Contextual Studies

What A Game Is? 

Here are some of the important notes that I took during the previous Contextual Studies session...

• In games deign you have "play" and "game" depending on what you're thinking/doing.
• Relation between practical game design and academic studies.
• "Real world games" (sport genre) are different, they are more cultural, more reckless. For example, in a boxing game you are safe in the comfort of your own house whilst playing. You have the ability to throw more punches compared to real life because you are safe. If your punch misses you might become angry but the repercussions of possibly being hit back are much less painful because of the safety boundaries between game and real life. 
• Football vs real life football matches do not translate well. Games can't show decent/ realistic movements or have advanced enough AI to compete with a real match and yet football games (Fifa etc) are still incredibly popular. 

Important Names & Their Work

• David Partlett: Games Historian
• John Huizinga: Homo Ludens (1938 - "Man the Player"). 
• Bernard Suits: The Grasshopper, Games, Life and Utopia (1978). 
• Sterven Johnson: "Everything Bad is Good for You"
• Chris Crawford: "The Art of Computer Game Design" (1984).
• Greg Costinkyan: "I Have no Words, I Must Design" (1994)
• Elliot Auedlon + Brian Sutton: "The Study of Games" (1971)
• Salen + Zimmermans: Definitions of Play (2004).

I am still in the processes of writing up the previous session as we were given a lot of information to process and I want to make sure I understand it before I type it up on here. Also, it would appear that over the course of the week I have become more and more ill which can only mean one thing: "freshers flu" is catching me up. I am hoping it will not develop into anything too nasty but it also doesn't put me in the best moods to work. That is why for now, I will post the home work task we were given (as I have been meaning to post it for a couple of days now) and post the rest of my notes concerning the lecture tomorrow.

I Have No Words & I Must Design: Towards a Critical Vocabulary for Games

Extracts, my thoughts and personal feelings having read from Greg Costikyan's book

"At every point, he or she considers the game state. That might be what he sees on the screen. Or it might be what the gamemaster has just told him. Or it might be the arrangement on the pieces on the board. He considers his objectives, and the game tokens and resources available to him; he considers his opposition, the forces he must struggle against. He tries to decide on the best course of action." 

 

This applies to most strategic games, games that require you to think and of which that thinking bring a purpose and a means. The Metal Gear Solid franchise comes to mind, your stealth could be perceived as an objective. Similarly, it applies to games where you have to consider what the game gives you and how you will use these items to your advantage. I think the best example I can think of for my own personal experience is Uncharted’s multiplayer (or probably most multiplayer’s) where a mode such as “capture the flag” (or, in Uncharted’s case, “Plunder”), where you have to consider the oppositions positions, the spawn points, where the objective is and what the struggle might be to obtain what you need to win. I put this on a slightly different level to modes such as death match. 

"Does every game have goals? Most do, very obviously; most games have an explicit win-state, a set of victory conditions (to use a term from board wargaming). The basic transaction we make with games is to agree to behave as if achieving victory is important, to let the objective guide our behavior in the game. There’s little point, after all, in playing a game without making that basic commitment."

All I can think about when I read this are leaderboards, scores and experience points. Every game has a mini “sub” goal. It might be the most kills, the most captures (flags, plunder etc) but these are sub goals of the game. In multiplayer, players thrive for high scores on leaderboards, world rankings and possible fame.

"We have a goal here already, notice; players are motivated to improve their characters."

I think alot of modern day video games are realise that character progression is key for a real feeling of involvement in the game. Take Assassins Creed for example. The game is not really an RPG, yet you can upgrade weapons, armour, customize clothing with colour, customize your living areas/ cities...the list go on. It’s these elements that are being drawn into more and more games now so that you can feel completely immersed in the game world and characters lives. This was so true of my experience with the Assassins Creed franchise, especially in ACII and Brotherhood.

"Every so often, the politically correct attack games as being “competitive” and therefore bad. They have winners. They have losers. This is bad; we’re supposed to nurture and support others. Why can’t we have cooperative games?" 

I think life has these elements, we see good and bad in our jobs, often competeing for promotions or raises but this isn’t seen as particularly bad, it’s perceived as “getting on in life”. In a game, you often want to escape real life but the need to be competitive is still there. I don’t think it’s a bad thing as players are often given the choice to play single player (which usually comes with no competitive vibes) or multiplayer which can be incredibly competitive. I think it’s how you handle your competitive side that shapes whether or not its a bad thing. I personally always love to play co op games; I find working with someone is far more rewarding than a bunch of people aimlessly running around trying to get the highest score. But even then I prefer to play with friends because you’re looking out for each other. It eliminates that competitive side and often makes the game stronger. 

