Book - Cyberpl@y

Danet B. Cyberpl@y: Communicating Online. Berg Publishers; 2001:436.

Although a large chunk of this book is not relevant to the areas I'm looking at, it does have some nice descriptions and summaries of the ways that online communication differs from offline, and the ways that people have adapted their communication online to try and overcome some of these limitations.

 In the introduction she describes a continuum in online communication from 'speech-like' to 'writing like' (pg 16). While asynchronous communication like email is more like writing - allowing time to edit etc. - synchronous chat has more of the linguistic features of oral conversation - speed is of the essence, no editing.

Pages 17-19 provide 9 ways that users have adapted to digital writing:

1. Multiple punctuation e.g. "Type back soon!!!!!!"
2. Eccentric spelling e.g. "Type back sooooooooooooooooon."
3. Capital letters e.g. "I'M REALLY ANGRY AT YOU!" 
4. Asterisks for emphasis. 
5. Written out laughter
6. Descriptions of actions 
7. Smileys
8. Abbreviations
9. All lower case

The last two are particularly aimed at speed, and the all lower case is interesting. It is not acceptable online to use all upper case, because it comes across as shouting. All lower case is more acceptable. Some of these conventions have been used in comics and graffiti - e.g. the all caps for shouting. 

Obviously one of the big differences between this an face-to-face communication is that the writer chooses specifically what they want to represent in the text, while the non-verbal clues in face-to-face communication tend to be involuntary to a degree. 

pg 11-12 online communication is "both doubly attenuated and doubly enhanced". Attenuated by the absence of non-verbal clues compared to speech, and by the 'loss of text as object' compared to writing. But enhanced by the ability to easily record/reexamine what you said (as compared to speech), and the increased sense of the conversational partner (interlocutor!) enhances it compared to writing. This is used to demonstrate that this truly is a different medium to both speech and writing, and therefore worthy of study!

Jumping on to the study of personal emails, pg 64 outlines some of the ethical issues of studying the emails which are intended to be private even if the content is not particularly personal. Danet worked around this by using anonymised versions of emails to her, and attempting to get permission where possible. I really need to read around the ethics of this, because looking at chat could be a mine-field. 

Review - Homo Ludens, J. Huizinga

1. Huizinga J. Homo Ludens: A study of the play element in culture. Beacon Press, Boston; 1955.

A lot of the books and papers I'm reading kept referencing this book, so I thought I ought to read it. It's been a bit of a struggle, frankly! The most interesting sections for me included chapter 1: Nature and significance of play, chapter 3: Play and contest as civilizing functions, and chapter 12: Play-element in contemporary civilization.

Chapter 1 includes good definitions of play, that are built on by Jesper Juul and others. Play is "non-seriousness" and is outside of "normal life". It takes place in a magic circle, with boundaries carefully built up and maintained in the game by the rules. Huizinga states that the rules are "absolutely binding and allow no doubt" (pg 11) - I'm not sure this holds for multiplayer (or maybe computer in general) games where the rules of the game are discovered as the players play, although it could be argued that the rules of the game as defined by the code are in place before play starts, even if the players don't know them all yet. If the rules are broken or have to be renegotiated the game has to stop for that to be fixed.

In addition to this he introduces the concept of the play-community, the group of players, which can become permanent after the game ends. Along with this is the idea of the 'spoil-sport' who refuses to play the rules any more, and therefore exposes the players to the fact that their game is just a game. The cheat is something different, who keeps the magic of the game going by pretending to play but secretly breaks the rules.

In chapter 3 there is some discussion about single player vs multiplayer. Social play (or multiplayer) is considered more "generative of culture" than solitary play. It's recognised that the prevalence of single player games is quite a recent phenomenon (not in this book, in more recent literature) that came about with the personal computer.

(There's a cracking quote too: "The passion to win sometimes threatens to obliterate the levity proper to a game." pg. 47 - could be relevant in terms of why people might be driven to cheat?)

Then towards the end of chapter 12 the following: "Civilization will, in a sense, always be played according to certain rules, and true civilization will always demand fair play. Fair play is nothing less than good faith expressed in play terms." I felt the chapter on the play-element in contemporary civilisation was rather reflective of it's time shortly after WWII, but this particular point could again relate to a nebulous concept of 'fair play' and how that is defined by the community.

