I've got a fever...

Rock Band: I tried out Guitar Hero a while ago and I was rather unimpressed. The game was too far removed from actually playing guitar and I really didn't get on well with it. But I still wanted to try Rock Band. Mostly, I just wanted a chance to try out the vocal section as well as the drums. I must say, the vocal section is lots of fun and I really enjoyed it. Although, I did find it difficult with songs I didn't know well (or even ones I did but didn't know the lyrics to, such as Welcome Home by Coheed & Cambria). The addition of the tamborine (or cowbell on (Don't fear) The reaper) was interesting. On some songs it was good, whereas others it just felt really out of place. I had another attempt at the guitar/bass and found it to be a lot more usable than when I first tried it. As for the drums, I found them to be pretty horrible. Being an actual drummer, I just didn't get on with the layout of the "drum kit". It also didn't help that what I was meant to play was nothing like what I would actually play to any of the songs. Maybe with practice, I'd get on with it more, but for now it just makes me feel stupid. Overall, the game is definitely great as a group game, especially if you just set it on the lower levels and worry more about having fun than accuracy.

Mod me up

I've always enjoyed the customisable elements of games. Often I'll find myself enjoying building my own character a lot more than I do the actual game! Some games take it even further and you enter the wonderful world of modding. My first introduction to modding was through my favourite game, Total Annihilation. There's all kinds of mods available for TA, including things like fan-built units and maps, but the one that really got me was Warhammer TA. Back in the day before Dawn Of war existed there wasn't really a good Warhammer game, so Warhammer TA was a great stop-gap. It allowed you to use the Warhammer units but in a game that had great gameplay and mechanics.

Sticking with Total Annihilation, the world of modding has now brought about Spring. Spring is basically a total recreation of the original TA but in a fully 3D environment. This means that you once again get to use the great gameplay elements but it updates the parts of the game that have now become dated. It's also opened the door for even more mods along the lines of Warhammer TA as the code is now open source, so even more of the fundamentals of the game can be changed.

So, what's the appeal of modding? From a player perspective, it allows you to manipulate the game to do what you want with it. It allows you to be creative and play with game elements that are personal to you. From a game designer perspective, it allows you to prolong the lifespan of your game and to add functionality without any cost to you (and sometimes it can even help you make money).

Modding is becoming an essential part of many modern games. Whether in its simplest form of character creation (such as in an MMO like World Of Warcraft) or allowing the use of user-created maps. Some mods work on the game's mechanics and gameplay in order to make the game behave the way they want (such as Project Reality for Battlefield 2). There's even games like LittleBigPlanet where the entire point of the game is modification, with the completion of levels allowing access to new elements that can be used in the level designer. Or there's things like the Spore Creature Creator which has been released separately ahead of the actual game itself. The implementation of hard drives in consoles is now allowing modding to happen on console games with things such as downloadable content, etc.

The world of modding can make great games better or at least great for longer. They can make them more challenging or simply more surreal and humorous. They also allow fans to give something back to a game (and possibly community) they love.

A few more from the IOCT

So, in preparation for tomorrow's open day, I had a run through a few of the games the IOCT has for its other consoles.

Wii:
Super Mario Galaxy: So, other than a bit of Super Mario 64 back in he day, this is the first proper Mario game I've ever played (honestly, I was always more of a Sonic fan). I've gotta say this is one of the most fun games I've ever played. The controls feel really natural and it's a lot more comfortable than holding a standard controller. The concept of the game is great too. It really does interesting things with the concept of a platform game in a 3D environment. The changes in direction/orientation can get confusing at times, but it's still fun. Definitely a game that makes me wish I owned a Wii.

Xbox 360:

Ridge Racer 6: This game is horrible. While I'm not so great at racing games, I still usually find them enjoyable. This one isn't. The cars feel annoyingly slow. My car was apparently doing over 100mph, but it mostly felt more like I was doing 30. The handling is bad too. The slightest nudge of the analogue stick would just send my car into a skid. The music was horribly annoying and repetitive as well, with no way to change what was playing. All this annoyed me so much, I couldn't even be bothered to finish one race.

Perfect Dark Zero: As I've said before, I'm not a big fan of FPS games and this is no exception. My main gripe is the way the movement/camera controls work on a console. Somehow I always end up having no idea what I'm looking at or what direction I should be going in, etc. I much prefer a third-person view, as it means that when I need to be close to something, I don't have my view completely obscured. Other than my standard gripes about FPS games, it was quite a good game. The visuals on the 360 were great and the storyline was interesting. If it had been more of Tomb Raider style third-person game, I probably would've really enjoyed it.

More X-men

So, I'm not going to bother to date this as these posts are now so erratic. I'll just give my opinion on the game.

X-men Legends: Rise of Apocalypse: So, I've covered the original X-men Legends game before. Most of what I've said applies to this game as well. The controls are pretty much the same and so's the gameplay. The major differences are obviously the storyline and the characters. Due to the story involving the Brotherhood of Mutants and the X-men teaming up, you get a much wider selection of characters (even at the very start of the game). This makes for a game with more scope than the original and also means you're not stuck playing the same characters over again. Another change is how things like experience points and equipment are applied. The first time you get anything, you're given the option to manually apply them or to have them applied automatically. You can also select whether to keep this behaviour throughout the game. This is a great feature as before, whenever I reached a save point, I found myself interrupting the game for a while as I sorted all my characters out. Definitely a game to pick up for anyone who enjoyed the first game.

