What's In a Game?

(This is the introduction to an ongoing series of articles concerning the question of the what qualities we look for in video games and whether those qualities, when found in games, actually make them good and worth playing. These are the closest things I will ever do in this column to reviews.)

Remember when I said that I was going to write about the games in the Humble Indie Bundle that I had downloaded a few months ago? Of course you do, because you are a faithful and loyal reader, and I love you very much. Well I have made it through a couple of them so far (I know it's taking me a while but give me a break. I'm busy) and I have come to somewhat of a realization. Some of these indie games aren't actually games at all. And if they aren't games, then what about the games I play on my consoles? Are they games?Based on this massive existential quandary in which I am now finding myself, I have been inspired to go through the games I am playing and the games I will play to determine if they do indeed count as video games.

To clarify, here is what I believe a video game to be: obviously there are certain technical criteria that must be met. As the very term implies, video games should be visual. There must be some kind of graphical representation of the events that take place. One notable example where this is not the case is the Xbox Live Indie game In the Pit which removes graphics from the equation completely and forces the player to navigate the world using only his or her sense of hearing. It was an interesting experience to try and solve the puzzles that way but to call it a video game would be equivalent to referring to a radio drama as a movie.

Another aspect that a video game requires to be considered a video game is a player. We play video games. The conduit through which we do it might change; it might be a physical interface device like a mouse and keyboard or a console controller or it might be a non physical, highly sophisticated technology that measures your body's presence within a three-dimensional space. But whatever the means there is a person or people who have a certain degree of control over the events within the game. Otherwise you are merely watching events unfold. There is a sub-debate about whether gamers actually have any agency in video games and to what degree games are actually interactive, but the point is that nothing happens in a video game without the player instigating it. Every art form requires that initial investment of interest by the audience. You need to press the play button for a movie, you need to start reading a book, and you need to stand in front of a painting and look at it. The difference between all of those media and video games is that in gaming the audience/player is required to perform actions to keep the game moving along. If you let a movie continue to play, or close a book, or walk away from a painting, each work will still exist and continue to tell its story on its own with no input. If you stop playing a game, the game does not go on. At best, one could say that the game's AI will carry on its duties, but once the character in the game dies, the "game over" screen comes up and it never gets to conclude. Games need active participants.

Now this is where things get a little hazy. Video games must give the player something to aim for and a reason to do so. This is a weird, abstract concept that I, even after some twenty-odd years of playing video games do not fully grasp. It might come in the form of a cheap, phoned-in narrative story, it might be the quest to fully level up an RPG character, or it might be the chase for the top slot on the high scores list. Whatever it is, it is all tied into each game's particular systems. Look at some of the games from the earliest consoles. Know one cares about the story behind Mega Man. That's not why people play it. People play it for the challenge of going after some difficult enemies and bosses. They play it because there is a level of pride and satisfaction they achieve by upgrading their skills and weapons and a further sense of awe when they see how big the explosions they can create are. Go back even further to something like Asteroids. Asteroids is a brilliant and perfectly legitimate video game. Yet there is no story behind it. There are no characters. The graphics are rudimentary at best and there is barely any sound. The systems are simple, but at the same time compelling. Shoot things and avoid getting hit by them.

All of these qualities are required for crafting a game. There are certain recipes that can be followed as well, and developers who do not create good recipes will not create good games. There are different recipes that use the same ingredients that cook delicious and unique dishes, just as there are different ways to combine visuals, player agency, and systems/purpose to create delicious and unique games. Bearing all that in mind, in future posts, I will be embarking upon a quest analyzing the elements of various games. If that is indeed what they can be called.

Until next time, happy gaming.

Let's Talk About Shep, Baby: Part 1

This has been a long time coming. A long time for me to complete two plays-through of Mass Effect 2 and a long time to get my thoughts organized and put into words. And now that Mass Effect 3 has been recently released I am counting on a partial relevance factor to provide an interesting piece.

