Virtually pointless these day!

Whilst working at the games company in Bristol, I remember vividly the day that World of Warcraft became a buzz around the office. So much so that many people were even buying consoles in order to prepare for its release. Warcraft 3 was a big hit. It gave a great deal of enjoyment in the gameplay, and I even remember the days of doing network play during our lunch break. However, World of Warcraft was about to do something different, something better. It was opening the internet to a great degree of gameplay that was really unparalleled in games. Saying that, when ever I am in discussion with anyone interested in games, and the question arrises about 'favourite games', it always seems to come down to the same answer: "CounterStrike".

Why is has such a simple game become so popular. There are a few reasons. However, those unfamiliar, Counterstrike is a network game set in confined environments that pit two groups of opponents together. The Terrorist set and the Counter-Terrorist set. The objectives are to either set a bomb in place or to stop the bomb being set, or capture or hold hostages, or release these hostages. Nothing amazing really, and the graphics are simple and based on the outdated Half Life engine, so what is it about this game and World of Warcraft. The simple truth is that you are playing real people. This has become the new aspect to most games that do well. Internet cafes and online gaming that have counter players who are real rather than virtual cause a greater addiction.

Why would this be. have you ever played Chess on the computer, against a computer opponent? Well, if you are like me, then you will know it is dull and automated. This is how most computer AI has become. Regardless of how clever, variant or adaptive. The computer has a limitation when compared to a human. So, people prefer the play against a real opponent. This gives a stronger sense of achievement too. mainly as the male psyche has an ego that extends to domination control over an opponent. People don't like to loose. When beaten by a computer the human mind can learn and challenge the computer, as it is limited to its responses. When you are beaten by a human. Well, the simple fact is that you can't learn so much from their techniques as it is based on instant reaction a lot of the time, and therefore you simply have to get better.

What does this say about the future of game design and game play. As technology becomes better and the experience becomes more real, people want to experience a greater degree of reality. The best way to do that (without doing it in reality) is to control an avatar controlled by a human. So, in designing games for the future, thinking about the interaction capabilities, then it is worth looking into the values of the opponent interaction. Human game play is better than computer opponent, so one day the future might be totally virtual and we live and play as an avatar.

Beyond the joystick

Computer games are, by nature, entertainment. However, they have evolved from a long history of games that were, and still are, designed to teach the process of different aspects of social interaction. Many computer games however, tend to utilize aspects of physiological and sociological as part of their game play and not actually aim to develop a new structure to their purpose. Another thing is that the actual aspects that do get drawn into computer games are those that have seemingly been past down from game to game, and the technology itself has only polished and styled this aspect rather than reinvent it.

Men have great awareness of space. Many games involve the use of this skill in the game play. It is however, although needed to play the game, is a none necessary aspect to the goal of the game. Puzzle games on computer are moving away from the cerebral aspect to make the visual aspect more potent. As mentioned in a previous post, like movies, the trick these days is on the technology rather than the strategy or better still, the walk away feeling taken from the game.

Some years back there was a news report of an eight year old dying of a heart attack whilst playing Counterstrike. To begin with, its illegal for under sixteen to play this game, but the fact was, that this kid spent all his spare time sitting in front of the computer eating junk food and playing games. The result (lesson) was that his body wasn't participating in the activities this age group should be dealing with and therefore his body suffered. I mention this, as there is surely a responsibility for a designer to aid the user in some education value. Could computer games be designed to have hidden, or a little more obvious notation to teach after game values? I included the image above as it popped into my mind that PacMan for instance could be a good example, based on the story, of how a game could educate. At present the PacMan eats pills. Not very conducive to social correctness, as one instantly thinks narcotics rather than vitamins on the sound of the word pill. But why do they need to be pills? What if, like the image, the packman ate fruit (or health food)? This may sink into minds about the value of the process after the game play. Connections can be formed.

