination messages from the game. I could be holding an energy sword in my hand and still fall flat on my face from a head on collision with an elbow. I had no idea how to move properly let alone use the radar for help. However, I did not start off playing by myself at the easy level. I played with more experienced players who motivated me to improve my skills. Now, even though I still receive thorough beatings, I enjoy my time playing Halo.

Halo possesses qualities that mostly fall under the Agon class of flow. Games such as juggernaut, king of the hill, and capture the flag focus on competition. These really drive a player to contribute to his or her team so that they can suppress the enemy. Halo also falls under the Mimicry class for its science fictional environments. Aside from the fact that Spartans are more powerful than the average human, players also have the chance to experience massive levels that can only be seen within the world of the game. The most exciting level I have played on is Ascension, a level that seems to be suspended in the air with two towers and rotating pillars in the center of the level. There are many hiding points, yet at the same no one is safe from dreaded snipers. Such a map could only appear in the Halo setting.

Overall, I say Halo 2 has been an enjoyable First Person Shooter experience. I definitely had the feeling of flow while competing with my friends. The fact that a player can do slightly more than a human but still be restricted to certain abilities evens the playing ground for the beginners and urges them to perform well. Once a player starts this game there is no end, for the game produces total captivation and immersion.

Posted by Andrew Tio at 2:09 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I experience a great deal of flow while playing Half Life 2: Deathmatch. However, I don’t necessarily get a sense of the flow each individual time I play, it is more of a drawn out process over several months.

When I first began playing Half Life 2 Deathmatch, I was pretty terrible (as can be expected of any new players). I joined some random server and figured out how everything works. I had beaten the single player mode of Half-Life 2, but learning how all the guns are balanced, the new maps, and the effective strategies for online play took some time. I certainly experienced a great deal of anxiety as I struggled to compete with the more experienced players. Rarely do I experience boredom. Even though everytime I play I have the same goal, kill as many people as I can and die as few times as I can, no two games are the same. I never know what the other players are going to do. It is difficult to get bored when each game, each player, each situation is always different. Because I rarely get bored, I’ve spent a good chunk of my time playing and increasing my skill level. Before long, I ascended into one of the elite players online. I became a merciless killing machine, pumping my enemies full of shotgun shells, sniping from afar with the crossbow, and hurling toilets left and right using the gravity gun. I came to dominate pretty much every game I joined.

Soon after, I discovered a certain server where all the most skilled players play. Just as I was starting to get bored and search for new challenges, I discovered that I was not the greatest play of all. It was almost as if I was starting over relearning the game. My kill/death ratio plummeted, which left me feeling, just as Czikszentmehiya writes, “anxious and frustrated by [my] relatively low skill level.” My options were now to increase my skill level or to stop playing altogether. From that point on this server was the only place that I played. I learned the maps forward and backwards, I created a number of strategies for myself, including lurking in the massive projectile-filled room with the gravity gun, and keeping to the area where there are a lot of health and shields and relying on my trusty crossbow to pick enemies off from near and far.

At the moment I am among the elite players on the server. The name “meaty” is known and feared by many other players who play there. In the race to 50 frags, I managed to win about half of the rounds I play, a tremendous feat given the number of other highly skilled players that play there. However, getting to 50 frags first is only my secondary goal. I am most concerned with my efficiency, which I believe is the true measure of a player’s skill level. For example, I would much rather end with a score of 40 frags, 12 deaths, than be the first to 50 frags but have 20 deaths. I should point out that this server has a program that tracks the stats of players who play on the server. At anytime I can type “/stats” and see my total kills, total deaths, and my overall ratio. The level of challenge I experience keeps on rising as I raise my goals. When I first began to concentrate on my efficiency, I set a goal of 3 frags per death. This proved to be quite a challenge at first, but in order to stay in the “flow channel” of the game, I had to increase my skill level and adapt new strategies to meet the new challenge. Once I began to score at this level regularly, I again raised the bar to 3.25 : 1 and eventually to 3.5 : 1. As soon as began to reach my goal regularly, I had to set a new goal to avoid getting bored. 3.5 is challenging to me right now, but I have already raised the bar. I am currently ranked 11th on the server out of over 400. The 10th ranked player has a ratio of 3.71. I’m sitting close behind, currently at 3.63, and I really want achieve my most ambitious goal yet, to ascend into the server top 10.