LEEEEERRRROOOYYYYY JEEENNNKIIIINNNNSSSS!!!

So, I'm meant to be talking about online gaming communities. The problem is, despite the fact that I have a lot of experience of online communities and I've studied them before, I have little to no experience of them in a gaming context. I don't play anything like World of Warcraft or Ultima Online. I don't play games anywhere near enough to justify investing the amount of time a subscription based game would require (not to mention the cost involved). Also, of the games I do play, I don't really play online. However, I do know people who have been involved in these games. I even have a friend who met her partner through WoW.

The attraction of these games is obviously the fact that they offer an experience that a single player game can't. The experience of playing with humans. In its simplest form, this is just the fact that, no matter how well a game is written, your opponents can never be as interesting as a real human opponent. The simplest example I can think of is playing Worms. The AI was rather uninventive, so while it could place a shot with almost pinpoint accuracy at times, and deliver maximum damage, it couldn't compare to the destructive power I could wield by using fairly suicidal tactics. Playing against people changes this. You get that inventiveness and unpredictability in your opponent.

And then there are the community games. Where the allure isn't that you're playing against people, but that you're playing with people. The co-operation element. That inventiveness and unpredictability is now on your side. And not only that, but the other players have to decide how co-operative they wish to be. In a normal online community, peace and harmony and working together doesn't have any reward other than itself. In a game, that co-operation is key. You have to work towards that common goal. But there can still be those of a mischievous or vindictive nature who decide to work against this. How the community then deals with this is another interesting facet of the experience.

Then there's the other layers of the interaction between the members of the community. You have the option within the game of merely keeping interaction to game-related things or you can take it further. A game community could become something very much outside of the game, where it's a community of its own, merely brought together because of the game. So another attraction is the idea that these communities can transcend what the game offers. Relationships are not limited to what is beneficial to progress in the game but can encompass whatever the members enjoy.

Then, there's the other side of an online community. The darker side. Antagonism and a lack of co-operation. In these instances, the game allows players to be more active in their reactions to these things. If someone antagonises their community, they aren't just given the option to ignore them or block what they say, they're able to fight them off. To counter antagonism with (at least simulated) physical repercussions. They allow you to actually punch a loudmouth in the face.

Gaming communities offer what other online communities do, but with attractive extras that the environment of a game allows. The players are engaging in a simulation and that simulation brings them together through shared ideals. But it can also cause them to clash as opposing ideals are inflamed by the ability to simulate conflicts as real engagements.

08/05/08 - 15/05/08

Haze: An interesting game. I've said before that I'm not a big fan of first person shooters and this hasn't really changed that. The concept is good and makes for an interesting experience, but it doesn't change the feel of the game enough that it stops being an FPS. I think I may have enjoyed the game more if the demo I played had allowed me to play the rebel missions as I found the way I could attack my allies much more interesting. Shooting a rebel while under the influence of nectar is nowhere near as fun and shooting out another soldier's nectar injector and watching them go crazy.

I don't want to talk about Lara Croft

[UltimateMetroid] who here plays metroid?
[Daishi] I only play it cause you gotta know samus is hot under that suit
[UltimateMetroid] fag
[Daishi] dumbass

I just looked through my collection of games to see which had female protagonists. Discarding any games that allowed you to select from a number of characters (such as Soulcalibur or Mortal Kombat), I was left with one. It's a game that came with my PS2 called "Red Ninja: End of Honour". I've barely played it as I found even the tutorial mode frustrating. Looking through the manual, one of your options is to use your power of "seduction". Thinking practically, if I were a ninja, I wouldn't dress the way she does. I think it might be hard to concentrate on sneaking up on people when you're worried about your breasts falling out.

There are two different gender issues in gaming. The gender of characters and the gender of players. And then of course there's the third issue of how these two interact. Of course, when I say "gender", I don't just mean whether a character or player is male or female, but the entire spectrum of gender. You can take this to the extreme and you'll end up with a character like Birdo, but that's unnecessary. A character like Samus Aran, doesn't sit definitely at one end of the gender spectrum. She's a very masculine character. She runs around in a big suit, shooting a big gun at big monsters. But take that away and she's very much (physically) an attractive, athletic, woman. Who can contort into a ball.

From a player perspective, when I have a choice, I tend to choose female characters. I will admit that this is usually from an aesthetic standpoint. Extended watching of a character such as Sophitia appeals to me far more than one like Astaroth. But looking deeper into things, female characters appeal to me more as they have more depth. In a male-dominated genre (especially in things like fighting games) the female characters have to be made more appealing in some way. They can't simply be made infeasibly strong and powerful, so more inventive routes are taken, resulting in better characters. Once again looking at Soulcalibur, the appeal of a character like Ivy is not just aesthetic, but in how her weaponry works and can be utilised in interesting ways.