Many games may have this capability. My experience of Sims seems to indicate that hygiene was one of the aspects to be considered, but seeing many gamesters playing this game, most seem more motivated in relationships and jobs. This is mainly due to the fact that mundane activities are not appealing. And more so in game play. Could you image Snake having to cut away from his Metal Gear Solid adventure to have a pee behind a crate? Or sew a hole in his uniform after a fight? People want action. Action builds excitement. But surely with a clever and create mind, something can be impregnated into the game play that could have a subconscious  influence over some aspect of real life. After all, if we look at the processes of living and believe in what Darwin and Freud concluded about our natural state, via our ID, then many aspects of game play can feature the values of our ID, as these are subconscious and not cognitive aspects. Our ability to move through a game environment is based on our spacial awareness.

Games need to be more than just entertainment. They need to stimulate other aspects of the human experience. To teach, but not in that CD-Rom 'edutainment' fashion. In a way that when the player walks away from the game these aspects can be transferred into real world experience. Noting a TED talk the other day, we are no cleverer than apes. We simply apply the ability to design complex tools into our world. The way we live our lives is still fundamentally based on stupid choices. But then again, this is one way to learn, by making mistakes. Games like man, have to evolve, but looking at the resulting attempt in ECO, the obvious approach to educate has been lost. We must be clever to make others clever.

Uplifting challenge

Sex sells! Been one of the selling points of even the oldest profession since time in memorial. And was a good idea when creator, Toby Gard, had her down in a pencil sketch as he went off to Eidos. However, Toby ended up none the better for his busty creation, and according to this BBC report, the fact that the curves of Lara do tantalise, they maybe a little old hat these days. I remember watching a documentary about the development of the sexy adventurer. Watching grown men fighting over the rights to model the curvaceous creature, and with every new game came a new version with more polygons and more expanded busts. All this in an attempt to make the mainly male dominated society slather over her enough to part with the £40 or so for the game. If you look below, there is a visual timeline of the heroine of many a terrifying capper.

What it all comes down to though in the games industry is not just sell-ability, but the game play itself. At the time Lara was unique, and with the added sex appeal, was a winner. What was a little wrong with it was that it was a second person 'over-the-shoulder' game. It was good, and had great puzzles and scenes and environments, and all, but what was the point to have the selling assets of Lara if all you did was see her back? This is a common situation with many games. How do you make the selling point work in the favour of good gameplay.

Many a games company has a QA department, that tests and tests a game until they are blue in the face, or at least got the highest recorded high score, ever! But the thing is, not all games testers are all games players. have you ever played a game and thought 'Wow!' wouldn't it be cool if it had that, or did this? The big issue in the early days was that the engines wee simply not strong enough to have those capabilities. Even now, with memory the tiling of environments limits the scope of how far you can go. I used to love Medal of Honour. Great game with a sense of excitement. What was off putting is that the action parts were choreographed and there was (if you went on a walkabout) an seemingly invisible force field stopping you going to 'that' building over there. Games would be good if there had this capability, but unfortunately due to time and money and processor power they don't. Even games that do have a lot of open plan environments have to load in sections.

Hence the reason to have games in dungeons, or in space stations, or in confined streets. Because you can create a restrictive barrier more easily. Something that happens with games as does with movies, is that as the years go by and the technological advancements get more, so do the expectations of the people who play and watch these media. Things have to be more faster, more dynamic and more entertaining. When Doom 3 came out, and the closely following Half Life 2, the mode was toward collision based interaction. Being able to go up to any object and interact with it (even if only for the fun of pushing an office chair down the corridor), which was great. It caused a little interest in the game play method, but ultimately didn't enhance the game to any great deal.

Now, I am from the old school of games play (pre-computer). I was excited over chess and Cluedo, and when pong first came to the screen it was a mind blast. after thirty years of seeing the development of games, and playing many of them, I can say it is rare to find a game that 'does something different'. Even with the new Spore game, which has attempted to evolve game play (literally), there is still a sense that there is a track to go along. That the enjoyment is to reach the alien spaceship stage and go off and zap people. So is that what makes it sell? The inherent need for human nature to be destructive? I do remember a game called 'Evo' some years back. I even played with it on a friends console. Was about a dolphin that was trying to save the oceans. Didn't do too well. The principle of the game was great! Have a message about ecology and put it into a computer game.

