It’s odd to see all the free to play games out there that, once you play you discover that’s not the case at all. These types of games I call free to pay games. Some are better than others in the genre but quite a few just try to sucker you out of your money. The most recent examples of these are Candy Crush Saga and Tetris Blast. Neither of these games specifically asks you for money but if you want to continue to play or want special items you better fork over the cash. This form of money grab as Mike Rose argues in Chasing the Whale that focusing on a select group of people known as “whales”. These people are addicted to the game to spend all of their hard earned cash to get useless online items. However, it is simply not true that this is a representation of all free to play games. I personally used to play a lot of Second Life and you don’t have to buy anything if you don’t want to. In fact since you can create anything and sell it you could possibly just make money off of SL. AT the same time I have spent a lot of money on SL myself and it just enhances the game play of the game. For instance, you can pay rent in a sim so you can build a building and make a home for yourself, or purchase clothing to fit the environment that you currently reside in. But Second Life and Candy Crush Saga are two different beasts of free to pay games. One basically requires you to pay in order to continue playing the game as the other just enhances the game ascetics. Microtransactions in and of themselves is not a bad thing, it’s just using them to the affect of bankrupting someone to play an addicting game is.

But Free to Play is real and, arguably, the most significant factor in the customer points system discussed by Jesse Schell. Jesse Schell in DICE 2010 did a presentation called “Design Outside the Box” which discusses the gamification of everyday things and games that gamers and developers are surprised that became big hits. Examples he uses are the Wii and Wii Fit, Guitar Hero, Facebook Games etc. These games seemingly came from no where and dominated the field and made tons of money doing so. I wholeheartedly endorse what Jesse Schell calls “psychological cleverness” that is going on with games, but I’m not really fond of his conclusion that everything will be gamified including advertisements. There are some interesting aspects to a gamified world but Jesse Schell overlooks what I consider an important point about using a point system for everything and how it would defeat the purpose of some others. For instance, he used Dr. Pepper giving you points for drinking a can each week, but also walking somewhere gives you points for being healthy. Wouldn’t the point system see “Oh you’re drinking a sugary soft drink -50 points”.

These conclusions, which both Jesse Schell and Mike Rose discuss in Microtransations in games and Gamification, add weight to the argument that this will continue and could be part of gaming for a long time. For me though I feel that people are already getting tired of the “Whaling” aspect of games and simply want something fun that if free they pay for what content they want but not have to spend to play. And gamification is going to continue as even most new apps now make life situations into a game so you can workout, create routines, even clean the house. It will be interesting to see what the future holds.

Jesse Schell DICE 2010: “Design Outside the Box” Presentation
Chasing the Whale: Examining the ethics of free-to-play games by Mike Rose [Business/Marketing]

It’s always confusing to deal with any doomsday statements, especially when they use scientific data to prove their points, but saying virtual reality will bring about the end of humanity is a bit far fetched in “Fertility and Virtual Reality” by Edward Castronova. Although I agree with Edward Castronova up to a point, I cannot accept his overall conclusion that virtual reality will end humanity. Actually I’m sure you could prove anything with enough data behind it. The writer’s premise is that the increase of digital technology and virtual worlds has decreased fertility in the modernized world, whereas in under developed countries without the digital technology there is no decrease in fertility. It doesn’t take into account that developed countries generally have many other things to do besides just have sex. Leisure time and entertainment in general in developed countries are much more common. By extension we also have a lot more ways to prevent unwanted pregnancies through prophylactics and birth control.

Though I concede that virtual reality does let one live out their fantasies, I still insist that this will not end humanity. In fact I believe that the internet and virtual worlds actually help people connect with others who have certain fantasies they want to fulfill rather than make them all virtual. For example, there have been many people who have found each other and have gotten married because of games such as World of Warcraft. Also consider communities that have come together specifically because of the internet, such as the furry fandom.

Sadly I really don’t agree with much of what Edward Castronova has said with his piece. He is right that people want to live out their fantasies and doing so only really helps, but he seems on more dubious ground when he claims that it will lead to the downfall of man. And why, because people need human interaction. Most cannot stay by themselves for the rest of their lives. The ones who do were probably going to stay by themselves with or without technology. You can’t get the same satisfaction from VR that you can from a real person and I doubt anything will change that until we have real AI and holodecks like in Star Trek: The Next Generation. The whole thing makes me think of uncanny valley. Yeah it may feel good, but it is usually off putting and never quite the same as something that is truly real.

