Game Design Models & Economic Systems

Theory & Design of Games: Reflection Journal 2 

Matrix and Majestic online posts coming soon I promise… This posting will make a greater effort tying the course readings into my concurrent research interest in interactive narrative. Thus, I am also blogging on my recent work in qualitative methodologies for reference and context. My goal is to critically address the medium of interactive narrative in ways that an industry perspective may not consider.

**One question I have initially is the difference between Interactive Narrative utilizing Artificial Intelligence techniques (single player) vs. health or educational simulation technologies emphasizing story (multiple users/ teacher in place of AI).

Doug Church. “Formal Abstract Design Tools” He has a fantastic quote “the more as designers we want to cause particular situations, the less control we can afford to give players”. This is a classic player agency vs. traditional storyteller dilemma AND echo’s the authoring problem inherent in interactive stories. Church’s synergistic elements in FADT: intention, perceivable consequences, and story resonate even more in interactive systems. We always seem to know when one FADT thread is loose, or when our experience is diminished in a counter-intuitive way. I ask, what are the moments when the experience is actually quite powerful?

I know Church’s 1999 FADT addresses the problem in broad brush strokes, but is it possible that as game designers and developers we come up with some form of FADT-like middleware between system architecture and end user/player? I have not seen or heard of any to date within in an immersive 3D context probably because the technical spec is too buggy,experimental, or daunting to author any results. Technical Artists/Storytellers could be able to design more engaging stories OR Health practitioners/educators cold more easily author sessions for clients/students.

Crawford’s “On Game Design” ( I know this was not in this weeks readings…) reiterates this theme and provides further insight into the present divergence in approaches: game designers (a bastion of techie-geek triumphalism) vs. storytellers (soft-headed artsie-fartsie people) . His views may be a little dated, but for Crawford the typical techie -game designer sees a gigantic parametrized physical system – including drama – as another simulated system while storytellers look for a winning combination of characters, dramatic traits, and story. The latter Crawford implies an immensely difficult to build customized programmable nightmare.

We are only beginning to see the fruits of this collaboration emerge as deployed projects akin to an infant taking her first wobbly step.

LeBlanc’s “Tools for Creating Dramatic Game Dynamics” is on the same page with Church. The Mechanic, Dynamic, and Aesthetic (MDA) Framework which attempts to bridge the gap between game design and development, game criticism, and technical game research is another way of viewing interactive narrative applications. My Qualitative research interest emphasizes a reverse approach from an AI heavy development process – where the end-user experience ends up being constrained/sacrificed by nature of the system.

Starting with LeBlanc’s Aesthetics, how is the story being shown/told from a visual/audio presentation point of view? The Dynamics, how is the user interacting with the system and is the system robust enough to change user models. Finally to Mechanics, can the rules and system architecture support/satisfy an engaging expereince from the the Aesthetic and Dynamic perspectives? Of course MDA should be viewed holistically and not hierarchically – but it is an interesting way to review recent projects in Interactive Narrative.

Richard Rouse III. “Game Analysis: Centipede”, Going back to the good-ol-days – arcade genre, you can tell how the game centipede cleverly utilizes a few types actors with inter-relating characteristics to create a totally engaging experience. I just want to highlight the fact this was all done using a single track ball controller. I would like to believe an interactive narrative application could be just as engaging through the use of a single track ball- but that is not likely to happen.

I just want to run through the numbers:

The Wii controller has 8 buttons and 2 directional inputs + 2 accelerometers + camera orientation – so discreet 12 outputs (approx)

The Xbox360 controller has 15 discreet outputs

The PS2 controller has 12 discreet outputs

…we have an exponentially higher level of discreet interaction capabilities with our controllers, but it seems like hitting that sweet spot in games is now much more complicated than ever. We have previously discussed the mapping of controller to the game as a craft and this can spell disaster for some. Perhaps when reliable voice recognition speech analysis is around – there will be a resurgence in AI based games , for now perhaps MMO’s are the way to go – It may seem that I need to switch focus or think about Interactive Narrative in less constrained terms…

Edward Castronova. “Virtual Worlds: A First-Hand Account of Market and Society on the Cyberian Frontier” -I just went to the World of Warcraft census and there are over 7 million characters past level 10. I must be in the wrong field – AI based interactive narrative is still in an identity crisis, massively multiplayer online games seem to be where all the action is. I need to look further into how users can personify their own stories (in the following Matrix/Majestic posting) Alas if I wasn’t reading and writing so much I would probably be playing more…It is not a surprise to me the economic viability of these worlds, In Second Life, just look at their stats page…

On the same topic, Richard Bartle. “Hearts, Clubs, Diamonds, Spades: Players who Suit MUDs”, first, I don’t like to be labeled and put into categories but for the sake argument I found the article very methodological on player types/affinities: Achievers, explorers, Killers, and socializer’s either acting ON/INTERACTING with the PLAYER/WORLD . I never put that much thought into how the pendulum of player perception of MUD’s could spell success or failure…perhaps if I had more time to play this would become more obvious to me. Personally I never considered the fact of being killed or robbed of possessions of being so polarizing. Upon my first inclination that I would have to Pay for a subscription while “working” to support my existence is enough for me not to sign on and find out what role I indeed am. Perhaps if I had more time to play I would know.

Alas the end is near, William Poundstone. “Game Theory”, I understand the proofs, yet it is difficult for me to easily see/apply in the myriad of games surrounding me. Especially for my research interest in engagement and connectivity with games & simulation technologies, these are fuzzy and subjective without a clear mapping of win/loose/tie. When reading this article I felt there were many implications for this philosophy to engage AI in games