Bioshock Infinite's Vigors

I finally played through Bioshock Infinite (I had been waiting until I would have some time to focus on it, so over break I binged over the course a couple days) and now I'm catching up on all the commentary and reactions to it, which are quite interesting.

Theres one thing I want to comment on though, and that's Infinite's vigors (their version of plasmids from Bioshock 1). The (entirely accurate) criticism floating around is that they're not really part of the world and they're out of place and make allot less sense than in Bioshock 1. In 1, they were integral to the story, and part of the narrative was the consequences of their existence, while here you get superpowers casually, none of the other inhabitants have them (even though you can buy them out of very common vending machines), and basically the game gives them to you the protagonist, then ignores them.

Now, from the story, narrative, and world-building perspectives that's just awful. Its weird and distracting and what is the point of it? However, from a gameplay perspective, I can say the game would absolutely have been less interesting without them. Whatever else Bioshock Infinite is, its a shooter and allot of play time is in combat that is significantly richer, more interesting, and more engaging for having vigors.

To me its about doing something because of the medium, to make it more effective, rather than the message. For example, I vaguely remember Faulkner originally wanted one of his books to be printed with each character's thoughts and speaking in a different color ink (but didn't because it was too expensive). It seems like if you had a book that made a big deal about the symbolism of color and it was intimately connected to the characters and an integral part of the work, and it was very well received. Then with your next book, even though it had nothing to do with color (but was similar in other themes) you still used different colors because it did make it easier to keep track of things and made the book easier to follow and enjoy. That's what it makes me think of; something done due to the medium (in this case shooter) to make it more enjoyable that isn't well connected to the story.

(And yes, I know the vigors are more problematic because they exist in world, while the ink colors wouldn't necessarily be, but whatever)

Now whether, you think the detriment to the story is worth the benefit to the gameplay is an interesting and personal question and matter of priorities. As I said, I think it would have been less interesting and fun without them, personally, and didn't really care that the story ignored them.

But what about you? What do you think about the balance of narrative and gameplay concerns?
Here, in other specific games, or generally?

Ongoing Slacking, here anyway

Ok, its been a good run of timely weekly updates, but unfortunately actual work and other projects are catching up to me again, so I won't be able to maintain that or return to it for the foreseeable future.

Hopefully after this push to the summer, I 'll have more time, and there may be sporadic new posts until then, but for now, it looks like we're back to the "hiatus" part of the cycle with this thing.
Just letting you know, and hoping it gave you some things to think about while it lasted.

As always fee free to leave comments if you have questions, want to know more, or have your own thought about anything posted.

Pre-Halloween Slacking

This was gonna be brief, because I've been working on a Halloween costume, so haven't had much time for writing this week.

So I'm just gonna quickly direct you to what I found on Cracked friday, because ohmygods, everything in this article. I mean I know the point of the article is to plug their new book, which barely addresses the points raised in the article, but at least it has a good mindset.  Like, between pointing out the gaping flaws in the system, and the infuriation at making a process that should be wonderful, beautiful and empowering into a process that sucks the life out of students, its all kinds of good. Its so nice to see other people being riled up about  this kind of thing too, so I can't not share.

Anyway, I'll try to have something more substantial next week.

Have a Happy Halloween!

The ....Adventures of Walter Mitty?

Lets get literary for a this week (and a bit cinematic). Recently I saw the trailer for the new film adaptation of "The Secret Life of Walter Mitty" and want to talk about it. Now if you haven't heard of the original work, its a very prominent and influential short story about a unimpressive man doing errands for a nagging wife, but imagining himself as a dramatic hero in various ways. It was first published in 1939 and, perhaps closer to home, its clearly influenced things from Doug to Calvin and Hobbes to Scrubs.



Sort of the ur-escapist, daydreaming slacker.
(Pic is from the first movie version in 1947)

You can find the full text here (its only 2000 words, has aged well, and it'll only take a few minutes to read).

Actually I first heard of it years ago as a reference to Doug, which I was a big fan of growing up, when someone said he was "a young Walter Mitty" but I only finally read the actual Walter Mitty this year. I was impressed by how it very quickly and clearly painted the characters and Mitty's behavior, the transitions between fantasy and reality, and the variety of fantasies. Outside of the story though, its amazing how well it holds up today, and just how much its influenced things. In addition to the three listed, it has so many references (and feel free to point out more in comments)  and "mittyesque" is even in the dictionary.

Now why is that? What has this story touched on for years that still makes it relevant and relatable? This is an average guy, doing average things, feeling set upon by the world, but using fantasy to feel important, and even help with doing those mundane tasks (it does help him remember the puppy biscuits after all, even if he gets teased for it).

Importantly, he isn't the usual wish-fulfillment protagonist; its us wishing we were them.

That's a situation pretty much everyone has been in at some point, and arguably the mindset some people live in. Heck, I'd be remiss if I didn't point out more recent discussions of how much video games fall back on wish-fulfillment/power fantasies, for better or worse. I'm sure if were set today, Mitty could picture himself as a space marine.

I have no words.