After playing video games for most of my life I have come to realize that the best games tend to either have tons of story and little interactivity or tons of interactivity and little story. Mateas’ and Stern’s theory of Interactivity and Narrative is extremely useful because it sheds insight on the difficult problem of integration of the two and went out to try and create the perfect game, one of pure interactive fiction. But if you have ever played Facade you realize it’s not a game you really want to play for the shear fact that it is rather dull. So does making the perfect interactive narrative mean giving up on action, I really don’t believe so, but to make the perfect game of story and play sacrifices may need to be made.

Currently games are made to weave the story into the game by having cut scenes that are more and more looking alike, for example, take the newest installment of the Tomb Raider series, Lara Croft in the cut scenes looks the same as Lara Croft in the playable scenes, there are movie scenes that require you to press certain button combinations in order for her to basically not die, and the movies and action all take place in the same area even if it’s a slightly different angle when in movie scene. Sadly though there is still not full story mode while continuously playing, It always seems separated as if there are two games you are playing, one for the action and interactivity and one for the narrative and movies. They are a lot more smoothed over than they used to be but they are still there.

In order for Mateas and Stern to understand narrative they used Aristotelian Drama as their basis. Those unfamiliar with this school of thought may be interested to know that it basically boils down to action, character, thought, language, pattern, and enactment. As Mateas and Stern state:

In drama, the formal cause is the authorial view of the play. The author has constructed a plot that attempts to explicate some theme. The characters required in the play are determined by the plot; the plot is the formal cause of the characters. The characters’ thought processes are determined by the kinds of characters they are. The language spoken by the characters is determined by their thought. The patterns (song) present in the play are determined, to a large extent, by the characters’ language (more generally, their actions). The spectacle, the sensory display presented to the audience, is determined by the patterns enacted by the characters.

This is the basic form of drama and can be used by most writers to create exciting environments that keep the audience entranced, for instance Harry Potter. Harry was created by the plot because the plot specifically created him, meaning Voldemort heard the prophecy, found the boy, and tried to kill him, which in the end created his own doom in Harry Potter. The plot itself was the Prophecy that echoed throughout the book series.

The writers went further when describing how to make it interactive by saying:

The characters in an interactive drama should be rich enough that the player can infer a consistent model of the characters’ thought. If the characters’ thought can be understood (e.g. goals, motivations, desires), then this thought becomes a material resource for player action. By reasoning about the other characters’ thoughts, the player can take actions to influence these characters, either to change their thoughts, or actively help or hinder them in their goals and plans.

Meaning make the character as interactive as possible and make them understand almost anything you say. Consider Skyrim where you can go up to every NPC and tell them anything you want and they react accordingly and not to a simple few responses. You say something weird, they look at you weirdly, you say something that is inspiring they are inspired, you say something moody and they get the tone and mood from you.

The culmination of this Interactive Narrative that the writers wanted to create came out to be Facade, a video game that is true interactive fiction but almost in it’s dullest sense. It starts off as you being invited to you friends house and talking to them to basically find out what is going on with them and their issues. Specifically it is a play that has you as the star and interacting with the actors in a video game format. There is no real action as most real agency has been taken away in order to provide immersion. And sadly once more we are back to the start where the game has little activity and tons of story.

If the writers are right that we can combine interactivity and narrative to form a perfect game, as I think they are, then we need to reassess the assumption that they are going about it in the wrong way. If they want true interactivity and narrative you need the world itself to be filled with real people, much like WoW or other online games, but once you have them there you give them the ability to create anything they want, or at least within reason that the world provides. For example, the ability to create your own store and sell merchandise to people, create your own weapons, or set up quests to find ancient weapons to sell in your store or to recreate. Within this world Time needs to be constant so if a person goes offline then their character goes NPC. They can set up what things they want their character to say for certain things and the activities they want them to do while away, not like going to dungeons and fighting monsters, but daily chores that real worlds actually have. And then to top all of that off have quests that are story driven but that not all can accomplish, meaning have NPCs that are maybe controlled by actors/developers of the game that will give out limited or single quests for certain people, because not everyone can be the hero and not everyone can get the same chest in the dungeon of deadly spiders. These are just a few things that you can do to make the world feel more alive and once the world feels alive, with real people, real interaction with that world will happen.

nteractive Fiction…

When I first got online it was to write in a form of Interactive Fiction, unlike what is described in the reading. It was my first time through college and the internet was just starting it’s first boom outside of AOL. Nintendo had made a updated site and opened up their BBS (Bulletin Board Service) to everyone and not just AOL members. And on their website they hosted Interactive Stories featuring their worlds, like Hyrule from Zelda, and Corneria and the Lylat System from Star Fox. In the BBS I and a bunch of other Nintendo fans would create our own characters and interact within the setting provided. At some point if people liked your idea/story they would try to interact with you via story or actually contact you and try to write something together. Today this would be more like Fan Fiction mixed with Collaborative Writing. Once Nintendo started changing the way they did things on their website people moved onward to make their own Interactive Story (what we called these types of stories then) sites. Granted a few different sites spawned from this but in the end, like most things on the internet, it eventually died, or changed into something else, like the previous mentioned Fan Fiction.

Of course I bring up all this personal history because this article focuses a lot on narrative and story and the act of interacting within it. The best example of these would be Adventure Games be it text or point and click. I disagree with the writers view that the Adventure Game was dead because, as recent research has shown this is not the case. In fact the Adventure Game has shown a huge resurgence in the last few years thanks largely in part to TellTale Games, who made sequels to The Monkey Island series and Sam and Max, two of which were major Adventure Games of the past. But really Adventure Games never died in the first place due to sites like adventuregamers.com where they discussed and sold many adventure games. In fact the Nancy Drew series, which has always been an Adventure Game, is one of the most prolific and also most profitable series created.Admittedly there was a huge decline in Adventure games during the last decade though they never really died. I really feel what happened as the graphics improved games focused on more what they could see rather story points, as current tech gets more closer and closer to reality visually we have gotten to the point where we want more depth in the games we play.

Why harp on one small statement from this article, well this was the one portion that really focused on a certain aspect of gameplay and wasn’t just a definition of certain types of narrative in games. By focusing on the definitions the writers overlook the deeper problems in the games itself and why stories and games haven’t melded. One of the main things I think is the issue is the act of interacting in general. The form of interacting with the narrative is contrived at times, meaning it’s difficult at best. You get introduced to characters minor or not who basically say the same things over and over. For instance, in Skyrim every person you pass tells you their story every time, after passing them five or six times to get achieve certain goals you’ve heard the same dialog from these characters all those five or six times. The guards are a little better only because they have a list of things to say, but after having the billionth guard tell you that he took an arrow to the knee it gets tiresome. Naturally this is still better than some older games but they haven’t changed much.

Gone home.

Just in the name there seems something wrong. It’s not “Going Home” or “Coming Home” it’s “Gone home”. The fact that we you get home that everyone is gone is a clue that there is something more to it. This family, like most families tend to be, is in turmoil. From a distant, lost husband/father who’s finally finding his way back to himself to a wife/mother who has felt that distance and tried to find some comfort in a coworker to a daughter who was going through a life changing situation herself. You don’t realize how deep it all is until you search for everything.
This story is of course not about Katie, the one who left to go visit Europe for a year, although with the family in such turmoil it’s no surprise she wanted to get out. The story is about Sam and really her coming out story.

The first time I went to college I had to take a University 101 class, which of course got you used to the school but at the differences in the world around you. It really wasn’t until that class that I finally admitted to myself that I was gay. I had basically know for a long time but really didn’t put the picture together until that moment. It also didn’t help growing up Southern Baptist with a Grandfather as a preacher either. Basically it took quite a long time for me to come to grips with myself, wishing I wasn’t who I was. Once I finally admitted it to myself I had to tell the one person who meant to world to me, my mom. I took it slow, and popped hints and such and luckily she wasn’t upset. In fact I would have to say coming out to my mom for me was the best thing that ever happened because it strengthened our bond. But even that wasn’t easy. The best thing for me though was getting into the schools gay group and meeting one of my best friends of all time, whom I dated, twice. We never made it as a couple but he will always be my best friend, and funny enough he is in the game industry now too.
Anyway this game hit home to me because obviously there was a huge connection. This coming out story is like many I have heard, and luckily not like mine, but the feelings are the same. Sam feels lost, scared, alone, and would have probably loved to have her big sister around to tell all these things to. I have two older brothers but were never as connected to them as Sam and Katie seemed to be in the game. In reality the conflict of this game was more of an internal one for Sam.

Think about the side story with Masan and his ghost. Personally I think this goes to show the insecurities Sam was facing, the fears, the secrets. In the end she got over them by having a seance, removing those fears.