Does this work though? Do game players give a toss about the environment? Not really, by the sales of Eco. It was in the wrong place and the wrong time. Which is one step down from Lara. Wrong place at the right time. What should be done with game structure and play methods is, if this is a new path, is to define what is the right place at the right time. Is that easy? No sir!! It's not. Too many factors (like anything) have to be considered to make something work really well. However, if we took away such things as demographics, economic climate, technological capabilities, platforms, market trends, etc, etc. If all we had to worry about was game play, what would be the next big thing? What is the future of the virtual reality environment. Big breasts have been done, cliché. Aliens invading earth, cliché. Motor racing, on street or circuit, cliché. Sim this and that, cliché. War, monsters, crime, etc. all cliché. Did anyone ever play 'Pikmins'? Now, when I first saw it and saw the Japanese type influence I though "Oh, no!", but after playing it for an interface evaluation at work, I really found myself hooked. One reason, is because its weird.

In a world were most things (almost everything) is not even close to being original anymore, the best step forward is being weird. Some of the better games out there have been based on the weirdness of their game play; 'Crazy Taxi', 'Return to Castle Wolfenstein', 'Postal', 'Carmageddon', etc. So, it seems that, like the uplifting qualities of Miss Croft's selling points, there are only so many things that can be gained from  convincing people to part with their money (as that is what it's really about), in order to make a game work. After that, the psychology of the human psyche has to be looked at in order to see where our mind is going next. The future of game play is about delivering radicle experience rather than recolouring the same scenes. So, in developing a game idea, don't take a notion of a car game and say "what can we do different?", take a blank screen and try to wipe everything clean to see what you'd really would like to see there.

Day in the life of a Games Artist

Working at Hothouse Creations was a great deal of fun. Coming back down to earth it seemed hard to believe that I had been given the opportunity to have a part of every man's (young boys) dream job. But there I was, sitting at a desk, designing characters, interfaces, sprites, maps, etc. for the games I worked on. Sometimes the days were hard and long. Sometimes they were very pleasing. And somedays they were strangely shocking. I was at work when the planes hit the two towers, and we all stood and watched for hours. Not even wondering about returning to our seats and getting on with the work at hand. Other times we found that the male strong work force desired to watch the World Cup, and so our bosses (football fans) allowed us to view the games in the board room, and even ordered in pizza and drinks.

Now, I guess listening to this it could be seen as a privileged situation to work in such a field. However, it should be pointed out, that tis type of work. Although fun and rewarding, also is highly demanding and requires the best of skills and talents in order to succeed. The schedule was tough toward the end of projects, and as some of the team found out, when the project dried up and there as no more work in the pipeline, the door was also shown to us, with regret.

My days as a Games Designer in England are full of memories, and the friendships I forged are still there. Even if over some distance. We played tournaments in Counter Strike in the late evenings after shop was shut, and seemed to do quite well. Each of our little holes was a home from home, that saw personal adornments and the like, but was also an open sanctuary for all the folk who freely wandered and chatted and obliged in critique. If I had to post a review on working in the industry and give a grade to the work, it would be a true thumbs up. The only day I regretted in the time I was at Hothouse was the day I caught my boss in the lift and gave him the sad news that I had to leave.

Virtually gone?

I was doing a little research for images to include in the album for Classic games. It didn't seem to matter what I was searching for, there was always an image of a computer based version listed first. This wasn't necessarily an issue, however, it does draw to attention the desperate change in attitude to an electronic age.

One of the psychological aspects to participating in games, and a reason for many of their induction years before, was the social interaction. The physical participation between you and the opponent was as much part of the game play as the game itself. Strategy and control and ultimate victory over the opponent. Swapping this into a computer environment has altered the standard somewhat. Firstly, it has engaged the human factor against an invisible processor based opponent that only has interface via an avatar. The second value is that the solo aspect to playing away from real social interaction changes the game play as well as the social structure of the individual in any given environment.

