My (quick) notes from Playful10, London

Gameification. Points. Badges. Gamepocalypse. External rewards. Every day the headlines about games remind us that there must be more to games than these keywords. The game industry has sometimes a bad navel gazing habit… which is why it’s good to attend event such as the playful10 conference in London last Friday. The point of this conference is to “look at what PLAY means both creatively and culturally, and put speakers on the stage who offer different perspectives on where we are currently, where we’ve been, and where we’re going. We want people walking away talking about the nature of games… what they mean to different people inside, on the periphery, outside or miles away from the industry“.

The playful10 conference was certainly as good as last year’s: passionate speakers (ranging from comic book writers to hair dressers), intriguing topics (old jew jokes, item collections from badge to game controllers, Mad Men quotes, dead chicken, critics about gameification), good audience and cosy venue.

Some quick notes below about what inspired me:

In his introduction, Toby Barnes first claimed that “not all play is created equal” and that we need to go back again. To clarify this, he then pointed to H.G. Wells’ classic victorian wargame books from 1913: “Little Wars” and “Floor games” with great quotes such as “the home that has no floor upon which games may be played falls so far short of happiness“. or “How utterly we despise the silly little bricks of the toyshops! They are too small to make a decent home for even the poorest lead soldiers, even if there were hundreds of them, and there are never enough, never nearly enough; even if you take one at a time and lay it down and say, “This is a house,” even then there are not enough“. The importance of the floor (and other structures to play games) has also been re-asserted later on by another speaker who presented a project for racing games on sidewalks. Barnes’ second point to start off the day was also that creating games is hard. Based on this tweet (“Deciding that games design is 20% fun, 80% frustration.“), he showed that reversing the percentages is a matter of iterating (as suggested by Matt Locke), so “let’s keep iterating”.

Naomi Alderman discussed the problem of storytelling in video-games: “it’s almost impossible to tell the player something about the character at the same moment you give him/her total freedom about what to do“.

Paul Bennun, in his presentation about audio games, showed intriguing videos from loneconspirator. Based on this material, he described how audio games indeed make you look like a dork but the user is definitely “in flow”. Audio games are just like any other games: some are good, some are bad. Eventually, when you get rid of the screen, you find yourself more free, have less constraints and it’s because of how sounds work. As a matter of fact, the difficulty here is that sound can only be “in the moment” and this is why it’s so immersive, especially for first person games.

Tom Muller unveiled inspiring examples of his work about graphic design and comic books. He basically showed the importance of typography in these fields and I quite enjoyed examples such as World’s best robot, World war robot, Pop Bot and 24SEVEN, which seems to be tremendously interesting.

Development director at TT Games, Jonathan Smith worked for the production of LEGO Star Wars. In his talk, he claimed that game design revolved around a conflict finely described by Dr. Miller in the second episode of Mad Men (4th season):

“Faye Miller: Look, we’re both in the same business. I’m not embarrassed to say. It’s about helping people somehow to sort out their deepest conflict.

Don Draper: And what is that?

Faye Miller: In a nutshell, It all comes down to “what I want” versus “what’s expected of me.“

Freedom versus constraints. He showed that people who play video-games are not there to be indulged and that they want to be “directed by the system”. They want to find the boundaries and the rules through communicated affordances. The game designer creates an awareness of the permitted possibilities… to create play.

Then Sebastian Deterding gave an insightful analysis of “gameification and its discontents”. He started by asserting that there’s a disease currently on the web: the “badge measle”, i.e. the pervasive presence of rewards such as badges. These are being given for tons of reasons ranging from posting a blogpost to watching a TV channel. It is as if points and other rewards were given to achieve life goals. Deterding simply wondered about “what the hell is going here?”. His critique focused on the idea that game mechanism are now perceived as a crunchy thing you can add to anything, a trend weirdly called “gameification” and propelled by game designers, “talking heads” and – worse – service vendors.

