Ness

[vkjmcblogs]

Is Australia’s ‘Refused Classification (RC)’ category for Video Games treating Adults like kids?

Despite stating adults are free to view whatever they want, harsh censorship eliminates freedom of viewing for Australian audiences. Within the western world Australia has the strictest censorship laws. This was on course to change after consumer outcry that called for an overhaul of the classification system whose rating only reached MA15+. A study by Bond University's GamePlay Australia in 2005 (Jason Hill 2005 found that 88 percent of households agreed on an R18+ rating, with reasoning that it is unfair to restrict adults from media otherwise allowed in other art forms.

“Children are no more likely to access an R18+ computer game than they would a DVD or videotape.” says Victorian Attorney-General Rob Hulls (Jason Hill 2005) believing that public media should have a consistent rating system.

However there has been little change since the introduction of the R18+ classification in 2013. The reason for introducing the new rating was to lift bans on games deemed unfit for already existing classifications, yet many titles are still banned on terms otherwise accepted in films or literature. 

Misconceptions, stereotypes, and fears all play a part in the misjudgement of video game classification - taking reference from a law based on outdated and debunked superstitions. Studies disprove the connection between violent video games with violence in adults, instead linking violence to atypical mental conditions and home situations (Christopher J. Ferguson 2018). 

It’s unfortunate that Australian gamers are prevented from playing titles otherwise accepted by the rest of the world. Hopefully in the near future we will be able to relax classification criteria.

 ~~~~~

Keogh, B 2019, “Australia bans video games for things you’d see in movies. But gamers can access them anyway”, The Conversation, viewed 29 November 2019, http://theconversation.com/australia-bans-video-games-for-things-youd-see-in-movies-but-gamers-can-access-them-anyway-122183

Ferguson, C J 2018, “It’s time to end the debate about video games and violence”, The Conversation, viewed 29 November 2019, https://theconversation.com/its-time-to-end-the-debate-about-video-games-and-violence-91607

n.a. 2011, “The long campaign for R18+ games”, The Sydney Morning Herald, viewed 28 November 2019, https://www.smh.com.au/technology/the-long-campaign-for-r18-games-20110723-1htkg.html

Hill, J 2005, “R rating back in the game plan”, The Age, viewed 28 November 2019, https://www.theage.com.au/technology/r-rating-back-in-the-game-plan-20051117-gdmgam.html

[vkjmcblogs]

Mansions of Madness — The Descent

You enter a classroom, greeted by two long tables set on opposing sides of the room with hefty boxes atop each. Figurines of Lovecraftian monsters catch your eye, along with the dozens of cards and cardboard components sprawled on the tabletop. Mansions of Madness. The title is printed on each box lid in elegant calligraphy surrounded by dark, foreboding imagery. You’re interested. What harm is there in a board game?

...a lot. There is a lot of harm in this board game.

Considering that there’s separate instruction manuals for the players AND the Game Master/Keeper full of lore, setup and gameplay rules—you’d think these bibles of text would ease you into some understanding of how the game works. But no. Unfortunately this is not an easy feat.

Now, to be fair when I first experienced this game it was on a time limit, so everything had to be understood and played in under four hours. We forced ourselves to cram the rules and in the end we were fueled by pure spite. If you are considering buying the first edition of Mansions of Madness, I would suggest setting aside a few hours to comprehend the walls of text in the manuals.

Skimming through the instructions I was impressed with the amount of depth that went into Mansions of Madness. The concept is interesting and I find myself wanting to explore what the creators have to offer. But the more I read the more I realised how disjointed and spread out the rules of each mechanics are. It’s literal madness. I shouldn’t have to search through the Keeper’s manual only to find out the explanation of the Mythos cards—a Keeper controlled gameplay mechanic—is in the Players’ manual. Terminologies for a rule are defined on a completely separate page, and those definitions have more terminologies that also need definitions. There is a lack of clarity.

The role of the Keeper is often limited to one person since the complexity of the rules and game mechanics exclusive to this role is off-putting. Who has time to learn the game all over again?

The visual design choices for the game are confusing and they lack cohesion. The overarching theme of a dark, gritty, Lovecraftian horror design was for the most part present. However most tokens such as the darkness and the investigation pieces did not fit with visuals seen on cards and character plaques. It’s as if they are part of an entirely separate game. Or the creators pated generic pictures onto cardboard and called it a day. The visual design seems to be solved by the second edition’s release.

So what’s the takeaway from the ramblings of a mind driven half mad? The importance of a user friendly product.