The experience I receive from this game is almost entirely under the category of Agon, because I feel extremely competitive while playing. I challenged myself with my lofty ratio-related goals, but when I discovered the new server other players provided great challenges too. I have come to recognize a number of players that play on that server as very high threats, I do my best to avoid them because even though I may be able to kill them 60% of the times, that is not the ratio I’m looking for. I wouldn’t be surprised if they try to avoid me as well. Playing with such skilled players certainly requires me to be on top of my game and play to my full potential.

I also experience ilinx (vertigo) to a certain degree. As soon as I start playing, I feel physically different. I need to focus more. Everytime I get a kill, or narrowly escape death I feel really good. Everytime I make a poor play, miss and easy shot, or get killed unfairly I feel a lot of anxiety. Sometimes when it’s a really close game (perhaps I’m tied with another play at 47 frags in a race to 50) I get really tense. When the round ends I can feel my heart beating quickly and blood pumping. No other game has been able to give me a rush like Half-Life 2 Deathmatch.

My experiences with Half-Life 2 Deathmatch are a perfect example of flow. Over and over, I experience more difficult challenges, either from more skilled players or my own ratio goals, a strategy which requires me to become a better player and to stay within the “flow” of the game.

Posted by David Neumann at 8:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

In the game Puzzle Pirates, you are given many options to play as a character that you customize and that you create to your personal liking. While I have not played mmog that are browser based for a long time, I found that Puzzle Pirates was very engaging and yet was not all too difficult to learn and get used to. When I first logged on, it briefly asked for simple information and came up with a missions list. From this point on, the game becomes very focused on the social metaphor because while most of the games are individualized puzzles, most need interaction with other people because it requires some sort of a team to run the ship. While the communication is through keyboard and typing out responses instead of the voice communication like in Traveler, there is still quite a bit of communication going on throughout the game. This communication goes on whether it is through playing a game with a NPC or with another human. This aspect was especially interesting when some strangers came inside of my house and were just looking around. One of them even asked if I had a girlfriend. This was quite amusing to me as I told her that I was doing this for a class assignment, after which she left. The ability to interact and chat with other people using avatars that you can dress up and tailor to adds on to the social metaphor of the game. It becomes a part of the game mechanic in that the purpose of the game becomes more of a place where players can just hang out if they choose to not play any of the puzzles and games. It also acts as a possibility for people to play fictional roles should they choose.
Being able to talk plays a key role as players start to become engaged in some of the puzzles. This helps drive the game mechanics because one of the key features of the game is working together in teams on different ships as pirates and traders. There are several key jobs on each ship that are made up of different puzzles so it is pretty important to be successful. There are also ratings for how each player is doing in each puzzle at every checkpoint making it more important that the player does well as to be seen as a competent player and not just some random new player who does not know what is going on.. The way that the social circles where the player’s ability to chat in is also a key part of the game mechanic in that it helps to let people know who they are talking to similar to the feature in Traveler where the different 3D sound and visual effects work. The design of the game is also significant in that the characters and avatars are purposely designed to be like cartoon instead of photo realism giving players a sense of the fantasy world while maintaining a safer environment than real life pirates would be like. There are even bad language filters that change cuss words to words substitutes to keep the environment cleaner for younger players.
The social metaphors relate directly to Lazzaro’s four keys of hard fun, easy fun, altered states, and people factor. In the case of hard fun, players want to raise their experience to become essentially the best pirate with the most skills. However, they face many different challenges like the puzzles and people around them who may have been playing for a longer period of time or are simply older and more skilled of a gamer. While not all gamers on Puzzle Pirates have this goal, some players are drawn in by this aspect and continue to play even as they get older. For the gamers that are looking for easy fun, the fact that there are so many different islands and different types of games and puzzles to explore. The fact that there are so many people around to play with and compete with comes together in some of the challenges that you can do with other pirates like sword fighting. While there may be some players who offer money for beating them, most players simply enjoying the challenge of playing games with complete strangers to test out their skills and take no offence even when they get completely defeated by a college student doing their homework. The third key of having altered states is clearly demonstrated by players who are simply playing for the sheer emotional pleasure. Even as a player testing out the game for an assignment, I felt the pleasure of beating out other poor players and for doing well on puzzles and achieving even the supposed highest rank of incredible on some of the status checks. The fourth key of the people factor was clearly demonstrated in the girl that I talked to who asked if I wanted a girlfriend. She clearly did not know that I was a college student. However, she demonstrates the point that some people are playing the game with other deeper intentions like getting hooked up online or something even though that may be quite dangerous in and of itself.
To conclude, Puzzle Fighters clearly demonstrated many of the social metaphors that were mentioned in the article and appeals to many gamers that are looking for all four of the key features from the Lazzaro’s article.

