Let's get digital

“Try to find an example of a digital game which truly takes advantage of the traits of the medium, and could not be successfully implemented in a non-digital form. In particular, think about the traits of digital/computer games as listed by Crawford. Describe the game, and identify the core gameplay mechanic. What is it about the core mechanic that makes the game truly a digital game?”

An example of a digital game would be Starcraft, a real time strategy (RTS) game.

A RTS game is one where the player takes on the role of a general managing individual units singly or in clusters.

Why RTS games must be digital is because what is set forth by their definition: a real-time game. And unlike chess where each individual unit or pawn only take turns to interact with each other, units in RTS games have programmed AIs which require a lot of moderators if done so without a digital platform. The units in a RTS game will benefit from the plasticity and modularity that programs are able to afford.

With computers, RTS players are also provided with an intelligent player, whether computer or human via networks, which makes strategy games more meaningful.

Computers are also able to limit information given to players like in the case of ‘fog of wars’ which makes the game more realistic and strategic.

Serious Games: MacDonald’s Game

“…discuss whether it is possible for a game to be successful on two levels: both in terms of its goals as a game (creating meaningful play and engagement/flow), and as a serious game (achieving specific learning objectives, conveying a political message, or other non-entertainment objectives).”

The game is successful as a game as it has entertaining graphics to capture user attention, user friendly interfaces to aid navigation, detailed game tutorials and ingame help functionality. All these help the player get interested in the game and maintain their internal locus of control when it comes to interacting with the game. The actions that players take in the game also have very direct consequences that are clearly, and interestingly, explained to them.

It has succeeded as a serious game as the player is taking on the role of the management staff in MacDonald’s and is expected to make several management decisions in the course of the game. The game is stunted in a manner that, if the player does not make any unorthodox decisions to help the company, the company does not thrive. Thus subconsciously reinforcing that MacDonald’s is operating in an unorthodox manner. Along the course of the game, additional info about the unorthodox practices is provided.

Educational game, but fun! Serious info but people will just read it for the cuteness of it all. A great success.

Social Games: Mafia

Game name: Mafia

1. Describe the social interactions which you observed during play. In what way did these interactions emerge from within the formal elements of the game?

In the mafia game that we played, it is apparent that there are players that initiated interaction and the rest who almost do not interact unless interacted with. The players that initiated the interaction had more power when it comes to outcome of the game as they are able to accumulate a following of players who believe their words.
Players who have never played the game speak to incriminate other players or even save themselves. This is probably because the players do not understand the implications of their actions.

2. Using Sutton-Smith's categorization of social play roles, discuss how the players' roles changed during the course of the game.

I would believe that the roles of the players change according to the nature of the interaction of all players. Depending on the current mood or environment, players have to change their interaction styles accordingly to convince other players of their cause.
Player roles with regards to allegiance do not change as that is how the game is.

3. Suggest a modification to the game which will alter the social dynamics that emerge during play.

In the game, we introduced the modification of an inclusion of a non-mafia who knows the identity of the mafia members. The non-mafia members identity is secret and in his/her best interest to expose the mafia.
This leads to more interaction on the non-mafia side as normally there are little clues to who the mafia is and therefore causing the non-mafias to take on a pacifist attitude.

Big - 2!

In the spirit of the Chinese New Year (CNY) I shall talk about BIG-2 (a gambling card game that is frequently played in CNY).

Objectives: Win by discarding cards in hand down to 0 while observing the rules.

Procedure: Turn based game played by 4 players. Players may play cards once or they may pass their turn.

Rules: 4 players are dealt 13 randomized cards each. 2 is the largest card. Suit power is as follows: Spades, Hearts, Clubs, and Diamonds. The one with 3 Diamonds starts 1^st. The player who initiates may play either 1 card, or a pair of cards of similar number, or a set of 5 cards poker styled. The following players may choose to play a similar of amount cards of larger value or pass their turn. If all players passed their turn the player who last played must then play any amount of cards (be it 1 or 2 or 5) of any value. 1st player to play all cards in hand win.

Resources: Cards in hand are your only tangible resource and also your greatest liability. Initiative and control in terms of being the one to start playing either 1 or 2 or 5 is also a much sought after position therefore people try to win ‘sets’ to gain control.

Conflicts: Conflict between players arises from conflict in rule resolution come from variants in rules. Other than that the rules are strict enough to cover all possibilities.

Boundaries: ??? Around the poker table?

Outcome: 1^st player to play all cards collect from all other players a sum equivalent to how many cards they have left in hand.

Additional rules do not need to be written down as what is described is above would suffice for play. Variants in rules do not change game play much as long as all are familiar with the variant.

Concepts from Doug Church

Intention: Watching how other players play (or don’t play) their cards, it is possible to formulate a plan on how to play finish your cards in the most efficient and ‘un-interruptible’ manner.

Perceivable consequence: Watching player reactions and attempt to guess what plan they are using.

Calvin Ball and Nomic Games

Calvin and Hobbes share the same mind there is no conflict to the rules and thus ‘everyone’ knows the rules perfectly. Since Calvin and Hobbes are having fun, it demonstrates that there is nothing wrong with the rules, or the state of non-rules, in CalvinBall. The game also demonstrates a great deal of interactivity as demonstrated by the pictures and the way the rules are phrased. It has no a quantifiable outcome resulting in it being an aimless activity because it has no tangible goal. Strangely, the players are depicted as having LOADS OF FUN (>.<) which is the main point of having games in the 1^st place.

Personally, as long as someone (not necessarily everyone) is having fun, it would be sufficient for an activity to be considered a game. That is why pulling someone’s hair is fun if someone derived amusement from it, though at the expense of others and thus would be seen as a game from certain perspectives.

Speaking of games that are volatile with regards to rules, game states and goals, there is a card game called Flux (http://www.wunderland.com/LooneyLabs/Fluxx/ ). It won the Mensa Select Award for being the top 5 best new games in 1999. There are cards that change the rules, game states and goals of the game. It is very brainy and due to the turn based system and cards available, the flaw is that there is little interactivity as games are normally won in 1 turn if mediated. It is mentioned in the lecture that games of this sort are called Nomic games. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomic ) It should be noted that though the rules can be changed, there are probably immutable strict rules that govern how the rules can be changed so that players can interact in a tighter manner.

Meaningful play is subjective, but the volatility of rules makes it hard for players to interact properly with one other in a competitive manner, which is similar to Flux and worse.