Blog

What I learned

Rating for the week

This opening week introduced some ideas that I found limiting in their initial approach, and I was happy to see them expanded upon in later weeks (the evolution, for example, from linear storylines to more multi-modal storylines (tying in nicely to emergent gameplay). Equally, I liked the final elements of the course on how certain games have boosted gamification to encourage repeated game play by modifying the game mechanics, which explained in part why certain games that held zero interest for me seemed incredibly popular and addictive to others.

The rest of the course would be devoted to:

1. Basic terminology and concepts;
2. Academic theories about game frameworks;
3. Applying the theories to cultural topics

(Completed January 2015)

IMO, this was the best lecture of the series, partly as it provided the foundation I was seeking in order to have further discussions later about gamification. It starts with the question, “What is a game?” and what initially would seem almost pedestrian veers into deeper philosophy almost to distinguish a “game” from mere “play”. In the end, I was most attracted to the idea that a game may have a common set of elements such as:

1. Usually close-ended with formal system of rules and a desired end-state to reach;
2. Consequences for cheating or violating the rules;
3. An ending or conclusion;
4. Quantifiable outcomes;
5. Balance between risk and reward;
6. Effort on behalf of the players; and/or,
7. Fun or whimsical elements.

For me though, I think that second half of the list is more about the enjoyability of the game, as many other games could have those elements or not and still be games.

(Completed June 2015)

This would be my second favorite lecture of the series as I think it starts to expand upon the basic definitions of a game tied to physical medium games like board games and takes you deeper into the world of interactive video games.  With the idea introduced that progressive gameplay means you progress linearly through the game, and the idea that emergent gameplay allows for some self-identification of goals and / or methods to achieve them, I was struck though that there was something missing — the difference between single player games and the limited opportunities for emergence vs. the natural emergence, even in more linear games, if the game allowed for multiple players to interact. The one element that I feel is underdeveloped is the significance of griefing. I don’t think griefing really qualifies as emergent gameplay, just more that the computers now have help (an extra opposing side, for instance).

(Completed June 2015)

Understanding Video Games – Week 4 – Game Mechanics

I love the framework of game rules (obvious), agents (players), game mechanics (what the agents can do to interact with the game i.e. actions, behaviours and control mechanisms), dynamics, and aesthetics (emotional level).

(Completed June 2016)

The week’s material covers RPGs, and I found myself more interested in the story elements (narratology) over the game mechanics (ludology). An interview with a game designer and programmer was fascinating about how built in personalization / differentiation gives an illusion of total openness in a scene, in contrast to the reality that it is actually a tightly controlled narrative / dialogue. However, overall, I think the biggest addition for the week was Joseph Campbell’s monomyth of the hero’s journey (departure, initiation, return). While I understand the limitations (default male-orientation, kitchen sink ethos to include “everything” and its misuse as prescriptive storytelling), it’s a decent framework for the frequent “hero’s journey”.

(Completed June 2016)

The week walks through the beginnings of MMOs with multi-user dungeon games (MUDs), and how MMOs added to it with advanced GUI and recognizable visual settings. In particular, they work their way through Ultima (which added both positive social interactions and negative ones such as griefing), Everquest (innovation through adding 3D interfaces, but also led to selling characters in the real world and early references to online addictions), Second Life (showing that it wasn’t all about weird fantasy worlds), and the true powerhouse, World of Warcraft.

This week stepped back a bit and pulled from literary theory to talk about a structural way of analysing games and the interrelationships between the parts such as the hardware and program code, functionality, gameplay, meaning of a game (relying on semiotics, signs and symbols), referentiality (how it represents a genre or crosslinks to other games and gametypes), and socio-culture (how it fits within the outside world or what is brought to the game by players).

In the end, though, it basically argues what the game says or doesn’t say, does or doesn’t do, includes or doesn’t include, all represent choices that then can tell you something about how the game views the “real world” as it abstracts from our reality into the reality of the game. I hesitate to go so far as to say the medium is the message, but at the least, it is a medium that is saying something and that “something” is open to analysis and interpretation.

However, this is the point in the course where I started to have niggling concerns about the level of complexity or simplification shown by the various types of included analysis.

(Completed June 2016)

I had a jump in the course at this point as it disappeared from Coursera. I had already downloaded all the materials though so that I could work offline, so I could continue, which was good for me. Not that surprising, really…after all, I was almost three years from having first started the course!

The week was about a cultural studies approach to gaming, and for me, there is a constant struggle in CS to studying any culture. If you are part of the culture, it is hard to step back to study it, thus challenging objectivity; if you are not part of the culture, you’re often interpreting that culture from an outside perspective, thus challenging bias and perspective. Yet, to the extent that CS ever allows you to wrestle those two competing challenges to the ground, I accept that gaming culture would include the members, their specialized language, a sense of community, identity representation of self and others, questions of membership (in/out), and how members interrelate.