He followed on this by addressing what is wrong with gameification:

• Confusion 1: games are not fun because they are games, they are fun because they are well designed! Sturgeon’s Law “Ninety percent of everything is crap”
• Confusion 2: rewards are not achievements, this is just bad psychology. Vendors who sell this have a Pavlovian model in mind. “it’s so 1940″ as Deterding said. He exemplified this by showing a game on which there’s big button called “earn 1,000,000,000,000 $” on which you can click and win. Based on the reward model, this would be the best game. As described by Raph Koster, “fun in games arises from mastery”.
• Confusion 3: competition is not for everyone!

The problem is also that gameification also has side-effects: it creates unintended behavior, people game the system and it messes with implicit social norms.

When people take gameification too directly, they generally miss that games are about: fictions, make believe, talk, and freedom to play (“whoever plays plays freely, whoever must play cannot play!“). Playing = “as if” and playing is fun because of the autonomy. As shown on Deterding’s slide below, this is the difference between work (a spreadsheet) and play (Eve On-line):

After this, Bertrand Duplat from Editions Volumiques showed some of the awesome prototypes they recently produced. And then I had to catch my flight missing the last speakers.

Interface history: d-pad

This succession of Nintendo game platforms reveals the slow evolution of interfaces: from buttons to the d-pad, with the intermediary phase (made of 4 buttons). Designed by Gunpei Yokoi and his team, this feature circulated from these devices to other console afterwards. Material to be used in upcoming work and talk for the game controller project.

Lessons learned from studying Nintendo DS appropriation

A Nintendo DS attached to a luggage encountered in Marseille the other day.

Some excerpts I found interesting from a user study about the Nintendo DS appropriation by kids written by J. Alison Bryant, Anna Akerman, Jordana Drell:

“handheld gaming systems, and particularly the Nintendo DS, are coveted entertainment devices. As older children in the household “graduate” to newer versions, the younger members of the household inherit their old systems. This opens up the opportunity to create games for the younger audiences, particularly preschoolers.
(…)
Preschoolers cannot read, which means that all instructions need to be in voiceover and include visual representations. (…)
Text instructions take up minimal memory, so they are preferable from a technological perspective. Figuring out ways to maximize the sound and graphics files we have while retaining the clear visual and verbal cues that we know are critical for our youngest players is a constant give and take.
(…)
Preschoolers may use the DS stylus or may use their fingers, or both! (Although they are not very accurate with either.
(…)
Although preschoolers do not have trouble holding the small stylus, they do have difficulty making small movements that require fine motor skills. This means that the “hotspots” for interaction within the game must be forgiving for them (i.e., larger).
(…)
While rhythm games seem ideal for the DS, and are very successful with older demographics, preschoolers find it difficult and frustrating to tap in a rhythm or on a beat.
(…)
The microphone is a big hit with preschoolers! They love to yell or blow into it and see the game respond.
(…)
Combining directional pad mechanics with stylus movements is a problem for young children.
(…)
Two-step processes (i.e., drag the item over here and then tap on it) are not as successful with preschoolers.
(…)
Preschoolers love immediate (and positive) responses to their actions
(…)
Replayablity is key with both parents and preschoolers. (…) Being able to re-use graphics or sound for new variations on a game is a good way to make the game feel “new” to the child.“

Why do I blog this? Certainly useful material to be shown in my course about user research in interaction design. The findings echoes a lot with similar ethnographical exploration I conducted for a video game studio in the past. This sort of insights also have implications beyond gaming, there’s a lot to draw from the paper about the research paper: methodology, implications for design as well as ideas for mobile computing services.

Into the night with Jason Rohrer + Chris Crawford

Yesterday, I watched the latest episode of the documentary series called “into the night” on Arte (the French/German television). The point of this series is to have two intriguing people and get them to talk to each other. In this episode, the conversation happens between the Indie game designer Jason Rohrer and legendary game designer Chris Crawford over the course of a day during the GDC 2009 in San Francisco.

The 52-minutes documentary shows Crawford and Rohrer playing and discussing different indie titles, show their approaches to one another, and wonder about the evolution of game design. There are some funny moments where the “old fart game designer” (as Crawford defines himself) complains that he has seen “everything under the sun” and that all the games today are “derivative or some old variation of hand-eye coordination”… but he admits that Rohrer’s stuff is new and original. However, the overall impression is that both of them seems to be trapped… as shown by the uncertainty expressed by Crawford’s difficulties with interaction storytelling or Rohrer’s cluelessness about what to do in the future. Quite sincere indeed but a bit sad for the game industry.