Posted by Roy Sher at 4:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Puzzle Pirates is a massively multiplayer online browser based game, a cross between an RPG and a compilation of puzzle games. The RPG component involves character advancement, acquiring money and items for use, crafting, exploring, quests, etc. However, the actual gameplay, at every level, is just different puzzles. All of these puzzles seem to in some way resemble the various components of Tetris, whether it involved lowering arbitrarily differentiated objects into a stacking area, or fitting blocks together as air-tightly as one can. This simple set of puzzles is a deceptively simple mask for the social interaction it facilitates.

The game is a standard puzzle game, but by its design those puzzles actually seem to take a back seat in terms of significance when put in the larger perspective of the whole game. Each puzzle serves a purpose outside of itself, with the outcomes and progress in each puzzle creating effects in the rest of the game world. This is even more meaningful because not only does it lend a greater importance to the puzzle’s result in terms of large-scale progress, but it means that other people in the game depend on your performance. Each ship in the game is crewed by anywhere from a handful people to a couple dozen players, each of whom relies on their entire team to make their voyages and conquests successful. The puzzles themselves, when performed in a player vessel, yield no rewards themselves, but each one must be done in order to maintain the ship and accomplish “pillaging,” a group effort that, when successful, produces great rewards for the entire crew. This produces the effect that the game feels like primarily a social experience, and the puzzles are just there to fulfill the activities and provide some sort of substance to pull the social interaction forward and give it a subject. The teams of players work together to acquire the in-game currency, and the social design of the game is very good at facilitating successful, peaceful, and pleasant teamwork. The structure of the game prevents there from being much infighting, for several reasons. For one thing, everyone on a ship is working toward the same objective, and has no reason to disagree on that point. They all want the ship to move, and none of them want it destroyed. Fairly simple. Also, there is no sense of competition among the crewmates because they would stand nothing to gain by being competitive as opposed to cooperative. The reward distribution system is agreed upon in advance, and depends upon either group seniority or is divided evenly; there is no incentive for a crewmember to try to show up her teammates, because she would not benefit. However, each team member is still compelled to contribute, because the group is small enough that if one does not pull their weight, the consequences are observable to everyone. If someone doesn’t do their job, their crew is less likely to win any loot, and they are in turn not going to get much; not to mention, if someone slacks off for too long they crew will just kick them out. Lastly, the only people in the game with home there is hostility or confrontation is the enemy ships, and the only interaction with enemy ships is a very structured battle system, which everyone understands in advance, and is played without much mind for the opposition specifically; this is partially accomplished by the fact that you cannot talk to your enemies when in battle. And if you ever meet them outside of battle, the odds are that they are no longer your enemies.

The mechanics of the game are simple. Each puzzle is controlled either with the mouse or with a few keys on the keyboard. Outside of the puzzles, the entire interface is mouse-driven, which makes things super-easy to learn, and streamlines the user-system interactions. However, all interaction with other players is done simply with text chat, which can be accessed at any time. Even during puzzles, the player can hit escape to leave the puzzle momentarily in order to chat.