I got the idea to write an analysis of the gender differences in Mass Effect when I first fired the game up. In the best of circumstances, games that offer a binary choice from the very start have two different experiences to offer. One thing that has been on my mind ever since I was made to choose what gender I wanted my commander Shepherd to be was that if I played the game only once, I would be playing only half of the game. Knowing ahead of time also that I would be venturing down either the paragon or renegade pathway, I was curious to see how those choices would reflect on Shepard's gender and vice versa. What I found was that gender and morality were integral to the mood of the story and to my reception of the overall gameplay experience.

When I played through the game the first time, I chose to play as a man because it was the simpler choice for me to make. I have no problem with playing as a woman in a video game (unlike certain groups of childish buffoons), but choosing to be John Shepard was almost a reflex. I was about to get caught up in a sweeping space opera and I wanted to feel like I was the one on the front lines fighting for humanity's freedom. At a certain level that's what games are all about. There are some obvious exceptions, and of course this gets into the age old debate of whether violent games are actually murder simulators which instruct the players on how to commit acts of violence in the real world. But if I am seeking a certain level of agency in a game, I want as few steps as possible between taking myself out of reality and vesting myself in a character. Playing as a man removes one of those steps, whereas playing as a woman makes me feel less like I am the hero, and more like I am watching a woman carry out extraordinarily heroic actions (my feelings on this have subsequently been altered which I will expound upon later). It is easier for me to think that I am the one inside the game saving the galaxy if I share as many traits with the character as I can. This is also why I chose to perform all of the paragon actions and dialogue options. It feels more appropriate to me to do good deeds and to use conversation skills in order to get people on my side rather than coercing or even threatening others into agreeing with me. It's what I would do if I were actually Commander Shepard, so it's what I'll do when I am virtually Commander Shepard.

I'm Commander Shepard, and this is my favorite pair of cargo shorts on the Citadel.

The male Shepard, when played as a paragon, carries with him a sense of strength and courage without bravado or machismo. He is a selfless warrior, doing his duty not because he seeks the glory nor because he is an adrenaline junkie like the renegade Shepard might be. He does the things he does because he feels that it is to the benefit of everyone involved whether it might not seem as such to someone in particular. Paragon John has a utilitarian sense of morality whereby his actions should effect the greatest net pleasure for everyone involved, while minimizing pain.

In contrast, the renegade male Shepard does things out of a sense of paranoia or because it will benefit him and his team and their cause. His morality is almost based on a Rand- or Locke-esque perspective. Everyone is responsible for themselves and their own well being and Shepard should do everything he can to increase his odds of winning. Both of these angles are illustrated by several instances throughout the series. In Mass Effect 2, for example, you come across someone in the back alley slums of Omega who is injured and dying and you are given the opportunity to give him first aid. In my run as Paragon John I healed him, and apart from the benefit I received in the form of XP and "good side" points, the feeling I got was that I was a benevolent and charismatic leader who was working to improve life throughout the galaxy. From the lowliest thug in the streets to the safety of entire species, I have been tasked with saving everyone's lives. In addition, it made me, as a player, a little warmer and fuzzier inside. I knew that it wouldn't improve my chances with any of my teammates romantically, so that wasn't my motivation, nor was I expecting any money or items from the poor, dying soul. The only thing I knew for sure I would get from the interaction was a boost to my paragon rating. And at its core, that is what altruism is all about. We do good things because they make us feel good. And it is a quality which we look for in our male leaders.

If the renegade male had gone along with his prescribed path and ignored the dying man's plea for aid, he would have come across as cold and heartless which then would have brought about the question of whether he is motivated to carry out his mission for the right reasons, and whether he would be the right man to lead the way. This creates a weird paradoxical state for the believability of the story. Even if you suspend your disbelief enough to accept the whole faster-than-light space travel scenario, the fact that all these alien species speak English (a common staple of absurd science fiction rules), and the notion that the Asari, an all-female species which theoretically should have evolved on their own planet over the course of millennia, are able to mate and reproduce with any gender of any other species in the galaxy and give birth only to Asari offspring, you still have to wonder if either the paragon or renegade John would have been Cerberus' first choice to head up the mission. I know that either way he's super bad ass and physically tough enough to do it, but consider this: Renegade John plays by his own rules. Although the choices you make as a renegade in Mass Effect 2 hinge around helping Cerberus, he does not kowtow to authority, and he is not afraid of the punishment he might be in for if he pursues his own agenda over his orders. He knows that Cerberus is depending upon him (why else would they have expended so many resources to bring him back from the dead?) and that he has the job whatever his mode of behavior. If Renegade John wants to pick up some floozy at Afterlife or blow off some sexual steam with one of his crew members, he will, regardless of what regulations stipulate.