Two aspects in the discussion struck me as important, with regards to my interest in game design. They’re very short and maybe not that conclusive, but at least they surface interesting issues.

First, the brief conversation about space and game design is insightful. Crawford is interested in how Rohrer sees spatial metaphors. Rohrer shows an excerpt of Passage in which the player can choose to join a companion who appears in the game. Once you do that, you realize you can’t get into certain spaces of the maze where two people won’t fit. Rohrer defines it as a spatial trade-off. Crawford then wonders: “What is most important about your approach… you’re taking out the spatial navigation, which is always done too literally and you turn it into a metaphor and explore what kind of metaphor can be created. How far do you think it can be pushed?“. Rohrer then describes why he is so much interested in 2D games (as opposed to 3D) showing how the level of Pacman enables to see the whole environment (in contrast to FPS in which you only see what is around you).

Second, I find important that these two game designers are interested in interaction rather than glossy graphics (“graphical sugar“). As claimed by Crawford: “the entertainment lies in the interaction, not the presentation… you have to make the interaction entertaining, it should influence your experience (…) I am very dismissive of the techie approach to game design (…) Do not be prescriptive, be descriptive“.

Why do I blog this? quick summary of what I felt when watching this documentary about game design… from a standpoint that can be seen as an alternative to mainstream video games. The uncertainty expressed by the two designers here is stunning and left us wondering about the possibilities for the future.

Joypad memory game

The game controller project moves slowly but we’re definitely onto something. We’ll release soon an iPad/iPhone application that would correspond to a visual corpus to all the joypads. Each pair of pages will describe one of the 42 official joypads along with various data: date, brand, corresponding console, total surface, action button surface, d-pad surface, connector pin type, wire length, weight, etc. But there’s more.

Given that Laurent Bolli had a curious machine that enabled us to print badges for participants at the Lift10 conference in Geneva, we repurposed it and create a Memory/concentration game with all the gamepad visuals we had. Each card features a graphical representation of the game controller as well as information about the joypad surface (total surface, action buttons, menu buttons, d-pad surface, etc.). A first prototype of the card game here:

More and more complex pedometer games

Pedometers connected to video-games are more and more complex, as attested by this Pokéwalker, a Poké Ball-shaped pedometer which can connect to Pokémon HeartGold and SoulSilver game cards via infrared signals. See the possibilities:

“It uses a currency known as “watts”, which are obtained as the player walks with the device. Every 20 steps will earn the player one watt. It can communicate with other Pokéwalkers. Exchanges are not limited merely to watts, but also items and Pokémon

When players transfer a Pokémon from their game into their Pokéwalker, they can select which route they would like to take their Pokémon along. Depending on which route the player takes (such as in a grassland or by the sea), they will encounter different wild Pokémon and items. When players first begin their journeys with the Pokéwalker, the list of routes they can select from is short. But, the more players take a stroll with their Pokémon, the more routes will appear and the more Pokémon and items they will be able to get.

And you can get a more in-depth perspective in Katie Salen’s article Pokéwalkers, Mafia Dons, and Football Fans: Play Mobile with Me.
Why do I blog this? documenting material about tracking technologies and how game mechanics could lead to peculiar usage of such platforms.

Another apple “pad” grabbed my attention

Yes, there’s the iPad but it’s a different Apple “pad” product that grabbed my attention. This morning, I received this morning a package from Honk-Kong with this curious gamepad that was designed for the Pippin, a console/multimedia platform designed by Apple and produced by Bandai back in 1995. Pippin was actually derived from the second generation of Power Macintosh computers. It was unfortunately a failure.

The game controller was called “AppleJack” (a name that eventually has been re-used because it’s now a command line user interface for Mac OS X). White models like this one were called “Atmark” (for the “@” mark) and were only marketed and sold in Japan. What’s curious here is that it features two interesting elements:

• A centre built-in trackball, which is highly uncommon on game controllers (instead of a joystick)
• Two front mounted orange select buttons designed to replicate the features of a computer mouse.

