Author Archives: mcovingt

Interactive Fiction for the Designer

One of the main things that I think about when I read about Interactive Fiction games, or seeing the games themselves is the appreciation for them.  I feel that with most other game genres, the appreciation for the game comes from the players.  The designers are generally tired of looking at the game (not that Interactive Fiction designers are not), but it is the fans of the game that go through and talk about their favorite parts of the game.  With Interactive Fiction games, I feel that it is the designer of the game who gets the most appreciation out of the game.  The player might find some responses and design features funny or clever, but the designer gets the best kick out of how he designs and plans out the path the player will want to pursue.  The designer can shape the environment completely and ultimately holds control over what options the player has been left with.

One counterexample to this opinion would be of one of the most famous designers in the beginning of the game industry, William Crowther.  Crowther designed Adventure for the sole purpose of helping connect with his daughters after a tough divorce with his wife.  The game spread quickly among colleagues and everyone with a PDP-10.  Everyone loved his game, where he found it as a simple text adventure to grow closer with his family.  Nevertheless, Adventure meant more to Crowther than anyone else.  Designing these game is no small task, like all other games in the industry, but I feel that it is the genre where the designer knows everything that went into the game: his thought process, his choices, your choices, your thought process, and even what could go wrong.  I have the up-most respect for the creators of these types of games.  Even though Nick Montfort doesnt express this message directly in his article, I can tell he shares similar thoughts based on his video.

Videogames not good for history?

The discussion in class Tuesday was very interesting.  Obviously not all historical games would be bad for society as outlined in Frasca’s article.  I definitely disagree with the fact that games are not an effective medium for expressing these horrific events in history.  While there will be critics calling the game immoral, there will be critics for every game made.  This is the same throughout all types of media.  I think that games are the best interaction for these events.  They allow the player to get more of a feeling and fundamental grasp of the events than any movie or book ever could.  Games can be the best method for displaying historical events because of their ability to recreate the scene better than could be described in words or a modern built scene viewed through a camera lens.

Videogames do toy with players’ emotions more than other mediums might.  Most games have the player feeling as if they were right in the middle of the action, or even the one causing the problem (ex. JFK Reloaded).  This factor, although it can be bad for the player’s feelings initially, I believe it can make the player get a better understanding mentally and emotionally over a period of time.  Also, I think that games like Flight to Freedom can be great for educational purposes.  Putting the player in the shoes of the historical figures, and making them rationalize the decisions they are presented with.  I don’t know how Frasca could not recognize this as a viable medium.  Videogames clearly seem like the best way to display and represent some of the tragedies in history.

Promotion in Video Games

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500397_162-699689.html

I was really interested in the chapter in Bogost’s book on Promotion.  I feel that he really didn’t go that in depth with the last type of promotion he mentioned, advertising in games.  This article, although a little old, mentions how  some companies are getting into advertising in video games.  The article mentions how IGN entertainment and Massive Inc. are companies that can manage game advertising.  The market for advertising in games is always increasing.  It is very easy for game developers to input pictures into billboards in games.  It is also easy for them to plug in a speech reference for non player controlled characters.  The companies just need to express their interest in wanting to advertise in games.

From the early 2000’s until recently, I had only seen advertising in sports games.  These games would feature billboards at stadiums or on the sides of race tracks.  Even so, these sponsors would only be related to the game, like the game developer, publisher, or companies involved with the production. Maybe when playing a football game you would see a corporate sponsor advertising for halftime reports or bringing you the player of the game.  It has evolved so that other companies are getting into advertising in games.  This is a great way to help game developers help pay for producing their games, and allows the companies advertising to get a good deal, as millions of people will probably be playing the game and see that ad.  There is also a whole new twist on in game advertising brought about by apps, which seems to have also caught advertisers attention.

Defining Hardcore and Casual Gamers

I found it interesting that Juul starts by describing games as being casual or hardcore.  I disagree with this, in the matter that it is the players that are either hardcore or casual.  I do agree with some of the examples he gave as being “games for the rest of us,” which are even more common today.  These games include name brands or games from movies, but I don’t think we can categorize them as casual games.  Even if they are played mostly by casual players, it doesn’t mean that hardcore players might invest a lot of time into the game.  Juul then in facts shifts his focus to casual and hardcore players.  He quotes a line from Fils-Amie that I do not agree with, “casual players are not so interested in graphics and they desire quick fun.”  I think that this is a typical stereotype which Juul goes on to later disprove in the chapter.

Juul later goes on to describe interruptability, which  I think is really important in defining the difference between hardcore and casual players.  I have always thought of casual players as ones who can put the game down at any time and do something else.  They are people who enjoy the game, but are not deeply invested in how well they play it, unlike hardcore players.  A good example of a game that is for hardcore players in terms of interruptability is League of Legends.  Normal games can last anywhere from 20 to 90 minutes.  While playing, you have to offer your complete attention, or else your team will suffer.  There is not really a point where you can pause or stop playing to do something like check a text message or other activity.  League of Legends is not a game for casual players solely because of it is unable to be interrupted.  Juul has a graphic that shows that the phone is players’ number one distraction during games.  Hardcore players are the ones who can block out those distractions while gaming, even something simple like a text message.

Is Phone Story enough Motivation?

After Tuesday’s discussion in class, I thought about what it really means to look at how poor the conditions are for manufacturing some of today’s most important products.  As was pointed out in class, Apple seems to be the company that gets picked on the most for this problem, but they have done a lot to help reduce the amount of child labor in factories manufacturing their products.  I feel that if consumers want to further reduce the problems in these factories that they need to raise awareness and start pointing fingers at all of the other companies that are in the same boat as Apple.  Then, you end up not just looking at the electronics industry, but all the others that have these types of plants across the world.

I don’t think that most consumers care that much to start demanding changes in their favorite company’s methods of manufacturing.  Nevertheless, those concerned take trips to these factories and make reports as described in the This American Life podcast, and even make games (Phone Story) depicting the events that have taken place to make our beloved electronic devices.  In the podcast, Mr. Daisey admits that he still loves his Apple products even after what he saw at Foxconn, and I’m pretty sure the creators of Phone Story use smartphones of some kind, or else they probably wouldn’t be interested in making apps.  My overall thought on the issue is that I don’t think the conditions are so bad that people will want to change their lifestyle to try to bring about a change to the factory problems.

Seeker: Early Game Company Logos

http://www.gamesradar.com/5-iconic-game-company-logos-that-must-not-be-messed-with/

After thinking more into the interesting design of the Atari logo, I decided to look into what some other early logos looked like compared to Atari’s infamous logo.  I found this article from a couple of years ago where the author looks at five of the early logos, including Atari.  I found it interesting that not only was the logo designed after Pong, but also that the author said it reminded him of the 2600 joystick.  He continues to look at four other logos:  Capcom, Nintendo, Rockstar, and SEGA.  He makes valid arguments for why these five logos should not be changed, despite them being around since the beginning of the game industry.  I agree that these logos are so iconic now, that they should be kept for the life of the companies.  This article was posted because of the change to Rare’s logo in June, 2010.  Rare is another one of the early developers with a classic logo.  When they changed their logo, many people were upset because of how iconic their logo was to the industry.  Also, I think that modern developers are struggling to come up with a neat logo that will be iconic for years.