Midterm Exam

GAME DESIGN MIDTERM EXAM (Spring, 2009)


General instructions: Write your exams in MS Word using Verdana set at 10 point font and double spaced. When you are finished with your exam, email it to Dr. Trader (rtrader@mcdaniel.edu) as a file attachment. It’s a good idea to also email yourself a copy.

Section 1: Definitions (10 points max)

Instructions: Provide definitions for the following terms.

1. Game
2. Game Studies
3. Pervasive Games
4. ARG’s
5. LARP’s
6. Ludology
7. Social Marketing
8. Storyboard
9. Persuasion
10. ELM


Section 2: Games and Stories (10 points max)

Instructions: List and explain three ways that stories and games share similar characteristics, and then list and explain three ways that stories and games differ. Finally, list and explain 4 reasons why people play games.


Section 3: Persuasion and Social Marketing (30 points)

Instructions: In a 1-3 page essay, explain how persuasion works. How do people process information? How can long lasting positive changes in attitudes and/or behavior be engendered through social marketing? (This essay is graded both on form [organization, clarity, and grammatical correctness] and content [use of course content to support your arguments/points].)


Section 4: Essay (50 points max)

Instructions: You are being contracted to design a game for the federal government that will help get rape and sexual violence under control on college campuses. What qualifies you to create such a game? What information do you need to have in order to design a game that is likely to influence college students? What skill sets do you have to have to create an entertaining yet persuasive game? (This essay is graded both on form [organization, clarity, and grammatical correctness] and content [use of course content to support your arguments/points].)

Notes for Week 4

http://gamestudies.org/0101/ryan/

What is narrative? (setting, characters, action)

• Narrativity is independent of the question of fictionality.
• Narrativity is not coextensive with literature nor the novel.
• Narrativity is independent of tellability.
• A narrative is a sign with a signifier (discourse) and a signified (story, mental image, semantic representation). The signifier can have many different semiotic manifestations. It can consist for instance of a verbal act of story-telling (diegetic narration), or of gestures and dialogue performed by actors (mimetic, or dramatic narration).
• The narrativity of a text is located on the level of the signified. Narrativity should therefore be defined in semantic terms. The definition should be medium-free.
• Narrativity is a matter of degree. Postmodern novels are less narrative than simple forms such as fables or fairy tales; popular literature is usually more narrative than avant-garde fiction.
• Narrative representation is constructed by the reader on the basis of the text. Not all texts lend themselves to a narrative interpretation.
• Narrative representation consists of a world (setting) situated in time, populated by individuals (characters), who participate in actions and happenings (events, plot) and undergo change.
• The most prominent reason for acting in life is problem-solving. It is therefore the most fundamental narrative pattern.
• Narrative representations must be thematically unified and logically coherent. Their elements cannot be freely permuted, because they are held together in a sequence by relations of cause and effect, and because temporal order is meaningful. The propositions of a narrative representation must be about a common set of referents (= the characters).

---

Internal / External interactivity. In the internal mode, the user projects himself as a member of the fictional world, either by identifying with an avatar, or by apprehending the virtual world from a first person perspective. In the external mode, the reader situates himself outside the virtual world. He either plays the role of a god who controls the fictional world from above, or he conceptualizes his activity as navigating a database. This dichotomy corresponds roughly to Aarseth's distinction between personal and impersonal perspective (63): a world-internal participation will logically result in the user's personification, since worlds are spaces populated by individuated existents, while world-external involvement does not require a concrete persona. The only potential difference between Aarseth's labels and mine is the case of a user projected as a powerful figure external to the playing field who makes strategic decisions for the participants, such as the commander in chief of an army, a sports coach, an author writing a novel, or a specific god.

Exploratory / Ontological. In the exploratory mode, the user is free to move around the database, but this activity does not make history nor does it alter the plot; the user has no impact on the destiny of the virtual world. In the ontological mode, by contrast, the decisions of the user send the history of the virtual world on different forking paths. These decisions are ontological in the sense that they determine which possible world, and consequently which story will develop from the situation in which the choice presents itself. In his own taxonomy Aarseth comes up with two roughly similar categories, exploratory and configurative, but these two concepts are part of a longer list of "user functions" (64) that also comprises "interpretive" and "textonic" (the latter the ability to add permanent elements to the text). I see no point in regarding "interpretive" as a distinctive user function, since interpretation is involved in all intelligent text handling (2). Within the present framework, moreover, it is not necessary to distinguish "textonic" from "ontological," since the ability to add permanent components to the text presupposes the demiurgic power to co-create the virtual world. The textonic function is therefore just one of the various modes of ontological participation. Other modes consist of adding non-permanent text, as in MOO dialogue, and of building the virtual world by selecting objects and actions from a fixed set of system-internal possibilities.

