Finale: The Last Blog Exercise

Just saw the interesting video posted by Weiwei on his blog which spurred some of my own afterthoughts :) ...

Most of the examples that we've seen in class so far are related to games that played with/spilled over into the boundaries of reality but I wonder if there are any differences when such goes in the opposite direction, i.e. turning reality itself into a game? I remember there are scenes from Lord of the Rings trilogy in which Legolas and Gimli would take score of the number of orcs killed by them whenever they battled against the villains as if such was an unspoken pact/a little game between the two of them. Well, there is one thing that could be said at this point, that is turning reality into a game would bring about serious consequences even when the so-called "game" is over as for Legolas and company, it's a matter of survival :p unlike those that are created in the safe haven provided by the magic circle in the class definition of a game - a voluntary interactive activity in which one or more players follow the rules that contrain their behaviour, enacting an artificial conflict that ends in a quantifiable outcome where in Legolas and Gimli's case, the conflict seems more real than artificial. Now, this links us to the final blog exercise...

Think back to the very start of the semester, when we talked about the concept of meaningful play, which occurs when "the relationships between actions and outcomes in a game are both discernable and integrated into the larger context of the game" (from Salen and Zimmerman, Rules of Play). When the game is an alternate reality game such as The Beast, where the game does not have any explicitly declared actions and outcomes, and in some cases does not even acknowledge its own existence, is it possible for there to be meaningful play? Does this type of "game" require us to rethink our definition of games?

For games that have neither explicit rules, actions nor outcomes and in some instances in which they do not even acknowledge their presence, it may seem that such would hinder the emergence of meaningful play but it is not entirely impossible. However for these alternate reality games, meaningful play is highly dependent on the player/s unlike that of a typical game. For instance, if a player could plan or decipher how his/her actions could affect other players in the game, this could be regarded as a form of discernability and the responses from other players such as cooperation, sabotage, etc would in turn affect the ultimate outcome of the game. In other words, meaningful play from these games is very much built upon social dynamics as in the social interactions between players, just think back on the SMS "game" played in the last lecture on Friday :)

Although alternate reality games such as The Beast, may not fit entirely into our class defintion of a game, it would nice to note that there are a number of similarities such as interactivity, the need for voluntary players and a set of procedures in playing which could be somewhat regarded as a set of rules and most importantly, an artificial conflict. Thus although these so called "games" do not require us to rethink our definition of games entirely, there is perhaps an underlying principle that guides all various forms of games, that is perhaps a game would stand as a game so long as one deems it to be a game.

However, this principle of what constitutes a game brings up another question regarding the relationship between players in the game and non-players outside of the game, particularly for that of alternate reality games, that is... would such "games" be still considered as a game so long as one person regards it to be so or does it require common consensus from everyone involved? Just an extra thought :p ...

P.S. This post was last updated on Sunday, April 16, 2006, 4:33 PM.

Back on Track: Game Systems

1. Creating mods (modifications) to existing games is a common practice, not just for computer games, but for any form of games. Does this imply that any game can be considered a game system? Why/why not?

Although performing modifications to existing forms of games is a common practice, such does not imply that any ganme can be considered as a game system. According to its definition, a game system is a collection of components or formal elements which could function across multiple games. However, there are some games with components that are specific, i.e. they could only make sense in the context of the game. For instance, the property cards (based upon locations found on the gameboard) and chance cards (a set of random events related to places on the gameboard or context of real-estate management) used in Monopoly could only provide meanings in the context of the game. Take these components out of the context of Monopoly and they would become highly unsuitable for other games or be rendered meaningless altogether. Another example of game components that bear specific and inhererent meanings like that of Monopoly, would be that of the cards used in the context of the game, Cluedo.

2. Consider a game which you feel could be successfully modified. How could this game be generalized into a game system? How much of the unique character/flavour of the game can be retained? How generic can you make the game system? How easy will it be to create new, unique games from the game system?

I shall use the oriental game of Mahjong (pronounced as Ma Jiang in Chinese) as a working example for the remaining questions in this blog exercise :p

Let's see... A Mahjong set differs from country to country but would normally consists of the following components:

Dragon tiles (a western convention given by Joseph Park Babcock in his 1920 book Rules of Mah-Jongg: pronounced as Zhong in Chinese-lit. Middle, Fai-lit. Prosperity and Bai-lit.White respectively.