Relatively few points for a book I really struggled with!

Review - Cheating, Mia Consalvo

1. Consalvo M (Ohio U. Cheating: Gaining Advantage in Videogames. MIT Press; 2007:228.

The book looks at the history of the videogame culture, starting with the magazines in the early days that published things like walk throughs and cheat codes and moving on to online resources. This is done to define what might be called 'cheats', and show how they have been used to a certain degree by the industry to maintain interest in games.

The author then goes on to look at how the players themselves view and define cheating within a videogame, and when they would or would not use cheats. There doesn't seem to be any consistent level of behaviour that is universally recognised as cheating - some players are hardcore and believe even asking friends is cheating, others see hacking the gamecode as an indication of just how proficient a player they are. Also, many players had engaged in a behaviour they did consider to be cheating, for a variety of reasons. These included making the game more fun (e.g. using codes to give you unlimited lives) or get past a particular stumbling point, right through to getting even with other people who 'cheated' (possibly not in their perception of cheating), or just making other players miserable. There is a difference made between cheating in single player games where the only person you cheat is yourself, and multi-player games where you gain an advantage over other people.

There is a look at how the industry attempts to counter the cheating, from making the cheats less effective and therefore worthless, right through to naming and shaming and banning individuals from playing the game. The varying reactions reflect the underlying feelings about the cheaters, to a degree. Also the reaction of the community (in MMOGs - particularly Final Fantasy IX) is explored, which mainly consists of naming and shaming in community areas to prevent others having the same problems.

Interesting point about the way the rules of multi-player games tend to be defined at two levels: the actual rules of the game, and the 'gentleman's agreement' of how cheats/hacks/exploits will be used. This struck me as very similar to the difference between the rules of cricket and the spirit of cricket. It is also interesting that the online games evolve in response to the behaviour of the playing communities. (A point raised in the paper 'Why virtual worlds can matter'.) If communities start using behaviour that the developers do not want, the code is changed to preclude that behaviour. Alternatively, communities can cause the code to be changed in a way that improves the game play. This really stresses the symbiotic relationship between the game development and the players - neither exists without the other.

I think the lack of a clear-cut definition of what is a cheat is fascinating, and also that many players are happy to do things even if they have defined them as cheating, and can justify it to themselves. Also the difference in perception of cheating in a single-player game vs a multi-player game is intriguing, as the comparison between cheating in real life vs cheating in an online environment.

Review - Half-Real, Jesper Juul

1. Juul J. Half-Real: Video Games between Real Rules and Fictional Worlds. IT University of Copenhagen, Glentevej 67, 2400 Copenhagen NV: MIT Press; 2005:225. Associated webpage: http://www.half-real.net/.

An interesting book that looks at defining what makes a game a game, starting with a 'classical' model and then looking at the ways in which that has been expanded by recent video games. He examines the interplay between rules and fiction, where the rules can reinforce the fiction and the fiction can teach about the rules.

In discussing the fictional world of games he defines 'coherent' fictional worlds as being ones where it is possible to explain all of the things that happen in the game in terms of the fiction, whereas 'incoherent' fictional worlds require the player to discuss the game rules when talking about the things that happen. An example he uses is the multiple lives of Mario - the only way a player can explain these is to say that the rules say Mario starts with three lives. In terms of our game, a coherent fictional world would mean that all of the consequences for players actions are described in fictional terms (e.g. weeding your crops a lot means you get greater yields) rather than in points (e.g. sending your kid to school gets you 20 points at the end of the game). He does point out that players don't seem to object to incoherent worlds, but that the inconsistencies tend to make the rules more obvious than the fiction.

One interesting point he makes is that rules can be used to create emergent behaviour (e.g. behaviour that the game designer didn't expect, or more complex scenarios than would be suggested by the rule set). This is contrasted with progressional games, where it is only possible to do the next thing, or solve the puzzle in one way. He discusses that some games (e.g. Grand Theft Auto) combine progressional and emergent play, by allowing the player to do their own thing in between quests, or to go through the quests however they choose, provided they reach a given end state.

