Discussion Questions 2

1) Based on the definitions of a game and meaningful play as presented in class, discuss whether the game of Calvinball could be considered a game. Could meaningful play emerge from this game? Why/why not?

So if I've been paying attention to the correct parts of the lecture, a game is defined as

"a voluntary interactive activity, in which one or more players follow rules that constrain their behavior, enacting an artificial conflict that ends in a quantifiable outcome."

and the criteria for classifying something as a game are as follows:

-voluntary
-artificial
-interactive
-players, experiential
-rules
-goals
-conflict
-quantifiable outcome

So in a very methodical fashion, I shall put Calvinball through each critera to determine if it is in actual fact a game.

Voluntary: Check. The players play because they want to. They also agree to obey the rules even though they might not like them.

Artificial: Check. The game is played within its own domain, the "magic circle" of the game.

Interactive: Check. Whatever happens in the game is in one way or other determined by what the player had done or what the other players had done or are doing. The players are in control of what happens in Calvinball.

Players: Check. Calvinball requires players. It is experiential.

Rules: This is a little tricky. There are rules in Calvinball but they are always changing. But I guess rules are still rules so I'll say "yes" to this one.

Goals: Another tricky one. I guess the goal is to win... but I can't find an appropriate winning condition in Calvinball... so I guess it's "no" to this one.

Conflict: Check. There is conflict between the players. The players are all playing to win.

Quantifiable outcome: How do you determine a winner if the score is Q to 12? I say "no".

So in conclusion, Calvinball does not fit the criteria of what makes a game. Hence, Calvinball is not a game.

Furthermore, I can't really find any meaningful play in Calvinball. Yes there is discernability where it is easy to perceive the immediate outcome of an action, however there is no integration as the outcome of the game is so open and unclear. (But then again, to the player it might be meaningful. Seeing how Calvin is so passionate about the game, I'm sure he sees meaning in the game... hmmm)

But Calvinball sure does sound fun though =P


2) Begin developing your initial concept for assignment 1: design a traditional format game, and share your ideas on your blog. You can do this individually for now, and we'll form groups in the workshop next week.

I haven't got any concrete concepts yet so I'll just brainstorm here and vomit out whatever ideas that come to mind.

-There are so many games that you can play with poker cards...
-Maybe a game that involves not only the game pieces (cards, dice, board) but also the environment of the player...
-Maybe a game that has something to do with trust and betrayal. Games that involve human emotions and conflict are always interesting...
-Boardgame? The possiblilties are limitless...
-There are really so many games that can be made and so many ideas to play with... maybe I'll just wait till the group decided wat type of game we want it to be (card, board or something else) so that it'll be easier to narrow down the options.

(More coming soon)

Thoughts after the "Digital Media Industry in Singapore" talk

It was a pretty informative talk, piquing my interest in the animation industry, in addition to the game industry, as well.

What I would like to know is what does the portfolio, that they keep talking about, consist of? What should I put in my portfolio and how do I create one in the first place?

I was a little disappointed when I heard about the current state of the game industry though. Companies are unwilling to produce original games because they are afraid of taking the risk because they have to answer to shareholders. I feel that that's a totally wrong mindset. Shouldn't it be more correct to feel that big companies like EA have enough capital to be able to take more risks?

That's the main problem about EA, I guess. Yes they have lots of money and suckers will keep buying all 999 variants of Fifa, however what does one more Fifa game on the shelf benefit the gaming industry? Maybe they'll have better graphics but underneath all, it's still the same game. Companies should be willing to produce more Katamaris. If they don't, how do they expect the industry to mature?

The movie industry didn't mature by showing the same old crap. Sure there's Aliens 1,2,3,4... and Terminator 1,2,3... and who can forget Star Wars 4,5,6,1,2,3... but it is movies like Sixth Sense, Memento or even Matrix that really break barriers and bring the industry and expectations of the quality of future films forward.

Do we really need another Home Alone movie?

Discussion Questions 1

What is a game?

Basically a game something that you can play. Following that train of thought, that brings us to the question, "What is play?" According to dictionary.com (which incidentally is the dictionary that I swear by), the best definition for this context is

"To occupy oneself in amusement, sport, or other recreation".

Hence, a game is something that you can potentially get amusement or fun out of. I use the word "potentially" because some games are just not fun... or could be fun to some people and not to others. (Will go more into that in the next section, "What makes a good game?")

In fact, almost anything can be seen as a game. It all depends on how you look at it. Life is a game. Love is a game. What the hell, even CORS bidding and choosing your modules can be a game depending on how you look at it.

Module prequisites and allocation of points to get the module that you want. Diablo Skill Tree anyone?

I guess for something to be game, the player should also has to have a certain extent of control. But then again with the "everything-is-a-game-world-view", anything can be interactive if you look at it in a correct light. Are movies interactive? Yes they can be. Even though nothing you can do can change the ending, watching a movie can be a game in itself too!

Take murder mysteries for example. If you manage to guess who the killer is before the end of the movie, wouldn't you be able to consider yourself to have "won" the movie? To me, movies = a identify-the-clues-and-guess-the-ending game. The game happens all in your head.

I know that this is a weird way of thinking... but it sure is fun!

Perhaps I'm rambling already... but I've just thought of this. Do games really have to have a goal? What if the game has no end? Is it still a game? What if the gameplay is so fun/engaging that it is not the endgame that rewards the player but the very process of playing it?

I feel that designing games is like art. Yes there are rules to classifying something as a game... but these rules can also be broken.

A game can be anything. Anything can be a game.
(OK It's confirmed. I'm rambling.)

[Edited: Oh! Just thought of something else. A game must have rules. If it doesn't have rules, it's just a toy. Toy + Rules = Game. What do you think of this equation?]

What makes a good game?

A good game is one where you can derive fun out of. However, since the concept of fun is quite subjective, it is impossible to come out with a game that satisfies everyone and that everyone will find good.

Personally, I like a game with a good storyline. I like plot twists and interesting characters... similar to books and movies. I feel that games are the storytellers for the new age.

I like games that are not too tedious.

I like games that try to break conventions and succeed.

If I like a game, it is a good game to me.

The point: Whether a game is good or not is subjective.

Of course it is easy to see what the "majority" of gamer like to play and try to make games to fit their expectations. "If it works, why change it?" Hence the large number of FPS and RTS clones out there. (And not many of them are particularly good.)

As game designers/developers, do we just give the masses what they want? Economists say yes. Supply and demand. Capitalist pigs! I say no. Originality is the key. A good game is original. A good game is fresh. A good game is new. It is only through originality that the game industry will not stagnate.

Also with regards to the obsession with better graphics... some people feel that the better the graphics, the better the game. I beg to differ. Anyway if you get the chance, try out Darwinia. Simple graphics but very brilliant and original gameplay, methinks.

A homework blog! Whatever will they think of next?

This is a no-frills blog for my NM3216 homework. Gaming Culture! Hot Damn!