Design Challenge: Two 25-metre Screens and a Dozen Kinnects

February 27th, 2013

Every day I go to work, I walk through this underground channel connected to the subway. When I first started work in Shanghai, different colours were projected onto the side panels, creating a neat saturation effect (it’s orange in the photo). About 6 months ago, the colours were replaced with video ads, so now, when you walk through the tunnel, you’re bombarded with slick marketing messages. The problem with these ads, besides being intrusive and annoying, is that most of them aren’t made for the 25-metre wide-screen format: they just project eight TV ads that play simultaneously. Stupid, right? So, I was thinking, armed with a dozen Kinnects, what kinds of interactive/reactive multimedia experiences could be created to make this underground passage more interesting? I only have a few ideas at the moment, but I suspect that I’ll get more over the coming weeks. So, I’m gonna start a list, feel free to contribute in the comments and I’ll add your ideas to the list. A few more details:

The two screens are facing each other on opposite walls.
There’s a series of handrails in the centre.
The tunnel has a slight ascent.
Sound is played through speakers attached to the ceiling.
There are eight projectors in total, four for each side. The projected images overlap slightly.
Thousands of people pass through here each day. Most people are transferring between subway lines.

–

Ideas

1) The screens display video of people walking through the passage, acting as a mirror. Zombie textures are then mapped to the passersby. This could be an advertisement for The Walking Dead, being a literal representation of the name.

2) The Kinnects could track walking data and present it on the screen. So, steps taken so far for the day, week, month or year could be displayed. By comparing sets of data—for example, how many steps were taken yesterday to how many have been taken today—a relative high score element is added, encouraging commuters to take more steps.

Any kind of quantification of activity which is then presented back to the people who engage in the activity encourages certain types of behaviour, so there’s certainly ethical questions that need to be considered*. Personally, I think it’d be better if steps were translated into calories burnt, or something like this. This would encourage commuters to think more about their health, as opposed to taking more steps, which is a bit silly.

*For a better example of ethics and gamification, watch this video and ask yourself whether the Delite-o-matic is “right” or “wrong”.

Real-Life Game Dynamics

February 14th, 2013

A game dynamic is a variable which affects two or more areas of a game system. For example, in many Japanese SRPGs, height is a dynamic. It affects the attack and movement range of units and the damage one unit gives to another. So, higher units have more range and slightly stronger attacks than lower units. The height dynamic allocates strategic advantage and disadvantage to certain areas of the battlefield, encouraging the player to plan their tactics around the map’s topography. In this way, dynamics make games more engaging. You can read more about dynamics here and here.

When writing about dynamics for my book on Wario Land 4, my thoughts drifted from game dynamics to real-life dynamics and how the dynamics that make life interesting could be emulated in a video game. Below are some theoretical examples that I’ve come up with. I found it quite fun putting these together, so feel free to share any of your own ideas in the comments.

Energy

Energy is an artificial game dynamic.
It can determine the speed of the avatar’s walk/run.
It can limit the avatar’s actions and movement range in one turn.
It can act as a decaying dynamic—as in Harvest Moon, where each action takes some energy—so that the avatar can only make so many actions before they need a rest.
The restrictions of the former two dot points prompt the player to carefully consider their actions. That is to say, they add a strategic element.
It can determine how long the avatar sleeps and therefore how much time they have available the next day.

Drunkenness

Drunkenness is an artificial game dynamic.
It can rise the more the avatar has to drink.
It can determine options available in dialogue trees (the drunker, the less polite).
It can cause the avatar to stagger (I think GTA4 does this).
It can smear and blur the screen and make HUD elements wander from their default positions.
It can cause NPCs to look at you.

Noise

Noise is an organic game dynamic.
It can obscure the player’s ability to hear and therefore respond to NPCs.
Different places can have different noise levels.
It can determine whether or not an NPC hears something the avatar says to another NPC (like a secret).
Noise could be the core dynamic of an aural version of Magic Eye, where the player must listen to audio until they hear a secret message.
Different surfaces can make different noises when the avatar steps on them (Metal Gear).