The game addresses all four of “Lazzaro’s Keys.” The game’s “hard fun,” or challenge, comes from the progressively increasing difficulty of the puzzles as you play them more; it also results from the player-versus-player ship battles, where your fellow players are your biggest challenge. The game’s “easy fun,” or immersion, comes from the distinct and stylized art style, and detailed though limited graphics. The environments are visually intricate and at the same time quite large and invite exploration. The “altered states,” or distraction, comes from the simplicity of the puzzles and the fact that they have no distinct end, while being moderately fun, so they are something one could lose themselves in for an extended period of time. Lastly, the “People Factor” is the most obviously present, as the entire point of the game is the interaction with other players.

Posted by Nathan McNamara at 4:43 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

NeoPets Online is a browser-based MMMOG focused on raising and customizing pets, playing mini games and interacting with others through battles, guilds, forums and games.

Joni Cheng
CTIN 482

NeoPets Online is a browser-based MMMOG focused on raising and customizing pets, playing mini games and interacting with others through battles, guilds, forums and games. Although NeoPets is completely two dimensional and operates through browsers, players become immersed by the rich, creative avatars and world maps. Collins and DiPaola in their essay, A Social metaphor-based 3D Virtual Environment refer to this social metaphor experience as tele-presence, “the subjective sensation that remote users are actually co-located within virtual space.” The popularity of this game strongly depends on this factor of immersion, which is considered necessary for “an enhanced level of socialization, learning and communication.” (Collins and DiPaola 2003) The ability to form guilds, play multiplayer games, battle other users’ pets and submit fan art keeps the NeoPet community vibrant, as “any form of collaboration is a step toward[s] deeper community.” (Collins and DiPaola 2003)

NeoPets falls into three of four key categories to emotional playing; easy fun, altered states and the people factor. (Why We Play Games: Four keys to More Emotion Without Story, Lazzaro 2004). The entire game is characterized by easy fun; NeoPets captures users’ attentions with casual games that focus on absorption rather than competition and offers many areas to explore. Newcomers are given very few instructions, a wise tactic that promotes exploration and curiosity. Immersion can be produced when “ambiguity, incompleteness, and detail combine to create a living world.” (Lazzaro 2004)

The creativeness of NeoPets is effective in producing different emotional states in players, known as altered states. One example is the adoption center in a central town. When pets are adopted, they show happy, smiling, avatars that burst with joyfulness. On the other hand, pets that have not been fed or are abandoned are shown as crying, depressed and faded. One particularly emotion-inducing action is when a player abandons their pet. The button players’ click on to confirm abandonment toggles pitiful cries from the monster before it is abandoned. Battling pets with other people online also induces feelings of emotion including naches, fiero and schadenfreude (Lazzaro 2004). NeoPets offers players to pick out a certain pet/player to beat and forums provide users a method of communication and way of showing off their pets.

The third key factor that characterizes NeoPets is the people factor. As explained above, NeoPets relies on a strong community and groups within groups. Some players who might not play as often or are more casual gamers can play casual games and chat with friends and guildmates. They are players who “see games as mechanisms for social interaction” and enjoy experiencing the emotions mentioned above. (Lazzaro 2004) By forming a tight community, allowing for competition, cooperation and communication through casual games and pet care, Neopets achieves the right environment for their players.

Posted by Joni Cheng at 7:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In 7th grade my classmates introduced me to Neopets, a game very similar to Pokemon, but one that really focused on collecting goods and earning more of the Neopian currency, Neopoints. I decided I would try my luck with Neopets once more to see what the site had evolved into. I remember not having access to multiple locations because Neopets had just begun running and the site was looking to create more mini-games and markets. The food shop and the wizards shop were always closed for renovation. Over the past few years the game steadily received growing popularity by creating PS2 games and McDonald happy meal toys. Unfortunately my old account had expired so I had to create a new account. I suppose my old pets were probably in bad shape and wanted the account deleted as opposed to sitting there unhappy in their virtual world.