So this is a really cool story from a themes and execution perspective. And actually its a great opportunity for a movie, because one of the tensions in making a movie is between having exciting, high stakes, over-the-top action, and having an intimate, small relatable human drama, right? Like one reason people said they liked the Avengers, was that you had big epic fights, but also small moments between characters. It tends to be hard to do both those things well, as many, many movies will tell you.



So allot focus on one or the other...

But Walter Mitty is tailormade for this. The whole point of the story is that he is an average guy dealing with mundane tasks, but in his mind hes doing big showy dramatic things that film loves, from air battles to court cases to doctoring (ok, maybe tv loves doctoring more than movies, but still).

This is a premise and hook designed  to let you tell a story of small, mundane triumphs and setbacks in a way that is big and showy and eyecatching: its easy-mode for making a drama accessible and pulling in people who don't normally care for them. Now, it is a short story, so you have to draw it out somehow, maybe a bit more plot and a bit more character development. But you have to be careful how you do it.

"Have you met us?"

Ok, so with all that  lead up, lets look at the trailer I saw. Lots of people are saying this is a great or stunning trailer and they're right. The visuals are amazing, and the current trend of telling almost the whole story of the movie in the trailer is in full force, showing his dull life, call to adventure, and shift from dreaming about the world to going out and living in it. And that is a compelling message and story.

But I think its a waste of potential.

Oh come on! We didn't give him a gun or anything!

Ok, yes, I'm sure it will be good, and the message is good and the way is plays up the wonder of nature and power to change yourself are great. One of the contenders for my favorite film is American Beauty, because I am really into stories about reflecting on your life and trying to be who you want to be, so I'm into that. And getting out of your head and out doing things is a good message, too. But not everyone can go climb the Himalayas...which makes me feel like Mitty shouldn't either. Not in real life.

Here's where I see the wasted potential: Walter Mitty's whole story, originally, is about him using fantasy to escape his kinda depressing life. He clearly wanted to be bigger and more important than being nagged by his wife, running errands, buying puppy biscuits, and generally looked down on. The movie, as shown in this trailer, is taking that as a staring point of his life, and making the story of him stopping dreaming a going out and living it. They even have allusions to him having been  an exciting photographer (or partnered with someone who became one), and now is in a boring spot (or choose to be boring while his buddy went out "to live life!").

Hollywood loves that kind of story, but they've done that story before and they could've done something much rarer here. They could've taken Mitty on a journey, but reduced the scale of his real life triumphs and setbacks, of what he turns around to something much more common and less remarkable, but still made it feel epic, and still kept him dreaming. Rather than sending the message that you should get out of your head and living life, which is not bad, but has been done before, you could have the message that fantasy is fine, but you can use those fantasies to actually be better. You, sitting there right now. There's even a kernel of this in the original story; like I said, it helps him remember the puppy biscuits. So what would it look like if we developed that to expand the story?



I know adding space battles is the obvious choice, but I'm going somewhere with this.

Ok, so new story: even if we leave out a job, and focus on home life, taking away some common dramatic stakes, and putting it squarely outside what action audiences generally care about, there is still so much you can do, and with humor and action and relatability. You can even start directly from the story, where they're going on errands, hes completely disengaged with his wife, and hes bored and made fun of. Even at that low point of his arc, with the fast paced action and shifting perspective, you can take that boring trip and  make it exciting and funny (particularly with the transitions). 

But from there you can go to a different end point; we're not aiming for Mitty not having dreams and going to the greatest places on Earth, where few can ever go, but  to him having them less, and using them to help him stay in engaged in his life, and be a better person in normal day-to-day life. We can even take the same regular errands form that first scene, and revisit it later, but redo the fantasies:

• Driving is an ambulance, rather than a plane, and hes trying to go fast while not harming the patient.
• The gloves prompt him to be a spy, readying himself while carefully driving past sentries and blending in, obeying the foreign signs to not give himself away.
• Again, the courtroom could actually be later in the same case from the court fantasy in the first scene, and again he could use it to remember something
• During his bored stretch we could either show him more engaged and less resigned, such as actually talking to people, maybe talking to people pretending to be a schmoozing millionaire at a fancy party, or if not being social, maybe hes a brilliant general planning movements while in real life planning his day or work for later. Or it could show a closer connection to his wife, painting him as lover about to be reunited.
• And this time when his wife forgets something he could've gotten it while he was waiting, and they go.

See, that way you can have a character doing mundane crap that people do everyday, (doing it twice even), and not only would it be engaging and exciting and entertaining both times, but it would even show character development and possibly be instructive. You'd of course want the real life people to react to Mitty differently too, to emphasize how hes changed; different body language responses, not making fun of him, his wife praising how better he is about little things, etc. But the point is you could take a very small scale story of personal improvement and make it a spectacle to draw in audiences; you can have the types of changes most people could actually make in their lives, and portray them in a very engaging way. In fact, portray them in the way they're used to getting all kinds of less helpful or realistic messages.



"You seem upset about something..."

Now, I'm not a film critic or literature buff, so why do I care so much about this adaptation?
Well, what I am is more of an educational designer, someone who tries to figure out how to make media or interactive systems that are fun and change the user for the better, through teaching skills or facts or mindsets. And that's why this adaptation  gets me: the version I outlined, contrasting the one they're going with, actually has  research to suggest just how helpful it can be in life.