"You can, if you want, play a graphic adventure purely for the story – and indeed, some adventures are good enough stories that playing them this way is fun (Grim Fandango qualifies). You can go out and buy a hint book, or download a walkthrough from the Web, and solve the puzzles by the book. You’ll get the story that way, and won’t have to think about the puzzles. So – why don’t they just get rid of the puzzles? Why not just make it an interactive story?" 

With games such as Tomb Raider and Uncharted puzzles are what make the experience more immersive. Yes they can be tricky but the reward for doing them yourselves as opposed to looking them up online is so rich. A real sense of accomplishment. Unfortunately, my personal experiences leads me to realise that many modern day games do not offer tricky puzzles that challenge the player unlike games used to, such as the original Tomb Raider (1-3). I remember playing these and being stuck for days not having a clue where to go. And no, no friendly little mascot would pop up on the screen to give me an incredibly obvious “tip” on where to go. No I wouldn’t have to go into the games menus and turn on “hints”. All because this just wasn’t what the aim was. The aim was to get stuck, get angry, come back once you’ve calmed down and solve the puzzle. It challenged the player. Unfortunately, these days with the rise of the casual gamers, I worry that puzzles (well, difficult puzzles) will completely vanish from games as developers want to please everyone and most casual gamers just don’t want to sit down and work out puzzles.

"Computer and console game developers are constantly grappling with the notion of struggle; they know that if the game is too hard, players will find it frustrating. Contrariwise, if it is too easy, they will find it dull."

I think this is such an unfair argument on the developer’s side and an hypocritical argument from me. I do sometimes find myself moaning at games if certain parts are “just too hard” and I am quick to blame everyone else except me for not being able to beat a certain part of the game. I also find part where I think “well that was too easy” and complain that it was not tough enough. Finding the balance between the 2 is hard but a battle that I personally think will never be won because someone will always be unhappy with the difficulty. 

"Suppose you’re walking down the street, and someone gives you a $100 in Monopoly money. This means nothing to you; Monopoly money has no meaning in the real world. The guy who gave you the bill is probably some kind of lunatic. Yet when you’re playing Monopoly, Monopoly money has value; Monopoly is played until all players are bankrupt but one, who is the winner. In Monopoly, the gaily coloured little bills that come with the game are the determinant of success or failure."

This just reminds me of my personal experiences whilst playing Uncharted. Every match I complete will reward me with dollars. Not real money I can spend in the real world but for thing that I can buy in game to better my character and experience. I thrive for more money because I always want to buy the newest upgrade or be high on the money ranking leader boards. 

"Achieving a kill in a Quake death match will do nothing for you in the real world, but may elicit glee or satisfaction when you’re playing the game."

My personal experience with this would relate to, yes you guessed it, Uncharted. (Man, I really love Uncharted). Anyway, on the multiplayer I have friends who I have met through playing the game. We often talk via microphone or text chat and we are just like friends, only our purpose is to play. If I get an amazing kill in Uncharted, my in game buddies might congratulate me, I feel really amazing and awesome for pulling off such a skilled kill. But as soon as I turn off my console, it’s like it never happened. It will have no repercussions in the real world to me (other than maybe talking to other players in real life) but I get no certificate or qualification out of it. 

"Expression: By this, LeBlanc really means “self expression”. Some, but by no means all, games, give players a way to express themselves, to choose how they present themselves in the context of the game."

When I play online games I always feel like my character represents me so this statement is just true. There isn’t much else I can say other than you strive for your character to be good at what they need to be good at and not let other people or themselves down. 

"Masochism: This is an odd choice of words on Marc’s part, but perhaps not an entirely inappropriate one. I remarked previously that we don’t want life to be a struggle – but we do want our games to be. What Marc means is that there’s a pleasure to be gained by submitting yourself to the structure of a game. Submission to a game’s structure is the basic transaction we make when we play. We don’t really care whether or not we get Monopoly money, but when we play, we agree to act like we do. We don’t really care whether we level up toniht in EverQuest, but we do our darndest to do so."

This links back to what I was saying earlier about the Uncharted dollars I receive in online matches. Again, these wont’ benefit me in the real world yet I feel like I have accomplished something. It means something in game and that’s what matters to gamers.