A recent great example of consideration of user diversity is in a YouTube video: “7 Slicing Kitchen Gadgets Improved by Design Expert” by channel Epicurious. Dan Formosa, a Design and Usability expert, repeatedly enforces the importance of design for a diverse consumer group.

Transcript: “Companies would come to me and they would describe to me their ‘average consumer‘ or their ‘average user’ and I would say ‘that’s great, but I don’t care about the average person-- I need to know the people who are weakest and strongest; I need to know the tallest and shortest; I need to understand the spectrum… I think that explains why so many products may not be designed as optimally as possible.” (22:21 - 22:34. Epicurious, 2019)

While kitchen utensils are different to a board game, the same design rules apply. Mansions of Madness unfortunately suffers from lack of cohesion both visually and mechanics-wise. The creators’ ignorance to a greater audience spectrum unfortunately hurt the game’s reception.

But hey, we’re gonna give the improved second edition a go soon. And who knows? Maybe we’ll make it past round one this time.

Reference: Epicurious, 2019, 7 Slicing Kitchen Gadgets Improved by Design Expert | Epicurious, YouTube, 30 July, viewed 14 August 2019, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w08XDXjJhsQ

[vkjmcblogs]

Input and control methods

With the new age of technology came Virtual Reality (VR), which revolutionised entertainment mediums. This new level of interactivity appealed to gamers. Your body becomes the controller.

https://youtu.be/dW-RJyI8LGs

Superhot was not originally made for VR, rather it was an online browser. Its basic mechanics are akin to most shooters. However, the manipulation of time is unique to Superhot’s gameplay. Time is controlled by the player’s movements; where reality moves at a normal pace only when the character is moving. This allows for strategic planning, situational awareness, and generally more time to think about your next move.

While this mechanic is interesting in its browser game form, it really shines in Superhot VR. Where movement is fully controlled by the player. As stated before your body becomes the controller, so each head turn, arm adjustment, and step forward moves time. Because VR tracks your entire body the game registers your movements and adjusts time/its speed – in this new platform the unique mechanic is emphasised. Players are forced to become cautious and tactical in their actions. Unlike in the prototype where equipping and shooting a weapon is just a mouse click away-- Superhot VR requires you to reach out, pick up the gun, then aim to shoot, all while time is moving with you. 

[Screenshots by me from playing the prototype on CrazyGames.com]

(Edit): I am impressed with the way the SUPERHOT Team adapted it’s mechanics and gameplay into VR. That being said, where it thrives in immersion it lacks in dynamic gameplay compared to the original -- which has you swapping bodies and moving around the enviroment. VR of course has its restrictions mobility-wise so the use of teleportation is needed. But this meant the play area feels much smaller and doesn’t allow for methodical use of the environment like the original had.  VR’s ability to track and translate player inputs to a controller equivalent is facinating. 

References:

SUPERHOT, 2013, SUPERHOT, CrazyGames.com, viewed 10/08/2019 https://www.crazygames.com/game/super-hot

SUPERHOT, 2016, SUPERHOT – Gameplay Teaser, YouTube.com, viewed 11/08/2019 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dW-RJyI8LGs&feature=youtu.be

[vkjmcblogs]

Mods, Cheats, Hacks and Bugs

Our class discussions broke down what each term was, analysing and overlapping their feature and definitions. All with the exception of bugs were tied to the exploitation and/or modification (often further development) of a game’s mechanics. As it was my group’s focus —I will be discussing cheats.

When I say “Cheats” in regards to a video games, the one of the first things you’d likely think of are cheat codes or console commands meant for playtesting. If you’re more a First Person Shooter (FPS) gamer the terms aimbot and wallhacks may sound familiar.

Cheats are essentially defined as exploitations of a game, or intentional breaking of set rules used to gain an unfair advantage. Players can cheat in a game by; using hacks— which interfere with the game’s code and playtesting console commands; mods that adds or takes away features of the game to make gameplay easier; abusing already existing mechanics or bugs/glitches; eliminating or avoiding a game’s original set of rules and restrictions.

Generally cheats are safe to use. Often they only enable or disable codes within the game’s files. “Community cheats” are widely accepted for use in a single-player or restricted multiplayer context—they are exploits shared openly with a game’s community for the benefit of all players. However, these cheats are banned from competitions and online/multiplayer play unless expressly stated otherwise in the rules of the competition.

As referenced by Jeff Yan and Brian Randell (An Investigation of Cheating in Online Games, 2009) there are approximately 15 different classifications of online cheating.