Let me tell you about the Marshmallow Test.



Mmm, ok a film based on research almost lost me, but I'm back

The marshmallow test is a simple experiment that you may have heard of because it also produced some of the cutest videos of children to grace youtube. The way the original test works is this: you place a child in a room with a marshmallow on a plate. You tell them you're going to leave, and they can choose to eat the marshmallow, but if  they can wait until you come back without eating it, they can have 2 marshmallows. Those videos are adorable as you watch kids try everything they can to not eat that marshmallow.  But what exciting to a developmentalist is how performance on this test correlates to life success.

Bwah?

At its core, this is a task about delayed gratification; can you give up benefits now for greater benefits later.  Followups to the original marshmallow tests at Stanford found that kids who couldn't wait had lower SAT scores, higher BMI, more problems with drugs, and trouble paying attention. This makes perfect sense; If a kid has difficulty delaying gratification, or choosing long term benefits over short terms pleasure, you would expect them to have trouble doing unpleasant things (like studying) or inhibiting desires (like doing drugs). It also makes this a really exciting task to developmentalists, because its an early assessment of something that can impact so many areas over a person's life. (Which is why its also been covered by The New Yorker, Time, and Smithsonian). It even points to the importance of teaching children self control.

And that brings us back to Walter Mitty, because despite the state hes in in the short story, he might've been excellent at the marshmallow test. Let me explain: If you do versions of the test with different  time limits, or unending ones and see how long kids last, you can identify which kids are best at this task; which kids can really hold back and control themselves. You would think these kids have some kind of  "inner discipline" or "strong willpower" but when you ask them what kinds of strategies they used to not eat the marshmallow, to delay gratification, its appears something different is happening. You don't get things like "I tried really hard", you get responses like "I tried to pretend it wasn't there", "I told myself it was poison". What you get is kids using their imagination to make the task easier. Reframing the situation so its less demanding to delay gratification, to inhibit a response, to not eat the tasty, tasty marshmallow.

These kids are trying to use their imaginations, their fantasy worlds to help them achieve their real world goals. And research says the kids who are doing this, at least at this age, are fairing better later in life than those who aren't.

That is the kind of skill would be amazing to teach people, because of the potential benefits.
Conveying that kind of concept, in an engaging entertaining way, tends to be a monumental task.
But Walter Mitty, our man, seems tailormade for it.

He's just as surprised as you are.

And that's why it pains me to see him lumped in with all the "follow your dreams" stuff out there, rather than pioneering a new "use your dreams to achieve them" kind of message. Because when I say it seems like a waste, I'm not just saying I think this story and/or message would be more entertaining or unique take on the material; I'm saying I think there's a chance to try to make a piece of rich entertainment and artistry AND  maybe teach people something that could actually improve their lives.

And they're not doing that.

"What was that? I couldn't hear you over all this money and praise"

So what do you think:
Am I being too hard on Ben Stiller's new vehicle?
Is this message really needed or is there an even more interesting one I didn't think of?
Are you interested in hearing more about the marshmallow test?
Let me know your thoughts in the comments.

photo credit: Wikipedia, gratuitous space battles
(PS there is another marshmallow test, where teams of children tend to do better than teams of MBAs, so I hope I didn't confuse anyone, and maybe we can talk about that one another time)

I < 3 Valve

So last week I talked about the transition from identifying as a passive consumer, to a critical consumer or even creator of content, and specifically about communities supporting this shift; about how communities often improve themselves and those making this transition. Picking up from there, lets talk about what it looks like when company, a more formal, business oriented group directs its resources to encouraging that.

"Gentlemen, how do we help our customers? Yes, Johnson?"
"I don't understand sir."

If you want to see what it looks like for a company to value that transition (or something very close to it) you want to look at Valve. You know, the company behind Steam, the platform that does ~51% of the digital distribution of PC games (according to 2011 numbers)? Every time I watch a talk  by Gabe Newell, it makes me feel better about the company, its views,  and the directions its going.

Now, I said "something very close to it" earlier because Gabe is generally talking about content creation from more of an economic perspective, as a opposed to the sort cultural and intrapersonal perspectives the vlogbrothers and Jim Gee were coming from. While they talk about how it benefits someone to feel included and productive, and develop their ideas and abilities or how society benefits from more perspectives and new ideas, Gabe tends to talk about connecting creators to markets, or providing monetary incentives to become a creator to people who previously had none (for this type of work).

Its a different way of looking at the at the situation, but it makes perfect sense when you're talking from a business standpoint. It also shows why Valve is encouraging this type of capability growth; by setting itself up so it profits from market activity, its incentivized to help as many creators as possible reach as large a possible audience as possible. As opposed to the way most people think of a simplified model of a business where its incentivized to get as many people to give it as much money for its product.



"Ok, that part I understood"
"Johnson, stop being such a strawman and try to keep up."

So this sort of demonstrates how a system can be set up to where a company is monetarily encouraged to support these community effects that can be so positive, directly benefitting from them rather than it just being a nice bonus that marginally helps your specific game, product, or service.

