Testosterone anyone?

It seems masculinity is the theme of video game concept art. It's a little bit ridiculous. The hardcore gamers seem to remain as the typical male gamer. While casual games are much more neutral.

 

Games to world models

Ever played Chinese Whispers, or Concentration? I recall playing these group games at primary school with the entire class sitting around in a big circle. I still remember the rhythm and surprising difficulty to Concentration, and the absurd results of Chinese Whispers. Thinking back, it is odd that such games were part of the school curriculum (presumably).
The results of the games are still quite memorable, why?


Chinese Whispers has a few quite simple rules:
1. A person starts by coming up with a phrase or sentence and whispering to the next in line.
2. Each person whispers to the next what they (think they heard) from the previous.
3. The last person announces what they heard and compares it with the starter.

At the time, it was quite a surprise that the end result differed so much from the original.
Why?
A. Someone (or several) changed in intentionally.
B. Someone (or several) repeated incorrectly.

The main learning outcome, for me, was that it is in human nature to error. Perhaps in context it could be applied to mean that rumors are not to be taken at face value.

Concentration
Rules:
1. All players clap in harmony to a 2-2 beat.
2. Someone starts by singing their own name twice, and then another players name twice in rhythm.
3. That named player does the same.
4. The loser is the first one to mess up the rhythm or the names.

This appeared to be a simple game, but when played, it was surprising to see who lost each round - and how. To me, the game taught two things:
1. The Role-taking of the singer. There felt a huge pressure as everyone watched the current singer. The game taught me about this pressure (and with time - likely how to deal with it)
2. Strategies on how to deal with that pressure. Ie: thinking of another players name before you were chosen.

Now, looking at the learning outcomes compared with the games themselves - it seems there is quite a difference. How can such simple rules, lead to such valuable learning?
This is an example of using the play in games to create abstract models for use in the real world. Is there a way I can reverse engineer this idea? Ie: Come up with a model for use in the real world, then create gameplay that would result in that abstract model?

A talk with Tanya

Thanks for the talk, here's some notes and reflections:

Look at games, whats the premise? Whats the underlying theme they are trying to convey?
Ie: Monopoly: Economics, teaching the family about money. 

Log Jam

4 +

The busy beaver has built a beautiful dam out of logs, but his pesky neighbors keep trying to snatch them away while he's not looking. Be careful when skillfully removing the logs, as the pile might suddenly cave in! When he falls, you'll hear the beaver chattering his annoyance. Who'll be able to collect the most logs unnoticed?

 Teaching spatial awareness; how objects fit together; beaver dams; cooperation/semi-versus




Ravensbuger company:
2. Ideas and content

Our products offer a springboard to personal development and self-discovery. They teach an awareness of community and family and do not promote violence; they cultivate taste and an appreciation of quality.

Team-building exercises: The idea is to get people to work together, how does team-building work?



Cathedral Game

CATHEDRAL is a two player strategy board game based around a battle for supremacy between two political factions (dark and light) within the walls of a Medieval City.  Ancient cities were confined by walls for protection against enemies but as the population grew the limited space caused competition of another kind. This game represents that competition for living space within the city wall.

Spatial awareness; Strategy (block opponents); Medieval city; Versus;

Game analysis: Appreciation

The Appreciation Game

A way for better communication
Board game

a game for families of all ages

a game for couples -- to know each other better

a game for students and teachers, and for peers

a game for church groups and clubs--to build fellowship

a game for coporate and military units--to build a team for any task

How to play:

Before you begin, decide:

-How long to play (how many turns or how many minutes)

-Which marker for each player

-Who will go first, moving to left

1. Roll the dice and move your marker on the game board in either direction according to the number rolled, beginning at start.

2. Draw a card or spin the spinner according to the space you land upon. Read the card or spinner aloud.

3. If you land on:

a: IF SPACE: Draw an IF card. Answer Briefly.

b: ME SPACE: Draw a ME card. Answer Briefly.

c: THINK SPACE: Draw a THINK card. Answer Briefly.

d: DO SPACE: Draw a DO card.  Answer Briefly.

e: REMEMBER SPACE: Spin the spinner and read the topic in the outer REMEMBER circle. (Recall a past experience from your childhood that relates to the topic).

f: APPRECIATION SPACE: Spin the spinner and read the topic on the inner APPRECIATION Heart: (Say something positive about the person indicated).

g: ANOTHER PLAYER'S SPACE: You must compliment that player, (the price for landing on his territory) then follow directions for the space.

4. Each person should answer his own question and his answer should be accepted as given.

5. If a question does not seem to apply, ANOTHER CARD MAY BE DRAWN, or SPIN AGAIN. (At each turn you may choose which direction to move).

6. The game ends when the allotted time is up or when each has had the number of turns agreed upon. Be sure to APPRECIATE the players who share the game with you.