Their book discusses in depth each type of online cheating. Ranging from exploits that cheat the game itself or even the players involved -- this includes breaches of privacy that can release player character information (e.g. health, ammo amount, equipment, etc.)

The consequences that come from regularly cheating can both affect the cheater themselves and the players effected by them. Vanilla (unmodified) gameplay becomes tedious and bland. The level of enjoyment plummets soon after using so many hacks and modifications. Those who play with the cheater (online/local multiplayer) also lose their sense of enjoyment since they often have no way to win. Unless all involved are using similar cheats players become deterred from the game.

 Resources:

Jianxin Yan, Jeff & Randell, Brian. (2009). An Investigation of Cheating in Online Games. IEEE Security & Privacy. 7. 37-44. 10.1109/MSP.2009.60.

[vkjmcblogs]

Diegesis in games

If you’re unfamiliar with “Diegesis”, in simple terms it’s determining whether or not something is within the reality of the media or it is only meant for audiences to be aware of. The characters within the game are unaware of its existence.

For example, dialogue between NPCs and the sounds of a busy road are diegetic since characters are able to hear it. Whereas the HUD or background music are non-diegetic.

 The Stanley Parable is one example that has its narrator’s role be diegetic. Where usually the disembodied voice that spouts exposition is hardly an integral character in the main story, with some exceptions.

You as the player are meant to hear the Narrator, as his streamlined storytelling is meant to direct you to what you’re meant to do… or not to do.

Curiosity gets the better of players, and when actively told to avoid doing certain tasks or entering different rooms we’re inclined to disobey instructions to satiate curiosity. We’re rewarded with new dialogue which is very characteristically sassy of the Narrator who constantly degrades Stanley.

The Narrator of The Stanley Parable has a direct impact on the game’s narrative and arguably the mechanics.

 It is rare to find games or even media in general that integrates the narrator to the extent that the Stanley Parable has. The closest common one I can remember is having the narrator be the voice of character that is directly involved in the media – whether it is a retelling in hindsight or simply a voiceover.

Reference:

MARM 2017, The Stanley Parable: He Entered the Door on his Left, image, YouTube, viewed 27/07/19 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybXzf97-9ds

[vkjmcblogs]

The playground of a gamespace -- Magic Circle

An iconic, universally recognised item such as a King chess piece has significance in correlation to the game Chess itself. However if you were to show this same item to someone who has never learned nor knows what Chess is, it is unlikely they view the King piece as nothing more than a glamorised block of wood.

Chess’ King piece holds significance in the context of the game. Outside of this space it may as well be a paperweight.

The beauty of the Magic Circle is that certain items and rules that otherwise seem like nonsense suddenly hold value. There is meaning given. With the exception of some cases it is unlikely that a game’s pieces would have any other intended use outside of the game “space”. An example of this includes items specifically made for an NPC’s fetch quest.

Specific examples I will use are from the indie game Stardew Valley – concerning Robin’s axe and Mayor Lewis’ shorts.

These items are otherwise useless to any other gameplay mechanic. While axes are available to the player from the start the developer makes it very clear that Robin’s axe is not a usable item, or at least—not the same type of axe that the player is given. ConcernedApe created a unique icon art for Robin’s axe to indicate differentiation. Once the axe has been found the player cannot sell or use it in any way other than its intended purpose; to be returned to Robin for a reward.

Mayor Lewis’ shorts have slightly different circumstances. If the player is feeling fiendish they can pull a prank on Lewis by using the item during certain events and festivals. But outside of those circumstances both the shorts and axe are just set pieces.

 Reference:

2019, Quests, Stardew Valley Wiki, viewed 20/07/2019 <https://stardewvalleywiki.com/Quests>

[vkjmcblogs]

Rules and goals of gameplay

Tutorials have become a staple in games. They introduce us to the simple mechanics of the game and sometimes outline the game’s “rules”. These rules are fundamentally restrictions set to the players in order to keep the game cohesive and fair for everyone who plays. Rules also introduce us to the main goal of the game, as rules are there to help players achieve the finale. I will be briefly discussing two examples of games and how the rules and goals apply to both instances.

 Forbidden Desert is a cooperative board game where 2-5 players are each given one of six unique roles: Archaeologist, Climber, Explorer, Meteorologist, Navigator and Water Carrier. Their role cards provide specific attributes or abilities the player can utilise during gameplay.