The really interesting part of considering Valve though is considering how it got to this place and what its continued trajectory looks like, based on that past. Steam may have started as a way for Valve to distribute and verify its own games, but it grew into a convenient way to affordably buy games, lowering the barriers both in terms of availability and cost. Its one of the things Gabe talked about: connecting producers with markets they didn't have access to and making games easily widely available, regardless of what was physically available in your region.

And then there was the step of not just lowering barriers for consumers, but for creators;
making indie games more visible and available. Offering software to make games on Steam. Adding the workshop, so people can make and share pieces of games, and develop their skills.

Without even using training montages.

To the rage of Half-Life fans everywhere, now they seem more concerned with providing interesting tools and spaces for other people to make stuff than making stuff themselves. But the way they moved there from producing, and clearly have people who are still very focused on how to incentivize and influence behavior and who are interested in "creating markets" and enabling creators is what really makes them interesting to watch.

I said Gabe Newell makes me feel good about the company when he talks, but everytime they rollout something new picking apart its design and purpose is what really drives it home . If you don't think they want more creators, look at the workshop, and if you don't think they're still just as sharp on how to manipulate users, look at the trading cards and badges system. There's allot of amusing snark and/or ranting about companies doing one thing and saying another, but this post is about Valve because what they're doing and saying lines up, and what they're doing is very interesting compared to what most everyone else is doing.

Oh, another action/adventure/shooter game as a white male protagonist 
now with microtransactions? Cool, cool.
 Yeah we'll just be over here lowering barriers to entry
and enabling innovative new ideas at lower risk.

Of course if I'm going to talk about them now, I probably should address the Steam universe and Steam box. But its just continuing this trend, albeit very ambitiously. Putting steam in the living room opens up a larger audience to participate in playing games, and even contributing to them from there. But that's not the really ambitious part. Competing with consoles is kind of ambitious, creating an open platform, to enable the hardware competition and peripheral variety PCs have, is pretty ambitious, but again, not what I see as their biggest challenge.

If Valve is in the living room, with this track record, unless they screw it up first, they have to be eventually aiming to reduce barriers for other media: movies, tv, music, whatever. Eventually it'll be competing with (or working with) Youtube and Netflix and iTunes and whatever other media they can.

Yea, he shall be the lord of media distribution,
and this shall be his crown.

Now that much content under one banner is terrifying, for any group to have that much power over communications. But we have massive media empires right now, and I will be very interested to see, if Valve can get to that level, what it'll look like to have one with this creator focused, barrier breaking model driving it.



Ok, I may have gone off the rails at the end, but what do you think of Valve? Am I giving them too  much credit or vastly misreading they're direction? Can you think of are other companies that support a transition to a critical consumer or creator?
Let me know what you think in comments.

photo credit: ign

Creating creators and critics

Originally, this was going to be the Part 2 of the community post; last week's post was originally longer, but I couldn't figure out how to articulate everything by my self-imposed deadline so I split it up. A significant chunk of the followup was going to be talking about Jim Gee's thoughts on 'affinity groups'.

...but then I saw this this video (as part of my continuing effort to watch every vlogbrothers video in the archive) and now this post is going to be about Gee's more recent thoughts and how they're related.


Uh...yay?

 Ok, in order to get there, lets start off talking about "consumers" and specifically about consuming media, be that TV, movies, music, video games, comics books, book books, newspapers, what-have-you. Except for video games, people generally think of "consuming media" as a passive experience; you're reading or watching something others have made. You're really not participating or interacting with it, but just kind of absorbing it.

or at least advertisers hope you are.

This kind of view is really clear  in the language; vegging out in front of the boobtube, or the idiot box, zoning out. All this imagery of being super passive.

However, this is not the only way of 'consuming media'; you can also consume it reflectively, considering the deeper levels of meaning or context in the media. What does this symbol mean? What is the creator trying to say and how? How does this relate to other similar pieces of media?



What does this dick joke say about the environment?

Gee calls this 'being a critical consumer', and the vlogbrothers call it thinking complexly, and its a parallel theme that's very important to both of them. For the vlogbrothers, its how you start to make sense of the world, and they extend this into science, too. To them this idea is about finding some way of more deeply understanding the world, be it through literary analysis or scientific quantifying and statistics, and using it.  To find some way to help yourself better understand the world you are in, meaningfully discuss it with others, increase that understanding, and act based on it.

And that's where we come back to Gee.
If you're not familiar with James Paul Gee,
he's a professor who was trained as a linguist, then became focused the potential of video games as a medium, then started really looking at how video games teach and engage, and how people interact with them and each other around them, then wrote a book about it...

That I'm a fan of.

...and has been an influential thinker in the academic space around games since. (If that phrasing seemed odd, I'm using "academic space around games" to go general and avoid the whole serious games/educational/games for impact/games for good etc. naming issue.)

Now, that's the revised edition, because he wrote it years ago. More recently, Gee's been talking more about critical consumption and a "modding attitude". So critical consumption is similar to what we were just discussing, but from there things go slightly differently. See for Gee its not just about being able to discuss creations meaningfully, but about discussing things in the manner of a creator and from there creating things yourself as part of  larger discussions.