Wind tiles: East, South, North and West (x4)

A set of Circle (pronounced as Tong in Chinese) Suit tiles (x4)

A set of Bamboo (pronounced as Suo in Chinese) Suit tiles (x4)

A set of Character (pronounced as Wan in Chinese) Suit tiles (x4)

Flower tiles: Each depicts unique artwork of its own but they are typically optional in gameplay.

In addition, the game also consists of other miscellaneous components such as dices (a total of 3), chips of different colours and sizes, an arrow indicator to indicate the direction of gameplay and a marker device to indicate the wind direction and hence which player to act as a dealer in the game. The basic core mechanics of the game revolves picking a tile at random, discarding, matching and matching tiles in a number of ways to form winning various combinations and depending of the type of combinations, scoring would also differ.

This game could be generalized as a game system mainly via the use of its tiles that allow for numerous combinations and groupings. This provides some flexibility as demonstrated by the fact that there are a number of variations across countries. From the Classical Chinese style to American style, the game has evolved overtime that subsequently gave rise to variations that differ in terms of scoring and additional components. For instance on top of scoring changes, the Japanese variation of Mahjong also include the rules of riichi and dora which are unique to Japanese Mahjong. However, much of the essential characteristics/oriential flavour are still very much retained with the inscription of Chinese writings on the tiles and in terms of the mechanics employed in gameplay, i.e. picking tiles at random, discarding, mixing and matching those discarded by other players to form winning combinations.

For more information on the actual gameplay of Mahjong and its variations, there is a good and comprehensive write-up available here.

Regarding the ease by which such game system could be used to create new and unique games, I think it would be highly suitable in generating games that focus mainly on mixing and matching of tiles :) which takes us to the last question...

3. Describe one new game designed on top of the game system you proposed in question 2.

Due to the inherent mix-and-match quality of the tiles as well as their ablity to stack upon one another (thereby preventing one from seeing what's beneath them :p), there is a new game designed based on the game system provided by Mahjong under a number of names, one which is Mahjong Tiles on the Net. The objective of the game is to clear a set of stacked up tiles (whereby difficulty varies according to different layouts) by clicking and matching tiles of exact matches or belonging to the same catogory (e.g Flower tiles, etc) while the rule is that players are only allowed to select and match tiles that are "exposed", i.e. they are not found in between two tiles or have another tile stacked upon them.

Minor Digression: Transplantation of Korean Wave into Gaming

Here's something that my sister and I stumbled upon when we were surfing the Net for some stuff yesterday and the game characters are so adorable, I can't resist mentioning a little bit of it here :p...

With the surge of the Korean Wave across Asia, especially the hype surrounding the drama Dae Jang Geum (with the English working title, Jewel in the Palace) produced by TV network MBC, SOCO SOFT launched a java mobile game based upon the historical epic drama of the same name exclusively in China which the company had imported via Korea's Mdocks where the game was developed by Lionlogics and licensed by MBC, i.e. a remediation of popular narrative from other forms of media that we've learnt about in the other module :) The RPG game would be divided into 3 modes and released gradually, corresponding to the development of the storyline in the drama in which players would take the role of the leading protagonist Jang Geum. For the first Palace Kitchen mode, players would play Jang Geum bearing an ambition to become the Highest Court Lady from the lowest rank of a palace girl, followed by Sense of Taste mode in which players would compete against other non-player characters (NPCs) to fight for the position of the Highest Court Lady. Finally in the last Royal Physician mode, they take on the role of the female physician Jang Geum whereby she would save the lives of sick commoners and redress the grievence of her parents, her mentor Court Lady Han and herself.

Here's a peek into some of the character designs in the game taken from a fan's blog:

The design of the protanganist Jang Geum changes as she evolves from being a palace girl to a High Court Lady.

The expressions of the character also changes according to her feelings in the game.

These are other characters found in the game. From left to right, Emperor Jung Jong, Kang Duk Gu, Court Lady Choi, Court Lady Jung, Court Lady Han, Empress Dowager and Min Jung Ho.