Luckily there is a resistance to this methodology of total virtual cross-over and people still enjoy the process of sitting down as a group and participating in real-time game play. What is striking with the virtual aspect however, is the seeming need to convert almost all values of games into a virtual arena. It is also striking that the interface and activities of the former games have been duplicated. Not redeveloped with the purpose of fitting into the new 2d environment, many of these games actually replicate their real-world counterparts to every minor detail. Almost as though there is a need to generate a virtual world in so many aspects of solo interaction that it is easy for an individual to create and participate in a social life extracted away from the normal; maybe mundane and less spectacular real world.

How games should proceed is to make clear distinction in aspects of gameplay that are crucial to the success of the games. Games are not just about playing. There is a great deal of semantic value to games, both real world and virtual. The physical and psychological presence of other opponents is crucial to the development of the underlying social make-up. Virtual games generates an extraction that is not on the whole wrong, but has socila implications to how we work, play and work with each other.

What's wrong with education?

Sir Ken Robinson has done a follow up talk at TED based on his higher poignant speech of 2006, about the state of education regarding the negative approach to teaching creativity. His second speech, found here, follows up by defining a new approach to teaching, in which a global revolution is needed. The speech itself is very moving and speaks volumes to the state at which education is today failing society. The current education system has two flaws (well more in fact) that consist of defining an education approach based on training the masses to be prepared for an industrial lifestyle, and secondly to white wash the approach to education. based on the previous induction methodology. The simple fact is that the current plan of attack regarding education was invented at the age of the industrial revolution, and hasn't had a great deal of modification since that early inception. This social state arose out of an evolutionary path that was proceeded by the agricultural method of growth.

Doing research myself, on the subject of evolution in design through the centuries, after a stimulating experience of watching "Home", I found that there are many factors that aid in the need for such protocols, but also create faults in the delivery of these systems. The main reason that the agricultural revolution came along was the need to generate surplus food to feed the growing population. This worked, but worked too well, and the population boom was immense. With today's census indicating a 5 billion excess to the sustainability of the planet. What good that did come out of the agricultural revolution was the 'crafts' movement. Individuals who were able to express a skill (rather prefer avoiding the term talent), and deliver products and artefacts based around that skill. This was semi-localised and able to define culture and style. What happened next was the supply-on-demand criteria that meant that the crafts industry could not keep up. The population was booming and the need for more products quicker was becoming essential. There began the industrial revolution. This was the beginning of the downfall of education.

Previous to the industrial revolution education was a matter of passing information from one generation to another. In the craft sense this was ideal as individual quality could be maintained, as well as maintaining the style and characteristics of such local craft. What the industrial method did was call for a mass educational plan to get enough working bodies up and running to deal with the mechanical demands of the society. What happened however, in this structure was the desire of teaching the maths and sciences to the future workers. What it neglected, due to the automated approach to many process in industry, was the need to explore and educate the crafts. These still existed and were practised, but began to wane, due to competition of cheaper, mass produced products.

How this reverts back to education and the need for a new revolution; as called for by Sir Ken Robinson. Is the simple fact that educational numbers and parrot fashion methods to teaching industrialism in a modern technological environment is not conducive to peoples natures in a modern world. It also is detrimental to focusing and emphasising individual skills. Craft and art are about individualism. You can't, in the same light as teaching algebra, teach the same group of people the same way to express their artistic flare. Therefore, the education of people should in fact focus on people's own passions. Allowing them to concentrate on the aspects that make them more vivid in the challenges of a career option. Craft, as stated previously, is about individualism, and also nothing to do with the sciences per sae. To be frank, I can hardly remember any of the taught information that was promoted to me in school, and was never enthused in the notion of becoming a scientist, engineer or manufacturer. Hence a person notice that education does not solve everyone's passion and desire to study and fulfil themselves.