The worst form of reprimanding he will ever suffer will be a slap on the wrist and a stern talking-to from The Illusive Man. Cerberus wouldn't dream of cutting off Renegade John's resources or supplies, because he can justify it all as necessary for the war effort, which is their mutual goal. The Illusive Man doesn't seem like the kind of person who doesn't like having his employees under his thumb. Renegade John is too much of a managerial liability.

In contrast, Paragon John, though he is not the kind of person to fully submit to authority, does not agree with Cerberus' and The Illusive Man's agenda. His first priority is the protection of the galaxy. He wants safety and order to return but not necessarily at any cost. He does not care about Cerberus's goals, and similarly to Renegade John, he uses his position as the most powerful warrior in the galaxy as leverage to get The Illusive Man to keep providing funds and supplies despite the fact that they both have vastly different personal motivations. If Cerberus were hiring for a job and Paragon John was interviewing, I don't think The Illusive Man would have even thought to call him back after his answer to the question, "So, why do you want to work for Cerberus?" And when it comes to romance, frankly I would imagine him trying to avoid it in the workplace. When given the option of choosing to romance with either Ashley or Liara, I actually chose neither.

I chose what I believed to be the path that would lead to the fewest complications and the highest focus amongst my team. In Mass Effect 2 my romance path was guided partially by the conversation options that I felt would come across as the least harsh, as I did not want to come across as a dick. I picture Paragon John as pragmatic yet endearing. But because he does not share Cerberus' ideology and values, I do not think of him as The Illusive Man's employee of the month.

I actually think that Paragon John's qualities make him the best man for the job. His traits lend themselves well to being a good and effective leader. Renegade John might make for a leader but maybe not for a good or effective one. Renegade John is susceptible to his own senses of greed and selfishness which could get in the way of successfully competing the mission. Paragon John is focused on his mission, which is ultimately the safety of everyone in the galaxy, and all of his actions are geared toward that end. That includes everything from his side missions to the way he interacts with his crew members and even total strangers. Alternatively, Renegade John is an asshole. It comes as no surprise to me given that many of the men that I have known to follow a sort of "renegade" mentality have also been assholes, and they almost always make for poor leaders.

I think that the choices I made were perfectly suited for each other during my first run through of Mass Effect 2, and it is my opinion that to play through as Renegade John would make for both an unfeasible and unenjoyable experience. We have yet to see how the morality system affects and is affected by the female gender, though. Stay tuned for more discussion on this topic.

Until next time, happy gaming.

I Crumble for the Humble

I am making a vow.

I am making a vow to my readers (however few they may be) and myself.

My vow was inspired by my recent purchase of the fourth Humble Indie Bundle. Towards the end of the Bundle's availability many new products were added to the already generous lineup of games offered. Furthermore to the five games available for any donation, gamers who paid more than the average were granted two additional games as well as the privilege of downloading the complete third Bundle and the soundtracks for all twelve games. I gave ten dollars to the cause and now I have more games than I know what to do with. Here is the lineup:

• Nightsky HD
• Shank
• Super Meat Boy
• Bit.Trip Runner
• Jamestown
• Cave Story+
• Gratuitous Space Battles

The rest are from HIB #3:

• And Yet it Moves
• Hammerfight
• VVVVVV
• Cogs
• Crayon Physics Deluxe

What he said.

My vow is to write as much as I can about these games, but to stay true to my mission statement I will not merely be writing reviews of the games but I will be providing a more thorough analysis of the games and the characters therein. That might seem impossible but I love a good challenge.