Need to go to the Toilet

This is an artificial dynamic.
The more the avatar eats/drinks, the stronger the dynamic.
Like energy in Harvest Moon, the need to go to the toilet can force the player to schedule their actions.
When the need to go to the toilet reaches a certain threshold, the avatar could be given a run ability and the player could be prompted to engage in a short button-mashing exercise to “hold it in”. The greater the need, the more intense and frequent the button mashing sequences.
The greater the need, the longer the avatar spends in the toilet.

Sweat

Sweat is an artificial dynamic.
It can be presented on the avatar itself, form fits function.
Being too sweaty can cause the NPCs around the avatar to act negatively towards them.
On the other hand, sweat can be a positive attribute in some places, like the gym. It might cause NPCs to start a conversation with the avatar.
It can persuade the player not to abuse the run mechanic.
It can dynamically change depending on the seasons.
Taking a shower resets the sweat dynamic.

Oxygen

Oxygen is an artificial dynamic.
Oxygen is quite common in games already, but instead of just being designated to swimming sequences, it can be used in other contexts too. Such as escaping a burning building. When the avatar stands next to smoke, their oxygen level goes down.
It can be an indication of air quality, represented visually through smog, the colour of the sky, and whether or not NPCs wear breathing masks (I have no idea what these things are called in English. They’re called 口罩 kǒu zhào in China).
Continuing with air quality, oxygen can determine the avatar’s running distance.

Bright Light

Light is an organic dynamic.
Resident Evil 5 incorporates light and shade into its gameplay, but from what I can tell, it isn’t really that deep—admittedly, I haven’t played much of the game, can anyone offer a second opinion? >_>
When the avatar moves from shaded to bright areas, and vice versa, the game simulates the eye’s adjustment to lighting levels. The game designer or enemy AI can explicitly use this dynamic to obscure the player’s view.
Looking into the sun stuns the player.
Enemies/the player can use high-intensity lights or torches to temporarily blind the other party.
Sunglasses reduce the effectiveness of bright lights.
Enemies can detect shadows, and the player can use shadows to determine an enemy’s location.

What are some unique game dynamics in games you’ve played?

Rethinking Games Criticism – Preface (Book Excerpt)

December 1st, 2012

Below is an excerpt from my forthcoming book Rethinking Games Criticism: An Analysis of Wario Land 4. When it comes to matters of politics, I hold strong views. I wrote Rethinking Games Criticism as a radical assertion of my thoughts regarding video games and games criticism. Everything in the book—from the choice of game, direct writing style, minimal subjectivity, radical extent of the analysis, and lack of excess—is a reflection of my world view, although it’s only in the preface that I state my intents outright. The rest of the book is pure game design analysis. I’ve spent two years trying to get it right, and reading over some of the final copy, I feel like I’ve finally achieved what I originally set out to do. With such a strong ideological basis for the book, I decided that it’d be best if I shared the preface first.

As for the release of the book, I’m currently in talks with several publishers, but haven’t confirmed anything concrete at this stage. I still need to finish double checking the final copy for punctuation errors, but aside from that everything’s done. Stay tuned for future updates and let me know what you think of the preface in the comments.

—

All writers are liars. You know that though, don’t you? That’s what you learnt at high school when your teacher forced you to write those essays on some book you didn’t care about and some theme seemingly unrelated to it. We write books about one thing, only to talk about something else. I too must confess to such two-faceness. And as is the tradition with prefaces, I shall now self-indulgently reveal the lie before you’ve had a chance to read the book and realise it for yourself.

This book is not, as the title suggests, an analysis of Wario Land 4. Rather, it is a critique of contemporary games writing, in particular the broadly-defined games criticism. I evaluate games criticism through the proposition of games analysis, a new type of games writing which seeks to improve the art and science of video games through clear language, authoritative evidence, and a focus on interactivity. Rethinking Games Criticism is an example of games analysis brought to its logical conclusion: a piece of writing which thoroughly explains the workings of an entire game. Everything from mechanics to engagement to level design is covered. Without trying to sound arrogant, I would contest that there has never been a deeper, more comprehensive piece of writing ever written about a video game.

This is not to condemn games criticism nor discourage those engaged in thoughtful games discussion (it is, after all, for you guys that I wrote this book), however, while there are some genuinely excellent pieces of writing out there, games criticism certainly has a few issues in its current form*. Thus, it is my intent to use games analysis as a means to improve the state of games criticism. I don’t see games analysis as a replacement for games criticism, but rather as an important subset of the broader discussion. What sets game analysis apart from other forms of games writing is that it acknowledges the following three points.

*Game designer, Dan Cook, succinctly covered many of these problems in his essay, A blunt critique of games criticism. I would recommend reading his article to further understand some of the issues this book attempts to address.

#1 Games are Complicated

Video games are sophisticated systems of rules which employ the expertise of art, maths, science, architecture, literature, psychology, and cinematography, just to name a few. The book, over 450 pages of critical analysis on what many would consider a relatively simple game, more than validates this point. The complicated, interdisciplinary nature of video games makes talking about them with any authority quite difficult.

#2 Thus, A Clear Language is Needed to Critically Discuss Them

Some games writers speak of this magical day when the language needed to critically discuss video games will appear out of thin air and they’ll finally be able to talk about the medium with real depth. While these people are off daydreaming, others have been hard at work making such language a reality. Tadhg Kelly’s What Games Are is one such example. For this book, I’ve used the work of Richard Terrell. Richard runs the Critical Gaming blog and for the past 5 years has been developing a critical vocabulary in which to understand games. His Critical Glossary contains more than 450 terms and is backed up with thousands of pages dedicated to theory and examples from popular games. If you’re interested enough in games to buy this book, then Richard’s blog should immediately strike you as profound. I urge you to take a look before digging into the main analysis.

#3 No Evidence, No Authority

The most confounding and inexcusable aspect of games criticism, and games writing in general, is the lack of evidence to support a writer’s claims. Without evidence there is only opinion, and if there’s anything we’ve learnt from the internet, it’s that anyone can, and does, have an opinion. Evidence grants authority. It proves that the writer isn’t just spouting out ideas, but has a considered and balanced argument. In the very least, it shows the reader how the writer came to form their opinion. In fairness, many writers do provide some form of evidence in their writing, but it’s often vague, insufficient, or never properly scrutinised. Saying that game X is boring because levels Y and Z are poorly designed doesn’t tell the reader how levels Y and Z are poorly designed or how two poorly designed levels can make an entire game boring, never mind what “boring” means. The more extensive the evidence and thorough the explanation of the connection between the evidence and the argument, the more credible the article.

(This is why FAQ writers and Let’s Players have a leg up over game critics. FAQ writers because they’ve already written extensively about the game system, and therefore have it all mapped out in their head. Let’s Players because they have the evidence right in front of them, which makes it easy to shoot off a quick observation in context).

When evidence is utterly void, the only way to grab reader interest is to inflate opinion. Thus, we see posts with titles like “Is Zelda Skyward Sword the worst game in the series?”, backed up with a few paragraphs of fashionable ignorance. Forget about looking at the dungeons, inventory, story, or game structure.

In Rethinking Games Criticism all assertions are backed up with evidence and detailed explanations. My opinions are downplayed to the point that I don’t even reveal if I like Wario Land 4 or not. The goal is to interpret the game for what it is; not to talk about my feelings. I’ve chosen this super objective approach so that the book acts as a polarising alternative to the over-abundance of opinion out there. I want the nuances of the game design to set the agenda, because it’s these details that define the game.

Of all the games one could write a book about, don’t you find it a little odd that I chose Wario Land 4? I could have written about a Bioshock or an Uncharted. Instead, I chose a simple game with a child-friendly veneer released more than 11 years ago on a portable platform—talk about irrelevant! This decision was intentional. Along with making a case for games analysis, I also want to challenge three aspects of the game enthusiast community:

The games press’s lack of enthusiasm for portable games and games for children.
The general stigma of playing and writing about old games.
The focus on games which emphasise ideas over interactivity (i.e. Bioshock and Journey) by writers of games criticism.

So there you have it: my ulterior motive is revealed and you’re free to press on to the first chapter. One final word though. I’ve spent the past 2 years cramming every bit of observation and insight into this book. This will make it a challenging read at times, but I encourage you to stick with it. By the end, I’m sure that you’ll have grown your understanding of game design and be able to further appreciate the level of craftsmanship that goes into these wonderful, interactive works of art.

Daniel Johnson

Posted in Editorial | Comments (9)
Tags: games analysis, wario land 4

« Older Entries

Newer Entries »