Playing Fahrenheit gave me the opportunity to alternate between playing a male main character and a female one. I quite often chose to play as Carla when given the choice as I enjoyed the nature of the character and the possibilities I was given when playing her. However, as well written as the character was, the narration fell down at the end. For some reason it's decided that she needed a relationship plotline. This results in her telling Lucas she loves him (and subsequently having sex with him and becoming pregnant with his child) after only knowing him for a few days. This becomes even more preposterous if you factor in various other elements of the story, such as how she was previously pursuing him as a murder suspect. Not to mention the fact that Lucas' (ex-)girlfriend recently died and that (arguably) Lucas himself is actually dead!

This isn't so much just a symptom of games though. In every form of narrative media, a female protaganist, no matter how strong, will more often than not need a male counterpart. In the Fifth Element, Corben needs to tell Leeloo he loves her before she can destroy the evil entity. Ann Veronica's rebellion is only catalysed by her attraction to Capes (and is subsequently quelled by her marriage to him). Silk Spectre is nothing without Dr. Manhattan or Nite Owl. In a world where things are designed to sell, social norms are perpetuated. Fantasies are reinforced. You'd be surprised just how often this is the case. If you're a female character, you're going to end up sleeping with a dead guy.

So what about the issue of male players playing female characters and vice versa? Is this situation a real exploration of gender roles? Is the player using it as a tool to experiences alternate facets of their personality in a "safe" virtual environment? For some, this may be the case. Games are largely simulations. They are fantasy and wish fulfilment. The opportunity to be another character and to do things you can't do yourself. Whether this goes as far as gender crossing depends on the individual. For a game like Fahrenheit, the opportunity is to be a detective (as well as a fugitive), whether the fact that you're a female detective matters, is up to you. In a game like Metroid, for much of it the character isn't even identifiably female. There's not even the aesthetic differences that male and female characters usually have.

And there you have it. Gender representation in games works just the same as it does in other media. Games are made to sell and so they will follow along with what is wanted by who they're selling to. Gender is something personal to everyone, so how they experience the representations of it in games is just as personal. Extreme representations of gender in gaming will always happen as these work best in a fantastical scenario. No one wants to save the princess who could fight her own way out. No one wants to be the little girl with reasonable fighting skills, facing a huge monster.

And I did all that without once mentioning Lara Croft. Oh, damn.

25/04/08 - 02/05/08

Games I've been playing this week:

This week, I borrowed a couple of games from the IOCT. As I'd just studied violence in video games, I decided to choose a couple that were overtly violent.

Fahrenheit: Before I borrowed it from the IOCT, I'd never even heard of this game before. I have to say that I was very pleasantly surprised. I ended up somewhat addicted to it and after only borrowing it last Thursday, I've already completed it (in the sense that the story of the game is over, there's still a fair amount that I can still do with the game). Due to the fact that you control both the killer and the detectives trying to catch him, it makes for an interesting game, as you're essentially playing against yourself. You have to make decisions about how well you play each character in order to help yourself in the other roles you play. The game is fairly open in the style of play. You're taken through a story in quite a linear fashion (though the order in which you experience certain parts is up to you) but you still have a lot of freedom of choice about what exactly happens in the game. It's not as open as a game like GTA, but it's nowhere near as restrictive as a game like FFX.

The story is good, though there are certain parts where you have to suspend disbelief greatly as they can be rather fantastical. Where it really stands up is the characters. I found myself liking them and choosing what scenes to play first by which character I liked best. Another great part of the game is the atmospherics. Certain parts of the game I found very unnerving and I was genuinely unsettled, which made for a very immersive gaming experience.

The control system of the game is also very interesting. I've never encountered a game with a similar system. The way it forces you to do certain things that make it so that when your character has to make a physical effort, so do you, really adds to how you're sucked into the game. I found myself feeling slightly exhausted after prolonged sections where I had to do a lot of these challenges.

Overall, it's been a very enjoyable experience and I think it's likely I'll replay parts of the game even though I've finished the story. I've got the game for another week, but I may have to buy a copy of my own at some point.

True Crime: New York City: This game I didn't enjoy quite as much. It struck me as basically an alternate take on GTA, where you're a cop instead of a criminal. While the game can be enjoyable, it doesn't really add anything to the concept of GTA. Instead it loses something as the missions don't work well with causing mayhem, which is the most enjoyable part of the game. Also, it lacks the humour of GTA, which is really an integral part of the enjoyment of the game. One major criticism is the physics engine when you're driving. The cars are sometimes rather bouncy. I found myself bounced across a road into a pile of pedestrians when I hit a lamppost! One very good part of the game is the soundtrack, it provides a great range and has some great tracks available to listen to. It also allows you to decide which tracks you want to hear more of and which ones you don't want to hear at all. All in all, I'd still rather play any of the GTA series.

17/04/08 - 24/04/08

So, I don't have as many new games to play recently, so these posts are gonna be somewhat irregular. Anyway, here goes:

Games I've been playing this week:

Mario Kart Wii: This is the first Mario Kart title I've properly played. Others, I've done about one race and then given up. Since I've been playing Burnout, I've got much better at racing games, so I gave this one much more of a go. However, my skills at Burnout don't quite translate to Mario Kart. Using the Wii remote in the wheel accessory is very different from using an analogue joystick on a PS2. There's no real limit to how far you can turn the wheel, so it can be hard to judge how much to turn it when taking a corner. Despite this, it's a highly enjoyable game. The nature of the game of course makes it fun, but, as with most Wii games, it's the physicality of playing that really makes it. Also, the vast selection of tracks, covering every Mario Kart game, means you can have an extended session, over a variety of tracks, without it getting repetitive.