One interesting point he made is that subtle tweaks in the rules make for very different player behaviours. One example discussed is the comparison between Quake III Arena and Counter-Strike (p 88-90). Apparently they have very similar rules and both support multiplayer gameplay, but Counter-Strike tends to lead to team-oriented play while Quake III Arena doesn't. He says this is because in Counter-Strike the rules have been tweaked to make it more important to have other people covering your back - subtly, by things like changing the respawn points and increasing vulnerability of players.

Possibly more interesting for game design than thesis!

Hamlet on the Holodeck, Janet H. Murray

A few further thoughts - The strength of Murray’s book is the historical and literary perspective she brings to this study, recognising that we are still in the early stages of developing the forms and grammar that will enable us to fully exploit the possibilities offered by CMEs. Perhaps inevitably we approach a new medium with the models and conventions from established media – in this case books, radio, television, film - and it will take some time before we can free ourselves from these constraints. Interactivity is seen a key aspect of CMEs, and Murray explores the possibilities of multiform dramas where ‘interactors’ can select different points of view, follow sub-plots or choose from a selection of plot developments. However it strikes me that the task of producing a work with real depth where an observer can choose how to experience the drama would be colossal - I was reminded of Stoppard’s “Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead”, a play based around two of the minor characters in Hamlet whose exploits occasionally intersect with scenes from Shakespeare’s play. How often could we hope to combine talents such as Shakespeare and Stoppard on a single production? Also it seems to me that part of the power of fiction is that a good author can take you down paths you would not otherwise choose to travel, and left to our own devices we may choose to stay with what’s familiar and unchallenging. The possibility of an 'interactor' helping shape the unfolding drama brings a new dimension to the tension between character and plot in traditional fiction - if, as an author, I allow my characters to have a life of their own, my carefully crafted plot may well be torn to shreds; however keeping my characters subservient to the plot may render them flat and unconvincing. In Murray’s multiform cyberdramas, it’s hard to see how ‘interactors’ can have anything more than token roles if an authored plot is to be preserved. In the context of educational games this raises issues of freedom, constraint and learning outcomes – how much autonomy can we give individual players while maintaining the coherence of the game and achieving the desired leaning outcomes? If players are overly-constrained, frustration and lack of engagement may be the result; on the other hand, with insufficient guidance the game could descend into chaos and learning outcomes will not be realised. Reading this book also revived in me the nagging question of the players' roles in Green Revolution. Are they best cast as a group of lexia-wielding cyberbards, controlling the destinies of their families, or would it be better to give them the roles of particular characters in the game?

Hamlet on the Holodeck, Janet H. Murray

ISBN-13 978-0-262-63187-7 (paperback 1998)

Thoroughly interesting book on where the computer might be able to take narrative in the future. Lots of examples of changes in narrative style in other media, and how time and experience with the medium leads to different forms of expression with them.

It ties in with the 'Persuasive Games' (Ian Bogost) view of the strength of the computer being the procedural nature, allowing for the scripting of the rules by which a story can be performed without necessarily dictating the full story - leaving that to the interactors.

I focussed more on what might be useful or interesting for our game and my multiplayer/singleplayer research.

The chapter on immersion had some useful insights that a simulation without other characters or some form of task to perform can be a really empty and lonely place that quickly gets boring (pg 109). There is some discussion about a chatterbot used in MUDs called Julia, where simple rules of engagement allowed her to pass on relevant information (e.g. whether a player is currently online, or so on) as well as 'conversing' (pg 215 - 219). Players seem bothered about whether she is 'real' or not. However, the presence of others is noted as something that potentially makes story-immersion more difficult. It's fine when the conversations that take place remain 'in character' but a non-scripted player may break character in such a way as to throw the other player out of the story too. (pg 115-116) Intriguing that apparently what keeps LARP cooperative (i.e. the story keeps moving in a sensible direction and players stay in-character more) is out of game connections and operate face-to-face. (pg 151)