From the details provided by SOCO SOFT, the company has already lanched the first mode of the game together with the surging popularity of a simultaneous broadcast of the drama on television in China, it had hoped that such would propel more downloads and a good marketing strategy it is too :) for the game (translated into Da Chang Jin in Chinese) became the top mobile game in China during the Chinese New Year period earlier on this year. In addition, the company's website also indicated the game is designed to target "rookie" players, taking into consideration that fans of the show could download and play the game at ease. The game time of the first mode is set to take course over a period of 6 years during which the player/Jang Geum could train in practicing court etiquette, cooking, etc and participate in the cooking competion held by the Royal Kitchen every year and depending on how one plays the game together with the level of intimacy between Jang Geum and the other NPCs, such would lead to different endings in the game, i.e. procedural content :) thereby giving players an opportunity to decide the fate of their own Jang Geum in the game.

Here are some screenshots of the game taken from the above website:

Digital Era: SLEUTH

I shall cite an online game which my sister stumbled upon a few months ago, the Detective Game - SLEUTH as a working example for the blog exercise on digital games...

Here's a description of the game taken from its website:

Sleuth is an open-ended, detective role playing game (RPG) where you solve mysteries by searching for clues, questioning suspects and interviewing witnesses. Every mystery is unique with different victims, suspects and clues. All mysteries are solvable, in fact there are always two ways to solve any single mystery, but player skill and a small amount of luck are necessary to nab the guilty suspect.

In addition to solving different cases, the game also features an allocation system of skills points in which a total of 20 points are given at the start followed by others that could be earned after having successfully solved some cases. In the game, a detective could have three traits, namely Toughness, Smarts and Charm and for each trait, there is a corresponding set of skills that could be learnt by trading in skill points :) For instance under the trait of Charm, the skill of Rule Bending could be learnt. Different combinations of skills would subsequently affect how effective a player/detective go about solving various cases. On top of that, when a detective has earned enough funds from solving cases (and perhaps formed some sort of reputation as well), he or she could then choose to form a detective agency in the virtual world and subsequently recruit other players/detectives to join his or her agency.

According to the reading by Crawford, I could identify a few mechanics used in the game that I think are unique to the computer as a medium. They are namely interactivity, the ability of the computer to serve as a moderator of sorts, its ability to limit information presented to players in a purposeful way and to allow for network communication.

First and formost, although the game is mostly text-based, players are given the choice to decide when and what type of detective skills to learn and in the course of trying to solve cases, they could also choose to do a number of things such as visiting the crime scene and other places on the map, interrogating or sweet-talking when suspects refuse to cooperate and accusing someone of being the culprit, etc to which the game responds immediately. It is primarily these decision-making processes that generate a sense of interactivity for players. Moreover as mentioned before, the allocation system of skills points affect the development of a player's persona in terms of the type of detective skills he or she possesses togther with the choice of setting up their own agency and recruiting other players/detectives, such manner of gameplay could somewhat lead up to procedural and emergent content. Meanwhile in the background, the computer is acting as a moderator by recording down various information like which suspect has an alibi or who has not, clues provided by non-suspects and witnesses, etc where such information could be easily retrieved at all times by a simple click on the section titled as CASE (which otherwise would be a cumbersome process if I have to write down every single detail manually on paper :p).

On the other hand, the ability of the computer to limit the amount and the kind of information given to players is much suited for and is also an essential feature of the game for it is very important to provide clues or hints enough for players to make a logical deduction and yet not revealing too much such that it takes the fun out of solving cases (a problem which I could relate to quite well, I think, after the playtesting sessions for Assignment 2 :p).

Last but not least, there is the convenience of networked communication provided by the use of the Internet that allows players from all parts of the world to come together and discuss various issues regarding the game as well as to recruit players/detectives from other countries (most likely to be someone you have never met before), a feature that could not be found in traditional board games nor card games.

'k, I think I shall work on my second case now :p I'd managed to solve one while trying the game earlier on :) Probably a lucky break, I reckon... OUT ON A CASE.

Getting down to Serious Games: McDonald's Videogame

I shall use the McDonald's Videogame as a working example for the blog assignment on serious games...