Whereas the distinction internal-external is analog, the dichotomy exploratory-ontological is strictly digital. The user can situate herself at various distances from the fictional world. But her decisions either do or do not have the power to affect the history of the fictional world.

The cross-classification of the two binaries leads to four combinations. Each of them is characteristic of different genres, and affords different narrative possibilities.

1. Internal Exploratory: character learns their own history, story, goals
2. External Exploratory: player learns the boundaries, rules, details of the game
3. Internal Ontological: character performs actions that affect the character’s history, story, goals
4. External Ontological: the player performs action that affect the flow of the game (including buffing characters)

---

http://www.gamestudies.org/0101/juul-gts/

The article begins by examining some standard arguments for games being narrative. There are at least three common arguments: 1) We use narratives for everything. 2) Most games feature narrative introductions and back-stories. 3) Games share some traits with narratives.

The article then explores three important reasons for describing games as being non-narrative: 1) Games are not part of the narrative media ecology formed by movies, novels, and theatre. 2) Time in games works differently than in narratives. 3) The relation between the reader/viewer and the story world is different than the relation between the player and the game world.


A table of narrative - game translations
Movies / Novels etc. Game
Existent Existent or Continuous production of existents (i.e. hordes of opponents)
Event Event (cut-scene) or Simulation with multiple outcomes
Sequence of events Selected events as events or simulations or Ideal sequence of events that the player has to actualize by mastering the simulations[5]

Character Character (cut-scene) or Player position (game)

I would like to repeat that I believe that: 1) The player can tell stories of a game session. 2) Many computer games contain narrative elements, and in many cases the player may play to see a cut-scene or realize a narrative sequence. 3) Games and narratives share some structural traits. Nevertheless, my point is that: 1) Games and stories actually do not translate to each other in the way that novels and movies do. 2) There is an inherent conflict between the now of the interaction and the past or "prior" of the narrative. You can't have narration and interactivity at the same time; there is no such thing as a continuously interactive story. 3) The relations between reader/story and player/game are completely different - the player inhabits a twilight zone where he/she is both an empirical subject outside the game and undertakes a role inside the game.

---

http://gamestudies.org/0301/pearce/

Characters and players: motivational differences…

Chris Brown and Rihanna

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1605023/20090212/rihanna.jhtml

Flow

http://www.jenovachen.com/flowingames/flowtheory.htm

Media Potrayals of Stalkers/Victims

http://www.albany.edu/scj/jcjpc/vol9is3/spitzberg.pdf


Female Sex Offenders

http://www.csom.orgjavascript:void(0)/pubs/female_sex_offenders_brief.pdf

College Campuses

http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/205521.pdf

http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/182369.pdf


http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/221153.pdf


Profile of Rapists and Sex Offenders (from Kristin)

http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/profile.html

Pervasive Game Examples

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NM4AA9DOq0w

The Lost Ring

http://www.findthelostring.com/

http://video.msn.com/video.aspx?mkt=en-us&vid=6d304a7a-f892-4b9d-a0aa-3a083b9d76f3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwkcZXMee_8


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mN8tAKZ6h5s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0uEOmEu5f0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Eu9qAUCKQc

NOTES 2/2/09

http://iperg.sics.se/Deliverables/D5.3b-Domain-of-Pervasive-Gaming.pdf

Through the anthropological study of games, Huizinga (1938) brought forth the notion that the salient feature of playing is that it is a voluntary and ‘needless’ activity. A consequence of this is the requirement of play that players must be able to defer or suspend playing at any time. Another requirement is that playing to a certain extent always is viewed as less ‘real’ than other human activities.

From these basic requirements, Huizinga identified a set of properties of playing that are necessary for the play to be perceived as such by the players. Play is selfsufficient in the sense that it is satisfying in itself and that the activity ends when that satisfaction has been reached. Play is set apart from ordinary life both in locality and duration – it is played out within given limits of time and space – playing occurs within an arena, a playground, wherein a particular order is imposed. Play is governed by rules and challenges that are different from those of ordinary life. Thus, the participants must agree that the activities within the ‘circle’ are interpreted playfully as a part of the game, and not of ordinary life. Quoting Johan Huizinga’s (1938) definition – or rather description – of play:
[A] free activity standing quite consciously outside “ordinary” life as being “not serious”, but at the same time absorbing the players intensely and utterly. It is an activity connected with no material interest, and no profit can be gained by it. It proceeds within its own proper boundaries of time and space according to fixed rules and in an orderly manner. It promotes the formation of social groupings, which tend to surround themselves with secrecy and to stress their difference from the common world by disguise or other means.

Salen and Zimmerman use Huizinga’s concept of play as their base for defining a concept of a ’magic circle of gameplay’ (Salen and Zimmerman 2004, pp. 9399); it is a metaphor describing the activity perceived by participants as being voluntary and selfsufficient, set apart from ordinary life in locality and duration, and with rules that differ from ordinary life. Quoting Katie Salen’s and Eric Zimmerman’s (2004) definition of game:

A game is a system in which players engage in an artificial conflict, defined by rules, that results in a quantifiable outcome.

Jesper Juul’s (2003) definition of classic game goes along the same lines, although the artificiality and nonseriousness goes here under optionality and negotiability. Quoting Juul:

A game is a rulebased system with a variable and quantifiable outcome, where different outcomes are assigned different values, the player exerts effort in order to influence the outcome, the player feels attached to the outcome and the consequences of the activity are optional and negotiable.

Pervasive games consciously exploit the ambiguity of expanding beyond the basic boundaries of the contractual magic circle. This often leads to the point where the game interface is completely ambiguous: Any action could be a game action, and any sensory observation by any participant could be seen as part of the game.
1. Spatial Expansion
2. Temporal Expansion
3. Social Expansion

Pervasive game is a game that has one or more salient features that expand the contractual magic circle of play socially, spatially or temporally.

PERVASIVE GAME TYPES

Alternate reality games include The A.I. Game, I Love Bees, Perplex City et cetera. These are massive puzzle games usually requiring collaboration of at least hundreds of players to be completed. They pretend to hide their gamic nature by denying their gameness aloud. The puzzle structures to be overcome exist typically on WWW sites and in physical space. Alternate reality games draw their main ludic experience from the deliberate ambiguity of the magic circle. Real world events and information becomes part of the game. The most rewarding game experiences are often freak coincidences; events where everyday life and real world events interact with the in game content.

Massively multiplayer mobile games, such as Botfighters and Botfighters II, as well as unpublished Supafly and prototype games such as Songs of North. The basic mechanic is moving around in physical space, encountering virtual objects and other players, and interacting with them using a mobile phone. Massively mobile games typically feature a persistent game world. Much of the game experience is generated by the challenge of mixing and overlaying ingame activity with ordinary life. Massively multiplayer mobile games typically provide a more immersive game experience than online multiplayer games – even without relying on highend graphics that have become standard in the PC and console game
world.

Pervasive larp is a genre of larp that features the expansions. The more prominent examples include Prosopopeia and Isle of Saints, although many of these games have been played in various places, typically using the World of Darkness mythos. Epidemic Menace also is rather close to being a pervasive larp, through its use of ingame actors and fictive video – though the players are not assigned any specific characters in Epidemic Menace. The distinctive feature of pervasive larp is the high amount of immersion into the game that is achieved through the players’ immersion into a game character. This feature is shared with ordinary larp, but pervasive larp offers design novel options to larp in particular through the possibility to introduce conceptual expansions of the game space. Social expansion is typically perceived as highly engaging in pervasive larp.

Onlineonstreet games are games that are played simultaneously in virtual environments and in physical space. IPerG demonstrators Epidemic Menace and Garden of Earthly Delights, as well as earlier games like Can You See Me Now feature virtual/physical collaboration and competition. Onlineonstreet games typically feature two different player roles, where online players take a ‘control room’ or guidance role due to their larger overview and simpler access to virtual game content, whereas on street players take a performative role, carrying out tasks
in the real world.

Proximity games are a subgenre that has been born from looking for possibilities of gaming with Bluetooth and RFID technologies. Some proximity games, like Hot Potato and Yum Yum Sheep are based on applying the Bluetooth ID:s of nonplayers to insert ludic content to ordinary social world, while Pirates! is a proximity game that stays dormant until the players reach each other’s detection range. A multitude of other proximity games is likely to emerge, as people carry an increasing amount of Bluetooth devices around.

Event games are pervasive games that solve the problems of gameplay ambiguity and game world persistency by lasting only a short, defined duration. Business model could be structured on event participation rather than monthly subscription, and these games might be once in a lifetime experiences to most of their players. Players are willing to pay surprising sums for laser tag games (Megazone) and paintball matches. Event games might include Epidemic Menace and Can You See Me Now.

Crossmedia games are more or less pervasive games, playable with multiple devices simultaneously. Although Epidemic Menace only used devices commonly used for gaming, other crossmedia games might include mass media (TV, radio) or phenomena like street lights, contributing thus to the ambiguity of gameplay. Crossmedia games must play on the relative strengths of the different media and devices that are part of the game. Typically, the game content and interaction options vary between the different media and devices. A suitable approach might be to offer different types of game roles through different devices.






http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternate_Reality_Games

Among the terms essential to understand discussions about ARGs are:

* Puppetmaster - A puppetmaster or "PM" is an individual involved in designing and/or running an ARG. Puppetmasters are simultaneously allies and adversaries to the player base, creating obstacles and providing resources for overcoming them in the course of telling the game's story. Puppetmasters generally remain behind the curtain while a game is running. The real identity of puppet masters may or may not be known ahead of time.
* The Curtain - The curtain is generally a metaphor for the separation between the puppetmasters and the players. This can take the traditional form of absolute secrecy regarding the puppetmasters' identities and involvement with the production, or refer merely to the convention that puppetmasters do not communicate directly with players through the game, interacting instead through the characters and the game's design.
* Rabbithole - Also known as a Trailhead. A Rabbithole marks the first website, contact, or puzzle that starts off the ARG.
* Trailhead - A deliberate clue which enables a player to discover a way into the game. Most ARGs employ a number of trailheads in several media, to maximise the probability of people discovering the game. Some trailheads may be covert, others may be thinly-disguised adverts.
* This Is Not A Game (TINAG) - Setting the ARG form apart from other games is the This Is Not A Game aesthetic, which dictates that the game not behave like a game: phone numbers mentioned in the ARG, for example, should actually work, and the game should not provide an overtly-designated playspace or ruleset to the players.

Basic design principles of ARGs

ARGs are sometimes described as the first narrative art form native to the internet, because their storytelling relies on the two main activities conducted there: searching for information, and sharing information.

* Storytelling as archaeology. Instead of presenting a chronologically unified, coherent narrative, the designers scattered pieces of the story across the Internet and other media, allowing players to reassemble it, supply connective tissue and determine what it meant.

* Platformless narrative. The story was not bound to a single medium, but existed independently and used whatever media were available to make itself heard.

* Designing for a hive mind. While it might be possible to follow the game individually, the design was directed at a collective of players that shared information and solutions almost instantly, and incorporated individuals possessing almost every conceivable area of expertise. While the game might initially attract a small group of participants, as they came across new challenges, they would reach out and draw in others with the knowledge they needed to overcome the obstacles.

* A whisper is sometimes louder than a shout. Rather than openly promoting the game and trying to attract participation by "pushing" it toward potential players, the designers attempted to "pull" players to the story by engaging in over-the-top secrecy (e.g. Microsoft did not acknowledge any connection between the company or the movie and the game, the game did not acknowledge any connection to Microsoft or A.I., the identities of the designers were a closely-guarded secret even from other Microsoft employees, etc.), having elements of the game "warn" players away from them, and eschewing traditional marketing channels. Designers did not communicate about the game with players or press while it was in play.

* The "this is not a game" (TINAG) aesthetic. The game itself did not acknowledge that it was a game. It did not have an acknowledged ruleset for players; as in real-life, they determined the "rules" either through trial and error or by setting their own boundaries. The narrative presented a fully-realized world: any phone number or email address that was mentioned actually worked, and any website acknowledged actually existed. The game took place in real-time and was not replayable. Characters functioned like real people, not game pieces, responded authentically, and were controlled by real people, not by computer AI. Some events involved meetings or live phone calls between players and actors.

* Real life as a medium. The game used players' lives as a platform. Players were not required to build a character or role-play being someone other than themselves. They might unexpectedly overcome a challenge for the community simply because of the real-life knowledge and background they possessed. Participants were constantly on the lookout for clues embedded in everyday life.

* Collaborative storytelling. While the puppetmasters controlled most of the story, they incorporated player content and responded to players' actions, analysis and speculation by adapting the narrative and intentionally left "white space" for the players to fill in.

* Not a hoax. While the TINAG aesthetic might seem on the surface to be an attempt to make something indistinguishable from real life, there were both subtle and overt metacommunications in place to reveal the game's framework and most of its boundaries. The most obvious was that the story itself took place in the year 2142, and the websites ostensibly existed in the future (visitors to some of the sites would trigger a pop up warning that their browser was obsolete and unrecognized). The designers also limned the borders of the game more subtly, e.g. through the names on the site registrations.