Apart from that it’s quite common: boomerang-shaped, direction-pad on the left and four action buttons “laid out in the classic Super Nintendo diamond design + the button colors are a match for the PAL SNES controller” as pointed out here. What’s maybe relevant in terms of design is the button shape with tiny braille-like dots to indicate the user which one he/she is using without looking at it.

Another curious aspect is the fact that the Applejack controller was sold with a floppy disk that contains the “Applejack Software Developer’s Kit” for editing the `pippin mapping resource, and an Applejack 2.2.0 system extension file. Which means that you could customize the `pipp’ mapping resource of the Applejack input device drivers.

Why do I blog this? this pad goes straight into the collection/project about gamepad evolution. Although it was a failure, it’s definitely an interesting artifact that tried to innovate (trackball!) and its “boomerang” shaped was also the one Sony showed as an early version of the PS3 controller. A sort of evolutionary dead-end to some extent because of the trackball.

Nintendo processes

Reading the video-game press is a rare occasion for me but this interview of Shigeru Miyamoto a funny piece during breakfast. Why? simply because it’s interesting to hear about the design process (and HR) at Nintendo. Of course there are some elements that can be perceived as a bit cliché but I find intriguing to observe how they categorize their products, try to recruit people or how Myamoto defines his participation in projects.

Testing Sony Eyepet Augmented Reality

Into testing Eyepet, a game for the PlayStation 3 that is based on Augmented Reality. It basically uses the PlayStation Eye camera to allow you to interact with a virtual pet and objects in the real world. The process is very straight-forward. You have this black plastic placard shown on the picture above with a white square and a paw-print on it that you carefully place on your floor next to your TV set. The PS3 Eye recognizes it (as well as the environment): your surroundings then appear on your TV. You can start fooling around with an egg that soon becomes a gremlin-like pet. The game mechanic is progressive and based on interacting with the virtual animal either by touching (I mean, moving around in front of your TV that see on the screen what you’re touching) OR by using virtual objects by holding the card (which has a symbol that is recognized by the system and make the digital item appear on the screen). See for example the following case:

Here I am, trying to activate a heater to warm-up an egg. The point is to push the lever below the pink arrow.

Pushed, now I can warm the egg.

The gesture-based interaction works pretty well, especially when using virtual items. However, what is definitely tough here is that you have to act in front of your TV in a mirror-way: moving an object on the right (on the screen) requires that you move your hand on the left. This reversed-then-flipped mirror image of your room is a bit disorientating for me; i guess it may be difficult for kids as well. In the preliminary gameplays you need to make your pet jump several on a trampoline, so you really need to be accurate when you move it around so that the pet doesn’t fell down on your floor. That being said, I found intriguing to have this sort of setting where you make gestures in the physical world and you access some sort of mirror-world on the TV. I do think however that game designers could play more on that trick.

There is also an impressive feature that enables you to draw things on a sketchbook… which are then translated into virtual items in the game. You draw a picture, hold it up in front of the camera and the system will try to copy it (it only works with good lighting conditions).

Why do I blog this? My interest in this sort of things is connected to by my research about interaction design and my interrogations about the role of uselessness in robots/networked objects.

Of course it’s a bit frustrating (game mechanics are quite basic, loading times are long) but there are really some interesting interaction ideas in there. I am personally not sure about the virtual pet thing (why does those thing ALWAYS have to look like boring gremlins?) but this is an interesting step in the evolution of virtual/digital interlinkages.

Video Games and possibilities

Two quick Unified Resource Locator that caught my eyes yesterday evening during my commute:

• Sometips by Jordan Mechner about game design principles for narrative games. The second hand “List the actions the player actually performs in the game and take a cold hard look at it. Does it sound like fun?” is an interesting filter to prioritize the interactions you want your users to be engaged in. A sort of follow-up to Crawford’s list of verbs I mentioned the other day
• Choose Your Own Adventure (thanks Carly for this), a visualization of interactive books

Why do I blog this? both are about games/entertainment but these principles/viz can be applied to other domains. I see them as important interaction design heuristics.