However, I found myself wanting more depth in the analysis. For example, with modders, I wanted some indication of scope or magnitude, their motivations and desires…it seemed simply descriptive, not truly analytical. Equally, I felt there was room for a deeper dive on the change in commercial distribution channels and Indies, with perhaps some comparative analysis with the music industry, Kickstarter campaigns for inventions, or self-publication of books through Amazon.

Finally, I think COS players warrant some additional consideration. If you want to understand a culture, one of the most basic tools of cultural studies is to look at ways in which they express themselves for both artistry and identity. And the physical embodiment of a video game character would seem to be the ultimate form of that expression. For some, it may simply be a creative challenge — can they make a costume or do the makeup? For others, it could be an opportunity for role play and to experience the game in a different way, not by actually immersing oneself into the game’s reality, but by bringing that reality into the broader world. And for some, it is simply Hallowe’en costume play. Yet there are people who can do it for a living — they’re booked and paid to attend in various costumes at ComicCons, they pose as models for photographers, they travel around the world doing it. It’s a area ripe for potential misinterpretation, but still, I would have liked to see more on it.

(Completed December 2017)

The week’s videos have a great history of “fighting” / “violence” in video games from old platform games to cinematic online games. I have more niggling concerns when they get into treating blood and gore as a mere aesthetic, similar to horror movies, partly because of the interactive nature. In the movies, you’re watching and observing; in video games, you’re interacting and causing the mayhem. I see the similarities in questions, but with a key extra component, similar to Roger Ebert’s concerns … does the gameplay take you out of “art” into something more participatory?

As the week progresses, I like their framework for understanding games i.e. risks and rewards, impacts of attacking non-playable characters, or forced moral choices (actual choices or where they are made for you in order to advance the game i.e. often no pacifist solutions).

Overall for the week’s videos, I expected more direct reference to situations like Columbine in the U.S. as one of the “hot button” examples that media pundits like to reference. I was also disappointed that they didn’t explore a bit more of the argument by some psychologists that video game play is not causal of aggression but more likely symptomatic of aggressive tendencies. In other words, aggressive people were likely to play violent games and commit violent acts, not as cause and effect, but as a series of symptoms of their aggression.

(Completed May 2018)

The videos range a bit in their content from the history of sex in gaming, ways to imagine sex in gaming (sex as an abstraction, sex as a game goal, sex/gender as a mechanic, sex as an aestethic (including what is “normal), and sex as emergent gameplay), and the role of women in the industry, ranging from marketers using sex to “sell” gaming; designers including sexual content; exploration of gender through cyber-sex roles; and creation of the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB).

The one area that they lightly touched on in other wording was the question of agency and empowerment, through role models. I was disappointed for example that the summary of Tomb Raider was simply her form and outfits, while totally ignoring that many women liked the fact that they finally had a kick-ass heroine to anchor a highly-playable, highly-successful franchise.

It’s also disappointing that their discussions of women in the industry happened before #GamerGate. It would be interesting to see any updates on those areas in the future.

(Completed May 2018)

I’m not sure about the content for the week. At times, I feel they are reaching too far…the idea that a blue army against a red army is an indication of race is no more valid than assuming that someone being a thimble or a racecar in Monopoly tells you about their personal views of objects.

And, yet, I do agree that there can easily be inherent and inherited biases in game design (black dwarves being more evil than light), that racial conflict can serve as a proxy for a larger narrative arc, and that fighting games often include game mechanics framed through a racial lens to control player attributes (strength, intelligence, etc.). I just don’t know if it gets us anywhere.

(Completed May 2018)

For the last week, they note that there are lots of types of games that are supposedly “serious” i.e. aimed at serious purposes. In history, the longest running example are wargames, but there are also “tycoon” games about business simulations and broader education games, such as the Oregon Trail or Carmen Sandiego. Games often have to walk a fine line between learning and fun/engagement, but while constructionist tools are often more “fun”, they are also ripe to be subverted by emergent play.

The part I really liked was the ending summary of gamification, namely those tools that some online apps use to gamify their products to keep people playing:

• Decay (daily obligations and no way to pause);
• Sweetening/achievements (the achievements are shared publicly to encourage competition);
• Object rarity (often with luck and duration-of-play time); and,
• Social obligation/activation (gift-giving and reciprocity).

If you access gamification as the use of game mechanics in non-game situations, and that it is a whole other field of study (i.e. suitable for another course), it’s not a bad place to end.

(Completed June 2018)

3 / 5