The other interesting thing about LARP that I noted was that they have a wrap-up session after the simulation ends. That chimed (for me) with the post-game discussion on Green Revolution. Apparently with LARP the wrap up allows the players to see how their part fitted into the whole, as well as feeding back on their experiences within the simulation. (pg 180-181)

Puzzles within any game are thought to be most dramatically satisfying and reinforce the belief in the virtual world when they encourage the application of real-world thinking to the virtual world. The example given is of a moment in Zork II where to solve the problem of a dragon and a wall of ice you have to apply the knowledge that dragons breath fire and that the ice can be melted by the fire. (pg 139-140) So the world feels more real because of the application of 'real' knowledge. I'm not entirely sure if that's true, or if it's more internal consistency that's needed. In the Zork example you could argue that rather than build their own set of rules the game writers have 'borrowed' from real-world physics - not to say that isn't valid, but if they had previously established some rule that the character could melt ice in a different way it would still have been satisfying to solve it using this different rule.

Murray draws on the bardic oral traditions to point out that traditionally each telling of the story is different in detail, whilst providing the same overall story. (pg 188) That tallies with the idea of playing a game differently every time (whether with different companions, or with a subtly different goal) and still being able to pull out the same overall plot or experience. Could be potentially interesting. Equally interesting is the suggestion that digital narrative is potentially more powerful than other forms because it allows you to enact the narrative and experience it more personally (pg. 170-171). So enacting looking after a small-holding in Africa leaves a deeper inprint than reading about looking after a small-holding in Africa.

I found it was particularly interesting (because this book was first published in 1997) that a lot of the mechanisms she talks about can already be seen. E.g. on-going TV series that provide chatrooms shaped like parts of the TV world. Equally something like Second Life could be seen as an arena for co-authoring digital stories or the maturation of the MUDs where the players can make up their own artifacts and rules. Also very interesting to consider this as the infancy of the medium, and that maturity will only come as the medium becomes more familiar and the 'rules' for understanding/interpreting it become fixed.

Book review: Persuasive Games - Ian Bogost

A book discussing the persuasive abilities of the video game.

Starts out by defining a new phrase of 'procedural rhetoric' - suggesting that video games are inherently good for modelling the underlying procedures of a situation, which exposes these procedures for examination. The first chapter of the book grounds the understanding of both procedural and rhetoric. The rest of the book then goes on to examine the way different games can be said to use their procedural rhetoric to meet given aims. It is split into three sections: political, advertising and educational.

Lots of games are discussed, not only those that do have a complex/successful procedural rhetoric but also those that don't, particularly things that attempt to reskin previous games with new emphasis. Lots of interesting conclusions. Occasionally I felt that players would probably miss the things he spotted, because he was really looking hard for things to discuss.

The final chapter is about the effectiveness of the persuasion. I found it to be a little theoretical, with lots of discussion about how measuring various things offers an incomplete measure but not a lot about how it could be done. Still, that probably wasn't the point of this book!

Lots of references at the back which may be interesting to look into further.

Soundbites:
- p135 "Playing such games can have a political impact because they allow players to embody political positions and engage in political actions that many will never have previously experienced"
- p241 "Videogames do not just offer situated meaning and embodied experiences of real and imagined worlds and relationships; they offer meaning and experiences of particular worlds and particular relationships."
- Books demand thought experiments of the reader, whereas games can allow the player to perform various experiments (p254)
- p260 "Videogames teach biased perspectives about how things work."
- p264 "I understand educational games not as videogames that end up being used in schools or workplaces, but as games that use procedural rhetorics to spur consideration about the aspects of the world they represent."

Particular things I noted:
- In the political games, he discusses 'Darfur is Dying' - crops up a lot in discussions of 'serious' games. p95-97 for discussion. Concludes that actually the game does not offer any insight into the history of the conflict, and is more of a 'call to empathy' than the political statement it is apparently trying to make.
- Good discussion of the design and effectiveness of 'Howard Dean for Iowa'. Seems to have unintentionally exposed the wrong procedural rhetoric!
- There's a game called 'John Deere American Farmer' - might be worth looking up for mechanism stuff. (p182 in advertising).
- Animal crossing uses the server ticking along in real time as part of its procedural rhetoric (p267).