I’m writing this because I want to say I see some of myself in this game, but at the same time I see a lot of people who have had to come out in this game. We shouldn’t have to be afraid of being who we are, ever. We shouldn’t have to be afraid of who we want to be either.

Thank you Fullbright for making such an awesome game, and a story that ever one needs to hear.

Before I write this I must let everyone know for those who haven’t played Gone Home do so before reading this. It’s a powerful story and one that everyone should experience for themselves. Also that this response will have spoilers for the game, since I am writing a response to it. Also since this is specifically for a class I may actually write a more personal response to it later.
Compare and contrast the gender roles of Sam, Lonnie, and Katie. What symbols, signs, and other evidence about the house help inform your opinions?
How do these relate to conceptions of “girl play” and “boy play” as described in Jenkins’s “Complete Freedom of Movement” essay?

(Unfortunately due to the way I copied the blog the summary of the game wasn’t copied).

Gone Home is a game of discovery, one where you find yourself home after a year and everyone else gone. The discovery is more of family history though and not one of great earth shattering changes. This game would probably be considered a “girl play” game according to Jenkin’s “Complete Freedom of Movement” article from previous responses. It is a game where there is no fighting, it’s exploring the home, and is all about mysteries, secrets, and the hidden. But do these characters fit into the typical “boy play”/”girl play” roles? If I had to set them into roles I would say it would fit thusly; Katie would fit the “girl play” model, Lonnie would fit the “boy play” model, and Sam would fit somewhere inbetween.

Katie is definitely the “girl play” model as fits into Jenkin’s description. “Girl space is a space of secrets and romance, a place of one’s own in a world that offers you far too little room to explore.” In other word Jenkin’s believes that girl space is a place of secrets within the home, one which we know from hidden clues Katie loves to dig up. In fact it makes sense that Katie is the one who is exploring the home to find out what has happened, because she is one of exploration. But she just got home from a trip through Europe, you may say, yes very true something that seems like a “boy play” exploration but in fact I feel it’s more to the “play town” aspect of Jenkin’s “girl play” model. Meaning that Katie is really going out to find the secrets of Europe in safe tourist environments, whereas a “boy play” trip would be backpacking through the country, hitchhiking through the country side seeing small cities, having an adventure. As you see these are both forms of exploration but one has a lot more danger to it then traveling to tourist spots.

Since we explored some of the “girl play” why don’t we hit on the “boy play”. Even though Lonnie is a girl I think she fits into the “boy play” model. Let’s get some background for her. She lives with her father, who himself went into the military, and helps him rebuild bikes. She’s a punk girl, one that defies authority, who breaks rules. In fact I believe the only reason she is treated differently by school and others is because she is a girl playing in the boys world. “The space of the boy book is the space of adventure, risk-taking danger, of a wild and untamed nature that one must master if one is to survive” Jenkin’s point is that boys,in addition to “boy play”, are wild and dangerous, and needs to be tamed and this can be seen in Lonnie because of her going into the military like her father, to tame her wild side, even as she goes on to wild and adventurous, while in the military, to places like the jungles of Mexico.
Sam is the one inbetween these two roles I feel. She is coming to terms with herself while at the same time trying to become more adventurous. She is stuck in a world where she is basically a girl but when she writes she writes of the world of a basically “boy play”. She always wrote herself as the hero in her pirate tales, the dangerous, adventurous type, with her First Mate who actually transformed in her stories from a boy to a girl, which in the game world meant going from old male friend to new girlfriend. Furthermore she was trapped in the girl play world where she was stuck at home and discovered all the secrets of the house, the hidden panels, hidden passage ways and kept a lot of secrets. In the end I think she chose the world of “boy play” because of the running away from home rather than staying, but if you continue to look at it she does “sacrifice their private in order to make room for others’ needs” Jenkin’s is insisting that girls in becoming women sacrifice their privacy for others, just like Sam does form Katie in providing all these clues throughout the house. SO maybe she is what Jenkin’s always wanted with his “Neutral Play Space” because “girls need to experience the ‘complete freedom of movement’ promised by the boys games”, his point is that in running away Sam not only has had the closed “girl play” but is experiencing the open “boys play” as well.

In the end “boy play” and “girl play” plays a lot into this game and shows that you don’t have to be a girl to enjoy a game that has no action and is all about exploration, moreover you don’t have to fit into the gender roles that the world wants to place you into.