Capitalism is cannibalism, violence is violence

So, first post after Easter and I'm talking about violence in video games. Talk about starting with a bang! I'm gonna start things off with a recent video from G4TV's X-play. It features Lawrence Kutner and Cheryl Olson talking about their new book, "Grand Theft Childhood: The Surprising Truth About Violent Video Games and What Parents Can Do".



So, as you can probably tell from my previous posts talking about what games I play, I have no problem playing violent games. I'm no psychologist, so really I can only have an insight into my own experiences and the experiences of people I know. Quite obviously I'm not going to prove anything about the nature of violence in games and what it may or may not cause, but I can still give my views.

There seems to be two main sides to the violence debate, that either playing violent games encourages people to be violent, or that playing violent games discourages violent tendencies as it acts as a way to "blow off steam". As is mentioned in the video, most studies seem to be inconclusive. Any that apparently prove a causal link between playing games and being violent either ignores that the "resulting violent tendencies" are not actual violence or that short-term results don't necessarily translate to a long-term effect.

In my personal experience, I play violent games and I'm not a violent person. In the same way I can play Burnout and make my way around a circuit at blistering speed but don't think it would be a good idea for me to go out and get behind the wheel of a car. So, obviously violent games don't make everyone violent (and I'm sure I could go out and find a very large group of people who would say the same is true). But that doesn't rule out the possibility that violent games could be the trigger for someone's violence.

But then, if it's not the case for every single person, then surely it's not the fault of the games. In the same way that just because some people don't like cherries but cherries are still sold to those who do. Some people are horrible drivers, but cars are still available to those who aren't.

It's an age-old debate where people try to blame an inanimate something in order to relieve themselves from personal responsibility. Personally, if there were some real reasoning behind removing violence from games, I wouldn't care. But right now, every argument given is hugely flawed. If your child plays a violent game intended for an adult and they decide to emulate something in the game, then blaming the game is the wrong way to go. There's a gap between games and reality and it's not up to a game developer to teach people that.

20/03/08 - 03/03/08

So, due to the fact I haven't had exposure to any new games recently (due to not buying them, among other things), I thought I'd use the past two weeks to reflect on games that I've spent a large amount of time on. Games I keep returning to.

PC:

Total Annihilation: I've spoken before about Total Annihilation. It's a game I've always loved, even from before I had a computer that could actually run it properly. I have fond memories of playing skirmish battles and only building air units and just bombing everything I could find. I've recently discovered there's a fully 3D remake called "Spring" available (it even runs on Linux!), so I shall be looking into that soon.

Worms 2: A game I will definitely never get tired of. I even have a version of it on my old phone. The humour and the fun of the damage you can cause when using suicidal tactics is great. Also one of the few games I've ever completed, though with only 17 short missions, this is no great feat.

Dreamcast:

Shenmue: Now almost 9 years old, this game still stands up as excellent. Games like GTA might have made the idea of a fully explorable environment somewhat commonplace, but Shenmue is still great, thanks to an excellent storyline and great characters. It really saddens me that Shenmue 3 (and thus the end of the Shenmue saga) will likely never see the light of day.

Soulcalibur: Like driving games, I've always enjoyed fighting games on a basic level, but I've never been that good at them. While I'm still not exactly great at Soulcalibur (I still get beaten in multi-player games fairly often), I've managed to complete a fair amount of the missions (though they are fairly one-dimensional, you're fighting someone, just the why or how changes) and I've made it through arcade mode a few times. I mostly play for enjoyment, rather than because I feel the need to complete and unlock everything.

Playstation 2:

Canis Canem Edit: Another of the few games I've actually completed (storyline-wise, at least). The storyline and the humour of this game just make it insanely fun to play and quite addictive to boot. One of the best parts of the game is how the richness of the environment really encourages you to explore and do things your way. This definitely ties into my post on narratives as while there is a definite pre-defined story but it allows you to explore that story with a great degree of freedom.

Kingdom Hearts: Again, a game where the story and the characters are the draw. The great part is that while most of the characters are familiar, they're used in interesting and new ways and the story of the game is still very strong.

Burnout 3: I think I've said enough about this game before. Definitely another game I've become addicted to. The lure of just doing one more race is something that can easily eat away at my time...

Shush you, I'm writing you a poem

This week, I'm looking at narratives. In all the reading I did, there were certain key questions that came up; things like "Are (all) games narrative?", "Do games need narratives?", and "How can narratives be interactive?". These questions mostly seemed to end up unanswered or answered in unsatisfactory ways.

To look at the relationship between games and narratives, I'm going to look at a couple of extremes. First, is Tetris. Tetris has no narrative. There's no story telling you why you need to move these blocks around and make lines disappear and there's nothing to recount to people outside of the game (except maybe a particularly high score) as no one wants to hear exactly where you put the L-shaped block or whatever. So this seems to easily answer the question of whether games need narratives. But then what happens when games become more complex? If you removed all the story and characterisation and description from even a games as simple as Doom (walk around, shoot things, occasionally solve simple puzzles), what would be the point? The enjoyment of Tetris is in quick and logical thinking, whereas in Doom, it's being able to shoot various monsters. Though for this, you don't need an in-depth story.