Analysis

Compared with most games I have played, this has two distinct unique qualities: 

1. It is reality based - No fantasy. Encourages sharing of real events and emotions.

2. No win/lose state. There is no point system at all. I been thinking that game points are a shallow way to communicate the game state, but it seems they are really required for any real competition. Since this game has no points or a win/lose state, is it even a game? It's more of a toy that encourages a certain kind of conversation. I suppose, if I were to play, the game-y-ness would come from trying to overcome my own apprehensions about what is asked of me.

-Though this game has no religious content, it is very obviously influenced by christian values.

-Similar to Cranium. Though, Cranium has more 'fantasy' & competition.

-Very low 'cool' value. I find it hard to imagine my friends would choose this over Cranium. Though I would expect to enjoy this 'game'.

Some key concepts

I've been thinking, and have found some key concepts to the discussion at this point in time.

Ambiguity of Game Rules:
As discusses previously. Addresses Kohlberg's methods quite nicely.

Rule -Lawering:
The method by which players argue and come to agreements on how a game is to be played. The intention of the rules are argued with a players exploitation on the rules. Through ambiguity, debate can arise. Ie: "At x you must do a good act". Debate ensues on what is 'good'.

Moral reasoning v. Moral attitudes
A key to this project is finding core values and how to discuss them. Moral reasoning is the method by which situations are assessed. Moral attitudes are a result. They are more concrete, black/white and more subject to conflicting with others. But by assessing moral reasoning and debating the process, a healthier discussion arises that can result in a change of process.
Moral attitudes: What made you do that
Moral reasoning: Why did decide to do that.

Principal of Justice:
Kohlberg decided to base his moral dilemmas around the principal of justice. Justice is quite a debated topic, and brings forward different methods of treating right/wrong. Revenge, compassion, laws/rules.

M U L T I P L A Y E R

Well an obvious thing I somehow missed; Multiplayer. After messing about with AI trying to get them to emulate humans for effect, why not use real humans? Of course this is a natural conclusion if I move to board games, but not so obvious when programming a video game.
There are several benefits:
1. To the player, AI is part of the game system; something to be manipulated to obtain a goal. This encourages negative behavior. As in a lecture from GDC 2010 by ... (I forget who) observes interaction with an AI character in an RPG/action game Mass Effect: "What button do I press to make sex come out of this?"

With multiplayer, the player is now playing through the game system with/against other players.

2. Human-human discussion. The ability to interact with other players not just through the game system, but through the social medium of speech. A requirement for the type of debate that I intend to generate through the game.

Joey_beach progress

After watching a 4 year old named Joey play at the beach, I decided to create a game around his experiences.
In this particular instance, Joey wanted to join some girls building a sand castle, but stomped on it instead which followed a small spat in which the girls threw sand at him and he at them.
Upon asking Joey why he stood on their castle he answered "I like breaking castles" with a cheeky grin.
He obviously did not understand the concept of others rights. An inability to 'role-take' or 'stand in other's shoes'.

I decided to create a game that modeled this behavior, but then had a twist of flipping the player's perspective literally. You would play as Joey, able to throw sand. If it hit the castle the girl AIs would start to like you, but if you hit them or stood on the castle, they would retaliate. The game would then restart, but with you and friends making a castle, and an AI that is modeled on the behavior you took in the previous round with the intention of making the player understand the other side of their actions.

Here is a current build. It is starting to get more complicated than expected and may take too long to complete, it was just intended as a sketch. In light of this Ambiguity of game rules idea also, this sort of gameplay method is a little too closed and forceful..

Ambiguity of game rules

Watching a newly-posted GDC lecture by Brenda Brathwaite she talks about her current work on game design. Brathwaite discusses how the intentional ambiguity of game rules in her game 'Train' allow players to intentionally subvert the game. Train is about the Holocaust (discussed previously), but this theme is 'hidden' from players, and when they find out, many players end up twisting the rules, through 'rule lawering' to avoid the initial 'win' state, so that the game becomes about "winning the least".
Kohlberg's method of answering moral dilemmas through socratic discussions can be used in conjunction with this idea of 'rule-lawering' to bring the transformative power of Kohlberg's methods to games.

Game Design Canvas

Just a quickie, a tool on how to think about the structure of a game.The one on the top is Halo 3, and the one on the bottom is Wii Tenis.

Imperfect AI

Aaand we're back to game stuff.
I was thinking the other day (as I sometimes do) that if I'm going to have any luck at all of creating a convincing interaction, I best know some AI theory.

I found a great discussion over at the GMC forums on creating imperfect AI. Because imitations of humans also have to imitate our humanity!
Check this great post: Imperfect AI at GMC

Some suggested attributes:
varIntelligence: Use a gaussian random
varCourage: Use pure random ;)
varFear
Allies
varAdrenaline   

These are obviously varibiles to be used in tradtional combat games.

varEmpathy perhaps?