While this undertaking is meant mostly for you, my readers, I am also using it to hold my own feet to the fire. I feel that I have been to slow in updating this little column of mine, and the excuse I've been telling myself is that I haven't had any good ideas. Now I have no excuses. I have at least twelve sources of inspiration and I hope to be more diligent about producing quality material. So look forward to my ramblings in the coming weeks.

Until next time, happy gaming.

Afterglow AX.4 Review

I know I said that I would not write reviews on this site, yet here I am only a few months into the blog putting one up, but I have what I believe to be a reasonable justification for doing so. I have a civic duty to fulfill in providing a critical review of this particular product because there are not that many out there. A Google search for the phrase "Afterglow AX.4 headset" will turn out several different pages of merchants trying to sell you one, a few sites that provide basic information on the product (such as from the manufacturer itself), and some video reviews for the Afterglow Xbox 360 controller.

The reason I know that is that I did that exact search. The reason I did that search is that I was considering purchasing them and I wanted to know if they would be worth it. But the closest thing I could find to a review was a page on gamespot.com on which users of the site had written about their own personal experiences with it.

Amateurs.

This is the kind of headset that Sam Fisher might use if he were trying not to disturb his wife in the middle of the night.

The first two things you will notice about the headset as you are perusing the Xbox 360 headset section of your local video game boutique are its price and its illuminative properties. Priced just slightly under the standard, official Microsoft headset it seems attractive to the thrifty shopper or the errand runner who was asked to pick up a new headset for the gamer of the house. Yet somewhat more noticeable due to its more striking package design and the fact that it lights up, Performance Design Products has presented a double whammy of shelf appeal to those buyers who are on the fence about the best tool to use for trash talking other players.

However, as with most things in life, it's what is inside that counts. The two features I was most concerned about in a headset were sound quality (for both myself and my friends on the other end) and comfort.

As far as sound quality is concerned, they sound as good as they need to. I did not notice a significant difference in the quality of the earpieces between the AX.4's and the Microsoft headset, but having said that, I should point out in the interest of full disclosure, that for the last few months I have been running all my online communication through my external speakers because the earpiece on my Microsoft headset ceased to function. So to be fair, I cannot accurately recall what it sounded like. But the AX.4's sound good enough to effectively chat with people. In fact, the speaker in the earpiece is loud enough that it does not need to be operated at full volume. As for what it sounds like on the other end, I cannot personally speak to. Besides which I would imagine that it would depend on the quality of the other person's headset. Nevertheless, my dear friend Joe let me know that I sounded "crystal clear" when he was hearing me. But again, I do not know how I used to sound with my old rig, but I doubt there was much of an improvement. But it still should be noted that the voice quality came in as clear as it did, because I have played with other people whom I was barely able to understand due to the fact that they were using cheaper, lower quality hardware, so thus far, PDP has proven their worth.

Here is where there is a marked difference between the two, though. With the Microsoft headset, there is a microphone boom that extends about five inches or so and is flexible. The mouthpiece on the AX.4 is only about two inches long and rigid (though it does have a pivot range of about 225 degrees allowing it to be worn on either side). Where some might see that as an immediate disadvantage, here are the facts: if someone has his/her microphone directly or almost directly in front of his/her mouth, some distortion can occur. That distortion will become amplified if that person starts yelling in the heat of an intense session. Having the mic off to the side of your face will increase the level of speech clarity.

Having clear and loud voice communication does not matter much if the headset cannot be worn for an extended period of time, though. So I was pleased with the ability of the AX.4 to remain soft and comfortable for several hours worth of playing time. The foam on the earpiece is more substantial and noticeably softer than that of Microsoft's earpiece which is flimsy and thin, and doesn't offer enough cushioning. However, you will definitely feel the AX.4's pressing on the other side of your head as the clear plastic adjustable headpiece presses into your temple. To be fair though, I have a pretty big head so I can imagine the headpiece pressing more as it is stretched out more.

Now that we've gotten past the hard outer shell of the coconut and eaten the flesh, let's take a sip of that sweet milk.

As I mentioned before, the first thing you might notice when you see the box for the AX.4 is that it lights up. This is a purely superficial feature and is really only effective if you are in the same room as someone because you cannot see the lights while you are wearing it. And the lights themselves are simply a pair of unspectacular LEDs.

Look how awesome this guys looks with his hot AX.4's!

The AX.4 also sports the expected mute and volume controls, but this is the clearest aspect in which it fails compared to Microsoft's headset. The controls are located on the earpiece so in order to adjust the volume or mute your own speech you have to remove your hand from the controller. This is a problem for people who like to play fast paced action games, in which reflexes and accuracy are key to good performance, yet who might be having a real life conversation with a roommate or significant other in the same physical room. From what I understand, though, that is the case with even some of the more pricey alternatives out there.

All things considered, it's not a bad piece. It's not going to win any awards or blow any players away with its audio considering how far headset technology has come this generation. But for the gamer on a budget, it could be a lot worse. It easily trumps the Microsoft headset, so anyone looking to pick up a spare to go with their extra controllers for their real-life companions would be well served to part with the few bucks that it costs.

Until next time, happy gaming.

In Memoriam: A Eulogy for Simon "Ghost" Riley

(Author's note: The idea for this mini essay has been floating around in my head for several months now and now that Modern Warfare 3 is upon us I have an impetus for finally putting my thoughts into words. Be advised that heavy spoilers are to follow.)

Torture, killing, nuclear missile launches. It's just another day at the office for Ghost, the enigmatic SAS operative accompanying you through much of Modern Warfare 2's single player campaign. And although you (as the player controlling Roach) spend a significant amount of time alongside him, there are still many questions that arise about who Ghost is. Is he simply a hired mercenary fighting for his next paycheck? Or is he sworn to protect queen and country, and if so, is he fighting because he believes what he is doing is right, or is he personally vested in the fight against Makarov himself? And if that is the case, is there a chain of reincarnation beginning with  Call of Duty 4's Gaz moving through Ghost and on to Modern Warfare 3's Sergeant Wallcroft (after all, they do sound eerily similar to each other) and if so, is his stake in the struggle weighted on the opposite side as we are meant to believe on the surface in a grand conspiracy to bring chaos to the world and leave the west quivering at the feet of Russia?

Is Ghost even a man or is she wearing extra body pads and using some kind of Mission Impossible-esque voice disguising device? It wouldn't be the first time a video game character's identity involved some gender trickery. And goodness knows a woman would have plenty of reasons to disguise herself as a man in the military.

That young man fills me with hope. Plus some other emotions which are weird and deeply confusing.

Perhaps the biggest question of all is this: am I crazy for thinking there is more to the character of Ghost than just a badass looking son of a gun to toss up onto the splash screen when you fire up the game? In a word, no. I believe that Infinity Ward has deliberately crafted this character to fit into the world of Modern Warfare.

Why else would there exist a six-part comic mini series detailing his back story? Why would all the creative parties behind the scenes make Ghost such a prominent figure in the Modern Warfare mythos if he wasn't meant to be interpreted as something more than a one dimensional, gun-toting, living mannequin? I don't know the answer.

But here is what we do know about Ghost (based on the information given in the game):

He is not a man to be trifled with. Before you even encounter him you have the impression that anyone selected for Task Force 141 is a tough cookie. By the time you meet Ghost you have already played as an Army Ranger and someone working alongside another SAS operative, Captain "Soap" MacTavish. People in both of these groups are highly trained soldiers who aren't terribly nervous about violence. They are no strangers to killing and death. So when you see someone in your group decked out with armor and ammunition and wearing dark glasses with a skull emblazoned across his face, you are glad that you are on the same team as him. And then the first thing you see Ghost do is preparing to electrically shock a man with a car battery. There is no indication of whether he enjoys it, but we do know that took a few minutes of interrogation before Alejandro Rojas spills the beans. At the very least Ghost had to have inflicted some serious pain to another person. It is evident is that Ghost is willing to do whatever it takes to get the job done.

However, after that point, in every combat situation you see Ghost operating calmly and smoothly. Everybody operates calmly and smoothly--for the most part MacTavish and other incidental squadmates have matters under control--but the difference between Ghost and the rest of the 141 is that whenever you see him operate, you see him as a sort of untouchable skeleton or apparition. Either he believes that his appearance will have a subliminal intimidation effect on his enemies, or it serves the purpose of hiding his emotions so that he doesn't break the morale of his squad by coming across as scared of the situation. Whether or not those scenarios are accurate, his mask's practical function is a side effect of the real reason he wears it. He wears the skeleton image as a sort of tribute to those alongside whom he has fought in the past and who died along the way. But it represents more than that. It represents the part of him that died along the way.

To say that the young man named Simon Riley is disturbed would be putting it mildly. He has seen and done things that would make even the toughest, most grizzled people in the world cringe. And knowing everything he's been through makes it easier to understand how he survives the grueling battles he faces through MW2's story, and it makes you glad to know that he's on your side. Here is a man who has grown up suffering the horrible and brutal abuse of his father, and who has channeled the fright and anger towards him into cold and calculating battlefield tactics. He can’t bring himself to kill his father, because his father’s pain and suffering on his death bed is enough for Riley’s peace of mind, yet he doesn’t bat an eye when he hears the old bastard getting killed. Here is a man who was buried alive in the same casket as a rotting corpse and who dug his way out of the ground using the dead person’s lower jaw. Not to mention a litany of other terrors and tragedies that he has witnessed. And yet, through it all, he never lets it shake him in the performance of his duties and he never forgets that he’s one of the good guys.

So when he meets his ultimate fate, you feel angry about it and sad for him that it all ended the way it did. You feel that way anyhow being betrayed by Shepherd, but you can't help but feel an extra bit of empathy for Ghost. After all he's been through, this is how it ends for him? To call it unfair would be to dishonor Ghost's memory. It's unfair when your sibling gets a bigger slice of cake. Ghost's demise is downright faith-shattering. And later when you take the reigns as Soap and it seems like the evil, heartless Shepherd is actually going to win, you are finally able to exact the harsh revenge that he deserves. Most players might feel a sense of retribution for Soap, but for others one gets the sense that Ghost can finally rest in peace. And when you see him in the group photo at the end (and again in the new group photo at the end of Modern Warfare 3) it's not difficult to imagine that behind his Balaclava and sunglasses he is allowing a smile to crack across his face.

Of course, he'd never let you see it.

The Game(ification) of Life

There is a topic which has been buzzing for a few months. The discussion is centered on the many facets of the concept of "gamification". Put simply gamification is the inclusion of elements of games in real world activities to spice up what might ordinarily be mundane or even boring. Except it isn't really. Isn't it? The confusion of the issue has kept me from forming a solid opinion on it. And my lack of an opinion has kept me from deciding whether to write about it. Until I got this email:

"Hi Calvin,
I was reading your blog today and wonder if I could get your opinion on a diet/fitness app I am working on ?
For me, I think the main problem with being healthy is motivation. It's an abstract, overwhelming goal. I think the best way to counter this is to turn it into winnable games and small victories.
So… my app makes living healthy, and fitness into a RPG game, where users earn points, and "level up' as they accomplish their health goals. Everytime they add something healthy like veggies to their diet, they earn points. Everytime they complete a workout, they earn points. As they achieve more and more, they'll level up and unlock badges, and discounts/coupons to rewards like spas, health foods, etc.
There'll be challenges, which will get harder as people level up. And it'll follow a certain structure. First will come changing your environment such as getting rid of all junk food. Then, reducing stress, as stress leads to eating comfort food.
The whole point is to turn it into a game so people will rely less on willpower, and more on fun, achievement, and changing our environment.
What's your opinion on this idea? Would you want to know when I'm done with it? If this sounds too silly, or absurd, just ignore what I just said, hehe =)
Best, C" (I have intentionally withheld the person's name)

I'm not going to claim that this wasn't a spam email since I find it nearly impossible to believe that a total stranger would bother to read my blog, however it did get me thinking. If the task of taking on a new diet and workout regime is gamified, who is reaping the benefits? If the app costs money and enough people download it to completely offset the development costs, then the designers and developers benefit. But at what cost? If the people who buy/download the app abuse its functionality and they cheat themselves out of actually using it for its purpose, then have the people behind the scenes really helped anyone?

Consider the Nintendo 3DS. With its movement sensors, Nintendo has built pedometer capabilities into the device and added to that rewards for jogging or walking. But some users are openly reporting that they will hold the 3DS and shake it without actually doing the work in order to earn a few more virtual puzzle pieces and coins. So who benefits the most from this technology? Nintendo, who have been having trouble moving units, certainly are not being rewarded. The people who play by the rules and honestly use the functionality as it was intended are only marginally being benefited with their virtual rewards, but are theoretically seeing a high return on investment manifested in their physical health. And they would be the real winners if their victory was not overshadowed by the people who, if you'll pardon the expression, game the system. The ones who cheat are the ones who come out with the most because they have the most coins and puzzle pieces. The virtual rewards are what really matter anyway. If the improved physical health were the greater reward, then people wouldn't need the incentive that the 3DS offers. They would just do it.

Or don't. Whatever.

Even though some of the purported rewards are tangible and usable in the real world (such as earning coupons for health foods and discounts on spas) I see that as the major pitfall with the app about which I was emailed. And it is one of the major failures of the concept of gamifcation which earns it my contempt.


However, to play devil's advocate for a moment, as the father of a 4-year-old child, I have seen first hand the intended effects and positive results of gamification. As anyone who is a parent can attest, getting children to do things that aren't immediately fun is a major hassle. However, utilizing the awesome power of my magnificent brain, I developed a creature which we refer to in our family as "The Chase Monster". The Chase Monster has one goal: to capture and tickle my daughter. Whenever I need to get her to walk to some place and she refuses to do so, I threaten "calling The Chase Monster". When he is called, he is manifested in my body and will chase my daughter, herding her to where I want her to go, and if she does not get to the destination before he catches her, he attacks and there ensues a flurry of tickling and laughter. Other parents may have come up with other ways to gamify their children's chores, such as seeing how fast they can pick up their toys or awarding points for tasks completed. These are all very effective motivation techniques because they get results and I believe they help sow the seeds for strong work ethics later in life, but they are only effective for so long. When I was a pre-adolescent, my motivation for completing my chores was strictly monetary. I was given a weekly allowance for helping to clean the house and mow the lawn, but I don't think I would have been any more motivated if my parents had assigned me points for completing tasks or advanced me to a Level 2 Landscaper, because I would have known that ultimately, those intangible, imaginary rewards wouldn't have mattered if I had gained or lost them. I guess my point is that the only place for gamification in the real world is with children before they learn that they can hold their skills ransom for money.

"Meredith, call Mom and Dad and let them know that when they're ready to talk about pushing bedtime back an hour, then I'll be ready to talk about taking out the garbage."

Gamification is not a new concept, but has become a buzzword in the last few years with the increased implementation of achievement points and badges and their ubiquity thanks to platforms like Facebook and mobile gaming. There are those parties with a vested interest in making things more gamified and I can't make a solid prediction on whether the virtual rewards will become stronger or fade away into the ether out of which they are made.

My advice to C, though, is this: ditch the RPG aspect and lose the points and badges. Keep the coupons and discounts but make the person actually work for it. If the app shows that they have walked 3000 steps, but the GPS shows that they haven't actually moved, then they don't get the prize. Rather than allowing the user to forego their reliance upon their willpower, make their willpower the main motivator. Empower them to change their diets and physical activities because their rewards will be weight loss, lowered cholesterol, less risk of diabetes/heart disease, the chance to play with their children longer, and more time to spend on this mortal coil, since this is the only chance we get and we should make it count. And if people are having trouble with their own willpower, then just implement GLaDOSiri.

I need to sign off before I get too preachy and too far off topic.

Until next time, happy gaming.

Do the clothes make the man?

The importance or unimportance of the nuances of character design

Earlier last week, Ubisoft resurrected the long dormant PR machine for their forthcoming I Am Alive. For those who might not be aware, the game has been in what seems like development hell for a few years now. I remember first reading about in the print version of Game Informer magazine in mid- to late-2008. Since then, I've been following the news and updates about it getting disappointed when it was reported to be delayed or shelved, and getting excited again when Ubi confirms, or at least hints, that it is still on its way.

In spite of the roller coaster of optimism and pessimism about the game's development, I have maintained a modest yet steady level of anticipation for its inevitable release. Not to go into too much detail about the gameplay and (somewhat ridiculous) premise, I was looking forward to what I could expect in the game. You play as an ordinary schmoe in a post-apocalyptic Chicago (gotta represent for the hometown) needing to use your wits to solve puzzles along the way and barter with various renegade elements for basic survival needs. Here is the original teaser trailer which was released about late-2009 or so:

Make a mental note of everything that stood out about that video. Keep it in mind while you watch this next video which was first revealed at Gamescom 2011 and has only been circulated to the public a few days ago:

What are the differences between those two videos? Set aside the obvious disparity between the quality of the animation rendering. Yes, the old one does not have any gameplay footage, but what else? The first thing that struck me when I saw the new trailer was that the designers had completely overhauled the look of the main character. And I didn't like it.

The old protagonist was a modern young man, not particularly handsome, making his way in the big city. He is probably slogging his way up the corporate ladder; he is obviously doing well enough to buy his daily cup of national chain coffee, and rubbing elbows with the older, bigger shots with more expensive suits. However, he carries himself with not the greatest posture or gait, and he looks like he's not very anxious to head upstairs to begin work. And when the earthquake hits, all he has to help him along the way are the clothes on his back and the briefcase slung across his shoulders. And let's face it, it's not easy to mobilize yourself for survival wearing a button-down shirt, nice slacks, and dress shoes.


The new protagonist is someone we've seen before. He has automatic free-running skills and his outfit lends itself very nicely to jumping, rolling, and climbing. He's got a nice pair of gloves to protect his hands, his clothing is loose-fitting, and his backpack is tough and rugged, designed to get a little beat up. The game lost a lot of appeal to me when I saw this new guy, because not only have I seen this before, everything that made the original character so interesting and his story so compelling is gone.

As a brief primer on the basics of character design for video games and animation, a rule of thumb is that a character should have a distinguished silhouette

Even if you can't identify all of these characters, you probably recognize them anyway. And there are no other characters in the world who look like them. The new protagonist of I Am Alive does not have a distinguished, or even an interesting silhouette. And as such, the game looks less interesting. Having said that, the old design didn't have much going for it by way of a compelling silhouette, but at least, it wasn't the kind of outfit you would expect someone in that sort of a video game situation to be wearing. It was the design of a character who was thrown into an extraordinary circumstance and had to make the best of it with his extremely limited resources. It is a huge struggle for him to make his way because not only is he ill-equipped to make it in this new world both in his dearth of equipment and his lack of skills and knowledge, he is horribly uncomfortable with every step he takes because of the clothes he happened to be wearing at the time. He is like a sailor who has been shipwrecked at sea, whereas the new protagonist is like Richard Branson trying to row across an ocean for fun.

Does that mean the the game is going to be a worse product or less interesting to play? It probably will be in some parts where the player is required to free run his/her way along some puzzling routes for the Nth time in a video game. Does it speak to the importance of character design? We'll see when the game finally hits and what the reviewing community and gamers have to say about it. But there is no way to know what would have happened if Ubisoft had stuck with the original character model. I have a feeling though, that the transition to the downloadable-only format is going to give gamers the impression that it is not a good enough game to have warranted a retail release. Which is a shame and a topic for another discussion, but it is indicative of the relationship between developers/publishers and gamers. Gamers are less inclined to buy a downloadable game from PSN or XBLA for any number of reasons (lower profile/less exposure, lower production qualities, or they might not consider them "real" games) and as a result the devs and pubs don't usually put their full force behind the product which feeds back into the cycle. There are, of course, various exceptions, but I've digressed far enough already.

Suffice it to say that I think games whose characters have unremarkable design features might not succeed once the final product is released, but that doesn't mean that a well designed character can save a bad or mediocre game. The best designed characters are less important to the quality of the game than they are to the success of the series.

Until next time, happy gaming.