To go to the other extreme, you can look at a game like Zork. Without any narrative, a text-only game like Zork becomes utterly pointless. The game relies on description for everything. But the narrative is still incomplete, your character is never described and the motives behind your "adventures" are never given. So even in a game that needs narrative, this can be incomplete.

Of course, there are more modern games where the narrative really is everything. Games like the Final Fantasy series are all about the story and because of this become much less of a game and more like a film where you push buttons occasionally (something I've mentioned before when comparing Final Fantasy X to Kingdom Hearts). There are other games where the narrative is more flexible. The story is defined and so are certain events, but things like the sequence of events and how certain tasks are carried out can differ from player to player. Most games will have only one ending/way of "winning", whereas games like Fable or Knights of the Old Republic are much more affected by the player.

Then there's games like The Sims, which are as open as possible. Instead of defining a story and making the player try to complete that story, the game developers create a world and give the player the tools with which to create their own stories.

Games like The Sims highlight how narratives in games are different to those in film or literature. In the latter, the writer controls everything and the viewer/reader is passive. They are told the story and that is that. In game narratives, the writer builds a world. They then choose their control over the "history" of the world. Whether everything is prescribed (like in Final Fantasy) or whether everything is open (like in The Sims). The player then dictates
how they experience this history. In a fully prescribed history, every player will have the same story, but it will be tempered by how difficult it was for them to discover. In an unprescribed history, each player will have their own history, but there will always be common elements as they are all in the same created world.

The problem with most analyses of game narratives is that they're compared to standard narratives of film or literature. They try to see the writer as active and the reader/player as only passive. The control the player has over their experience confounds this view. Much better is to see the player as experiencing the story in a "writerly" fashion. The game's creators/writers have put the story to them, but it is up to the player to give the story meaning and to create their own experience.

Imagine a game as a series of books. You can read these books in any order but parts of certain books rely on other books. So, you can read the books detailing certain events at any time you like, but you need to first read the book that explains who the characters are and why they do certain things (or maybe you don't, such as in Zork). Some of the books you could skip completely as they aren't needed for you to know the main plot, but maybe they are of interest because they reveal extra details about the characters or they could simply be about something enjoyable. Others would be major books that tell of major events that would result in a very boring story otherwise. Imagine the story of Star Wars as this series of books. You can skip the books where Obi-Wan uses his Jedi powers to influence the Stormtroopers or where he cuts off the arm of the alien in the bar as, while they are important, you can know the story without them. In contrast, you can't skip the book where Luke destroys the Death Star, otherwise there's no (major) ending to the story.

So, once again, the questions I began with have gone unanswered. Games can be narrative, but they don't need to be. More important is whether players want them to be (Tetris could have a story, but I doubt anyone would want to read it). Game narratives can be interactive because they're not the same as films or books. Just as a "writerly" view of reading means the reader defines the meaning of a piece, the player defines their experience of a game.

13/03/08 - 20/03/08

Once again no gaming this week. This time because I've been to France and then back home in Bristol, so I've had no access to games. Also, I've no new games, so my next post should be looking deeper into games I've already mentioned or playing various games I haven't played in a while...

ExerGaming

[Arctic_Wolf] My friends parents bought him the nice DDR pads so he could lose some weight.
[Arctic_Wolf] He gets in trouble whenever they find out he's bought a non DDR PS2 game.
[Arctic_Wolf] "HOW IS ARMORED CORE 2 SUPPOSED TO HELP YOU LOSE WEIGHT, WONG?"

So, this week I'm looking at exergaming. Contrasting with the other portmanteau-named genres I've looked at before, the object of exergames isn't to teach anything (though, as with most games, this is somewhat of a side-effect) but instead they intend to promote physical activity.

Exergames can be seen as sort-of a subset of games that use non-standard control apparatus (whether simply in the form of something like a light-gun or something like a Guitar Hero controller). The intention of these controllers is usually to elevate the gaming experience away from something simply controlled by pushing buttons. In the end, you're still just pushing buttons, but it's the way you're doing it that's important.

The exception to this is certain specialist controllers that don't just rely on buttons for control. Where a dance mat is just buttons you push with your feet, something like a Guitar Hero controller or the rod controller from Sega Bass Fishing rely on motion input on a varying scale. This is of course ubiquitous in the Wii controller.

So, to move to exergaming, why is it popular and why does it work? Anyone who's played games can tell you of the phenomenon of how often people will move their controller as they move their character/vehicle/etc. They'll jerk the controller up when they try to jump, or they'll lean the way they're attempting to turn a car. It seems that, as we become involved in a simulation, subconsciously, our bodies want to be involved. And this extends to exergaming. So when playing DDR, players don't just tap the pads with their feet in a disassociated manner, they move with the rhythm of the music and involve their whole bodies. When playing something like Wii sports, while they could just use a small and precise flick of the wrist to return a shot in tennis, it feels more natural to do a proper tennis swing. Even to do it in the proper point in space, when you could just as easily do it while sat down.