For example, in literature, this could look like someone reading Fahrenheit 451, discussing in classes or online the themes of how man relates to technology, and how they're expressed in the book and whether they agree or not, and eventually writing something themselves, to express their feelings and thoughts on that same topic. Or other topics that became more important to them during that journey.



Like how awesome and terrifying robot hounds can be.

Gee refers to this shift to identifying as a creator as a "modding attitude" because he was focused on games, and there you can plot a nice pregression of person who plays games, to "gamer", to modder, and perhaps from there to game creator.

Though, to be clear, modding is creating something new, the same way a short video , or essay, or parody of a song is creating something new and contributing something to larger cultural discussions of issues. You don't have to be making  full movies or games, or books to be contributing.



A single image can be enough.

And this is where I think the vlogbrothers and Gee's feelings converge; its important to be able to reflectively consume media, because if you can't do that you won't really be able to engage with the issues within or behind those media or meaningfully contribute to larger discussions. And having more people meaningfully contributing makes those discussions richer, bringing new perspectives or ideas that others hadn't thought of. And when someone engages with those discussions its also usually good for them, helping them feel capable, feel like they belong to something, and helping them be better able to deal with their lives in some way.

This was one of the things I was groping for a way to express in the community post, and cut; one of the things good communities do is support this transition. They welcoming novices,  help them develop skills of critical analysis, provide aspirational and instructive examples of higher level discourse, and create safe areas to try out new ideas and ways of expressing them. These communities enrich themselves, and enrich the people involved in them.

If in the last post I had asked "How do you make games that spawn good communities?" rather than focusing on 'positive impact', this would have been part of the definition of "good".



Not taking yourself too seriously all the time would likely have been another part.

Gee highlights facilitating this transition as something the education system needs to be doing and is currently bad at. The vlogbrothers highlight this as a reason they like youtube: because the weak barrier between creators and consumers allows for more interaction and (and this part may be more implicit) a very easy transition from one to the other.

So what do you think about the importance of shifting your identity from the audience of a message to a participant in a discourse?  Is it important? Why?
How about its importance in terms of the media we're bombarded with everyday, and being able process and contextualize it all rather than being buffeted about?

Leave your thoughts in the comments,
or if you have a story of making this kind of transition in some area, whether its how you went from watching films to making them or how it felt doing a young authors contest or science fair, leave that too. It seems that these can be some of the most interesting experiences to share or to hear about.

photo credits: yaelol.wordpress.com, hhhuuuhhh125 on deviantart, , sophiedaveyphoto.wordpress.com, semi-rad.com

Community, nerdfighters, and games

Recently I've been watching the vlogbrothers, and by "watching" I mean I started with their first videos in 2007, have been going through their playlists, and now I'm almost done with 2011. Now, theres allot of interesting things in that many videos, but the one to talk about first is the nerdfighters themselves.



French the llama, nerdfighters are awesome!
(This pic is from the tumblr of A Film to Decrease Worldsuck)

Sorry, for those who just got confused, nerdfighters are a community that sprang up around the vlogbrothers' videos (and John's books and Hank's songs) and while they are fans, it seems inaccurate to just call them fans. They are, but they're not just getting together and geeking out about a shared interest; they're also raising money for charities, and doing other projects, and having meaningful discussion about many varied topics.

But that's actually what I wanted to talk about: what communities do once they do come together for whatever reason. What really impresses me about Nerdfighteria (the community of nerdfighters) is not just the great things they've done and continue to do, but the values they advocate and the support they provide. Its something my archive binge really highlighted, because in the early videos you can watch the role John and Hank have in shaping that.



Cunning masterminds that they are.

Nerdfighter history, oversimplified
Their channel started as Brotherhood 2.0, where they corresponded through daily vlog posts, and from the beginning there was engagement with commenters, responding to them and making spaces for them. It progressed to creating the "Foundation to Decrease Suck Levels Worldwide" (opening it up) and discussing what a nerdfighter identity meant. Eventually they started supporting these conversations with forums (named "My Pants" for great puns, then later "Your Pants" when it was remade), challenging the community to do things (which they did...and then more significantly), and then  realizing its capability, working with that community to try to make the world better.

So now, they have the events  like the annual Project for Awesome to raise money for charity, Esther-day and the This Star Won't Go Out Foundation (in honor of the nerdfighter Esther, who they lost to cancer). And John and Hank themselves keep making videos that keep people engaged, explain important issues entertainingly, and reinforce the values of the community. Values including empathy and inclusiveness and enthusiasm and initiative and critically thinking about issues or thinking about them complexly, ie not being a jerk, doing awesome things and being excited about them, and geeking out in ways that help understand the world and/or help solve problems. And yes, I'm including understanding yourself as part of the world.

And yes, I'm a big fan of those values, in case that wasn't clear.
(Side note:  this may be the first original image I've made for a post)

 

Too much awesome for one community
But ok, so the nerdfighters self-describedly made of awesome, but what about other communities? Well that brings me to Harry Potter. So lots of nerdfighters are Harry Potter fans (especially Hank), and after the 2010 earthquake in Haiti, nerdfighteria teamed up with the Harry Potter Alliance (which reminds me of the Hypothalamo-Pituitary-Adrenal axis every time I abbreviate it HPA, because I've TA'd too many neuro courses) to send relief and supplies. And the HPA has ongoing efforts to increase worldwide literacy.
So that's a fan group that's doing great stuff, too.

So that got me thinking about communities, and that great Wil Wheaton quote that "It doesn't matter what you love, it matters how you love it", and how much benefit people can get and provide from communities, even if its only marginally related to why they originally came together.

And how, particularly with video games, some communities are such positive spaces and some are so toxic.

"Nice to meet you, too"

Now, if you're a game designer, you probably have your own vision for the game you're creating. But if there is any concern for its impact on the world, it seems like the kind of community its likely to attract and support should be considered. I touched on this a bit in the Minecraft post,; how the game itself is going to attract certain people and influence others in certain ways. Minecraft is such a creative space, its probably both attracting creative people who want to make things and make new tools to make things, and perhaps at the same time introducing that kind of mindset to people who hadn't encountered it much before. And you get a community sharing resources to create new things, and plethora of mods and how-to guides.

On the other side of the coin, you look at some of the more infamously "toxic" communities. To reuse some language, from a soulless business perspective these are bad for your game because it scares away new players, new paying customers, and with a soul its even worse for just being a stressful, negative space in people's lives. If the important question is "how are these people are loving these things" the answer is "in a bad way".

But the important questions I have are 1) are there video game communities that are even trying to have the kind of  positive impact nerdfighters are, and 2) how do you make games that  would attract/develop/facilitate/support such communities?

Ok, yes, technically that game has such a community,
but that's not what I meant.

 Let me know what you think in the comments.

photo credit:  gamasutra, Carnegie hall

P.S. in case anyone was concerned about my "nerd credentials", 1) I'd say stop trying to exclude people, 2) I'd point out the bit where Harry Potter reminds me of neuroscience. On my blog thats largely critical and design analysis of video games. That I write as a break from working on my dissertation, in which I'm designing and testing a video game that teaches evolutionary biology. So yeah . . . =P

PC vs. Tabletop Gaming for Characters

As you may have noticed from previous posts, I'm a big fan of tabletop rpgs and board games as well as video games. Now this leads to one of the interesting little tensions I have with discussing video games; recreationally, I don't really play them to explore character or story, but basically just for gameplay. Thats not to say story or character aren't important, or I don't appreciate them. A better story and characters were a big part of the improvements between Borderlands 1 and 2, though both great.

Also 2 had a villain you could really love to hate.

But if I actually want to explore a character, I do it in tabletop. Its just not even a comparison (If you have a good group and Game Master). With a tabletop game, you can literally do anything you and the GM can come up with, possibly on the fly if they're good at ad-libbing. When Yahtzee talked about Fable 2 he made a joke about "Why can't I marry my dog?" and even if you still can't in Fable 2: the TTRPG, you could roleplay out your character meeting with officials and clergy trying to set it up, if that was something you really wanted to explore and the Gm and other players were ok with.

"This is not how the campaign was pitched to me. . ."

As opposed to just not having the affordance, not even having an option. To be clear, I'm not saying Fable 2 should've allowed you to marry your dog; its an example of a GM being able to adapt the game to player interests, rather than letting them explore within more concretely defined boundaries, aka the things programmed in.

Now, within those rules, video games can be absolutely amazing. If I want to hack n' slash, build a base and lead an army, shoot things in the face, pilot a spacefighter, or even explore a world while doing those things, video games can be great.

And ye gods the atmosphere and immersion,
when done right.

Thats the thing though; I'll play those games to do those specific things, because they're great at them. But the characters in those games can only do the things that the designers thought of them doing. Video games are interactive and do let you affect the story and how things happen, but its just on a different scale from a tabletop game, where you can end up going in completely different direction than was originally intended, for better or worse.

This does make it interesting talking about video games as a storytelling medium, though. They still tell great stories, and let you create great characters and affect the world. They have the potential to create really dynamic worlds the shift with your actions. I love watching the medium develop...but right now it just can't compare to a skilled human being pulling on notes and making up stuff on the fly for me.

"Thats right, as the king goes to shake my hand I fireball him. What now?"

What about you?

Photo credit: dogcentral.info, tweakguides.com, ohiobusinesscollege.edu

How the collapse of AAA games would be good for women and marriages (and games)

Ok, that may be overstating it, but if you think about trends in the games industry and their consequences (both in the industry and for consumers) I think there could be some real opportunities ahead. Full disclosure: my background isn’t in business and I’m not really in the industry, but I follow industry news and commentators like other people follow sports and the things they’re saying are very interesting when taken together.

"Well Bob, considering the player stats and design
history, this MMO looks like a big win for Bartle's model

of player behavior"

"...who are you and how did you get in here?"

Games makers big and small
So starting with the triple A games, theres been allot of buzz lately about the “failures” of some AAA games according to their makers that would’ve been great success for anyone else. This was the story for Tomb Raider and Resident Evil 6 and was covered nicely by the Jimquisition. To summarize, 1) companies try to make more impressive game to get higher sales, 2) so they invest more in games and create huge teams, 3) and with those huge production costs, the games need more sales to break even, and 4) to hit those sales goals the games have to appeal to the broadest audience. So companies making the biggest, shiniest games also make the least risky games they can, and need those big sales numbers to break even. Meaning they produce very pretty, but increasingly tired (cause new things are risky) games, and can be a loss even with millions of sales. And this can become a cycle where when they don't "flop" they reinvest in a bigger team for the next game, which has to be more broadly appealing and safe, until the "flop" is catastrophic.

"So according to these numbers, as long as everyone in the country
not working for this company buys a copy of
Generica: War of Battle this quarter, we'll be ok."

Now, thats the worst case when this cycle gets out of control. Its not what all big games are looking like, but it is pattern people are seeing, are worried about. Theres talk about  "unsustainable models" and other gloomy terminology. Some big companies are trying to avoid these issues there with additional revenue like microtransactions or making only franchises, but this story isn’t just about the big companies; at the other end of the budget spectrum, allot of exciting things are happening in the indie or smaller studio spaces at the same time. 

There’s been a building narrative about the rise of smaller game makers, from having more access to consumers with Steam (and other digital distribution) to being able to get funding from Kickstarter. Its been helped by indie hits like Minecraft, where a small group (or one person) makes something that’s way too risky for big companies but finds a huge audience and provides a massive return to its producers.

So there’s a stew of articles floating around about the flawed model of larger studios and the increasing relevance of “the indie scene” and smaller studios. This is great news for getting more interesting games, but I think the really interesting opportunity for smaller studios isn’t just in creative or technical risks, but cultural and institutional “risks”.

What does that even...oh right, I forgot the title of the post.

Current problems
The huge investments aren’t the only factor homogenizing games; at a more basic level the same kinds of people ("childless 31 year old white men") tend to be making games targeting the same audience (boys; see below) no matter what kind of game you’re trying to make. Now, that’s not good creatively, since diverse perspectives and approaches should produce more diverse and richer games, but its actually worse than it seems for two reasons: 1) In the linked article (which I highly recommend you read and will be riffing off of for the rest of this post) one thing you'll notice is that the issue isn’t just the exclusion of women, but the turnover rate. With few notable exceptions, if you want a stable life or family, you get out of the game industry rather than actually staying, so it lacks the benefits of having more experienced veterans. 2) The kinds of people being excluded from production and market targeting ARE MOST OF THE PEOPLE ACTUALLY PLAYING VIDEO GAMES.

What is wrong with you!?

 Sorry for the caps, but this boggles my mind every time I think about it. According to the ESA, the average age of a gamer is 30 and  45% of video gamers are women. Why why why is everyone still marketing to adolescent boys?

 

Don't give me that look; you are and you know it.
This horse is beaten enough.

I’m not saying that the non-inclusive culture in production isn’t at least as big an issue, and I’ll come back to that, but the aggressiveness of this particular stupidity gets me every time. It isn't doing something bad (both in terms of development of the medium and perceptions of it as juvenile) in order to make more money. I wouldn't like that but I'd understand it. This irritates me because it seems to be hurting everyone involved for no reason. (Yes, technically there may be historical reasons and inertia, but its persistence seems dumb). 

You even get stories about how standard focus tests don't include women though we just said they're 45% of the audience of video games in general. Setting aside larger moral issues, I don't understand this financially. Why discount that much of your potential audience, your potential paying customers? From soulless economics perspective its bad, and with a soul that cares about alienating others and stunting the medium, its even worse.

The generous interpretation is that its simple incompetence rather than maliciousness outdated prejudices.

Ok, we get it, its bad, moving on.

The bigger issue is the culture behind those kind of marketing and design decisions, though. A culture where 5% of the programmers and 10% of the designers are female . Where theres no time for family, and the average person leaves after 5 years for another industries (not job, but a different industry). And reportedly the workers' industry advocates don't actually advocate to actually help.
Maybe culture isn't the right word, but something like mindset or institutional expectations. Theres even stories from QA professionals who note the massive shift in environment between games companies and other software (spoiler: other software is a more stable gig).

Thats not a healthy work environment, and its not a good creative environment. 

Its especially bad when it even trickles down to the high school level, and crushes the dreams of female enthusiasts. That story breaks my heart. (After seeing bad cases of burnout in grad school, anytime someone's passion gets crushed out of them it tugs the heartstrings)

Sorry, its about to get more optimistic, I promise.

Ok, so as the links attest, all that badness has been covered other places (and I'm a fan of PAR). 

Putting it together

But how does this relate to the original trend for smaller developers? 

Because again, smaller projects can take more risks, and its important to make sure we're not just talking about creative risks here (though those are important too).

Because challenging these short-sighted, biased practices is seen as a risk. Part of the reason you see the difficulty in focus testing and stories like this (about how games with female protagonists get less marketing money and don't do as well commercially, but those two variables are confounded, confound it!) is because big companies and their investors see changes to those practices as risky. 

Women? I don't know about this.

Changing things at smaller companies or studios is easier (because theres less invested money at stake) and if they're successful, its more likely other small companies will change too. This is the opportunity I think is getting left out of the conversation about big companies and indies right now; its not just that indies have the freedom to take risks creatively, but have  the freedom to take risks organizationally.
The freedom to try to make things there better as well as to make better things. 

Its...so...beautiful....

Ok, maybe it wouldn't be that good, but it wouldn't take much to be better than it is currently.

And you can even see it in some places now: Indies with more diverse protagonists and perspectives. Those encouraging stories are coming out: like the people at Hawken being open and supportive about discussing gender, and places like Nine Dots trying to have a new model of making games without burnout, and allowing its people to have lives outside of work.

So in short, if there is a shift toward smaller budgets and smaller teams making games, it could set the stage for big improvements in how games are made, as well as the games themselves. There will always be a market for some AAA games, but hopefully if the current model for making them does start crashing, some great things could grow out of the wreckage.

Preferably great things that aren't poisonous.

Let me know what you make of all this in the comments.

photocredit: DarkangelX, buttercup festival, advancedaquarist

Prototype 2 and Serious Silliness

As I said when talking about SR3, I enjoyed Prototype 2. It feels enormously free and empowering the way you can run and glide across the city, shapeshift and get the drop on people, and even knock tanks around. You really feel superhuman compared to most people in the game (though there are still enough challenges you don't completely overpower to keep it interesting). Its a blast.

Ok, thats not what I meant, but also like that.

Exploring the freedom and possibilities of that powerset was interesting enough, it even formed the inspiration for my character in a tabletop RPG campaign.

Now, I stopped playing Prototype 2 and can't right now for technical reasons, but thinking on it I was struck by the disconnect between the fun it is to run around and tear up the world, and gruff, angriness of Heller, your avatar doing these things. No, this isn't about "ludo-narrative dissonance" or at least not entirely; its about a more specific issue that applies to other media that the disconnect highlights here. Its about the way Prototype 2 suggests that its makers thought that to tell a "serious" story with "real drama" things have to be dark and negative all the time. Or perhaps its better to say that the story they wanted to tell involved a character who's angry all the time.

"This is my happy face": if you google "happy james heller", even the fan art is always angry.

The flaw in that thinking is especially apparent here because they knew how to make a fun open, game: the game knows players sometimes want to be serious and sneaky and objective focused and sometimes want to screw around and do things just because they can (like rampage or jump as far as they can off buildings) and allows them to do it. However, the story says the character is serious business all the time, and thats why you get this dissonance.

I'm actually less interested in the dissonance between play and story here than I am in the larger ideas that produced that story, namely that to be serious drama, you can't have fun or be funny. Which we can agree is wrong...

...right?

Right??

Silliness and fun are not mutually exclusive with deep, resonant emotional drama. At minimum it can break tension and add variety so the punches hit harder due to contrast. At best it makes everything more real and affecting. Things can be both fun and deeply moving. There are all kinds of examples from film and literature (not the least of which being Up! with its balloon house and talking dogs), but since I got here thinking about Prototype 2, the examples to bring up seem to be Trigun and Cowboy Bebop. After all, I've  hit comics, video games, and TTRPGs previously, so anime rounds out the nerdity nicely.

Anyone who's seen those and compares Heller to Spike or Vash should know exactly where I'm going with this. For those not familiar, Vash is the central character of Trigun, one of the  best gunfighters on a planet of  wild west, and can level city by himself. When not arguing about the value of life with specific villains, he spends much of the series acting like a complete goof.

Well, maybe not complete; Who doesn't like donuts?

Spike is a similarly super-capable bounty hunter in Bebop, but unless in mortal peril or dealing with his past, treats almost everything as a joke. I bring them up as a possible way a game could reconcile the type of grim revenge story Prototype 2 apparently wants to tell with a main character going on easter eggs hunts between missions; characters that present a fun, interesting face and set of behaviors to the world while still being dramatic when appropriate.

"This is my serious face"

Actually its easier for Heller, even if he does start as a revenge obsessed Angry Black Man; this is a guy whose body just got transformed, and is ingesting a jillion other people's memories over the course of the game, so it would make sense to deal with it by behaving oddly. Playing off Heller doing whatever (in non-specific terms, of course) between missions as part of dealing with the massive changes hes dealing with would both be a more believable character than taking it in stride, more in line with how he is being played (by most people, I suspect), and because of those it would have more impact when he does put his game face on for a mission that means something to him.

As it is, all of Heller's lines kind of blur together; his main characterization is "I am angry", sometimes ranging to "I am confused about who to be angry at", so he becomes very predictable and uninteresting, particularly compared to Mercer and Blackwatch's maneuvering. With a little more variety of tone, the dramatic moments would hit harder since there was more contrast and we identified with him more.

I mean c'mon, even Batman knows you have to have a little fun sometimes.

So do you think that kind of characterization would've made the game more of less enjoyable? Let me know in comments.

PS, when it comes to seriousness, I've always liked the quote:
When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up. -CS Lewis


photo credit: prototype.wikia.com, ~ahmedshadow.deviantart.com, imgur.com, lidafilmmaker.wordpress.com