The game is designed in such a manner that it seems to create an initial impression that players are presented with a lot of freedom which arises from the need in deciding on relatively trivial matters such as the number and locations of agricultural plots for cultivation of soy and pasture fields for rearing of cows to major matters such as bribing a politician, etc. These decisions or rather actions are bound to evoke some changes in the overall equilibrium that could be catogorized as short-term or long-term effects. Thus, this implies that there is not only a sense of local agency but more importantly, there is also a strong presence of global agency. More often than not, the earlier decisions made by the players would tend to return and haunt them at a later stage in the game, somewhat realizing what's meant by one reaps what one sows :p Hence, one could see that meaningful play could and does emerge from playing the McDonald's Videogame.

On the other hand in terms of sending a political message via the mechanics of the game - that is it is impossible for a fast food empire to substain growth in the long-run without succumbing to *ahhem* questionable/unethical means, I would think that the game is rather successful in this area for it becomes increasingly difficult to keep demand and supply in equilibrium, not to mention trying to keep everyone happy at all times :p

However on hindsight, the actual extent of influence by the game in effecting a change in the mindset of players is questionable. Previous studies have shown that media tend to have selective and minimal effects and in this context, a computer game such as McDonald's Videogame could be regarded as another medium to influence public opinion but the problem is could it and to what extent? Media has a tendency to reinforce what the audience already believed in rather than that of activation and convertion. Perhaps one could argue that role-playing by the player could be a key to persuasion but that would be subjective, depending on how "seriously" a player takes the game. Personally, even though I understand the message that the game is trying to portray, having it in the context of a game itself somewhat reduces the "seriousness" of it. In other words, it's not like playing the game is going change my mindset about patronising McDonald's in the future... I think these sentiments could be due to the fact that people are more accustomed to thinking games for entertainment purposes rather than serious issues? Well, for me at anyway...

Social Games: Mafia

I shall use Mafia as my working example for the blog assignment on Social Games...

1. Describe the social interactions which you observed during play. In what way did these interactions emerge from within the formal elements of the game?

Umm... There was quite a bit of social interactions going on when we played Mafia, much more than that of Little Max, I would say :) One of the most prominent was of couse, there were people accusing others as the mafia and hence, they were in turn accused back by the people that they've "accused". There were also others who tried to create diversions by explicitly claiming that they are the mafia... Then, there were also these voting sessions when people had to decide who they thought the mafia were (which by the way, it reminded me a lot like "tribal council" in Survivor). On the other hand, there were also people who were keeping peace with themselves but nonetheless either got "killed" by the mafia at night or were "torn apart" by the angry crowd during the day *Ouch* (Personally, I think that's the worse way to die of the two :p) Most importantly, there was also a great deal of laughter (even from the "graves" like yours truly :p eh, I had a difficult time in trying to remain completely silent).

Much of these interactions arose from the need to accuse someone of being the mafia but since noone really know who it was, thereby giving rise to funny comments like, "You look like the mafia...", "Why are you laughing like that? You must be the mafia!" or "You keep accusing other people so you are the mafia, right?", etc throughout the game. In addition, the laughter and giggling probably arose from the fact that those who are "dead" were supposed to remain silent but they were also the ones who knew who the real mafia were (sort of like I know but I can't tell you :p).

2. Using Sutton-Smith's categorization of social play roles, discuss how the players' roles changed during the course of the game.

The players' roles and their changes during the course of the game Mafia could be categorized under two main motives of play, namely that of Search and Seduction.

Under the motive Search, there were people who accused others of being the mafia when there was really no evidence/proof to justify their accusations (i.e to find by chance) and those who were accused, would retaliate by accusing the former back or "feigning innocence" (i.e. to mislead or cover and to feign respectively).

As for the motive Seduction, there were numerous times when some of the players would try to influence others' decisions (i.e. to tempt?) and the others would have to decide whether to conform or keep to their stands (i.e. to resist?).

3. Suggest a modification to the game which will alter the social dynamics that emerge during play.

I can't think of any at the moment :p so I shall write about my afterthoughts of a modification that we managed to try out during the tutorial class :) It was the additional role of a detective (random) and the rule which stated if the mafia accidentally kills the detective, then they would lose the game.