Remembering my favorite Neopet in 7th grade, I picked up a yellow Shoyru and named it Seraphyr32. The game really takes care of its young players with clear directions as well as suggestions not to create more than one Neopet at the outset. It proves difficult to keep even one pet happy. I immediately noticed the large number of locations available to Neopet owners. The game has improved dramatically since the late nineties with the inclusion of 12 new lands located in the water, the desert, and even outer space. All shops are up and running and restock every few minutes. The battle domes have opened up, allowing interaction between Neopet owners. Unfortunately, I noticed a few problems with the game. The home page advertises multiplayer game play and interaction with other Neopet owners, but at the beginning the options are very limited. An owner starts off with a measly 250 Neopoints and is encouraged to earn Neopoints by playing a variety of games or simply click and refresh the Money Tree. Only then can they have enough Neopoints to purchase 3,000 Neopoint items and weapons to engage in multiplayer battle dome games.

The games section offers many different games, many of which are variations of each other. Without any weapons or skills, the only multiplayer games one can play resemble conventional board games. One example is Kacheekers, which is simply checkers with the Kacheek Neopet on the tokens. However, there is no way of talking to a Kacheeckers opponent, and the only way to communicate is through clicking a button that says “Your move.” The single player mini- games are very similar to past video games such as Galaga and Pong, but they include small changes and the use of Neopet characters. The rest test how fast you can hit the keypads or click the mouse. None of these mini- games involve multiplayer action, but they still possess some of Lazarro’s Four Keys. The games within the land of Neopia are mostly “hard fun” and “easy fun” games that ask for complete attention in order to experience Fiero, the feeling of triumph. Many of the games seem simple and easy, yet once played they present some challenge to the player. Their resemblance to past video games keeps players hooked and attracted. Frustration also comes in the form of purchasing food and items for pets, but there is a sense of satisfaction once an owner purchases a meal. The Money Tree holds various items that other users have donated. One might find strawberry jelly or a bag of Neopoints, but most everything else are “Old Rotten Shoes.” The process to getting started is extremely time- consuming and tedious. Sometimes the games can become a chore, but in the end it is worth it. This is Neopet’s way of using “hard fun.” Once enough points are gathered, a player can buy weapons to equip to their pet. Then he or she can engage in battles with other Neopets and aim to make their own pets stronger.

The Battle Dome in Neopia allows Neopet owners to pit their battles against other pets. The player sends a challenge to a known Neopet and awaits the response. Once accepted, a sword symbol appears in the top left corner of the browser. In battle, a user tells his or her pet to perform an action and it is acted out on the screen. Below that is a box in which you can type a message to the person you battle. This is the Neopian social metaphor and essentially the only way that one can communicate to other players. Seraphyr32 took on a pet named Pugogo, a Neopet that was obviously much stronger and much more experienced. It relentlessly pummeled Seraphyr32 and only allowed my Shoyru one hit. This is the most player to player interaction within the world of Neopets, but it certainly keeps a player attached to the game. Much like Pokemon, the battle dome encourages an owner to search for abilities and weapons to strengthen the Neopet and conquer opponents.

Overall, Neopets is a game that we will see for awhile. Its browser based style makes it easy for young children to play while its mini- games give the older children a variety to choices to stay entertained. Other sidequests within Neopia ask for a user to roam the world in exchange for unique prizes. The game possesses qualities that make a game popular and fun to play. The only place where it fails is having a more interactive and social environment. Neopets has lasted long because it utilizes two of the four keys that induce emotion in players, an aspect that is vital for games to stay popular. It will be interesting to see Neopets develop into a more social game in the future.

Posted by Andrew Tio at 2:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Sissy Fights is a turn- based online game where players pretend to be schoolgirls and attack each other's "self-esteem" points. The object is to bring down the other girls’ self-esteem points before losing all of your self-esteem using methods such as grounding, scratching, group teasing, tattling, and blocking by sucking a lollipop or cowering. When your schoolgirl avatar loses, you can choose to stay and watch the current game or go back to the chat room to join or create another game. If you stay to watch the game, then you're allowed to communicate with the other players still in that game.

The social metaphor of the game is that each player, represent my avatar, looks like a schoolgirl.

