Strange Words to Describe Games...

Paidea, Ludus, Agon, Alea, Ilinx, Mimicry....

I don't know about you, but when I first saw these words I thought they were just another language, yet it turns out they do have English meaning.

Paidea - To Play purely for pleasure, or just "playings sake".

Ludus - To be constrained or have to abide by a set structure or set of rules.

Agon - To be in competition against another entity.

Ilinx - The aspects of movement and how things generally move around.

Mimicry - To experience as closely as you can something else as a simulation or in roleplay.

Taking apart a game using these main aspects as a base reference is far different than my last blog post where I analysed a KS1 game using Costikyan's "Interaction, Goal, Struggle, Structure, Endogenous Meaning" form.

For this analysis, I have decided to compare two completely different and highly successful games to see how it turns out.
I will be comparing The Sims 3 with Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2.

   

With Paidea in mind, the clear winner for pure play has to be The Sims 3. It's a completely open sandbox style game. Or as Will Wright would put it, a "software toy". You have no real game restrictions other than to just play with everything you are given. Your character died? Who cares! It's not game over... I've known people to intentionally kill their poor characters in more and more horrific ways (myself included)...
That is a long way away from the objective driven Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. It's pretty simple, "Kill or be Killed". You can't just put the pad down and walk away to make a cup of tea while you're playing this game - not unless you want to come back to someone using you as target practice anyway. While this game is extremely fun to play, if you were to work from various game analysis authors opinion of what makes a game, it would beg the question as to whether or not you are actually "playing" *hmmm*.

Ludus also has a pretty obvious winner which has to be Modern Warfare 2. The Objective based gameplay along with the strict rules and structure means that it has a very strong sense of Ludus about it. This is the biggest difference between the two games as one focuses on allowing the player to play the game however they want to while the other focuses on setting the player very strong active goals.

This leads directly onto...
Agon, where Modern Warfare 2 has again, a very strong influence. It is an extremely competitive game, I mean seriously, this is the kind of game that people will play constantly just to out-do each other. I remember seeing one person's message on Xbox Live (translated) "Give me a game of Modern Warfare 2 any time from 7am to 12pm, I'm really good". Even if you are good at this genre of game, chances are you will go online and get completely pummeled by people who are on the game most of their lives. Then you'll start learning good ways of not dying before moving up to getting any kind of a good kill-streak.
The Sims 3 has a very loose sense of competition. There are very few ways that I could think that it has any real competition. One would be by finishing your life time goal first, or if you're playing in the same town as one another then owning most of the businesses.
Unlike Modern Warfare 2 these goals aren't set in the game. There isn't a "Player vs Player" or "PVP" game mechanic so anything along those lines would have to be made-up by the players. There isn't even a struggle against computer characters - they're all quite happy staying as they are in their own little pre-fabricated world, so there's no worry of fighting for that promotion against your neighbour!

The way in which the two games move is completely different so when you talk about Ilinx you're not talking about one having more than the other, only that they each have their own way of going about it. In The Sims 3 you have a top down view of your character and world. This works really well for the game as you could be controlling several characters in the same game, jumping from one to the other. It's definitely a tried and tested method as this is the preferred camera angle for a Real Time Strategy game where you could be controlling literally hundreds of characters at any one time. You just point and click where you want the character to go or what you want them to do and they obey. This method however, requires a lot of AI coding as the character isn't being directly controlled by the player. As you can imagine this can be extremely frustrating when the characters you are trying to move don't move as you expect them to.
This is miles apart from the control method of Modern Warfare 2. For starters, you have a "First Person" view mode meaning you see the world from the eyes of the character you are playing. This works best with shooting games as it gives you far more accuracy and control in your ability to shoot exactly where you want to shoot. You also get absolute control over your character's movement in the game world so there is no need for any AI intervention. The only thing you need to rely on is your own reflexes, so long as the game is responsive enough. The controller input plays an important part in such lightning fast gameplay because many will find that using a control pad to play a First Person Shooter can be very difficult to start with - an analogue stick just doesn't compare to the speed and accuracy of a mouse. This is probably why FPS games don't tend to join console and PC gamers together in the same servers, as PC gamers would have a massive advantage.

Above all else and despite all these games differences, they both have one big thing in common. They both try to simulate the world in their own way using Mimicry. I say "in their own way" because if either were an absolute simulation they would lose much of their character, pace and overall level of fun.  
The Sims 3 is a game of life, you play yourself, (or anyone you can imagine) and either work to make their life prosperous or a complete misery. You can have a whole load of fun along the way like having affairs or stealing things from other peoples houses. There is really so much to The Sims 3 that it would be pointless me trying to list them all out with any kind of meaning. Lets just say there is plenty for you to do.
Modern Warfare 2 simulates real-world warfare. You get a really good sense of what it might be like working in the military like taking orders and completing objectives, but that, I think, is where the core similarities end. The game needs to be "arcadey" for it to be fast paced and fun. If the game were built to be extremely realistic you certainly wouldn't dream of running into a building rambo style blasting over 10 middle eastern folk's heads off while they were playing a nice game of cards, would you?

This leads onto an extremely important factor of Mimicry - they're not all things that you would do in the real world. In The Sims 3 you might find it fun or just funny to watch a couples relationship break down after you've just set them up, but I doubt there are many people that could say they would enjoy doing it in the real world. Then again, that's probably a bad example... Lets take Modern Warfare 2 for instance... You might enjoy blowing people's head's off, but the brain connection of you actually killing someone just isn't there. It doesn't make you want to go out and murder people for fun. I think that this is one place the media gets games completely wrong, but then they're happy so long as their story sells.

I think the comparison between these two games has really shown the uses of Paidea, Ludus, Agon, Ilinx and Mimicry. What is most interesting is how our games had only one of them in common, yet they are both highly successful and respected in their own genre.

Chewing up a Bitesitze Game

Will a BBC Bitesize game stand up to serious critical analysis?

Game - Shape Lab

Today, we had a look at a Key Stage 1 game on the BBC Bitesize website and completely pulled it apart. It's safe to say that no one was very impressed, but I think it is really important that we look at this game from the perspective of a Key Stage 1 child (5 - 7 years).

What is a "Key Stage 1" Game?
My own opinion of what a Key Stage 1 game should be is a simple one. The game should be simple and engaging but most importantly I believe a key Stage 1 game should teach a child about a given subject in a fun way. This is the basis that I will be analysing the game.

Interaction
There is very little purposeful interaction in the game. At it's core you are aiming to select the correct shape that you are asked for. Other than that the only other thing that you are "doing" is navigating the menu's. While this certainly satisfies my criteria for being "simple" it falls far short of being engaging. There is no real exchange of interaction between the player and game, and nothing really changes dependant on which shape you select. If you get the shape wrong it just lets you try again, essentially giving you a 1 in 3 change of winning.

Goal
The ultimate goal is to finish the difficulty mode and fix the robot. This is done by completing each of the 5 levels. Again it's very simple, but I think the majority of the goals are of a more personal nature. You want to complete the game on really hard just to show you can, get all 5 puzzles right first time or complete the game faster than anyone else in your class. These goals aren't built into the game or maybe not even what the designer originally intended, but they are a side effect of people's need to be better. I think it's wrong and actually lazy for a designer to rely solely on these side effects instead of building them into the games structure. Especially with a game that is already incredibly simple.

Struggle
The struggle starts with the difficulty you choose and ends with selecting the correct shape. It's not a particularly difficult game, but I can appreciate that a 5 year old might struggle with symetry. The main thing that takes away from the game having much to struggle about is the fact that you have nothing to lose. If you get an answer wrong, you retry - there is no penalty for getting any answers wrong so you will always get through the level.

Structure
The structure is a straight forward one, literally. The game is linear in that you complete each puzzle to get to the end. The only slight deviation from this path is if you get a puzzle wrong and the scientist gets an electric shock. Your intention of playing the game could be just to shock the scientist, but I really don't think that was the intention of the games designer.

Endogenous Meaning
There is very little item wise that is important to the game. Infact the only item or object of any conciquence are the shapes you use. The main focus of the game revolves around the use of these shapes - this makes the shapes extremely important within the game. While shapes might have real world relevance, I don't see anyone using these kind of particular shapes to create a working robot...

Evaluation
The game definately ticks most of the boxes in what makes a good KS1 game, but I think the game falls very far, too far short on one key element. The game fails to teach anything. It's all well and good having a nice looking and simple game, but these aren't just games. They're tools being used to teach children and help them in their education. Unless you already know the answer to each puzzle, you have a 1 in 3 chance of winning it. If you get an answer wrong, it doesn't tell you why you were wrong only that you were. If you get the answer right then you move on, if you didn't actually know the answer then you never learned anything from it.

An Introduction to Critical Game Studies - Questions

As a first exercise into critical game studies we have been asked various questions about our tastes in art and culture.

What is the title of the book (fiction) you are currently reading (or the last fiction book you read)?

The last fictional book I remember reading was Spiderman The Movie; This was a good few years ago when the movie was released. The reason I bought the book was because I really enjoyed watching the movie, so being able to experience the movie again through a different medium seemed like a great idea. While the book tries to capture the feeling of the movie, unfortunately it cuts so much out that you are forced to reinforce the book with things you have experienced from watching the movie its-self. It's interesting to see that when something is made from something else, it is almost always going to be a cut down version of the original. Normally you hear about books being far more in-depth than their movie counterparts, so for a book to be less than its movie counterpart just goes to show that many producers really just want to milk a franchise for all it can.
I tend not to read fictional books as I feel I get a better and more immersive experience from playing a video game or watching a movie. It's not like I don't want to read a good fictional book, I just don't want to spend the time needed to go through one when I could be playing a game with a good storyline in it (like Metal Gear Solid or Alan Wake).


What is the title/topic of the book (non-fiction) you are currently reading (or the last non-fiction book you read)?

The last book I read was "The Computer Games Design Course"

I really enjoyed reading this book and actually found myself reading it from cover to cover. The book covers games design in a very broad way as it tries to give you a basic understanding of all aspects of games and their production. The book starts from the very beginning of games history going into some detail about ancient egyptian games and alike. It then moves further up in history from the old retro games to the more modern games played today. After telling you about various game types and genres it goes on to tell you how modern games are actually made and the production pipeline used today. It gives plenty of references and material to start learning how to make your own games, even showing you software professional developers use and how they use them. While the book isn't a one stop shop to games design, it is a fantastic introdution into the world of games design. It's written very simply and clearly with plenty of images and illustrations to really show you what it is the writer is trying to explain.
I would definately recommend this book to anyone getting into games design.


What is the last live performance (music, drama or dance) you attended?

The last live performance I went to was to a Foo Fighters gig in Manchester. It was really just an excuse to get out when a group of friends were booking tickets and asked if I would like to go too. I had no idea who the Foo Fighters were at the time, and to be honest I've not actually listened to any of their music since then, but while I was there it was great.

What is the title of the last film you saw at the cinema, online or watched on DVD?

The last movie I watched was Yes Man on DVD. I had watched this movie at the cinema so I knew it was really good. The basic story is about a man who goes to a "yes" convention and makes a covenant to always say "yes" to everything. If he breaks the covenant and says "no" to something then bad things will happen to him. Its a great comedy, but it plays on modern culture where people generally live in their own boxed in world and basically just say "no" to everything. After watching the film it really makes you want to go out and just say yes to everything that comes your way, but that doesn't last long.

How often do you read a newspaper? (which one?)

The only time I ever read a newspaper is when A, I have nothing better to do and B, there is a newspaper within 2 feet of wherever I'm sitting. I think that most of the things in a newspaper is just rubbish written to fill out a bit of paper space and waste ink. Although when it comes to something like the financial times or more factual writing - I'm sure there are plenty of people who find it very interesting.... I'm just not one of them.

Which art gallery, museum or exhibition did you last visit?

The last exhibition I visited was i32. It was primarily a large video games tournament, but there were exhibitors on the bottom floor showing off their latest things. I absolutely love video games exhibitions; If I could afford it I would go to every single one around the world. Unfortunately I tend to only find out about an exhibition when the tickets have sold out so I end up not being able to go even if I wanted to. I think pushing myself more into the industry of games and not just playing them will definaltey help to keep me in-the-know.

How many hours a week do you spend playing video games?

Most weeks would be 20+ hours. Naturally that would change dependant on more important things like family or coursework.

How many hours a week do you spend playing games other than video games?

Most weeks would be 0+ hours. That isn't by choice though, I would love to play more board games with people I just don't know anyone who enjoys playing them as much as I do.