This modification seemed to be an integration of the afore-mentioned motives of play - Search and Seduction in that the player (who was playing the detective) would be required to pinpoint who the real mafia were (i.e. to find by clue) and to try and influence others into making a 'right' decision (i.e. to tempt?). At the same, such modification could also serve as a check on the powers of the mafia in a way such that they couldn't afford to be reckless in picking out their victims.

Despite this, the game seemed to have a high level of negative feedback for the villagers, especially when the detective gets wrongly accused and killed by the former in the process for there would be noone left to check the powers of the mafia.

Initial Concept for Assignment 2: Ragnarok!

Having drawn the inspiration from Norse mythology, I've decided to base the concept for Assignment 2 on the event of Ragnarok (aka "Destruction of the Gods"). Basically, it would be a card game summed up as follows:

"Six Gods, Two Tribes and ONE to survive the ultimate Ragnarok."

How to play?

Before the game starts, each player is required to pick a card from the 'character' deck (total of 6) to determine which character and thus which tribe, he or she would be allocated to. There are 2 tribes:

Asesir would consist of Odin, Thor and Loki.

Vanir would consist of Norjd, Freyr and Freya.

The order of the players' turns would be set based on the importance of their characters in Norse mythology and hence:

1) Odin

2) Norjd

3) Thor

4) Freyr

5) Loki

6) Freya

The objective of the game is to "survive" Ragnarok by gathering a set of 3 Attribute cards (I'm just setting it at 3 for now) specific to the character that the player is being allocated to. For instance, the player who is playing as Odin would need to possess cards of the spear Gungnir, the ring Draupnir and the steed Slephir while Thor would need to possess that of the hammer Mjollnir, Iron Gloves and the Belt of Strength.

At the start of the game, the players would be playing in 'formal' alliances according to their character and tribe which they could keep or break at anytime in the course of playing. In fact, the way I think of it, the whole idea is for them to break the alliance at some point in the game :p (Read on to see why :)

Each player is dealt with 2 cards (random) from the 'playing' deck (consisting of Attribute and Special cards) and they would take turns to draw from the deck and discard any card that's not of use to them. No player is allowed to have more than 2 cards in his or her possession throughout the course of playing nor pick up any card from the 'discarded' deck to complete his or her set unless it's the 3rd winning card. (Eh, if this sounds confusing, then try to think of Mahjong :p That's where I got the idea from anyway...)

So where's the social game? That's where the Special cards come into play...

I could only come up with 3 at this point:

Ragnarok x4 - Any player caught without an Attribute card that matches his or her character would be "killed" or alternatively, the player could be "rescued" by another player who is willing to pass over an Attribute card (only those specific to the character played by the former) to the former.

Umm, but I haven't decided whether to limit this "rescue" action to members of the same tribe or leave it open to everyone 'cos I'm assuming that members of the opposing tribe would want to eliminate players from the other side anyway :p

Drinking Feast x4 - A call for a mutual exchange of Attribute cards that is open to everyone :)

Wild card x1 ('cos I haven't decide what to call it yet) - A card to represent any Attribute and hence very good for times of emergency such as Ragnarok but cannot be used to win the game :p That would make the game too easy...

Thus, players would have to decide when and how to use these cards that is of best advantage to them. For instance, one wouldn't throw out Ragnarok too early as there may be a high chance that fellow members of their tribe could be eliminated and this could subsequently affect the overall gameplay.

In addition, there are Miscellaneous Rules to encourage more interaction among players (at least that's what I hope for anyway) :

i) Members of the same tribe are encouraged to show one another cards in their possession so as to better discuss tactics if they like but such is by no means obligatory.

ii) However if by "divine intervention", there are "leakages" of information from a tribe to the other, the game shall proceed on as if nothing has happened?

iii) Peeping would be and is at all times encouraged during the game and there were be no penalties imposed.

Overall, there are 2 fundamental stages to the game. The first requires cooperation among players/members of the same tribe while the second stage requires the player to break alliances/betray fellow players (i.e. whatever it takes) in order to emerge as the "SOLE SURVIVOR" of Ragnarok.