But why do this instead of playing a regular game? Why put in this effort when you can just push buttons? There's the obvious reason of the benefits provided by more physical games, but that's not what I think about when playing them. I don't play Wii sports because it'll make me fit. I play it because such an immersive simulation makes a simple game much more fun. Not just that, but because these games have somewhat of a performance aspect, they become very social. People at parties have Guitar Hero battles or they sit around playing bowling on the Wii (the fact that you don't compete simultaneously in bowling on the Wii allows it to transcend certain limitations, such as the fact you might only have one controller).

Another aspect of the appeal of these games is the fact you get instant praise for how well you play. If you begin to play an actual sport or going to the gym, your initial experiences could be horrible and you can fail to see any progress. But, like my experience with Burnout, you are easily able to track your progress in these games and see yourself getting better over time. If you play football, there are few obvious goals other than things like scoring a goal or contributing to your team winning in some way and these goals can seem very far off. Playing DDR, the goals are smaller and show progress far more easily. You could get the chance to score in football, only to have it denied by the keeper, but in DDR you get to experience yourself progressing through the game without any hindrances other than your own skill.

This positive reinforcement doesn't end at any specific point in the game. You don't complete every song and get the highest score and that's it, you can carry on and see if you can repeat that phenomenon. The performance aspect of the games fires your desire to "show-off" to others. You're not content to just load up the high score board and point to your score, you have to have them watch you get that score (or close to it) or you have to challenge them. And so you keep playing so you can maintain that skill.

There's also the element of the outsider. Not trying to delve too far into stereotyping, but the personalities of people who play video games tend to be different to the ones pre-disposed to sports or exercise in general. So, what exergaming allows these players to do is to partake in these activities in an environment they're comfortable with. They're not dancing or exercising, they're simply playing a game. Playing games is something they can do, so a perceived barrier is brought down that would otherwise be there without the gaming environment.

To bring this back to something I mentioned in my previous posts, while these simulations are no substitute for the "real thing" they have their place and are "their own thing". You obviously wouldn't suggest breaking into a Tennis match at a party, but in the same way you'll never think playing tennis on the Wii will help you improve your Tennis game. It's like the people who criticise Guitar Hero and say people should just "learn to play a real guitar". That's not what people want to do. They want to play a game and they want to be good at that game. I don't get a high score when I play a song perfectly on a real guitar...

28/2/08 - 13/3/08

Games I've been playing this week:

Ok, so I missed a post last week, so today you're getting two weeks for the price of one!

X-men: Next Dimension: Once again, it's X-men, so it was pretty obvious I'd like this game even if it wasn't so great. Definitely an enjoyable game but very hard when playing against the computer opponents. I couldn't work out how to get my characters to do any kind of ranged attacks, so I'd be constantly getting beaten as I just attempted to get close enough to the other character in order to just hit them. Apart from this problem, which can be overcome with practice, I found the range of moves and ease of executing them to be very good. Definitely one I'll have to play more (even better if I can get a human opponent).

Mortal Kombat: Shaolin Monks: I've always loved Mortal Kombat games. Ever since I spent a day just sat with my old Master System, working out all the special moves for all the characters on the original. I even have the first film on DVD! I own Mortal Kombat Gold for the Dreamcast and it's not very good. Shaolin Monks has renewed my love of the series. It's not a traditional "beat-em-up" like other MK games, instead (in single-player mode, at least) it's more like an
RPG, but with the bonus of keeping a beat-em-up style fighting system. So rather than just hitting one button repeatedly, so you can hack and slash with a sword, you get to perform combos and (the ever-popular) fatalities.

Burnout 3: Takedown: I've mentioned this game before, but I thought it deserved another mention. As I mentioned in my last post, I'm getting better at this game. This is pretty much unheard of for me in a racing game. I've found I'm no longer just holding the accelerate button all the way and bouncing off the sides of the track, rather than braking and turning properly. I'm being strategic and learning when to boost and when not to, so I don't go flying into some obstacle. This learning is making me enjoy the game even more and I'm finding I enjoy redoing tracks over and over, learning how to drive them best and how to get the best times. My one complaint is that I can't edit the playlist enough so that I don't have to hear some of the horrible tracks on there (New Found Glory and My Chemical Romance, I'm looking at you).

EduGaming

So, this week's topic is "EduGaming", games that teach.

I gues I'm what Marc Prensky would call a "Digital Native" (not a digital narrative, as my brain kept trying to fill in). I grew up with computers and so of course I used them in school. I remember the games we had at school being very simple. Often they wouldn't be "games" as such, more programmes that would attempt to make practising things like multiplication more entertaining by adding whimsical animations, etc.

But times have moved on and computers in schools are no longer dull grey boxes running Windows 3.1. Games have become larger and more complex and can therefore teach much more and in much more subtle ways. I mentioned Will Wright last time and his idea of "learning toys". The game SimCity is a good example of a game that teaches in subtle ways and doesn't just promote "twitch speed". On the surface of the game, you build a city and maintain it. A cursory glance will tell you that the game teaches things like planning and resource management. But looking deeper, you find you can learn things like statistical analysis. You learn things like multi-tasking, a skill that Prensky thinks is integral to being a "digital native".