Sissy Fights is a turn- based online game where players pretend to be schoolgirls and attack each other's "self-esteem" points. The object is to bring down the other girls’ self-esteem points before losing all of your self-esteem using methods such as grounding, scratching, group teasing, tattling, and blocking by sucking a lollipop or cowering. When your schoolgirl avatar loses, you can choose to stay and watch the current game or go back to the chat room to join or create another game. If you stay to watch the game, then you're allowed to communicate with the other players still in that game.

The social metaphor of the game is that each player, represent my avatar, looks like a schoolgirl. When the player text messages other players, the mouths move and a text bubble above their head forms. The social metaphor that Steve Di Paola and David Collins refer to is on Live Traveler where characters speak audibly when players speak into a microphone. The major drawback in Sissy Fight is that the spoken text coming from the avatar does not look like it is actually pronouncing those words. Furthermore, this game removes the players from a full social interaction because, as pointed out by DePaola/Collins, players must type. That isn’t natural and is similar to the example given of AOL chat rooms not being a full 3-D social metaphor.

The metaphor carries on the game mechanic because players are using the social abilities to gang up on the other girls. In fact, there are two winners in this game, the last two remaining girls. However the only means of communication (I don't believe there's any whispering) is through the characters’ text bubbles above their avatars, which everyone can see. Thus, the easiest way of gaining up on someone is by using a means of communication other than that offered by the videogame such as face-to-face, AOL instant messaging, or telephone. For example, players referred to each other not by their avatars but by their actual names when communicating in the game; they had met before playing. Later in the game, they had chosen who their victim for teasing would be without telling each other through their avatars. This removes the player from an immersive experience in her game.

However, the metaphor to a real 3-D social environment does allow other social interaction. Before starting one game, a player wanted to find out where in Australia everyone was from before playing. The two Australians who live nearby did not attack each other, even when one is about to lose. In this match, the game was secondary to having a conversation. I find text messaging to be a distraction from the speed of voice messaging (In fact, this entry was written using voice recognition systems). Furthermore, the game allows players 80 seconds to choose what tactic they will use each turn and a time counter tells everyone how long it has been. If everyone chooses their tactic, the counter immediately skips to 10 seconds left. After a few games I found myself checking my e-mail in between turns, especially when players would talk instead of choose their tactic and take the actual 60 seconds. Also the Shockwave-based game does not cover-up the computer clock. Even though I take a few seconds to think about whether I should counter or attack, the decision process does not take me long as my level of concern for the game is also low even though I can invest up to 30 minutes in a game.

Relating Sissy Fight to Nicole Lazzaro’s four emotional keys for why we play video games, we play Sissy Fight for the people aspect in one-upmanship. For example, the most devastating attack in self esteem points you can give to many players at once is tattling. However I never saw retaliation against the tattling player. Sissy Fights has some hard fun because there is tactical strategy guessing what the other players' maneuvers will be, and there's some alternate state because not everyone who plays is an elementary school girl. Furthermore, how one looks and chooses her name affects game play. Usually, the first characters that lost were Characters with sexual references in their names or looked mean with a buzz haircut or Mohawk. I found very little easy fun emotional state because there is little to explore in terms of the character or the story. The only part that has a little bit of easy fun was in choosing how the avatars look, which shockwave allowed me to complete within seconds.

Posted by Ezekial Slotsky at 11:46 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I will be using Puzzle Pirates to relate to the assigned pieces.

First of all, Puzzle Pirates attempts to be a social metaphor in several ways. It employs many techniques to create a social atmosphere in which a player can interact with other players.

The most basic of these techniques in the ability to chat. When I carried on conversations with other players, I felt connected to them through the game. I could ask them questions about how to achieve certain goals in the game (such as how to level up my sword fighting skill, where to find a certain island or port etc).

The use of avatars gave me the impression that I was being social with other people. Although I’m sure that the avatar types, being restricted to pirates, were far from what the actual players looked like, it still adds a social element. It feels much more realistic to challenge an image on a pirate to a sword fight than to challenge the text of someone’s name.