The revolution that is required is to see how such individuals can possible excel at activities that could change the world. This is based on the craft mentality to study, but not in the sense that arts should be a new focus. Education can spotlight desires in children at an early age and then stream them to their passionate goal. Being an educator myself, I do see the disparities that arise from forcing an out-dated educational approach onto a youth that really doesn't know what to do with it. The victim as well, in an under-staffed and over-populated institution, is creativity. Students getting numb to parrot teaching, not being nurtured with desire or passion. So, to conclude, watch Sir Ken Robinson, it is very moving, and help start a revolution!!!

Puzzled?

As previously stated in the last note, games have been around for thousands of years. Many of their purposes had form in one way or another to train the body or the mind in a social activity. The ancient Greek Olympics was a test to find the master athletes in the fighting ranks of the Greek legions. Chess was invented to show Japanese military the power of strategy over their opponents, and so on and so on. What all these games were though, in times of old, where side activities to take away from social inaction. Society has developed a great deal over the thousands of years and social interaction has become variant in the sense it draws from group activity in a lot of senses to mono-dependant activities, which to the fault of society has been a key to the growth of technology.

People, although still able and willing to participate in social activities such as sport, card games, board games, etc, have a new reliance on technology as a stimulus. There have been very strong evidential reports that define the connection between technology abuse in adolescents and attention issues. With no fault of their own, the technology has become too much of a stimulus. However, in the same light as feature films have become overwhelmed with more and more stimulating effects over story, the same occurs in the premise of games design in modern technology.

There is a puzzle to the heart of all great games. Whether a mental game such as the one portrayed in the Nine dot Puzzle, to Analytical theory based puzzles, through challenges of mathematics, logistics and linguistics in games such as Sudoku, crosswords and chess. The heart of a game is in the clever puzzle it defines. The motivation to beat that puzzle and the sense of achievement. What is occurring in this new technology epoch is the need to draw in to the values of what is classed as entertainment, a greater need for a game design structure that is about education. About relevant social comment. About looking at the future and making the puzzle about growth and difference. It is a strong and hard challenge, but with the use of creative thinking the patterns will and can emerge to designate a entertaining value that can also make a difference. That is the future puzzle.

What is Games Design?

What is the notion behind such a course? Well, the depth of games design moves further away from the idea that it is just about making the next Warcraft or even a modern version of asteroids. It is about the aesthetic and analytical approaches to creating a vast variety of game types. It can deliver the process of strategy that was the reason for the development of the game of chess. One of the most powerful and enthralling games ever invented. However, its roots return back to ancient Japan and the design to show strategy in warfare.

Games design is looking at the market forces that can govern all forms of games; whether board, internet based or console based. And making decisions in both method and in aesthetics to incorporate the best approach to make something novel, intriguing and hitting a new market need. Of course games design has a great history of predecessors to fall back on, and use as influence, but is also about looking for something new. Using the creative thinking process in a manner that will inspire great innovation and style.

The future is set to be involved in a great deal of technology, and even games away from the computer environment seek electronic elements to maintain a manner of interest, but games have been in our social make-up for thousands of years and can even be reflected a great deal in the history of the Greek country. What games are, are social involvement mechanisms, whether real or virtual and are designed in every aspect to stimulate problem solving. So, what this course has aims in doing is to extract some of those challenges and create real life project interaction to solve the need to design well planned and functional games.

AAS obtains Games Design degree

AAS was confirmed today as the only Greek college with a franchise to deliver a Games Design course. The final validation took place today, Friday June 4th 2010.
The course will begin in September 2010, and although having a strong design aspect toward the computer games industry, is also set to provide creative output for traditional games types as well.
The course is made up of a modular structure aimed at the design process and involves every creative aspect to deliver the process of good ideas to both screen and board alike.
This is an exciting prospect for both AAS and Greece, and has a promise of building new career option for the Greek educational intake.

Stay tuned for more development over the summer.

If you are interested, then please contact AAS directly.