While I'm mostly a casual gamer, I've found that I do have this multi-tasking capability. I have no trouble keeping track of multiple things in a game. I'm not just watching what's going on on the screen, I'm keeping track of what information it's giving me and what I'm doing with my controller. In my normal life I'm constantly multi-taking. Right now, I'm watching Top Gear while typing this blog. Sat in my system tray, I have multiple applications waiting for things to happen. I have a couple of instant messaging programmes, an RSS reader, a music player (on pause as I'm watching TV), e-mail, and a programme to download podcasts based off RSS feeds. While I'm not constantly interacting with these things, I'm seeing them in the corner of my eye, watching them for any change that might give me new information.

To give a gaming example of learning, I was playing Burnout 3 last night. I've said before that I'm not very good at racing games. I don't drive so I don't know much about how to manoeuvre a car at speed. I've never learnt where to brake and how hard in order to take a sharp corner. But, as I played trough various race events in the game, I found I could retry them. In order to unlock new events, I had to do well in the previous events, so I did retry the events and I found myself learning the tracks. I learnt what corners I could take at top speed and which I had to slow down for. I also learnt other tricks, like what to do in order to gain "boost" which would allow me to go faster (of course, I also learnt where was a sensible time to use this boost and where I'd end up plowing into a wall).

While I doubt I could now go out and drive a car (and definitely not what I was driving in the game), I've learnt skills that could help me in other driving games and also in other things. I've learnt things like analytical skills and the benefit of practising and retrying things. This takes us back to EduGaming and the idea that games that try to teach aren't always necessarily the best. Especially for children/people who may be somewhat resistant to traditional learning.

21/2/08 - 28/2/08

Games I've been playing this week:

Another different platform this week as well as a game genre I haven't covered before. This week I played three RTS games for the PC.

Total Annihilation: A game I've loved for years and one I keep returning to but have never completed. It was a ground-breaking game back in the day and it still holds up well to games much younger than it. I found playing the game to be just as enjoyable as it always was, though there are some noticeable bugs. One being that I'd completed a mission by escorting a certain unit back to my base but the game still carried on. Eventually, after a while of waiting for the game to end, I realised the game hadn't decided the unit was in my base, so I had to get it to wander around a bit more.

Total Annihilation: Kingdoms: Not quite a "sequel" (or even a prequel) to the original TA, but they're still related (if only in certain gameplay elements). Just as fun as the original and at times even more so (like the level where you just get given a pack of dragons are told to go kill whatever you can find). However, it doesn't hold quite the place in my heart that the original TA does, so it will sadly always come second.

Supreme Commander: Often seen as the "spiritual successor to the original TA game (as they were both designed by Chris Taylor). Unfortunately, a lot has changed in the world of games and PC hardware in the near-decade between the two games. This means I was unable to install SC as I didn't have enough space on my laptop's hard drive. Sadly, this game shall have to wait.

14/2/08 - 21/2/08

I didn't manage to play any games this week, but there's lots of stuff to come. I've got various articles I need to read and write up and these are currently on my "to play" list:

Total Annihilation
Total Annihilation: Kingdoms
Supreme Commander
X-men Legends II: Rise of Apocalypse
X-men: Next Dimension
Mortal Kombat: Shaolin Monks

07/02/08 - 14/02/08

Games I've been playing this week:

I've played a fair few games over 3 different systems this week, a Playstation 3, an Xbox and my Playstation 2.

PS3:

Ratchet and Clank Future: Tools of Destruction: (Demo) Seems like a great game from what I've seen. Very enjoyable and reminds me a bit of Sonic Adventure on the Dreamcast (but without the focus on speed). Definitely delivers on the PS3's graphics potential.

Timeshift: (Demo) I've never been a big fan of FPS games as I always find aiming difficult, but the Timeshift ability definitely helps with that. The Timeshift ability also makes for some great effects. Definitely a game I'd pick up if I owned a PS3 (or Xbox 360, or a good enough PC).

Burnout: Paradise: (Demo) Another great game graphically, though (as my friend Alex pointed out) the "shininess" of the graphics means they tend to lack a certain realism. The demo didn't really allow much scope to check out what you could do, but mostly it was just fun crashing the car and watching it in spectacular slow motion.

Nucleus: A simple little game that wasn't really that interesting. Definitely not something I'd choose over playing something else on the PS3.

Lego Star Wars: The Complete Saga: A very fun game that's great to play with someone else, especially as it allows you to attack their character (at one point I had to stop playing as I was laughing too hard from doing this). There's some great touches in it, like C-3PO hopping around with missing limbs after being attacked, or how silly Chewbacca looks with a Stormtrooper helmet on.

PS2:

Burnout 3: Takedown: Obviously the graphics aren't as good as "Paradise", but still a great game. Obviously being a full game rather than just a demo, there's a lot more scope to do things. It strikes me as a game for people who don't necessarily "like" racing games. It rewards bad driving and crashes (though winning a race will also help) and various other things along those lines. I've always been someone who never wanted to learn exactly when to brake in order to take a certain corner best or whatever, preferring instead to see what stupid things I can do with my car to entertain myself. Definitely the perfect racing game for me.

Hitman: Contracts: An interesting game that I haven't played much. It's definitely a game I'll have to spend some time on, as I've never been good at being stealthy in games. Some initial gripes were that the joystick set-up was confusing, but I found I could change that, and that I couldn't read the health meter very well, but I soon worked it out after I'd been shot at a lot and subsequently died.