Players are stranded in the middle of the desert with the goal of escaping through finding each piece of the flying machine. As the game progresses, the new minor goals start to appear: digging out tiles, clearing out sand, avoiding death by dehydration, looking out for other players, etc.

Once players have gotten a proper grasp of the game’s mechanics and rulesets the rounds progress much quicker since new strategies are created from discovered knowledge. With such complexity in its gameplay—there is not much room for rule ambiguity. In order for Forbidden Desert to work, players must strictly follow the given ruleset and instructions lest the team perishes.

 In Legend of Zelda: Breath of The Wild the map given to us at the beginning of the game features pins and stamps that help to identify significant landmarks and locations. The coloured pins in particular act as ‘priority’ indicators. Glowing bright and colourful like a beacon, beckoning the player towards it.

With a game as vastly open and complex as Breath of the Wild it is important to have a reminder available to keep players on track. With over 76 side quests as well as the 15 main quests it’s easy to become distracted and derail from the original goal players had been working towards. The Main quest has priority, obviously. Saving Hyrule is your main goal. But gaining supplies and experience via the side quest not only prepares Link for the final fight – it gets players familiar with the rules/mechanics of the world.

 Reference:

Salen, K and Zimmerman, E 2003, Rules of play: Game design fundamentals, MIT Press, viewed 18/06/2019, < https://gamifique.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/1-rules-of-play-game-design-fundamentals.pdf>

[vkjmcblogs]

Game Experiences

As expected-- people are different. With that in mind, it is easy to assume that players will experience a game in different ways.

The Bartle Taxonomy of Gamers theorises that players can be broadly categorised into four groups: Killers, Explorers, Achievers and Socialisers.

The graph is not strictly conforming as there is definitely potential for overlap in a gamer’s playstyle. Since the theory is quite complex I’ll give you the shortened, very broad explanation:

Killers are competitive and focus on other players. They can be quite disruptive as they seek to cause chaos and act upon selfish impulses to inflict distress.

Achievers are also competitive, but as their names suggest they focus more on victories, trophies, or collecting rare items. They wish to climb the ranks and focus on high numbers.

Socialisers are the roleplayers, or the active member of the game’s community. They like to interact with fellow players and the game itself fades to the background.

Explorers focus on the game itself and finding everything that it has to offer. This applies to the environment, world building, character interaction, etc.

 My experience with Final Fantasy 15 (FFXV) was very positive. While I can understand the distain towards the multi-media expanse of their game, I actually love it. Only the story and world-building part not the “obviously milking money out of the series”.

In reference to the Bartle Taxonomy of Gamers, I more so fit into the “Explorer” archetype. FFXV’s expanded universe was essentially a gold mine for me since I tend to favour deep and complex worldbuilding.

I connected with the main four characters on a personal level. They were almost like friends. Written in such a human way that I was immediately invested in their personalities and livelihoods--I wanted to know more about them. I had realised that because of my borderline completionist (maybe Achiever?) habits that I was pretty much exploring every corner of the map, finishing every side quest, and pretty much spending time with the four main boys for over 100 hours. I watched secret cutscenes, heard all dialogue interactions, even saw the subtle interaction animations that played during combat.

Long term fans approach FFXV with an assumption of the experience because they are familiar with the series. They came with a bias to what the game should be and that in turn affected whether or not they were excited or disappointed with the game’s final version.

I as a newcomer to Final Fantasy had no personal prior experience with the series apart from secondhand ones via YouTube or articles or appearances in collaborative games (e.g. Kingdom Hearts). I saw the game in a purer form. No prior expectations. My investment in the open world definitely affected the way I reacted to the story and its finale. In a way I had bonded so closely to the characters I became part of the story. This fact is why I believe that some fans had such drastically different experiences to me.

 To me there are many factors that can contribute to how players experience a game. What I’ve discussed is only the tip of the iceberg.

 References:

Bartle R, 1996, Hearts, clubs, diamonds, spades: Players who suit MUDs, ResearchGate, viewed 22/07/2019 <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247190693_Hearts_clubs_diamonds_spades_Players_who_suit_MUDs>

Zenn J, 2017, Understanding Your Audience – Bartle Player Taxonomy, image, GameAnalytics, viewed 22/07/2019 <https://gameanalytics.com/blog/understanding-your-audience-bartle-player-taxonomy.html>