As I soon discovered, Puzzle Pirates also offers players the ability to interact with one another through challenging one another at various puzzles. For example, I challenged a player to a sword fight, and quickly realized that my skills were not up to snuff. Despite being bested by a player with avatar name “Muffynz,” I enjoyed the challenge. I even wagers 10 gold pieces on it to give him some incentive to play. After he beat me so easily, he said “good game mate” and gave me my 10 gold pieces back (A testament to how poorly I preformed during the puzzle). Being able to challenge players adds a great deal of competition to the game. The very first puzzle I attempted was the Sailing puzzle. Although it was simple to find out and very fun, I felt that I wasn’t achieving anything because it was me vs. the computer. Even though I didn’t enjoy the sword fighting puzzle as much, I spent most of my time on it simply because I could play against other players rather than the computer. I felt the desire to learn the puzzles, and eventually to master them. The idea of developing a reputation among other players as a deadly foe to sword fight or “that fat bald pirate who can hold his liquor” provides incentives for a player like me to continue playing. I feel like every time I play, I can achieve something that will be there when I log on tomorrow (or in a few hours!)

Players can also form social networks. Upon inspecting one player, I noticed that he or she had a rather prestigious title. It did not surprise me that when I challenged him to a sword fight, I was rejected. I’m sure someone with the title “Officer and Bilge Rat of The Cartographers Member of the Flag Silver Dawn,” has much better things to do that deal with common rabble such as my character. Giving players the option to join a network such as the Flag Silver Dawn adds a great deal to the social aspect of the game. When a player logs on, he or she frequently sees the other players in the network. Although I did not get the chance to join one myself, I can see how joining a network would be beneficial. Players in the same network can help each other get better at the various puzzles, take on challenges together, or just chat about the real world. It’s fun to log on and see and socialize with other players that enjoy the game as much as you do.

Puzzle Pirates also relates to Lazzaro’s 4 keys.

For the players who play predominately for “hard fun,” the multitude of puzzles provides a great deal of strategy and skill. Being able to challenge other players of different skill levels helped me discover how good I really was at certain puzzles. There are even tournaments with cash and clothing rewards that are really good at separating the skilled players from the novices. Because there are so many puzzles, I felt like I had multiple objectives. For example, there were certain puzzles I didn’t like at all. I found them difficult to learn and unamusing. That’s ok though, because I can still become the greatest sword fighter in the land.

For the “Easy Fun” players, Puzzle Pirates offers a new world to explore. There are a number of islands to visit and towns to explore. Although I’m not sure how far into the game it continues, there is an initial story line and the player gets certain missions to complete (such as learning how to sail). There were a number of things that I saw and had no idea what purpose it served. For example, I saw a pirate decked out in black gear, and he had a tri-tip hat with a black feather. I went to inspect him, and accidentally clicked on the “inspect trinket” button. I discovered that the avatar was carrying around a skull for whatever reason. There are also a number of shops and skills that I have yet to understand. Having so many things to figure out makes puzzle pirates intriguing to players seeking “easy fun.”

Puzzle Pirates does a fairly good job of altering the players state of mind. The various puzzles really forced me to devote all my attention to the task at hand. Also, the sense of accomplishment I felt after beating a certain puzzle (especially the sailing puzzle) could fall into the “made me feel better about myself” category. Although I found many of the puzzles to be tedious learning experiences and unamusing, I can see how different types of players would really enjoy them. While these puzzles didn’t do a good job or keeping me from bordem, they certainly could do just that for someone who understands the puzzle better.

The ability to create and join networks is the biggest reason why the “People Factor” is well developed in Puzzle Pirates. When in a network, a player gets a chance to meet other players. Because you are in the same network as some other player, talking to them or performing tasks with them seems much more productive than talking to or performing tasks with players not in your network. For example, you can talk about a previous conversation or recall the difficult tasks you took on together. In other words, (depending on how much you play) you are going to see this person fairly often so it is worth being friendly towards them. Competitions such as challenging another player to a puzzle enhance the people factor, as does the opportunity for teamwork.

Posted by David Neumann at 11:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)