Xbox:

Batman Begins: Initially picked up for my housemate as Gamestation didn't have any more games available that she wanted and I knew she liked the film. A straightforward and enjoyable game with some nice touches (like how when you're near an enemy, you hear their heartbeat and the controller rumbles with each beat). It's been criticised for being too simple, but for someone like me or my housemate, it's perfect. Plus, being Batman is awesome!

Rayman 3: Hoodlum Havoc: This game is very much a platform game. A good game with some great humorous touches. However, the transition sections between worlds where you have to skate along platforms and jump onto another as one ends, can become rather tedious as they are quite long.

I are serious cat. This is serious game.

Some thoughts on Serious/Simulation gaming.

So, serious games are games intended solely for learning/training purposes. This raises a question; why are they used and why do they work? Looking at games in general, they all involve learning in some way. At the base level, you need to learn the various interfaces and control systems used in the game and (preferably) how to use these effectively. Then you need to learn the strategy level of a game. This is a broad level and depends on the game you are playing. In a game like Tetris, you simply need to learn how to get the most points and how to stay playing for as long as possible. In a more complex game, such as a real-time strategy or city management game, these strategies would be more complex and may seem counter-intuitive at times as complex games will not always offer a clear line of sight to your "end goal".

The question of why these games work can be answered by this look at games (meaning being able to play multiple games well, rather than just a specific game or a specific genre of games). The most effective way to be good at games is not to understand the "how" of playing a game, but to understand the "why" of playing the game. This means to understand the fundamental aspects of why what you do in a game works. This means you develop skills that can be applied elsewhere, rather than simply to one game.

This leads on to answering the question of why the games are used. While there are other concerns, such as cost or the fact that "on the job" training would be impossible (or irresponsible), the main reason should be this disambiguation of skills. You don't need to train people to push a button (or if you do, you don't need an expensive simulation to do it), you need to train people to understand why they are pushing a button. This is also useful as otherwise you'd end up with people trained to be good at simulations rather than real life situations.

This reminds me a lot of the training games in Ender's game, where the recruits play games in order to develop strategic skills. These games are basically simulations of the battles they would ultimately end up fighting, but they are still very unlike the battles themselves. In the end, the students end up playing a "game" that turns out to not be a simulation. (Interestingly, the Wikipedia article on America's Army compares it to these games).

This brings me to simulation games. Mostly it brings me to various games made by Will Wright (such as SimCity and The Sims). It makes me think of how, often the most effective games as learning tools, are ones where you don't realise you're meant to be learning. This took me back to a talk by Will Wright at TED, where he talks about designing games that are "learning toys" and his upcoming game, "Spore". In these games, the object is not to "win", as the games are open-ended (much like Tetris), but instead focuses on "not losing" for as long as possible.

31/01/08 - 07/02/08

Games I've been playing this week:

So, this week I borrowed a Nintendo DS (not the lite, we're not that posh) from the IOCT, along with a couple of games.


Brain Age: Quite addictive, especially Sudoku (which I'd previously never played before). It can get quite frustrating though, such as when you write the correct answer and it misreads it and marks you down! I think I got my brain age down to 27 at one point, which was nice. Mostly it was just nice to work on my mental maths for the first time in ages.

The Sims 2: I was rather confused by this game. I've played the first Sims game and I was expecting a similar thing, where I'd build a house and fill it with people and try to keep them happy. Instead I was thrown into what seemed very much like an RPG, where I had to collect objects and complete mission goals. Other than the fact that I had some sort of relationship with other Sims and I could move furniture around, there didn't seem to be much in common with the normal Sims game. Building things and putting things in them has always been my favourite part of sim/management games, so this game was fairly disappointing (yes, I'm the guy who makes sure he buys enough benches to be put against all the walls in Theme Hospital).

A massively effective piece of reporting

You've gotta love Fox news, haven't you? Perfectly "Fair and balanced", isn't it? Mostly ignoring the actual expert on the game and instead having a lengthy discussion with people who've never even been near the game and have no clue what it's actually like.

Fortunately, EA have hit back. They haven't threatened legal action, they've just sent them a letter. It's one of those beautiful letters that calls them all idiots without actually having to come out and say it.

Of course, if you want to skip the sex scenes in Mass Effect, you can just choose the "British" option...

24/01/08 - 31/01/08

Games I've been playing this week:

Kingdom Hearts: Been playing this for a while and I still love it. I'm currently on the Atlantica (Little Mermaid) level. It's not too hard, so I don't get frustrated, but it's not like Final Fantasy X where I feel like I may as well just be watching a film so I could do away with having to press some buttons...

X-men Legends: An X-men RPG? I am quite obviously in heaven. The 2-player mode is great too, as it's a welcome change to be working with a partner rather than against them. Especially enjoyed the part of a mission where pretty much everything could be destroyed...

Capcom Vs. SNK 2: A very frustrating game. The controls are simple (like most fighting games), but getting to do anything other than simple moves is a lot more difficult. We read through the instructions multiple times and still had no idea. Not to mention having no clue what the various "grooves" did...

First post

So, here we go, first post on my new blog for my gaming technologies module. The title is taken from a recent xkcd comic: