Discussion Questions 6

Choose a game which presents itself as a "serious" game, one which is not primarily (or solely) intended for entertainment. Using this game as an example, 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).

I am going take the mod I made for the School of Combat Engineers as a case-study. I hope noone feels that I'm showing-off =P I want to review the mod is because I find it beneficial for me to reflect on my past work and look at them with the new concepts that I have learnt and to learn from my mistakes =)

Anyway, you can get some background info about the mod from this website (that hasn't been maintained for years =P). In short, it's a mod of a commercial game that allows Combat Engineer Trainees to perform various drills and procedures in the game environment.

Considering that the main reason why I decided to do this project was so that I would be able to spend time playing computer games instead of being out in the jungles training, I can identify various flaws in the project that really made it not that effective. (Flaws that I just couldn't be bothered to correct because I could get away with it =P)

First of all, I think the trainees did not find much meaningful play in the game. They just saw it as one of the things they have to go through for their training so they didn't really care much for it. This could also be due to the fact that they were "forced" to play the game by their instructors... and perhaps that the game wasn't particularly FUN =P

Also, there isn't really much engagement or flow. I think some of the scenarios are a little too difficult. The fact that the players are able die very easily makes it very difficult. (But will in turn this help put emphasis on the fatality of being careless in war situations?) Players were also not allowed to respawn in order to teach the consequences of casualties in war. This made the game even harder.

As for educational aspects of the game, the game managed to achieve some of the objectives that it was set out to meet however there is much room for improvement as well.

The things that worked:
1) The procedures for the real drills are supposed to be performed according to a certain order. This is reinforced in the game by not allowing the players to proceed safely until they have completed each step properly. ie. Players get blown up by a mine if they do not perform the proper procedures to disarm it. The game helps the players to enumerate the steps in their mind and hopefully remember the steps when they have to perform them outfield.

2) The trainees could die in the game so this emulates situations where they have to perform the drills under enemy fire - something that the Army has yet to emulate effectively in real life.

3) The main selling point of this project is that it will cost the army less to train the soldier on computers than to train them outfield. Also, by familiarizing the trainees with the procedures in a game, they are theoratically supposed to perform more efficiently during outfield trainings resulting in less costly hours spent outfield.

The things that flopped:
1) While some things can be realistically portrayed in the game, other important things like distance judgement will be hard to perform in the game. It is difficult to judge 500m on a computer screen as compare in real life.

2) The available actions are all text options in an option box in the game. The trainees just need to select the proper options at correct locations in order to perform them. There could possibly be problems with mapping the actions to the real life procedures.

More Assignment 2 Ideas

I think in social games, the objective is not really to win... but NOT to lose. And it the act of "sabo-ing" someone to make him lose that is fun.

Taboo actions like causing pain also seems to delight most people. Some people just need a reason to whack their friends =P

So Idea 1: Inverse Whacko!
One guy in the centre of the cirle of people. Everyone except the guy in the centre has a paper stick and a card stuck on them. So the guy in the centre has to try to grab the card from the stick wielding people. If he grabs someones card, either 1) he exchanges place with them or 2) that victim will now join in the centre of the centre. Meanwhile... those with the sticks can whack the life out of those in the centre. Muhahahaha.

Of course this game won't be approved because its too violent.

Idea 2: Some game where you can keep adding rules eg: when a diamond card comes out, the player must say "Diamonds are a girl's best friend" or something like that. The fun part will be trying to remember all the rules and teasing your friends who forget.

Discussion Questions 5

In this week's workshop, we'll be playing 3 games which exhibit emergent social play: Little Max, Mafia, and Stand Up. Choose one of these games, and answer the following questions:

For Little Max:

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?

Due to the unfamiliarity of the players, the social interactions were few. There was a little taunting but the other player normally do not bother with the game when it is not their turn. Most social interactions were about clarifying the rules =P


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

When it isn't their turn, the players are more or less in the role to tease and taunt. When it is their turn, the player decides if he want to be an "attacker" and challenge the cup or not. There is perhaps a "seduction" to tempt the player to challenge a cup that that has been honestly declared.


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

I feel that allowing anyone to challenge the cup will make the game more social. This modification will get more people involved in the game even though it isn't their turn. Even though we tried this modification and it didn't seem to make a difference, I think it was because the players didn't really attempt to challenge enough. (Depends on the crowd) Possibly adding one more die into the cup will cancel out the resultant speedup of the game.